1981-06-05

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that senior citizens and other pensioners are the hardest hit by the dishonest campaign promises of the Liberal government and its 12 oil price increases in 15 months, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie):
That this House provide pensioners with financial help that will protect them from all the Liberal tax increases that exceed 18 cents a gallon for gasoline and home heating fuel; reimbursement of 40 cents a gallon today but probably $4 tomorrow.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN UNIVERSITY SERVICE OVERSEAS TWENTIETH ANNIVERSARY-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Madam Speaker, on June 6, 1961, representatives of 21 Canadian universities and 22 non-profit organizations and churches met to found CUSO. Since then 8,000 Canadians, of all ages, have worked in developing countries, passing on skills and gaining insight from their years abroad. Today 611 volunteers serve in Africa, Asia, Latin American, the Caribbean and South Pacific. On this twentieth anniversary occasion, I move, seconded by the hon. members for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. All-mand) and Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle):
That this House recognizes that CUSO represents a high profile and important Canadian presence overseas, and that this House encourages Canadians to continue their financial and moral support for this important instrument for peace and international understanding.


Madam Speaker:: I am sure the House will want to express those sentiments by its applause.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas Madawaska Mines has withdrawn its consent to locate radioactive soil from Scarborough on its property in Faraday township near Bancroft, and whereas this decision was recently telexed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove) and the Atomic Energy Control Board, and whereas there is substantial local opposition from governments and citizens to this proposed relocation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin):
That the Government of Canada direct the Atomic Energy Control Board to withdraw its plans to locate the contaminated soil at the Madawaska mines site near Bancroft, and further direct the AECB to conduct full and complete consultations with all elected representatives and citizens to ensure that the best interests of the residents concerned are fully considered so that matters dealing with industrial waste relocation will be taken into account in the future.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of pressing and urgent necessity. Given that the two opposition day debates this week have been on the crisis in Canadian agriculture, given that yesterday the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) was urged by 700 farmers in Toronto to drop high interest rate policies which are bankrupting Canadian agriculture, and given that next week there will be a cattle producer strike in Saskatchewan because of a specific lack of government action on grain embargo compen-

June 5, 1981
sation and herd program maintenance, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle):
That this House immediately and unanimously urge the government to make $200 million available to the Farm Credit Corporation for a program of short, medium and long-term loans which would also include funds for operating costs to help meet this crisis on Canadian farms.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[DOT] (mo)


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas the RCMP were promised pay increases commensurate with their duties and responsibilities, and that they would be effective January 1, 1981, and are sorely disappointed with the amount of the increases announced and the effective date of April 1; and whereas it is essential that the RCMP be properly compensated for their work in order to cope with the heavy security needs of this country, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That this House urges the cabinet to review the decision by the Treasury Board, with the objective of providing more reasonable increases and making the effective date of same January 1, 1981.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[ Translation]


AIRPORTS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt Saanich):: Madam Speaker, under Standing Order 43 I seek the unanimous consent of this House to introduce a motion on an urgent matter.
Twelve years ago thousands of acres of land were indiscriminately expropriated to allow for the construction of Mirabel airport. In view of the fact that admittedly too much land was expropriated, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour):
That the House urge the minister in charge to speed up the land resale process in order to make amends to those people who occupied and still occupy that land.


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion put by the hon. member. Under Standing Order 43, such a motion requires the unanimous consent of this House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


BANKS AND BANKING
Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon 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 this House notes that the chartered banks' profits for the second quarter of 1981 were only 49 per cent higher than the second quarter of 1980, and that this 49 per cent increase was slightly lower than their profits for the first quarter of 1981, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo):
That this House express its deep sympathy to the banks in their moment of deep suffering, and pass the hat on the way out of this session to help tide them through the third quarter.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg Assini-boine.


AIR SAFETY
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam
Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. There is overwhelming opposition to the appointment of Walter McLeish to the advisory board on the Dubin report. All air industry associations and their respective unions have opposed this move. In fact the president of the Canadian Air Traffic Control Association has publicly stated in the transport committee, and I quote:
I had a very unpleasant experience with Mr. McLeish in October of last year, and until such time as that is resolved, I feel 1 can no longer accept Mr. McLeish's word on anything.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall):
That this House instruct the Minister of Transport to remove Mr. McLeish from his position so that the advisory board on the Dubin report can function without prejudice and without conflict of interest.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?
June 5, 1981


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NUCLEAR ENERGY
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In light of the recently revealed review of Canada's nuclear establishment by the government, and since this document reveals the options being considered by the Liberal party in determining Canada's nuclear future, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer):
That the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources release all documents related to this review and establish a full public inquiry to examine this issue in the open and comprehensive manner it requires.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TRADE MARKS AND PATENTS
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, I too rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that millions of tax dollars have been spent on the development of Telidon, and because of a Department of Communications goof Canada now has no protection against the name Telidon, let alone its technology, being borrowed by Japanese, French or U.S. manufacturers, I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans):
U5)
That because foreign countries are the most probable beneficiaries of Canadian research and development in two-way television, all expenditure estimates for Telidon be removed from the Department of Communications, transferred to the Department of External Affairs, and classified under a new category to be called
"foreign aid for overdeveloped countries".


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

['Perhaps the announcement has not been made in the House, but had it been made I am sure it would be reflected normally. The hon. member is seeking information on a statement made outside the House. He has means of doing that during the course of Question Period or at other times. I would urge him to do it then.']
Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Cambridge.


Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister, both of whom we understood were to be here today, the hon. member for York-Peel and I will defer until their arrival later in the Question Period.



Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Solicitor General. It has to do with the scandalous treatment by the Treasury Board and the government of the salary question with respect to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Yesterday the minister said that the RCMP has never failed to serve the Canadian people. Given that statement, with which the House is in general agreement, does the minister not feel it is important that the RCMP be treated appropriately with respect to salaries? Given the assumption, which was in the hearts and minds even of the negotiators for the government with respect to salaries, that the increase would be effective from January 1, 1981, what does the Solicitor General intend to do to right the scandalous settlement with this group, which the minister has described as one which has never failed to serve the Canadian people?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, I do not accept the characterization of this pay increase as scandalous. It is a pay increase of 12.2 per cent plus certain other benefits, such as the achievement of full pay after 36 months for new recruits instead of after 48 months, and such as double time instead of time and a half for overtime service by members of the force on days of rest. A number of components are welcomed by the force.
The increase does not go back to January 1, and I am having discussions with the Treasury Board on that aspect of the package. However, to characterize the increase as small is totally unfair to the Treasury Board because, if we look at other pay increases the Treasury Board has accorded in the last several months, we find that this is right in line. If we compare how the police are doing with how the average Canadian is doing-and I do not think that is an invalid comparison-members of the police profession have been moving ahead, and are continuing to move ahead.
As I say, we are looking again at the three-month period, at exactly what did happen and at what undertakings were given in the past. I think members of the force themselves would have to acknowledge the facts I have indicated respecting this pay increase in relation to other pay increases. It is not bad. No one gets everything he wants from his employer, or from

June 5, 1981
Oral Questions
the Treasury Board when it is a public service matter, but if we look at this in relation to what is being done, it cannot be rejected as being scandalous.


REVIEW OF TREASURY BOARD DECISION
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, the minister must be aware that there was an expectation- and he has almost acknowledged that there was an expectation-during the period of negotiations that the period under the new schedule would begin on January 1, 1981. What has happened is that there is a 12 per cent increase for a 15-month period rather than a 12 per cent increase for a 12-month period, which in effect is a reduction of what was negotiated and what was expected.
Will the minister give an undertaking to the House that he will use the procedures which are open to him, the cabinet and the Treasury Board, to effect a review of that decision by the Treasury Board, so that what is regarded generally in the force as a slap in the face, despite what the Solicitor General said, will be rectified and the matter will be put right, and so that the minister and the government will be able to live up to what the minister himself said when he characterized the Royal Canadian Mounted Police as a group which has never failed to serve the Canadian people? If that is the case, and if that is the view of the government, then the RCMP ought to be treated as such. I ask for that undertaking from the Solicitor General.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I am happy to give that undertaking because, as I indicated in my first answer, that is in fact going on. However, I want to point out to the House that the Treasury Board looks at this as money. This is taxpayers' money, and if this pay increase is to go back for three additional months, from the point of view of Treasury Board and within their terms of reference, it will affect the amount of the increase in percentage terms. If the hon. member understands that, then he understands the basis on which this review is taking place.


DATE OF IMPLEMENTATION
Walter David Baker: The hon. member understands quite well the basis of the review. The Solicitor General has undertaken to see if there will be a review, but the approach he has taken indicates there will be really no review at all, that they are just going to play around with the dates.
My question to the Solicitor General is simply this: will he ensure that in the course of that review there will be put to the Treasury Board, the undertaking that the salary negotiations would date back to January 1, which everyone understood and took for granted? Will that in fact take place, because that is not what the Solicitor General talked about just a few minutes ago?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I repeat that we are looking again at that three-month period.
However, if that three-month period is treated as the hon. member suggests, it is a great deal more money, and the Treasury Board looks at money from the point of view of the taxpayers and also from the point of view of other settlements it is making.
We want to be fair to the RCMP, but we want to be fair in relation to all of the other pays set by the Treasury Board, and to the burden on the taxpayers. These are all considerations before us.
The RCMP have a point about making their year a calendar one, but if it is, they will be just about the only one out of 370 pays set by Treasury Board that operate on the calendar year instead of the fiscal year, which is the normal operating period of the government. These considerations are all there, but basically we are talking about taxpayers' money-


Walter David Baker: And fairness.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: -and I would remind the House that police officers, the RCMP in particular, have been doing better than the average Canadian over the last 15 years, for example, and that is also a consideration.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Chris Speyer: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice, who will know that with respect to the uranium cartel certain inquiries were made by the Moss subcommittee in the United States, during which a Gulf memorandum was filed as an exhibit in which the scheme of the cartel was outlined. The memorandum stated in part that:
-an opinion will be rendered by the Minister of Justice of Canada which will prevent any action being taken under Canada law against participants in the agreementmeaning the cartel:
-at least as long as the present government is in power.
Will the minister confirm that there were promises made to Canadian members of the cartel that there would be no prosecution under Canadian law and, in the absence of making public the Bertrand report with respect to the inquiry, how can Canadians be assured that justice will appear to be done as well as actually being done?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, I am not aware of any such promises made to anybody. I have received a report from the director of combines investigation and 1 am studying it at this time. If there is enough evidence to prosecute, I will face my responsibility as Attorney General of Canada and initiate prosecution. I have done it in the case of the newspapers a few weeks ago and there was-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
June 5, 1981


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No, it is my duty to look at the nature of the report and see if there is cause to prosecute companies or individuals, and to proceed if I am satisfied as Attorney General of Canada that there is sufficient evidence to warrant prosecution. I just said that I have done it in the case of the newspapers a few weeks ago, and I am studying this one. It is a very voluminous piece of work involving 75,000 documents; there is the evidence to look into, and the report which I am studying at this time, and in due course as Attorney General of Canada I will face my responsibilities.


PUBLICATION OF REPORT
Chris Speyer: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Attorney General. In the event that no charges are laid with respect to the uranium cartel on the basis of the report, is there any law which would prevent the Government of Canada from making public the details of this sort of mess?
[DOT] (U25)
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, when the Attorney General of Canada receives a report from the Director of Investigation and Research, he must, after due consideration, decide whether or not to prosecute. If he does, then the report is naturally made public before the courts. If, on the other hand, he decides not to prosecute, then the report stays as is. The Director of Investigation and Research can comment on the Attorney General's action in his annual report or he can pursue the investigation if he wants to. However, the report I have received remains a privileged document between the director and the Attorney General, pursuant to the Combines Investigation Act. I know of no other precedent where a report was made public other than through a court proceeding and never was a report made public when the Attorney General ruled against prosecuting the companies or the individuals involved.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance. The figures released today by Statistics Canada show that unemployment hits hardest those who are, in a sense, in the front line of the government's interest rate policies, such as construction workers, where employment is down by 6,000, and agriculture, where employment is down by
2,000,	to name just two industries.
Will the minister not now repudiate the view of Governor Bouey of the Bank of Canada that labour markets are tight?
Oral Questions
Will he not now take measures which will change the policy before interest rates start eating away further at employment?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I draw to the attention of the hon. member that although seasonally adjusted unemployment is up slightly from last month, which was the best employment record in five years, there is another figure which he or his party draws to our attention occasionally, namely, the actual count of unemployment. The number of unemployed decreased from April to May by 32,000.
These are important facts the hon. member ought to bear in mind, plus the fact that in the last year the number of jobs created in Canada has been the best of any industrialized country in the world. It seems to me that these facts do not encourage anyone to take the action which the hon. member recommends.


Mr. McGrath:: Tell that to the million unemployed.


STATISTICS OF UNEMPLOYED
Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, in the "Allan in Wonderland" world in which the minister inevitably lives, he has managed not only to readjust the employment rate seasonally, but in the case of the construction industry, he has managed to adjust the seasons. We are now heading into the winter downturn of the construction industry, which is quite an achievement for the minister.
The minister asked us to look at the real figures. One spokesman for Statistics Canada was quoted this week as saying that if an interviewee were asked the question whether or not he or she had worked during the week, and that person had worked for one hour during the week, the person would be classified as employed for the purposes of the statistics.
Does the minister not think it is time that the Statistics Canada survey indicates what are the real levels of employment, underemployment, and enforced idleness in the economy? We know that in addition to the over 800,000 people who are listed in the figures, there are another approximate 500,000 who have been either laid off or lost jobs and are discouraged from seeking further work. If the minister wants to talk about the real figures, does he not think a more realistic figure, or one that could be provided in the Statistics Canada survey itself, would be 1.35 million unemployed, rather than the 845,000 unemployed figure which the government released today?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I do not agree at all with the private statistical service which the NDP usually provides to us, when economic indicators are rather strong, in order to distort the economic picture in Canada.


Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, if reliance on Statistics Canada is a private survey, then it is something in which the minister himself engages more than once a day.

June 5, 1981
Oral Questions


BANKS AND BANKING
Bob Rae: In light of the fact that the profit figures for the chartered banks today indicated a substantial increase, up 49 per cent-an increase which follows a 27 per cent rise for all chartered banks for the period between 1979-80-and since tax rates for the chartered banks are still at 20 per cent, will the minister now reconsider his government's rejection of a policy which would require the chartered banks to set aside a fixed portion of their financial portfolios for mortgage loans, loans to farmers and small businessmen, at rates which bear some relation to their costs, and the borrowers' ability to pay, so that we can stop this policy of driving people to the wall and forcing idleness and real hardship on the Canadian people?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I may have misunderstood the member's first question. I thought he drew upon Statistics Canada and its information to demonstrate certain employment trends in the construction industry. Then in his next question he said that we should disregard Statistics Canada-


Bob Rae: That is not what I said.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -upon which he relied in his earlier question, because it is not reliable.


Bob Rae: That is just misleading.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Maybe the hon. member would clarify his own thinking before he puts questions to me on the orders of the day.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It touches upon the question I raised with the Prime Minister yesterday, to the effect that if the Prime Minister, and now the minister, could assure the House that all information, including all cabinet documents, such as minutes and memoranda, were shown to the director of investigation under the Combines Act and, if they were not, why were they not. I ask this question because it was rather startling to hear the Prime Minister say yesterday that he did not know of any documentation not having been shown to the director, since it is our understanding that it was the Prime Minister who carefully stashed these documents away so that the director could not see them.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Madam Speaker, I regret having to tell the hon. member that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs does not get involved in the investigations conducted by the director of combines investigation. It would be improper for the minister to interfere in the work of the director. Therefore, I cannot answer that question. I have no information whatsoever on the documents which the director may or may not have studied. The mandate of the director is to make his investigation and I take it for granted that he did a good job.


LAYING OF CHARGES
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, my question is again for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In light of the fact that the report, which we understood was to be made public, has now been referred to the Minister of Justice, with no guarantee that it will ever be made public, and in view of the fact that the Prime Minister stated that "In so far as any other illegalities having been entered into by anybody, producers or for that matter the government, we hope it will come out in the investigation by the combines investigation office"-would the minister indicate to the House why he feels it is fair to ask the Canadian public to accept this degree of secrecy, bearing in mind that it is like asking suspects in a group to pass judgment as to whether other members of the group should be charged with certain illegalities?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, it is obvious that the hon. member's attitude is changing as weeks go by. Only a few days ago he and the members of his party made a fuss over the departure of Mr. Robert Bertrand, the director of investigation. In their opinion, that man was highly qualified to carry those investigations through to their successful conclusion. Today, the hon. member seems to believe that Mr. Bertrand did not do his work properly. Madam Speaker, I am convinced that in the discharge of his responsibilities, the director of investigation used all his powers to conduct a successful investigation.


THE ECONOMY
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. One of the really disturbing tragedies in Canada today is that month after
June 5, 1981

month, year after year, one out of ten Canadians who wants to work cannot find a job, and the Minister of Finance would have us believe that he cares. Through you, Madam Speaker, I challenge the Minister of Finance to demonstrate that he cares. He controls financial policy, and there are two areas of public policy-


Madam Speaker:: Could the hon. member please come to his question?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Yes, Madam Speaker, I will get to my question. I would like the minister to indicate to us whether or not he is prepared to change the National Energy Program in the direction of achieving self-sufficiency and creating more jobs, and/or is he prepared to change his high interest rate policy to provide some relief to the employment generating parts of our economy, for example, export industries, housing, and other areas which are labour-intensive? Can the minister demonstrate that he cares by changing one of those two policies?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the policies in effect in Canada cannot be all wrong, as the hon. member seems to imply, because year to year we have created 417,000 new jobs in Canada, a percentage increase of more than 3.5 per cent. That record of employment growth is the best record of any industrialized country in the world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Employment growth is better than it was a year ago. Unemployment statistics are better than they were a year ago. Last month we had the best unemployment figure in five years. This must indicate that we are doing some things right.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, as a result of that display, we can expect an advertising campaign telling Canadians that 7 per cent and 8 per cent unemployment rates are okay, just like an energy advertising campaign which tells us the world is fine.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


JOB CREATION
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Will the minister answer my question? Will he provide some stimulation, either through the reduction of interest rates and/or a change in the National Energy Program, which will create jobs in this country to enable us to overcome the bad habit of accepting the fact that one in ten Canadians will be unemployed forever?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I have said to the hon. member that in the past year Canada has had the best record of any industrialized country in the world with regard to job creation. We have record participation in the labour force, a record of some 60 per cent. It seems to me that the hon. member ought to be somehow supporting the policies which
Oral Questions
have brought these rather marked developments about, rather than asking me to change policies.
Since the hon. member has raised the question of the National Energy Program, I should add that he knows that next week the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources will be meeting with his counterpart in Alberta. The intention of the meeting, of course, is to review certain aspects of the National Energy Program. We have indicated that we are prepared to make accommodations in our position provided that there are reciprocal accommodations on the other side. I believe that is a very positive approach.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mark Willson Rose: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications in his capacity as reporting to this House for CBC. My question concerns the corporation's dispute with NABET broadcast units. Is the minister aware that the men who are operating CBC cameras in Room 130-S, first thought to be CBC supervisory personnel, are now alleged to be freelance strike breakers? If so, what does he intend to do about it?


Hon. Francis Fox (Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: No, Madam Speaker.


Mark Willson Rose: Madam Speaker, I have never heard such an answer before. It is beautiful. Anyway, it is obvious that the minister will not do anything about it.


CONTINGENCY PLANS TO TELEVISE JULY SUMMIT CONFERENCE
Mark Willson Rose: Last week Mr. Desroches of the CBC management told the Communications and Culture Committee that the CBC is preparing "contingency plans" to broadcast the OECD summit meeting in July if NABET's conflict with the management is not resolved by that date. I would like to ask whether the minister could tell us, within those contingency plans, if he knows there is an intention to use the House of Commons technicians in July at the conference centre, forcing those employees to scab.


Francis Fox: No, Madam Speaker.


HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madame le president, my question is directed to the very preoccupied Minister

June 5, 1981
Oral Questions
of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, but there are a great many Canadians who are equally preoccupied with the controversy surrounding urea formaldehyde foam insulation. I wonder if the minister can give us a progress report on the inter-ministerial committee looking into some form of compensation or assistance to people who have installed this UFFI material in their homes.
Can the minister also tell the House whether this committee will say what happens to those people who have installed urea formaldehyde foam insulation, and who may or may not have a health problem and want to get it out of their homes, but find themselves in a legal bind because they owe it to prospective buyers to tell them that they have the stuff in their homes? Does the Government of Canada have any responsibility? Does it consider that it has any moral responsibility to those people who have the stuff in their homes and who want to get it out of their homes? Does the government have any responsibility to these many thousands of Canadians?
[ Translation]


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, obviously the hon. member asked several questions. I will try to answer briefly. First, the interdepartmental committee will get together early next week to study a series of hypotheses which the cabinet will finalize at its next meeting. Second, as to the government responsibility, I have already said, and I repeat to the House, that the government does not accept any legal responsibility in this matter over which the government is nonetheless particularly concerned. We are just as anxious to find concrete solutions as those who have to cope with this problem, and I would ask the hon. member to wait until next week when, after the cabinet meeting, the government will announce a series of appropriate measures.


REFERRAL TO PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE
Geoffrey Douglas Scott: My supplementary question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who will be interested to know that at this very hour a group is forming in the community of St. Leonard in her own riding, one of the many groups which are concerned about urea formaldehyde foam insulation.
Once the government releases this report which the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs promises will come out next week, will the Minister of National Health and Welfare immediately refer the UFFI matter to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, or a special subcommittee, so that the whole question of compensation, the health factor, and, indeed, the procedure leading up to the ban, can be investigated by calling witnesses? Would the minister not agree that this House and the Canadian people need to know that the government has received the correct advice and made the right decisions?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: My answer is no, Madam Speaker, for the good reason that referral to a committee of the House would not be of much help to Canadians for the moment. As was indicated by my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, we are reviewing the types of assistance that we can eventually offer upon request to people who are experiencing difficulties. In reply to his preamble, I can say that on Monday morning and Monday evening in Montreal, I did receive people from my constituency who, like people throughout St. Leonard, have unfortunately had their brick houses insulated with urea foam even though this was specifically forbidden when we certified it.


FISHERIES
Mr. Remi Bujold (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Madam Speaker, my question for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans concerns the decision of the Quebec government not to re-open commercial salmon fishing on June 8, next Monday. In his statement, the Quebec minister of recreation, hunting and fishing, accused the federal Minister of Fisheries of not having taken into account the regressing stocks of breeders and not having consulted the Quebec government before making his decision. Is it true that the decision of the Canadian government will be harmful to breeding stocks? Were there consultations with the Quebec government before this decision was made, and finally, what will be the decision of the Canadian government as far as compensating those Quebec fishermen who will not be able to fish salmon commercially during the summer?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, a decision has been made. The ban on commercial salmon fishing will be lifted after nine years, with of course due consideration being given to present stocks. This fishing will necessarily be on a rather small scale, but I felt that commercial fishermen had contributed to stock conservation by abstaining completely from fishing in certain provinces including certain rivers in Quebec, for a nine-year period. In fact, the federal government had to support the cost of this ban by paying compensation for nine years. There have been consultations with Quebec authorities at the official level. A meeting was scheduled with the minister responsible, Mr. Lessard. He cancelled the meeting, for which I do not blame him as I think that he was ill. I was prepared to arrange for another meeting, but unfortunately the Quebec government held elections and consultations were not possible. As the season was about to open, a decision had to be reached so we
June 5, 1981

made it. As for possible compensation, I must say that if the Quebec government decides to extend the ban, it will have to bear the costs of its decision.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Defence estimates for 1981-82 show an increase of 3 per cent, according to the minister. This increase, in real terms, was based upon the inflation model of November, 1980. Now the rate of inflation is considerably higher. I wonder if the minister could tell us what he plans to do to provide the increase of 3 per cent in real terms when some of it has already disappeared due to increased inflation.


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member should know that it is the same model, the same way of calculating, as when he was minister of national defence. The 3 per cent is taken after everything has been deducted, that is after the inflation has been calculated on this model. If the inflation is higher than previously set by this model, this extra inflation is calculated and it is paid at other times.


INCREASE IN BUDGET
Allan Bruce McKinnon: I doubt if the minister understood the question too well by the answer he gave to that question. The DND inflation factor indicated for May of this year was 13.4 per cent, as opposed to last fall when it was 11.9 per cent. Therefore over half of his 3 per cent which he boasted so much about has disappeared. We both know that the minister does not have that kind of funds available to spring from somewhere else. Does the minister intend to inform our allies, and our forces for that matter, that our boasted 3 per cent increase is now inoperative or misspoken, or just another Liberal smoke and mirrors act?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, the hon. member should know that when we talk about 3 per cent real growth in the budget of national defence, we really mean a 3 per cent real growth, and we are not faking or anything like that. I think it was well stated by the Minister of Finance in his budget speech regarding this 3 per cent. However it is calculated, it is a real growth of 3 per cent in the defence budget.
Oral Questions


HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. She will recall that a few days ago the Minister of Agriculture tabled two letters in the House from the assistant deputy minister of health protection to the assistant deputy minister of agriculture, in which the recommendations regarding the fungicide, Captan, are as follows, very briefly: "All registrations of Captan-containing products sold for domestic use to be discontinued", and then it goes on to recommend against food being sold which has been contaminated with this fungicide. It says it should be treated first of all.
My question is to the Minister of National Health and Welfare as she has responsibility for the health of Canadians. What is the hon. minister doing to enforce these regulations which have been put in place by her officials?


Monique Bégin: No regulations have been announced by my officials because we do not administer the Pest Control Products Act. That act comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Agriculture. Therefore 1 directed the letter to the Minister of Agriculture.
The hon. member forgot to mention my second letter which is key to the matter in that it explains the procedure used by the Minister of Agriculture in setting up a committee to look into implementing my recommendation.
Because the word "domestic" might have led to some confusion, a correction was made in a second letter written by my officials replacing the word domestic with the word dwellings.
I am telling Canadians that our recommendation to the Minister of Agriculture is that people should not use Captan in their city gardens. As for crops grown in vast open spaces and sprayed by technicians who know how to handle this fungicide, that is a different matter.


VERIFICATION OF UNCONTAMINATED FOOD
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, the minister is quite correct in that she does not administer the Pest Control Act, but she does have responsibility for the health protection of Canadians.
One of the recommendations contained in Dr. Morrison's letter to Agriculture Canada reads as follows:
All registrations of products containing Captan for use on foods or food crops require that foods sold at the retail level be free of Captan residues as determined by the official method.
What steps is the minister taking, given her responsibility to protect the health of Canadians, to see that food sold at the retail level is free from all residues of the fungicide Captan which, as she knows, can cause foetal abortions, cancer, and deformities, according to the scientific evidence?
10308

June 5, 1981
Oral Questions


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, this has nothing to do with regulations. It has to do with the usual monitoring carried out by the health inspectors of my department, which is a continuing procedure.
We have decided that the best way, which is our recommendation, to control the eventual danger of Captan on commercial crops, as well as imported produce, is to continue our random sample analysis of produce in supermarkets and grocery stores across the country and to check the level of Captan residue when the level is low enough, which is the case now. However, we will continue to permit this produce to be sold everywhere, which we think is the best way to control the Captan used. At any rate, there are three items more vulnerable to retaining Captan residue. These are raspberries, grapes, and another one the name of which escapes me at the moment, that are presently being studied by Agriculture Canada.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The number of Japanese vehicles imported into Canada in 1979 was 61,400, as a result of which the Japanese enjoyed 8.7 per cent of the total Canadian market. In 1980 the number of Japanese vehicles imported into Canada was 150,000, give or take a couple of thousand, which was 21.5 per cent of the Canadian market. In 1981 the number of Japanese vehicles imported will be in the order of 174,000. According to my calculations that is about 28 per cent of the Canadian market. Why has the minister made such joyous statements about this 20 per cent increase in the Japanese intrusion in our market?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, I think my hon. friend should do his calculations again. We think that the level of 174,000 vehicles from Japan for the period April 1, 1981, to April 1, 1982, would represent some 16.5 per cent of the Canadian market, which is roughly equivalent to the level of imports in the preceding 12 months.
The level of 8 per cent in 1979 was an aberration from traditional levels, being less than half of what it was in the preceding year.
The important thing is that the Japanese authorities have decided themselves to take action on a unilateral and voluntary basis to restrain exports to Canada, responding to Canadian concerns about the diversion of cars from the United States as a result of the Japanese actions concerning the United States. This action by Japan represents a substantial rollback from the number in the preceding 12 months of 185,000 units. Therefore, we have dealt with the concerns of diversion, as well as
having given an important breathing space to the Canadian industry to complete its restructuring in the interests of the industry and its workers.


RATIO OF MARKET TAKEN BY IMPORTS
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, surely the minister understands that the reason the Japanese achieved a very high level in the 1980-1981 calculation was because they imported into Canada far more vehicles than they anticipated they could sell, in order to gain a bargaining position.
How can the minister claim that 174,000 vehicles in 1981 represents something in the order of 16 per cent of the market that we are talking about? I might add that 150,000 vehicles in 1980 represented 22 per cent of the market.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, the most I can suggest to my hon. friend is that either we are talking about different periods, different calendar or different fiscal years, or my hon. friend should get back to his basic arithmetic studies, which is probably the best suggestion for him. First, we are talking about a level of imports into Canada from Japan for the 12 months April 1, 1980, to April 1, 1981, of approximately 185,000 units, a surge having taken place in the first few months of 1981.
Japan did respond to our concern about the risk of diversion, about the over-all level of imports and the surge of imports in the first few months of this year. What has been accomplished through our discussions has been to achieve a substantial rollback in the level of imports into Canada from Japan for the 12 months April 1, 1981, to April 1, 1982. No amount of mathematical twisting and turning by my hon. friend will change that basic fact.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton South):: My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister who is probably aware of a letter written to the Prime Minister on May 26 by the President of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, Archbishop MacNeil of Edmonton, a man well known to the Deputy Prime Minister. He wrote that despite assurances of the government previously being given that the proposed charter of rights would not impede the rights of the unborn, mounting evidence has shown that further interpretations of the charter could well remove all protection to the right to life of unborn children.
Does the government intend to comply with the request officially made on May 26, on behalf of the Catholic Church of Canada, asking the government to introduce an amendment to the charter, if it is approved by the Supreme Court? This request reads:
June 5, 1981

-which would guarantee that the charter would not prejudicially affect the rights of the unborn.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I must tell the hon. member that I am not aware of the letter of May 26. I have had correspondence with Archbishop MacNeil and 1 have discussed these questions with him.
I am not aware of that letter and I would like to have a look at it and base a reply later on an examination of the letter.


REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT
Douglas Roche: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Justice. Does he intend to take note of this official statement on behalf of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops of May 26? Will the Minister of Justice reconsider what is being said by increasing numbers of legal experts as well as religious authorities, that the proposed charter of rights will indeed open up a possibility of an interpretation which will impede the rights of the unborn? Will the Minister of Justice bring in an amendment that will guarantee that the charter is not intended to affect prejudicially the rights of the unborn?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, that question was debated at length in committee.
We stated very clearly, according to the legal advice received, that the charter of rights was absolutely neutral in terms of the unborn, and that the question of abortion was to remain the responsibility of the House of Commons and the Senate. I have no reason to change my mind about it. The decision has been made. Of course, sometimes these things are subject to controversy. Even if I wanted to have an amendment made to the charter, it is not possible because the agreement of the House is to call for a vote after two days of debate, with no possibility whatever of any amendments.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Last evening the minister announced a 6 per cent reduction in the number of Japanese motor vehicles that will be imported into Canada in the period April 1, 1981, to April 1, 1982. Will the minister advise whether included in that number of Japanese vehicles to be imported into Canada are those to be imported by General Motors, Ford and Chrysler?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Yes, Madam Speaker, those imports are included.
Oral Questions


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, I will direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. It is with regard to the question of development of cottages on Shoal Lake and the protection of Winnipeg's water supply, a water supply which serves half the population of that province. In view of the environmental assessment review which was announced on January 13, 1981, why has the government approved cottage development in that location before receiving the report of the review committee?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I regret I cannot give the hon. member the information he asks for, but I will take the question as notice.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Madam Speaker, I have two brief questions I would like to direct to the Minister of National Defence. One arises out of the subject matter of a question of privilege dealt with by the Speaker earlier this week. Nevertheless it is still important. It deals with the capacity of members of the armed forces to communicate with their duly elected representatives. Second, so I will not have to ask a supplementary question, will the minister touch upon the 420 ARS?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, with regard to the hon. member's first question, normally Armed Forces orders and regulations are written to protect the integrity and non-partisan attitude of the members of the Armed Forces. This provides for better discipline and order. In no way should these regulations be interpreted as preventing members of the forces from communicating with members of this House. I would like to stress that practically every week I reply to representations from members of all parties in this House who have received communications from members of the Armed Forces who have been in contact with their member of Parliament. We try to do the best we can. In any event, the orders and regulations do not prevent members of the Armed Forces from communicating with their members of Parliament.
Second, with regard to the hon. member's question about the shift of the 420 squadron from Shearwater, I can well understand his interest in this matter. We made a decision to move this reserve squadron from Shearwater. However, after receiving representations from the hon. member, the local authorities, and my friend from Halifax who sits to my right, I asked my officials to re-examine the decision and, if possible,

June 5, 1981
Privilege-Mr. McKenzie
come up with some alternatives. If there are no possible alternatives, I asked them to give me an assurance regarding the viability of the 420 squadron as a reserve squadron, because we care about the reserves.


MINES AND MINING
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. In view of reports that the Burkett federal-provincial task force report on mine safety is to be released today in the Ontario legislature, will the minister advise whether he will be tabling that report in this House, and advise what action he is planning to take to implement the recommendations of the report, especially as they apply to those working in federal jurisdictions, such as uranium mines?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of Labour):: Madam Speaker, the Burkett commission, which was a joint commission of the federal and provincial governments into the safety of mining in the province of Ontario, completed its work in very good time. The commission has come forward with about 83 recommendations. They have done an outstanding job. I will be tabling a copy of that report in the House as soon as it is translated. I will urge the officials to have that ready as quickly as possible.
I might say that some of the recommendations deal with the question of uranium mines which are under federal jurisdiction. For example, the Burkett commission finds that the referencing of Ontario's safety and health regulations by the federal authority is a valid procedure. That matter was of concern to some people. In general, the recommendations are being studied in detail by my officials. Those that affect federal jurisdiction may be reflected in the package of amendments to the Canada Labour Code which I hope to introduce in this House in September.


PRIVILEGE
A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam
Speaker, my question of privilege pertains to inconsistencies with respect to rulings made by committee chairmen. It seems that what is an acceptable motion in one committee is not in another. As you, Madam Speaker, are in charge of the committee clerks, I would strongly suggest that you look into this matter and attempt to develop a system in which all clerks are consistent in the information they provide the committee chairmen.
I have been severely restricted in my desire to act as a responsible member of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs as the result of an incorrect, or at least inconsistent,
ruling made by the chairman, the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Dupras).
I have two precedents for rising on this particular question of privilege, the first one being a motion in the communications and culture committee which passed and was reported to the House of Commons May 28, 1981.
The second precedent was a motion which passed and was reported to the House Friday, February 28, 1969, from the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates. I am sure Your Honour will want to look at these motions. I will not take the time to read them into the record now. The ruling by Mr. Speaker Lamoureux on a challenge to this motion occurred Monday, June 18, 1973. The Speaker upheld the prior motion. In doing that the Speaker said:
There can be no doubt that standing committees are empowered to make reports in relation to their study of estimates. The first example of such a report was that of the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates made February 28, 1969, concerning the use of one-dollar items for the purpose of legislating. That report followed upon the adoption of the revised rules in December 1968.
Last Thursday I presented a motion in the veterans affairs committee with regard to a very serious problem concerning the processing of pensions. It takes one to five years to process these.
What recourse do I have because a clerk made an error in committee? This should not restrict my functioning as a member of Parliament in committees. Can this motion be made retroactive due to the seriousness of the problem caused by the clerk and chairman of that committee?


Madam Speaker:: As far as I can understand the hon. member's intervention, I can state quite clearly that he does not have a question of privilege. However, he is raising an important point. I understand there were some inconsistencies in the reports of the different committees, that something was permitted by one committee and not by another, namely the one in which the hon. member was trying to have something done. I can tell the hon. member I will take measures and ask the Clerk to inform and brief the clerks of committees as to what is acceptable and what is not acceptable to be reported to the House.
That does not address itself to the particular problem which the hon. member has, but the time to seek the redress he is asking for is when there is a motion for concurrence in the House on that report. The House may deal with it at that time. I think the hon. member will get satisfaction at that time.


POINT OF ORDER
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order having to do with House business. The
June 5, 1981

other evening, on June 3, 1981, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made a speech at a fund-raising dinner of the Liberal party in Winnipeg, Manitoba. In the course of his speech he was dealing with the question of representation and membership in the House and he said:
We've announced that a Parliamentary Committee will be established to study and make recommendations on how to make the Senate and the House of Commons more effective instruments for the expression of regional interests and priorities as well as an expression of the national will.
When I read that I checked the Order Paper to see if there was anything on it about this parliamentary committee. I have not been able to find anything. I am just wondering if there has been something that has come forward about this but which has not got on to the Order Paper, and what the intentions are with regard to it. Perhaps I could be enlightened in some way because it does affect the business of the House and I think it would be important to know what the situation is.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member probably has all the reason in the world to want to be enlightened, but I am afraid the Chair can do nothing for him. The hon. member knows that the Speaker cannot deal with statements made outside the House. If an announcement has been made in the House I am sure it would be reflected-


Walter David Baker: It wasn't though.


Madam Speaker:: Perhaps the announcement has not been made in the House, but had it been made I am sure it would be reflected normally. The hon. member is seeking information on a statement made outside the House. He has means of doing that during the course of Question Period or at other times. I would urge him to do it then.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Marcel Ostiguy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 41(2), I wish to table in French only copies of two memos from Dr. A. B. Morrison, assistant deputy minister, health protection branch, Health and Welfare Canada to Dr. J. E. McGowan, assistant deputy minister, food production and inspection branch, Agriculture Canada, concerning the fungicide Captan.
Order Paper Questions
[ Translation]


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[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. 2,282 and 2,400.
[ Text]


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Which department was responsible for the construction of the Fathers of Confederation Building in Charlottetown?
2.	Since the completion of the building, what amount was spent on (a) additional work (b) repair work and is any work contemplated during 1981?


Mr. Peter Stollery (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: In so far as the
Department of Communications is concerned, the reply to the above question is as follows:
1.	None-The Fathers of Confederation Memorial Building (The Confederation Centre of the Arts) was erected in 1964 by the Fathers of Confederation Memorial Citizens' Foundation.
2.	(a) Since the completion of the building the federal
government has participated in repair and renovation programs in the amount of $2,025,000.
(b) The repair and renovation programme will continue during 1981.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	For each year to date, by province, what amount was loaned under the Winter Capital Projects Fund and authorized by the Appropriation Act 1972?
2.	What percentage was repayable and what amount was repaid to date?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)):: In so far as the Department of Finance Canada is concerned: see lists below.
1.	The issuing of loans under Winter Capital Projects Fund was authorized by: Vote L12a Appropriation Act No. 1, 1973; Vote LI3a Appropriation Act No. 5, 1973; and Vote LI3a Appropriation Act No. 1, 1974. In so far as the Department of Finance is concerned the first list reports the loans issued to the various provinces.
2.	The acts identified in No. 1 provided for the forgiveness of that portion of the principal amount equal to 50 per cent of the normal direct on-site payroll costs incurred during the program plus an additional 50 per cent of the normal direct on-site payroll costs incurred during the periods of December to May of 1973, 1974 and 1975. The second list reports the net loans repayable and the amounts collected to date.

June 5, 1981
Order Paper Questions
Amount of Loans Issued Under
1972-73	1973-74	1974-75	1975-76Newfoundland	8,500,000.00	2,965,656.00	Prince Edward Island	121,000.00	1,372,078.00	575,504.02	368,050.00Nova Scotia	1,723,597.36	12,276,402.64New Brunswick	9,699,933.40	1,367,774.43	2,923,778.11Quebec	75,812,000.00	38,088,000.00	Ontario	730,000.00	21,028,194.00	74,520,741.00Manitoba	9,400,000.00	4,000,000.00	Saskatchewan	948,560.53	2,660.457.42	7,031,447.48Alberta	4,291,039.76	6,421,209.55	4,698,439.26British Columbia	9,811,126.12	14,764,462.49	11,857,919.63Northwest Territories	400,000.00	56,286.07121,000.00	120,964,737.81	93,594,855.27	113,733,064.19Total Loans	Less LoanIssued	ForgivenessNewfoundland	12,418,859.11	3,778,471.00Prince Edward Island	3,007,261.37	945,541.97Nova Scotia	14,000,000.00	7,845,540.09New Brunswick	13,991,485.94	3,448,577.95Quebec	113,900,000.00	22,585,071.67Ontario	96,278,935.00	38,652,906.00Manitoba	13,400,000.00	10,303,218.35Saskatchewan	10,640,465.43	9,131,784.83Alberta	15,410,688.57	7,473,930.84British Columbia	37,877,068.44	15,903,636.22Northwest Territories	456,286.07	56,286.07331,381,049.93	120,124,964.99[Translation]


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, if question No. 541 could be made an order for return, that return would be tabled immediately.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 541 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	For the fiscal year 1978-79, what contracts for professional services were let for studies, surveys and analyses into (a) present or future policies, programs or information analysis and their efficiency and effectiveness (b) the examination of the administration or internal operation of the Department of Employment and Immigration?
2.	How much was committed on each contract and to whom?
Return tabled.


David Michael Collenette: I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
Winter Capital Projects Fund
1976-77	1977-78	1978-79	1979-80 1980-81	Total1,443,560.20	387,101.27	913,965.95 183,528.08	39,237.16	12,418,859.11 3,007,261.37 14.000.	000.00 13,991,485.94 113,900,000.00 96,278,935.00 13.400.000.	00 10.640.465.43 15.410,688.57 37.877.068.44 456,286.071,443,560.20	387,101.27	1,097,494.03 Loan	39,237.16	331,381,049.93 Net LoanNet Loan	Percentage	Amounts	OutstandingIssued	Repayable	Repaid	(March 31, 1981)8,640,388.11	69.6	441,624.73	8,198,763.382,061,719.40	68.6	192,290.79	1,869,428.616,154,459.91	44.0	724,725.78	5,429,734.1310,542,907.99 91,314,928.33	75.3 80.2	423,691.78	10,119,216.21 91,314,928.3357,626,029.00	59.5	13,717,757.50	43,908,271.503,096.781.65	23.1	214,053.30	2.882,728.351,508,680.60	14.2	1,489,151.16	19,529.447,936,757.73	51.5	2,665,487.88	5,271,269.8521,973,432.22	58.0	3,086,282.68	18,887,149.54400,000.00	87.7	40,780.47	359,219.53211,256,084.94	63.7	22,995,846.07	188,260,238.87


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, April 14, 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.
Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to have this opportunity to rise to comment on Bill C-58. I have been waiting for a long time to have introduced the platform on which one could build a number of reforms that are obviously required in our Canada Elections Act.
Each time I have submitted myself to the electorate of Esquimalt-Saanich for election I have discovered a number of, perhaps not abuses or improprieties, but shortcomings in the act, and on each occasion I have prepared for my own use and for the use of my party a summary of the shortcomings that occurred to me and the group that was working with me during the election so that one might have at hand a full list of these various shortcomings.
June 5, 1981

I think basically the best time for a discussion or a debate on electoral reform is immediately after an election when matters are still fresh in one's mind. In the absence of the ability to call that debate so soon after an election, the best we can do is make use of this opportunity, and each opportunity that does present itself, to raise during the general discussion at second reading those problems and shortcomings which have occurred and manifested themselves during an election campaign.
I have a long list, seven, eight or nine of them. In the most recent election I suppose I added several. In my first election I was not all that sure and was not able to compare it with any previous experience. In my second election I was able to see there were shortcomings, and now, following my fourth election in February, 1980, I have made a list of those shortcomings.
Bill C-58 is designed primarily to deal with shortening of the election period. It does deal with other matters, of course. There are some very narrow administrative matters connected with the shortening of the period, limitation of the number of copies of the list and maps, and we hear about things that ought to be at the polling stations, including one copy of the preliminary list of electors for every polling division comprised in his revisal district, and so on. This is an administrative matter too, but I have a suggestion to make about that as well.
There is reference to election day and the returning officers transmitting notices of grants of polls, combining urban advanced polling districts and so on. I do feel on the strength of that that it is possible to make a very broad comment on a number of matters relating to that period when elections take place, now a matter of some 59 days, and not just confine my remarks to the preparation of the electoral rolls.
My first comments, however, are going to be concerned with the preparation of the electoral roll. My suggestion-I have made it before in committee and I am going to put it on the record again-is for the establishment of a permanent voters' list. We do need a permanent voters' list. It is crucial to the whole matter of shortening the election period, if that should be the desire of the House. It is certainly the desire of the government or it would not have brought forward a motion containing this shortening from 59 to 47 days. In my view there ought to be, and there certainly is in certain provinces of Canada, certainly in British Columbia, a permanent voters' list.
This matter has been explored in other countries. Perhaps the argument is that there are too many dead people on the lists, that their names are not struck off before the election period and that someone will vote for them. I feel that in a democracy as mature as that in our country we should be able to have confidence that our fellow citizens will make sure they are not voting twice or that they are not voting on behalf of a dead relative who happens to be on the list. There are means of checking that. Even with the mobility of the population of Canada today I think one could devise a number of ways of
Canada Elections Act
making sure that a permanent voters' list is kept up to date. It would not be a very difficult matter, as I see it.
We might have provision within the law for a check of the voters' list on the second day of January and the second day of July. Perhaps it should be mandatory for people who have moved since the previous registration date to amend the permanent voters' list. This could be done in municipal offices. The list could be used for other purposes as well, but I think there ought to be a check twice a year.
There should also be checks x number of days after election writs are issued just to be sure that the list is brought even more up to date. Perhaps it should be law that January 2 and July 2 are designated as days on which people make sure their names are on the voters' list. With present technology and computerization I see no reason in the world why it should not be possible to have a permanent voters' list and why we cannot be sure that when election writs are issued the list can just be run off and sent to the printers. In this case we are not talking about printers but about instant print reproduction facilities. In this way the voters' list would be available to those who need it during election campaigns. As hon. members know, many people need voters' lists. If they are available on a permanent basis, that might be very helpful.
A census is presently being taken. A voters' list might be very helpful to census takers when they are updating and forecasting mobility within the country. I foresee a variety of uses to which a permanent voters' list could be put, and those uses are aside altogether from the essential nature of a voters' list. I do believe a voters' list would be an essential tool for a well-run election.
Another matter was on my mind during the last election campaign. It has to do with the problem brought about by people who make holiday plans based on discount air fares which are now available if people book well in advance. Sometimes bookings have to be made three months, four months or five months in advance, before there is any notion that there is to be an election. People decide to take holidays at certain times in order to take advantage of excursion fares which are offered by a number of airlines. These people book in advance and make down payments. Sometimes they make the whole payment and get a special advantage. Then an election comes along, and it is held right in the middle of people's holidays. Such people find that they lose their right to vote on election day and that the provision for advance polling is not adequate.
I think there should be greater flexibility in returning offices respecting early voting. I admit that there already is some flexibility; however, a returning officer very kindly sent his comments about this to me. He says he is a little worried about extended voting in the offices of returning officers. I wonder why he should be worried. If it is a matter of space or staff, if we had a permanent voters' list well in place right at the beginning of an election period, there ought not to be any great problem having people working and having people voting in returning offices. I think the misgivings expressed by the returning officer in his letter, a copy of which I have in my

June 5, 1981
Canada Elections Act
hand, are premised on the notion that the prevailing regime with respect to voters' lists will be carried forward into the next election.
In any event, if there is provision in the law for advance voting during most of the period of an election, as soon as the list is available there should be accommodation so that voters can come in and vote. Of course, they should have to prove that they will not be available to vote on election day. They should have to give just cause for advance voting, but they should be offered the opportunity to vote at the returning office during the major portion of an election period.
Another matter which worries me somewhat is the matter of proxy voting. I think we need an enlargement of the classes of persons and a simplification of procedures governing those who may vote by proxy. As hon. members know, at the present time a person may proxy for only one voter. I will be making a suggestion about having polling stations in nursing homes and so forth. It may be that in some areas mobile polling booths are not practical. Therefore, it should be possible, for example, for the matron of a nursing home, a doctor on duty or someone responsible for the care of individuals in a nursing home to be given a proxy vote in order to vote on behalf of those who are immobilized in the nursing home. I see no reason why it should not be possible for one person to vote by proxy for several others. Are we afraid that people will take advantage of this and invent people on behalf of whom they can vote? That is possible, but if that is the situation, I think it is a sad comment on our electoral system. As I say, I believe there is room for enlarging the class of persons and the number of persons for whom proxy votes can be cast.
This brings me to another important matter which I raised in a private members' bill as long ago as the Twenty-ninth or Thirtieth Parliament. During my second term of office I became aware in a real way of the difficulties which can occur when people cannot get out to vote either at advance polls or on polling days. In all constituencies there are persons who, through no fault of their own, have great difficulty getting out to vote or finding proxies.
My suggestion was shot down by the Chief Electoral Officer at the time. I managed to get it as far as the committee where I fought for it and defended it, but where it was turned down. I have some reason to suspect now, Mr. Speaker, that the Chief Electoral Officer may have modified his views and would be prepared to accept this notion. With all due respect, I think it is for Parliament, not the Chief Electoral Officer, to decide whether there shall be mobile polling stations. Therefore, I feel we should more fully explore this notion of a mobile ballot box for hospitals, shut-ins in nursing homes and, particularly as this is the International Year of the Handicapped, the disabled.
It is a simple matter, as 1 see it. The poll clerk and scrutineers would be available, they could travel around in a mobile van which could be rented on the day of the vote, or even I suggest for an advance poll. I see there are some smiles
on the other side; perhaps they can see some way of sneaking around some of these suggestions which I am making in all honesty. I see no reason why a group of four or five persons in a small van, fully equipped, could not visit the hospitals and actually go into the hospital room and have the person, even those immobilized in bed, mark the ballot. I cannot understand what this smirking is about on the other side. It can only be imagination about machinations, I think. So I would revive that matter as one which I consider worth exploring more fully, and in the course of time I hope I might have the opportunity to introduce an amendment to that effect to this bill.
Another matter involves visiting polling stations on voting day to see if there are any problems and, if not, just to say hello to people. There are some who may do other things on voting day but I have made it a practice to be of service to the community and to visit as many polling stations as I could within the area. Now some, such as my friend, the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle), would be unable to visit all the polling stations in their riding in one day. However, in mostly urban, slightly rural, constituencies such as mine it is possible to visit at least half, I would say.
One of the problems I find when I do this is that people show up because they live nearby, they see the polling station on their way to work and so they say this is where the vote is going to take place and they walk in expecting to be able to vote. It may just be that they are in the wrong polling station, they may have moved six months ago from the place where their name is on the list and they really have to go some distance away. I have suggested to polling officers, and also to the electoral officer of the riding, that he provide to each polling station a map showing the locations of the stations in the ridings in some detail. If the people chosen as scrutineers really had their wits about them and they made sure that maps were available, when people came in they could look at the map and say to the people concerned: "Look, that is where you live and this is where the poll is in that particular riding; you go down this street, turn right, follow the streetcar tracks and you will get there". I do think that is an important service.
I also think it is very important that there should be available in polling stations a full voters' list so that people can check to see whether they are on the list and which poll they would vote at. There is a practice in some constituencies, I believe, to send out what are known as vote-at cards. These are rather difficult to organize at the last minute no matter how many people you have to do it. It is also a little dangerous because there is a temptation to put a little bit of advertising on these cards and then, of course, the voter walks into the polling station with your card in his hand and this gets pretty close to the bounds of illegality and could thereby get you into difficulty. In my riding we decided in the last four elections that we would not issue these cards for that very reason. Despite the best will in the world, people will pull this out of their pocket and say this is where I go to vote, and then you have your picture there with the space to mark the ballot and
June 5, 1981

so on, which is, of course, a no-no. And so it should be; I have no quarrel with that at all.
However, we must try to overcome difficulties that people have. People have other things to think about than that single day. After all, the candidates have focused on that single day, but the rest of the voting population, or a large part of them, are focusing on getting their daily bread, as they do on other days. Therefore, while they are determined to get to the polling station, they may make a mistake as to where they should go, so I feel there ought to be all the necessary facilities within each polling station to enable a voter to find his way to the right polling station.
The alternative, I suppose, would be to put his vote in a jumbo box and strike his name off the voters' lists then rush to the phone and make sure that the appropriate polling station strikes his name off the list. But I think that is too complicated. I think the best way is to provide a service which will enable people to find their way to the appropriate polling station.
There is another matter which struck me as very odd; 1 cannot understand the rationale behind it. A rural voter may go the the polling station on voting day with a neighbour and swear himself for inclusion on the electoral list. An urban voter may not. Perhaps an urban voter is not supposed to have a neighbour. A rural voter may have a friend or neighbour accompany him to the polling station in order to swear before the poll clerk that indeed the person has been living at a certain address in the rural riding for a number of weeks, months or whatever it is. If a rural voter whose name does not appear on the list can place it on the list in such a fashion, why is it not possible to have the same facility for an urban voter? It just does not make sense.
I suppose it stems from historical usage. Perhaps it is "historical abusage", I am not sure. In the early days of voting, the facilities for communication were not what they are today. I can visualize the set-up in the rural areas of the prairies, particularly. A farmer who is busy with his crops cannot get away from the farm because of the weather. He can be busy with his livestock or his family and cannot get away during that narrow period so that his name will be included on the voters' list. He could make arrangements in advance to have his stock watered or his cows milked, if that is the case, so that he would accompany a neighbour on election day to have his name included on the list. This is the possible historic explanation; there cannot be any other. Therefore, I feel there is a good argument in favour of extending this facility to urban voters. Of course, this is the permanent list of which I spoke earlier.
I should like to turn to a somewhat more subtle area, that of the screening of returning officers. Heretofore they have been appointed because of political affiliation. Then it is more or less a permanent appointment. If their performance is good, they will just stay on or remain in office.
Canada Elections Act
Certain stories reach us immediately after an election campaign which happily are forgotten 15 or 16 months after the election. These stories concern bias displayed by returning officers or conflicts of interests which suggest that perhaps there was an inclination to guide an elector in one direction or another or to make decisions which adversely affect one candidate as against another. I know there are provisions within the bill for appeal both during the election period and after, but it would be much better if we could be absolutely clear on this matter and not have the problem arise at all. My suggestion is that there might be a need for screening returning officers for conflicts of interest which might be evident or for political bias.
An interesting matter was the subject of a letter which appeared in The Times-Colonist in Victoria last month. I suppose this comes back to the matter I raised concerning mobile ballot boxes. I should like to read this short letter. It deserves to be put on the record because it underlines the need to help those people who find themselves unable to get to the polls on voting day. The letter does not include any address. This person may be speaking for herself or on behalf of others. I do not want to embarrass the author of the letter; therefore, I will not use her name. The letter reads as follows:
It seems that I and other shut-ins are second-rate citizens. Believe it or not, in Canada we are not able to vote. Oh, sure, we can vote by proxy, but I don't want to and I shouldn't have to. My vote is supposed to be secret. How can it be if I tell another person? I want and demand my constitutional right to vote. Surely this great government can arrange to have ballot boxes brought around to shut-ins' homes.
I talked about nursing homes and hospitals. I agree that there are homes and apartments where people are shut in or unable to move because of handicaps. Those people ought to have their secrecy preserved; they should be able to vote.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Donald W. Munro: I have suggested that with mobile voting stations there should be no problem, even if it takes three or four days. Gracious goodness, with our facilities we should be able to work out some system whereby people who cannot get to voting stations can vote two or three days beforehand and have their votes locked up to be counted on voting day. I am delighted to see that there was a positive response on the other side of the House to this notion. I do not want to see the secrecy of the vote denied to anyone. We ought to show them respect, whether they are confined because of illness or handicap. In this year in particular I think we should be thinking of the handicapped. When a person is sick in bed, I suppose it is a handicap as well. We must find a way of overcoming this problem.
There is some suggestion in the bill about the need to avoid the lengthy process of printing and using copy houses which permits the photostatic method of reproducing the electoral roll. This has been considered by some. I sent a copy of the bill when it was printed to the returning officer in my riding in order for his comments. He appropriately replied to the Chief Electoral Officer and sent me a copy of the letter which he wrote. He indicated that he was delighted there was an extra

June 5, 1981
Canada Elections Act
facility which meant that he would not have to take the voters' list to a print shop where it must be typeset, which takes a fair amount of time. This is no reflection on the typesetters; it is just a matter of time since it could be reproduced by the electrostatic method.
He does comment about having the returning office opened up for a longer period than in the past-21 days instead of 14-so that people could come in and vote. I think 1 have covered this matter. I can see no reason in the world why, if necessary, the returning office cannot be a little shop, or an office at the back or front end of a shop, which would be manned at all times by a returning officer and his staff. I am sure all parties would be delighted to change scrutineers, from day to day if necessary, so that when people did come in for an advance poll it would be possible for them to vote.
One other matter which caused concern in the 1979 election, one which I suspect may arise again, was that there were a great many people caught by surprise because of the change of designation. There were a number of British subjects who had voted in the past and they were warned that if they did not become Canadian citizens and get their names on to the voters' list they would find they might be denied the right to vote. Indeed, I think all members sent out notices with our householders' mailing indicating this change.
It must be borne in mind that these people have been in this country for a good many years, with their children and their grandchildren, many of whom were born here. They had assumed that they were Canadian citizens and they were rather affronted, if not insulted, when they found they were not, just by the effluxion of time, considered Canadian citizens. Some of them may have lost their ability to vote. At the time this caused a great deal of hard feeling. If that provision is within the Canada Elections Act I think it would be worth while to take a closer look at it in committee.
I see that you are indicating to me that my time has almost expired, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank you for bearing with me as I have gone through these various matters which have been concerns of mine in each election. I am glad that the opportunity is before us now to consider this matter. I hope it will be possible to open up this bill and add to it amendments which will rectify some of the shortcomings, as I have decided to call them, of the previous acts.


Mr. Douglas Fisher (Mississauga North):: Mr. Speaker, like the previous speaker I, too, have looked forward to the opportunity of speaking on this bill. However, in light of the hour 1 wonder if I might call it one o'clock and resume my remarks after lunch?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I have already recognized the hon. member for Mississauga North. If he is in the House at two o'clock the Chair will recognize him then.
Is it agreed to call it one o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At 12.55 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, as 1 mentioned, I welcome this bill and the idea that we can shorten our election campaigns from 60 days to 47 days. I am sure that this idea is a welcome one in my riding in Mississauga as well. I see the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) here. When he spoke on this bill in April, he wondered if we could make it retroactive to 16 election campaigns!


Mr. Knowles:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Glenn Fisher: My first campaign was in 1980, but it was my eighth campaign involved with Liberal party politics.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Glenn Fisher: I have been an organizer and a volunteer in eight federal campaigns since 1963. In each campaign I have been struck by the fact that it is getting easier and easier, from the politician's perspective, to shorten campaigns. I refer to both our national and our local campaigns.
Nationally, of course, since 1963, when I got started, we have seen the advent of better and better air and jet travel. Jet aircraft are being used for leaders' campaigns and for the media, taking our leaders right across the country so that they can speak in any corner at any given time during the campaign. Because of good television coverage, they are able to be reported right across the nation; and with increasingly sophisticated advertising techniques, we are able to carry our own biased or political messages right across the country.
At the local level, we have seen the same kind of changes since I got started in 1963. We have seen, for example, that we now include the party name on the ballot so that candidates do not have to spend so long identifying themselves with the national message that the national media and the national leadership are carrying to the voters. We see that there is much less focus on local meetings and local debate; we see, instead, at least in the areas where I have had experience, that people are campaigning more in shopping plazas, along streets and door to door. I think all of this makes our local and our national canjpaign much more flexible and much easier to shorten.
I welcome this bill, but as we look at it, I think we have to apply three principles and see if the bill passes the test. First of all, we have to ask, is the bill fair to everyone; not only fair to every party, but fair to the incumbent and the challenger? We have to make sure that the large numbers of people who are waiting outside this House to replace us are at least given a fair chance, if not a lot of encouragement.
June 5, 1981

Second, we have to look to see whether this bill will encourage greater efficiency in our electoral system. We do not just want to look at a hypothetical public attention span. We also want to look at our officials and the people who are the referees in elections to make sure that they agree with this measure.
Third, because I think that in this kind of an arrangement appearances are everything, we want to make sure that there is consensus among all the parties. This bill comes from two previous bills. It has a non-partisan atmosphere attached to it and it is of a housekeeping nature.
In a 1975 report on the 1974 election, the Chief Electoral Officer made a recommendation to the then president of the privy council, Mr. Sharp, that we shorten campaigns. Following that, a bill was introduced by the previous Liberal administration. Another bill was introduced by the previous Clark administration. The report to which I have just referred was tabled in the House in 1976.
The Chief Electoral Officer divided our election campaigns into three distinct periods of time. From his point of view, these are three distinct activities. The most important stage was the last stage, that is the last 30 days when we are getting ready for the actual balloting. This is when we see the candidates nominated, ballots printed and distributed in the proper numbers, local officials recruited and trained and the advance polls and regular polls opened and operating properly.
The Chief Electoral Officer made the point in his report that this is a period we cannot shorten nor alter in any way.' This last 30-day effort should not be interfered with. Therefore, he examined the first two stages in the first 30 days of our current electoral campaign. This is when people are enumerated, when lists are published and errors and omissions are corrected. The electoral officer found plenty of room for improvement in this area. He was able to recommend two things. He recommended, first, that the period be shortened by 13 days, from 60 days to 47 days; second, that there was a new way to treat voters' lists which would save $2 million in 1974 dollars, a welcome saving and a sizeable amount at any time.
Since that time there has been considerable support for this idea, that is to say, that we shorten our campaigns. I obtained four newspaper clippings through our library services. I think they quite well represent public opinion. The first one is dated February 3, 1981, after we reintroduced this bill, an editorial article in the Star Phoenix, which reported the following:
Even a minimum of 47 days appears to be too long in this age of speed in communication with voters.
On February 11, 1981 the Chronicle-Herald underlined the same idea. We read in its article the following:
The bill should be put through and made ready for the next election, and not allowed to be withdrawn for consideration in another session.
And while the MPs are at it, perhaps they might consider further reducing the time allotted for campaigning.
Canada Elections Act
These two newspapers expressed opinions that they were not happy even with the 47-day period allowed in this bill, that the period should be shorter.
Following the 1980 campaign, under the title of "electoral reform", the Winnipeg Free Press, in an article written on February 18, 1980, expressed this thought:
This time, Canadians, by accident, had a campaign of more nearly European length with no ill effects.
The article continued:
No one could seriously complain that, in the six weeks they gave themselves, the parties did not have an opportunity to get their messages across to the public. Indeed, the job could have been done quite adequately in a couple of weeks less.
Those three opinions reflect reaction to this bill and to the 1980 campaign, which was quite a short campaign. After the 1979 campaign, which we all recall was a long and prolonged affair, particularly with the preparation leading up to it, the Toronto Star reported on May 24, 1979:
Shorter, sharper election campaigns would benefit Canadian democracy by concentrating debate and focusing public attention on the issues and policies involved.
I agree with the opinions expressed in those newspapers. If hon. members go through the clippings which the library provided to me, there are plenty more sentiments like that in newspapers from across the country, all of them urging us to shorten campaigns and to act expeditiously.
I think these newspaper articles reflect public opinion in two ways. I think the newspapers quite rightly see the current length of our campaigns as wasteful. These articles also show that shorter campaigns would be equally effective and equally fair.
Speaking on behalf of our audience, that is our voters, they do not believe there is any element of unfairness if we shorten our campaigns. But this question of fairness versus efficiency has to be considered pretty seriously.
The Chief Electoral Officer has told us how to shorten our election campaigns so that the process itself, the mechanics, is fair. If we follow this method, he says that voters will get listed properly, that there will still be plenty of time for correction of errors and omissions, that we would still be able to have open and proper nomination procedures, and that our balloting will continue to be scrupulously conducted by well-trained local officials.
In short, our referee will be properly conducting the match according to all the rules that we consider decent and proper. If we accept the advice of the newspapers in addition, our audience will be more than satisfied. Forty seven days will give everybody more than enough time. Our audience will see the process is fair as well.
I am trying to stress that fairness cannot be taken in isolation; it has to be balanced against efficiency. Both the Chief Electoral Officer and the newspaper critics, who have been following our habits as politicians, are saying that we can get along much faster without sacrificing fairness. We can be more efficient without being unfair.

June 5, 1981
Canada Elections Act
The third principle that we have to look at is the question of consensus. What is the status of that? I think we have to have agreement from most parties in order to proceed with this bill. The public has to see that parties of all sides think that it is a good idea. So far since April we have heard from five speakers on this bill. I think they have been in agreement in principle. We have heard from representatives of one Ontario rural riding, one Toronto urban riding, an Ottawa suburban riding, a Winnipeg urban riding, and today a B.C. riding. Each member has indicated his general agreement with the idea that we can shorten our election campaigns.
We know that the bill was introduced by both a Liberal and a Conservative administration. There were, however, two important questions raised by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) when he spoke in mid-April. On April 14, at page 9282 of Hansard, the hon. member wonders whether urban ridings might find a short campaign a little easier than a suburban riding and even easier than a widely spread rural riding. A couple of pages later the hon. member raises a second important question, whether the method favours incumbents. I shall examine those two concerns because I think they are honest questions. I would like to give the hon. member my impressions as to how we should treat his two questions.
I remember working in the Manitoba provincial campaign in 1977, a campaign which took six weeks to conduct from start to finish. The Churchill riding is enormous; it is almost as big as the federal seat. It cost approximately $2,000 for the candidate to fly around the riding just once. The riding stretched north of Flin Flon across to Churchill and it took in a lot of the geography north of Lake Winnipeg. It was filled with tiny hamlets with 100 to 200 people living next to a lake. The candidate would fly in on a float plane, visit them and then go on to the next spot. He built up an organization in each of those municipalities as he went through. I am happy to report that the mechanics of the campaign went very smoothly.
[DOT] (M20)
I watched his efforts closely. I was intrigued by the way he was going to operate. With the use of aircraft and sometimes with the use of canoes, he was able to visit personally every little hamlet at least once. He got to the bigger places twice. Through radio, television and local newspapers he was able to advertise his campaign, tell people what his platform was, what his background was and what the party generally was promoting across the province. In six weeks I did not see any way that he suffered as a result of its being a large constituency. Even though it was a provincial campaign, I believe his constituency was larger than most of those represented in this House, with the exception of those in schedule 3 of the act. As I mentioned, he got to the larger centres at least twice. He had the provincial leader in there twice.
Unfortunately, at the end of the campaign he only collected 12 per cent of the vote. That was not his fault. It was the fault of those of us sitting in Winnipeg. He convinced me in that experience that technology for travel and communication
made a modern local campaign highly effective. If you look at the result, the 12 per cent of the vote he received, it would appear that technology and travel make a provincial or national campaign highly effective. He got a pattern of the vote remarkably similar to the pattern obtained in most other ridings across Manitoba by the Liberal party in that election.
I do not want to make too much of one example, but I think it is illustrative. It is a practical example that helps us to see that travel by aircraft in remote places is often as effective as a car or walking in a crowded urban centre. He certainly got to all his constituents.
The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton asked about suburban places. I feel very confident replying to him and telling him about my own experience because I come from a suburban city west of Toronto. We have 93,000 voters and 400 polls. There are 55,000 households in my riding which is about the equivalent number of voters in smaller constituencies.
My riding is made up of people from all backgrounds and all kinds of living circumstances. They are in apartment buildings, subdivisions, instant villages and towns and historic little centres. Malton and Streetsville are there, towns which started up in the middle of the 1800s. Meadowvale, a town which started five or six years ago, is also there.
In 44 days, between January 5, 1980, when I was nominated, and February 18, when the election was held, we recruited 650 to 700 workers. We canvassed every poll in the middle of the winter. We put up over 4,000 lawn signs and conducted two mailings. I ran my own personal campaign. Some would say that was the weakest part of the effort. We went to 16 different local meetings that had been organized by schools, churches and ratepayers groups. If at the end of that effort someone did not know about my campaign, it was more accidental than purposeful. It was not a result of the time allowed, 44 days. My opponents did the same and they did it in the same time period.
In 1979, the campaigns in my constituency were conducted with the same intensity. It was spring, not winter, but the campaigns were no tougher. They were prolonged, but they were no better. My opponent in 1980 was an incumbent. He had been a challenger in 1979. He had been nominated in 1978 and had spent a year or a year and a half knocking on the 55,000 doors in our riding. Once the bell went, he did the same things as the Hon. Tony Abbott, my predecessor. He canvassed every poll, put up thousands of lawn signs and he defeated Mr. Abbott. He did it with a highly effective campaign that was dragged out from 1978 through 1979. His result was the same as mine. His took a year and a half, mine took 44 days.
I have had personal experience in a surburban area, and in northern Manitoba I witnessed with great interest a campaign. The key was the issues, personalities and the parties, not the length of time. I want to make that point quite strongly. We want to be able to say that time does not necessarily penalize people if they come from bigger areas, wilderness areas, spread out or heavily populated areas. A long campaign will not necessarily help the candidate.
June 5, 1981

Does a short campaign help an incumbent? That is the question asked by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton. It is a very important question. Do shorter campaigns create advantages for those of us here? Again I will refer back to my own riding. If ever there was a long campaign, it was the one in 1979. The local Conservative challenger at that time started in 1978. He succeeded. In 1980, with 44 days, I succeeded.


Mr. Wilson:: Obviously personalities don't matter.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: I hear my neighbour for Etibocoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) making a few comments in agreement on this. I appreciate his support.
The same kinds of examples are everywhere. In 1979 the Liberals lost. In 1980 the Liberals won. Long campaigns and short campaigns did not make any difference. In both cases incumbents fell, challengers rose and governments changed. Personalities, parties and issues were the key, not the length of time.
The questions of geography and incumbency that the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton raised are answered by those parallels from the 1979 and 1980 campaigns. Look at those two elections which happened so closely together. One was long planned and the other spontaneous. If we look at the similar campaign techniques used in two different campaigns with different issues and different problems for the voters to solve, we see that, by and large, the campaign techniques themselves were not the key. The issues, personalities and substances of the campaigns made the difference.
The inquiries by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton are important. We have to satisfy those inquiries in our own minds and for the sake of those who come after we change the law. We must have a proper answer for those people as well. We have to draw a distinction between creating a fair opportunity, on the one hand, and reacting to people who do or do not take advantage of that opportunity, on the other.
We here cannot be responsible for making other people good campaigners. We can look at the outside world and determine that technology, communications and modern campaign techniques work in favour of shorter campaigns. We can make that decision. We can also decide that a 47-day campaign is a fair opportunity. There will be some who argue with us and there will be some who, if they had a hundred years, could not get elected. We are not responsible for those people.
In 1896 Tarte helped Laurier to get elected. He said at that time that elections are not won by prayer alone. In the same way, elections are not won by opportunity alone. We make the opportunity. Others will take advantage of it.
I have tried to stress in my speech that there are three principles we have to apply to any change in the electoral law. First, we have to see whether it is fair. Second, we have to see whether it is efficient. Third, we have to see whether there is general agreement among the responsible parties that we should progress.
Canada Elections Act
I do not think this should become a partisan issue. I think in terms of fairness I have tried to express that the referee, the Chief Electoral Officer, tells us that if we follow this legislation we will have a fair process, a fair administration. As far as he is responsible, he has told us that this legislation has elements of fairness in it.
Second, our audience is telling us that it would be fair and adequate to shorten our campaigns. They are saying through the newspapers-and I think the newspapers are speaking on behalf of their readers-that 47 days is long enough and we do not need to drag ourselves out even longer. Third, are the players, ourselves. I think we are seeing increasingly an agreement here. We have heard five speakers, and I am the sixth, and all of us have said we agree that campaigns should be shorter, even if there have been some queries about how we accomplish it.
I think the fairness question is settled. On the efficiency question, there is an obvious attraction. There is an attraction for politicians everywhere in cutting 25 per cent off the length of a campaign. We are now dealing with election expenditure limits and if we can cut 25 per cent off the time, then those limits will become even more generous and we might find ways to save within those limits. Certainly the public is going to save. The public has been told by the Chief Electoral Officer that in 1974 dollars we will save $2 million in the printing of the lists alone. I think that efficiency is worth pursuing even if the parties as private groups do not find efficiencies of their own.
Finally, on the third principle, the consensus principle I think is being reached here. We have seen the bill come from both sides of the House. We have heard a positive speech from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I think we have some details we can satisfy in this debate, but I think the quickest way we can show consensus is by putting the bill into the committee, getting it out of the committee, voting on it and putting it into place, which is what I think the public and all our audiences want us to do.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, this has been a subject matter with which I have had some experience, having been engaged in some ten elections, and it is an item which is of very major concern to me. I can agree with the hon. member for Mississauga North (Mr. Fisher) in most of what he said, except that I would have to say that I think it is the prerogative of any party to nominate anybody at any point in time that it chooses, and in this political structure of ours I do not think we should be complaining because one guy had 18 months and another guy had only 47 days. That is not pertinent at all. No matter what the act may be, there will still be that prerogative to do just that. Certainly the public or any party in this House would not prevent any change which would constrict the time of nomination and thus the time of the election campaign conducted by an early nominee.
As for the time of the campaign, I think that in virtually any constituency, the time is adequate, except for some of those in

June 5, 1981
Canada Elections Act
the very large constituencies, such as Yukon, the Prince George-Peace River and the Peace River constituencies in Alberta, and others which are nearly equally as large. I do not know whether you would ever have time to cover those constituencies in any time frame. If there are hardships which would be imposed by a restriction of time, they would be the ones which would really feel it at its worst.
It does seem to me that if other jurisdictions, such as, let us say, the United Kingdom, can conduct an election in 28 days, surely Canada could stand a reduction to something like 45, plus or minus a day or two, as this bill is now proposing.
There are, however, some frailties in the act as it presently exists. I do not wish to be construed in this instance as speaking with any political malevolence at all, but I would like to see a better elections act, particularly as it relates to a rural constituency. It is in that frame of mind that I want to make a few suggestions.
For instance, the restrictions upon advertising for a convention in a rural constituency impose restraints and constraints which I do not think should be there. I think one should be permitted, as a political party or as an aspiring candidate prior to his official entry into the race, to advertise as one sees fit. I say that because I do not know how you are going to scatter the name through a community 200, 300, 500 miles in length if you do not have the opportunity to advertise.
If you are an incumbent member and you are the only candidate at a convention, I can see that it does give you some advantage. As has been pointed out by the hon. member for Mississauga North, there are advantages and disadvantages. But if you are opposing an existing member, one of the advantages I think a new face in a campaign requires is the opportunity to advertise in pursuit of the nomination, and to advertise the meeting at which he hopes he may be the successful candidate. To include this in the cost of an election, or even to preclude the possibility of publicizing his name and ambitions, I think is a most unfair restriction.
If it were-and this, I suppose, is political-the intention of the government to pursue these constraints and make sure they were exercised with equal hardship on all candidates, that would be fine; but in my experience in the last two elections in this nation that has not been the case. It appears that liberties have been extended to candidates, perhaps I should say of all parties, and there has been no inclination by the Chief Electoral Officer or the returning officer to really see that this facet of the requirement of the elections act is enforced. I think we should either eliminate constraints upon advertising for a convention, or there should be a notice to all parties, to all returning officers and to all known or prospective candidates that, if they breach the law, they shall not be eligible to participate in the election.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I would ask the hon. member to indicate to the Chair how that pertains to reducing the number of days for an election. This bill is very, very narrow in scope. It aims at reducing the days during
an election campaign, and I think the remarks of the hon. member are not directed to this.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, if it be the desire of the Chair and the House to restrict debate to the literal phraseology of this bill, then this is really an exercise in futility. I had the understanding, as I think the hon. member for Mississauga North had, that in fact we were going to be allowed to discuss the election process and the requirement for change in that election process. I do not have any criticism of the hon. member for Mississauga North, but I do not believe I am wandering any further afield than did he; and I am certainly speaking on the elections act which is about to be amended. I hate to take issue with you, Mr. Speaker, but I do submit that the elections act is part of the subject matter of this bill. We do have a specific amendment, and with that I agree.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: May I interrupt again. I listened very, very attentively to the remarks of the hon. member for Mississauga North (Mr. Fisher), which were always related to the constraint and time limit during an election. Perhaps there was an understanding between the parties, and the Chair is very disposed to go along; so if there was I would like to accept the word of the hon. gentleman. If there is such a disposition I am quite willing to entertain any debate at all if that is the understanding, because I am here at the service of the House.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to see that there is consistency on the part of the Chair after the decision taken yesterday on Bill C-57, which was to call on the rule of relevance immediately when one saw that particular comments were not relevant to a bill. This is something that many of us have advocated for quite some time. It was started yesterday on Bill C-57 and I would support the Chair.
What is before us right now is a specific amendment to the Canada Elections Act. There will be ample opportunity to discuss the Canada Elections Act and potential amendments at the committee. Mr. Hamel will be bringing forward his recommendations within the next few months. Perhaps in the fall we will have that opportunity. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think you are entirely correct in requiring members to speak specifically about the question at hand, which is the limitation of the electoral period from the present period to 47 days.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I just want you to know that it was unnecessary for the parliamentary secretary or anyone else to say he supports the Chair. I assume it would be unparliamentary for him to do otherwise than to support the Chair.


David Michael Collenette: McCain was not supporting the Chair.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, if I may say
so, as I was listening to the hon. member, I felt he was dealing with the impact of time, which is the essence of this bill, on the electoral process. I say with respect that I felt that was the thrust of his remarks. I naturally join, if it is necessary at all,
June 5, 1981

in suggesting that the ruling of the Chair is supreme. However, I thought that was the hon. member's thrust.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I have listened to the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), and with all due respect-


Gordon Edward Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I will listen to the hon. member's point of order later.
The Chair was listening quite attentively, and I think the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) was referring to a certain restriction in the Canada Elections Act which prevents publicity prior to a campaign. That does not relate at all to the bill we have before us. That is why I invited him, if possible, to talk about this matter. In the past the Chair has been very lenient most of the time, but it is not often we have bills which are as narrow in scope as this one, and I invite hon. members to co-operate.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make one or two points in relation to this item. For many years the practice in the British House of Commons and in most legislatures, if not all, in this country has been that at second reading of a bill debate is on the principle of the bill. The principle of a bill involves more than just the clauses of the bill. If that were not so, when a government introduces a bill, debate would be confined. Zippers would actually be put on the lips of members.
If Your Honour will just hear me out, when a bill is introduced, the government knows that there is open debate at second reading. In committee of the whole hon. members are confined to individual clauses. At the third reading stage hon. members can attempt to defeat the whole bill, but the only stage at which hon. members can deal with the principle of a bill is at the second reading stage. The principle of a bill involves more than just the particular clauses. The principle of this bill involves the Canada Elections Act, and I contend that if the ruling is that we must confine ourselves to clauses, we are running a committee of the whole at the second reading stage, which is definitely wrong.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I think I have listened to the hon. member long enough to understand what he means. It is precisely the principle of the bill we are discussing. The principle of the bill is that it limits election periods, and again I invite hon. members to respect that and to address their remarks to the constraint placed on us with respect to the election period, but certainly not to advertising prior to an election, as the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte was doing previously.
This is one of those rare bills which is narrow in scope. That is why I invite hon. members to observe the rules of relevancy.


Gordon Edward Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is it the same point of order?
Canada Elections Act


Gordon Edward Taylor: No, a new point of order. This bill amends the Canada Elections Act-


David Michael Collenette: You are arguing with the Chair. That is disgraceful.


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


David Michael Collenette: A man with your experience arguing with the Chair; that is disgraceful.


Gordon Edward Taylor: You have not even heard my point of order, Sir. Are you psychic or something?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. I think the hon. member wants to debate the same point of order. If the hon. member is suggesting to the Chair that we are debating the whole of the Canada Elections Act, he is mistaken; we are debating an amendment to the Canada Elections Act which places a limitation on the election period. I invite hon. members to talk about that. I will recognize the hon. member in due course if that is the subject to which he wants to address his remarks.


Gordon Edward Taylor: This is not second reading then; this is Committee of the Whole. You are running a Committee of the Whole at second reading.


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


Gordon Edward Taylor: Look at the rules.


Mr. Cousineau:: You are breaking our hearts, Gordon.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, nothing I said was intended-


An hon. Member:: Arrogance.


Gordon Edward Taylor: What are you afraid of? Are you afraid to discuss the Canada Elections Act? This ruling is wrong, completely wrong.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. Perhaps the two hon. members who are interjecting could retire behind the curtains and have their conversation. We will listen to the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte.


Gordon Edward Taylor: The trouble is not behind the curtain, it is in the House.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, nothing I have said or referred to has been irrelevant, in my opinion, to a rural member, in view of the time constraints which will be imposed.
My remarks in relation to the convention structure were to the effect that, if time constraints are to be imposed by this bill, it would be desirable and conducive to a more efficient and effective election campaign in a rural constituency if there were a change in time frame and a change in time standards respecting advertising for a rural convention. It was not my intention to deviate from matters relevant to the constraints

June 5, 1981
Canada Elections Act
imposed on a rural constituency if the time is changed. It is in that context that I hope Your Honour will consider listening to additional remarks I have to make on this subject matter.
It is imperative that there be some reconsideration of the whole system of proxy voting, particularly if election campaigns are to be shorter. In an urban constituency the act lends itself to prompt accommodation of the proxy voter who happens to live in that urban constituency; but if we put further time constraints on this act, we will be putting additional constraints upon the time in which a proxy vote can be cast in a rural constituency. There will be a reduction in the amount of time in which the work force of any party will be able to prepare for the facilitation of proxy voting. Therefore, in conjunction with a reduction in the election period I think some consideration should be given to the terms under which proxy votes, absentee ballots and the votes of debilitated people and others can be cast.
If Your Honour will bear with me, I would like to suggest that, in rural constituencies in particular, returning officers should have the capacity to appoint deputies considered by them to be capable. The procedure followed, of course, would be defined either by legislation or regulation. However, a delegate of a returning officer should be permitted to accept, receive or collect proxy votes. Under the present system time is short in a rural constituency. For instance, during the last election campaign the returning officer for my constituency was located at one end of the constituency. I do not quarrel with that. However, if we are to have time to get the work done, the returning officer should have appointees who can do his duties and take his place in the outlying areas of the constituency.
I said I did not want to be political, and I do not; I merely want proper consideration given to this legislation as it relates to time. When we reduce the amount of time, we affect the total campaign in a rural constituency. If the time is to be shortened, I think there should be a system whereby supplies needed by candidates are delivered promptly by the returning officer. Sufficient supplies should be delivered by the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada to returning officers so that representatives of candidates will not have to make three trips, as my staff did in the last election campaign, to obtain necessary forms such as agents' papers.
If we are going to cut the time, it is imperative that the Chief Electoral Officer put everything required in place on the first go around. I do not want to have to make three trips again, nor do I wish to impose that upon any candidate who may succeed me. I suggest that the returning officer should be able to appoint certain agents to conduct, for instance, advance polls. If there is to be a constraint in time, it would be a very excellent idea if the deputy returning officer in the advance poll could almost automatically become an appointee of the returning officer in a rural constituency to receive and perhaps to make available those votes required in proxy or absentee voting or from disabled voters. I think that is the spirit and intent of the act, but if we constrain the time it will be even worse than it has been to date.
If the House will just bear with me a minute, I will not take much time-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Fred Alward McCain: -on this subject matter but I am-and I announce this in advance-going to deviate from the constraints you have imposed on me; that is, with your generous permission.
There has been a serious difficulty in some constituencies in Canada, by virtue of lack of co-operation between provincial and federal returning officers, in the establishment of poll boundaries. In a non-political way I appeal to this House of Commons, as a group participating in government, can we not demand of the Chief Electoral Officer and, in turn, his returning officers that there should be co-ordination between provincial and federal returning officers so that poll boundaries can be common? You have no idea, Mr. Speaker, of the difficulty this can create in some areas. In cities it does not make any difference, but in rural communities traditional boundaries are of major significance. I thank you very much for your generosity on that one, because I do think it needs to be on the record.
I think it is very difficult to discuss the subject matter of reduction of time in an election, and as you are considering it, Mr. Speaker, do not consider it on an urban basis. There is so much difference. With all due respect-and no allegations or accusations are made-if I were the candidate for the city of Saint John I really would not need much more than a bicycle, particularly if I wanted exercise. I could bicycle across the constituency in ten or 15 minutes. Even the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) experiences a great deal more difficulty in conducting a campaign than does the member from Saint John.
I think the time constraints are going to have a very definite impact. It may be necessary to give further consideration to more of this act than just the one section as you look at it from the rural point of view. We are not just changing time per se; we are going to change the entire pattern of contact between the rural candidate and his constituency. I think we have to give consideration to perhaps a little bit more allowance for expenses of rural candidates than we have given.


Walter David Baker: That is relevant.


Fred Alward McCain: I say this because I want to point out the difficulties of advertising in a rural constituency. Again I come back to the city of Saint John, New Brunswick, which I know so well. One can use any one of each section of the media and advertise in that constituency effectively, but if a candidate in Carleton-Charlotte stays within the legal constraints of expenditures, I have to look as a candidate at the city of Fredericton, Saint John and Moncton for television and radio. I have to look at Woodstock, Fredericton and Saint John again for press. I have to look at all the weeklies, all dailies, the radio stations and television stations that cover the southwest part
June 5, 1981

of New Brunswick. If you are going to constrain this time, the candidate in Carleton-Charlotte cannot physically cover the same degree of ground that he is able to cover with a longer time period.
Would the government, then, give some consideration, in very difficult advertising circumstances, to the constraint of time plus a little bit of leeway so that one can make contact other than by the media when it is impossible to make it physically, as I have been accustomed to doing? If you cut 15 days off the Carleton-Charlotte candidate, whoever he may be, that means just that many more communities which he is not going to see.
It is a funny thing, but in constituencies in the city it appears that you do have to keep a profile and you do that in the press. In the rural constituencies both the local and national press only recognize the giants when they speak in this House. If they are in the city of Saint John, Halifax or Toronto, they get publicity. The rural candidate is not going to get any freebees in the world of the media, printed or electronic. Therefore he is at a disadvantage if he wishes to get his name known. If you are going to cut this time, these are additional considerations which I think have to be extended to them.
I think I have kept at least one part of your requirements for the consideration of this bill and the mutual understanding on it. I have not been, nor do I intend to be, political, but I do ask whoever chairs this committee or participates in it to review some of the remarks I have made as a country boy in this nation who has some idea of the difficulties of conducting a political campaign under the constraints of this act and who will suffer under the additional constraints. This I think is what the people want and I am willing to abide by it; but if I am to do that, I hope the House, in its consideration of this bill, will give some additional consideration to the necessities of rural campaigning and this time constraint.
How are you going to get around Peace River, Alberta, or Prince George-Peace River, British Columbia, or some of the northern parts of Quebec, in this period of time? Can you make any opportunity for candidates to travel through their constituencies faster? You can do it faster by plane than I can by car, and that is the only thing I can afford under this structure. So should there be an additional expenditure allowance in rural constituencies for plane travel under the time constraints we are going to impose? What is the answer? Before this bill is finalized, let us give that subject attention.


Mr. Chuck Cook (North Vancouver-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I must be political with a few opening remarks, and this is pertinent to this particular bill.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: I consider this bill to be far too little and far too soon. I do not believe the bill should be before this House at all. It is a waste of Parliament's time to be considering it at this time.
Canada Elections Act
It was said in The Speech from the Throne:
You will be asked to appoint the committee of Parliament to examine the electoral system in order to ensure that the highest degree of representativeness and responsibility is achieved and that the confidence of Canadians in parliamentary institutions is strengthened.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), speaking in Winnipeg just the other night, said:
We've announced that a parliamentary committee will be established to study and make recommendations on how to make the Senate and House of Commons more effective instruments for the expression of regional interests and priorities as well as the expression of the national will.
Now, for heaven's sake, when you have a government that is planning to rip the electoral act totally apart, change the rules of the game as evidenced by the statements of the Prime Minister, to bring this piddly little bill into the House at this time and ask us to do a little bit with it-


An hon. Member:: It is your bill.


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: Yes, but we were not planning on having the rest of it.


An hon. Member:: We did not advocate proportional representation; that was you.


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


An hon. Member:: Why don't you listen?


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


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: What I am suggesting is that attempting a snip, when really what the government is planning to do is to destroy the whole animal, is ridiculous and we should not even be discussing this matter. However, it is before us and there are a number of comments that must be made relevant to this particular piece of minor legislation.
Now I can become slightly non-partisan and point out that the length of elections in Canada now runs 59 to 60 days. Every province in the country has made changes. In Newfoundland, it is 21 days for an election; Prince Edward Island, 26 days; New Brunswick, 36 days; Quebec, 32 days; Ontario, 37 days; Manitoba, 35 days; Saskatchewan, 28 days; Alberta, 29 days; British Columbia, 38 days.
If we really look at the 1980 election, we find that the writ went out on December 13. The election campaign, particularly in city ridings, did not get under way until early in January when the children went back to school. I do not think many members were out knocking on doors and saying, "Merry Christmas, please vote for me". If they did, perhaps they are not here.
The length of time of an election is only one small issue in terms of the entire question of electoral reform. This bill should not be before us at this time; it should have been held back. In approximately three months, in September, the report of the Chief Electoral Officer on the changes he wants in election law will be available.

June 5, 1981
Canada Elections Act
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said he has some major changes he wants to make. Why should we be bothered with this minor matter which ties in with every change that may be advocated in Parliament in terms of an election? Will 47 days be enough? I do not know because I do not know what are the other considerations. They are asking me to buy this pig in a poke and to decide that the election period should be shorter, without telling me what else they have planned or what other major items they will attempt to foist on Canadians. Until I am told those things, how can I possibly talk about 47 days or about electoral lists which will no longer be printed but will be mimeographed? These matters should not be before the Elouse at the moment; it is a waste of time.
Why was a committee not set up for this matter and all other changes considered at the same time? Why was there not an omnibus bill? Why have they not brought it all in? Why have we not had a chance to look at everything?
There is a stack of bills which are waiting. Various matters are involved. Some of them are good; perhaps some of them are not so good. Every one of them has some relationship to the legislation before us. When they talk about 47 days, they should realize that they are changing every facet of the Canada Elections Act. This 47 days makes a difference to the Canada Elections Act, as does the question of the printed list.
For example, the hours the polls are open might be irrelevant, but moving after the list is out is relevant to the 47 days, as is voting by proxy. Holding the level of the membership of the House to a particular figure is relevant to 47 days; perhaps it will mean many more voters in individual ridings. Will the candidates have a chance to talk to everyone involved? There is some doubt about that.
There are ridings in British Columbia which are over 500 miles long. The government should talk to members representing those ridings to hear what they have to say about the 47 days. Will they be able to get around those ridings within 47 days? I realize that originally the length of an election was established based on the difficulties of travelling by horse drawn wagons on muddy roads. Even though it was done in that manner, the distance in those early days were much shorter. The difficulties in terms of travelling about ridings in the maritimes or Ontario in those days were not the same as they are today with the large size of ridings, particularly in western Canada. Those ridings are what we might call big ridings in the big sky country. Some ridings are hundreds of miles in size. Even with paved roads and instant communication by telephone, 47 days may not be enough. I want those members to have an opportunity to consider the 47 days.
I suggest that other things could be done to the bill which would make the 47 days reasonable and would allow the electorate to be well informed. We are not only here to please ourselves and to be fair to all candidates. We are supposed to be fair to Canadians and to let them consider what each party is advocating and what is the philosophy of each party, and to provide them with a reasonable time in which to make up their minds.
Perhaps 47 days is the answer, but I think the government will find out that hon. members from large rural ridings have other ideas relating to the 47 days which may make the 47 days acceptable to all. The publication of the results of the opinion polls relates to the 47 days; whether or not the results of such polls will be published. There are two acts to amend the Canada Elections Act in that regard. There are a number of ideas about which hon. members have felt strongly enough to propose bills dealing with individual changes. Surely they must all be considered. Surely the opinion and the report of the Chief Electoral Officer must be considered. The Speech from the Throne and the attitude of the Prime Minister and his government toward major changes must be considered. They relate to the 47 days as well.
We should not be discussing this matter today; the bill should not be here at this time. We should be talking about the bankruptcy bill or something which is important to the country, rather than wasting the time of the House as we are doing today with this bill. There are acts regarding deposits, partisan poll officers and the representation of parties at polls to be considered. This 47 days as opposed to 60 days will make a difference as to whether or not these things will be possible, whether or not injustices will be involved. There is the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act and byelections preceding redistribution. This 47 days will have a lot to do with those bills, as well as with the mobile polling stations under the Canada Elections Act. If there are a couple of mobile polling stations in a 500-mile riding, I wonder how much the candidates can cover in 47 days. I am referring to many areas in western Canada or, for that matter, in the north.
What about the use of contributions, limiting them to federal uses? Well, I apologize for that one. It should not be included in here, because it has nothing to do with the act under discussion.
The period of 47 days is related to campaigning by non-residents and to permanent voters' lists. Those matters have a great deal to do with this particular piece of legislation. Many hon. members on all sides of the House have taken a look, or would like to contemplate, the potential of a permanent voters' list. This might make this legislation palatable to those with huge rural ridings. It can be done in many ways. The Australians have one system, but there are various ways in which it can be handled.
As I suggested, there were comments in the Speech from the Throne which proposed major changes. Also there was the speech in Winnipeg by the Prime Minister reiterating them as recently as last Monday, We know that the report of the Chief Electoral Officer is due in September. There is a raft of bills dealing with the Canada Elections Act, yet we have a little bill before us indicating limiting an electoral campaign to 47 days and stating that the list will no longer be printed. How can we deal with those matters in a vacuum without contemplating all other potential changes, ideas or concepts which might be very useful or interesting? Perhaps when we see the rest of the legislation it will be entirely possible that we may have a circumstance where 47 days will not be the ideal time. It may
June 5, 1981

be that there will be an all-party agreement that, perhaps, with this change and that change to the Elections Act we could conduct a proper federal election. This would be an election that would be fair to all Canadians. It would ensure that they have their information and that the examination would be conducted in the same time as that established in many provinces. Perhaps 35 days would be equally acceptable, I do not know. 1 do know that this bill should not be before us now because of the vast changes which will come about in the election process in this country when this bill comes into effect.
When we talk about the potential of proportional representation, I connect it to the question of a 47-day election campaign. An election is called, and 47 days later the voting takes place. If there is any form of proportional representation which falls into this category, it really means there will be two elections. It takes probably a week or two to get on the list on the basis of proportional representation; and, depending on the system used, a separate voting may be required within the election to determine who will be on the proportional list. This may require that a party convention be called, or it may mean that some form of primary election will have be held, as is the case in the United States. Under these circumstances, obviously, 47 days simply will not suffice, since at least two weeks of those 47 days will have been used up in order to determine who the proportional representation candidates are.
With that hanging over our heads, I wonder why we are even contemplating 47 days until we know what the rest of the package will be and whether 47 days will have anything to do with it at all. Yet this government brings in this measure to be debated on a lazy Friday afternoon. We are required to talk about it while the government does not understand that it should not be before us. Surely to goodness there is not that much poverty of mind and wisdom on the government benches that they cannot realize the implications of some of the legislation which should be before this House.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Do you want to bet?


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: No, I will not take a bet on that; I might lose.
Before us is a bill which covers a vast subject. What has been printed is, if I may use the expression, a half-assed proposal dealing with the subject.
What else is there to say about this whole matter? Not that much. I think we have made the major points about what should not be included in this measure. In view of its terms, we would also like to see what would happen if it were to pass. If we ever get to the point of having an elected Senate, will this bill apply? Will the Senate have a 47-day election period as well?


David Michael Collenette: Come on, we're not talking about the Senate, we are talking about the House of Commons.


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: If the heckler over there is going to make comments, will he either make them quietly so that I cannot hear them at all or will he make them loud enough so that I
Canada Elections Act
can hear him properly? There is nothing worse than knowing only that a heckler is saying something and yet not being sure of what it is he is saying. This is what has happened with the hon. member opposite. Mind you, if he is that embarrassed about what he has to say that he wants to tone it down to the point where he cannot be heard, that is just as well.
I compliment the hon. member for Mississauga North (Mr. Fisher) on a speech well made. I thought his comments were fair. I tend to agree with some of his ideas. I only hope that he will consider expanding his thoughts from the narrowness of what is contained in the bill with regard to the 47-day proposal.
There is a second proposal in the bill which has received very little discussion in this House. It is a rather important proposal since it involves a radical change. If accepted, it will mean that the voters' list will be handled in a totally different manner from the way it is at present. I suggest that in some ridings this may present quite a hardship. It will not be bad in a city riding where there is a returning officer and a returning office, and where one can view the mimeographed lists readily. I wonder what effect this measure will have in those 500-mile long ridings where the returning officer is at one end of the riding with the mimeographed list and the electorate is spread widely throughout the riding. How many hours or days will it take them to reach the returning office to view the list? I presume that the returning officer would send the list via special delivery through the Post Office to designated points throughout the riding where people can actually see it.
These problems are not addressed in the bill before us, nor have they been carefully considered. It is very unfortunate that this piece of legislation has been brought before the House at this time, especially since statements of all kinds have been made indicating that some major legislation will be forthcoming which will probably deal with proportional representation which, in turn, will change the entire ball game. We know that the Chief Electoral Officer will be suggesting in his report up to 100 minor housekeeping changes to the Elections Act.
Each one of these changes should be looked at in light of the 47-day potential and with the possibility in mind of a different method of printing the lists. I want to be able to consider these changes and discuss them. Once that is done, once all the changes have been put together properly, the government can bring their 47-day legislation to me. At that time, and under those circumstances, I think the legislation would receive a very fair hearing. But it cannot be dealt with in the abstract. It cannot be dealt with today. All the questions that are raised in my mind cannot be answered today, since 1 do not know what will be contained in the Chief Electoral Officer's report. I do not know what the Prime Minister will propose in the fall. Quite frankly, for a year now an ad hoc committee and the Chief Electoral Officer have been involved in discussions about many of the controversial measures involved in the Elections Act. They have been attempting to arrive at an agreement with all parties, in a way which would be fair to the Canadian people. I would like to see the conclusion of those discussions

June 5, 1981
Canada Elections Act
before it is said to me "Let us have the 47-day provision." I want to deal with the total picture.
I could not possibly vote for this bill at this point in time, even though I find myself generally in agreement with the 47-day provision. I want to hear what the people from the large rural ridings have to say. I am sure the first question they will ask is "What else is involved in this legislation?" They will go on to ask: "How does this 47 days relate to the voters' list?" I ask myself, how does this 47-day provision relate to my time as a member to get through a 500-mile long riding? Does this 47 days relate to informing the voters or making up the voters' list? How does this 47 days relate to every other section in the Canada Elections Act and amendments thereto?
I believe the government has done us a disservice by bringing this bill before us today. I hope that it will not be placed on the Order Paper again until the fall and until we see the rest of the package on the electoral reform in this country. We know it is needed. We want it, as do the other parties, but we want it all at the same time. We want it to be coherent and we want it to fit together properly.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad I had the opportunity to clear up the process with you before speaking on this bill, both earlier and during the few minutes in the House.
To me, this bill parallels the fill in the Ontario weekly newspapers, and that is what it is. It is fill. It does not really attack the problem of the Elections Act. We are talking about 47 days versus 59 days. The consequence of this 47 days will be the erosion of the democratic process in this country. Basically it gives the incumbent an advantage. Since the government has a majority, it would give the government an advantage. I have to state right here and now that 1 cannot support 47 days. I will give Your Honour more reasons as I go on.
The bill is totally incomplete. It does not cover anything. In my riding, I have a microcosm of Canada. I have urban development, I have an industrial area, and I have a large rural area which makes up the largest part of my riding. My first election campaign took me 365 days. Now I am being asked to cut my next election down from 64 days, which we happened to have the last time, to 47 days. I do not think there is any way that I could go back and be re-elected under these conditions. I will have had to work at it the four years I will have been here-something like 1,500 days.
There is just a little side point, one little item, which is missing from this bill. We talk about 321 members who will have 47 days the next time.


Walter David Baker: That is right!


Thomas Scott Fennell: Those hon. members will no longer be known as backbenchers. They will be known as the 47-day upper
benchers sitting in the gallery because there will be nowhere else to put them, or else we will all crowd in together when we come in for a vote. I hope we are given 47 days to vote.
Another point which I feel was left out of the bill is that volunteers in a campaign who are supposed to raise money have no longer been given a challenge. They have a great opportunity to go and raise all the money they want. But now, the government wants control of the election, so it gives back the money, and I disagree with that. I think perhaps the new candidates should be helped out, but the incumbents should raise their own money. They have about 1,500 days in which to raise money while they are in office. If they have done a good job, they will receive all kinds of money to run their campaign. If they are not re-elected, that is their own fault.
There should be some method of improving the electoral lists because one of the major problems of our campaign offices is dealing with people who did not get on the list. I have an unusual situation, particularly in part of my rural riding where people are not allowed to register when they come to vote. Half of those people in my rural riding can register when they come to vote and the other half cannot, and they must be enumerated. There is no geographic difference. These people live on farms where the enumerator does not get around. These people are out in the fields and the wife is out to work. It just does not work.
Perhaps 47 days might be practicable if people were allowed to register at the polls. During this debate some members have suggested that a permanent list would solve the problem of 47 days. I shudder at the thought of a permanent list, and I will tell you why. It is because we would create a whole new bureaucracy right across Canada, in 281 constituencies. I cannot accept that. I believe that 59 days is a minimum we can deal with.
One little point which is missing in this bill is the matter of a deposit. In 1867 it cost $200 to put one's name on the line to get elected. On a relative dollar basis, with the inflation we are experiencing, that deposit should be $20,000, but maybe I will cut it down and say that we should be required to put in $2,000. It is just a little extra point that is missing in this bill.
Another little point is with regard to the hours. It was tough for the people in Vancouver to find out that the Liberals had won the election while they were still voting. There should be some adaptation made there. I really feel strongly about that. There are several private members' bills but-


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Vote Liberal!


Thomas Scott Fennell: -it is just a point. We have to look at this total package. It is simply not enough. This bill is not doing anything for the country. We are not representing our constituents if all we tell them in this bill is that there will be 12 days fewer than the last time around. I think that is totally unfair. Basically, it is fine. If I had a district to represent such as downtown Toronto, where there is all these highrises, it would be simple. All one does is to go up and down elevators. One goes up the elevators and then one walks all the way down. I
June 5, 1981

do have some apartment buildings in my constituency, and it is a lot of work. However, I could cover that in 47 days.
What this bill will do to my constituency is turn over 80 per cent of my rural constituents into second-class citizens, and they are the ones who are the guts of the country. They are the true entrepreneurs. They are the people who started this country. They are second, third, fourth and fifth generation farmers. Even 59 days is not long enough for us to see them all. How much less would we see them in 47 days?
One matter which has been touched on in this debate is proportional representation, a matter which has been missed in this 47-day bill. I would suggest that if we are going to talk about proportional representation, we should look at the whole of government service. Let us start electing our senators, perhaps for life, if so desired. However, they should be elected as proportional representatives. We have a great big area at the east end of this building. We could be doing a lot more productive things with this area than what 1 have seen in the two years I have been here.
I would have one suggestion on the 47 days proposal. If we knew for sure that there will be no election for at least four years, perhaps we could accept the 47 days, because incumbents and new candidates would have enough time in three or four years to build up an organization and to build up their image. Perhaps when the bill goes to committee an amendment could be made which would provide that for elections which are four years apart, an electoral campaign of only 47 days would be allowed, but for elections which come sooner, that is, snap elections, the length of time of the campaign would remain at 59 days. That way, there would be an opportunity for good candidates to be picked, and if there had to be last-minute choices, there would be better people to choose from. All parties have the same problem of finding candidates when there is a snap election. Your Honour knows that. That is probably how I was elected the first time; they did not have time to look around. However, they are happy with me now. Personally, I think I can do it in 47 days, but I feel sorry for the new guy who comes in and does not have the same opportunity that I had with 365 days.
1 have another possible amendment which could also be discussed in committee. Why not do away with elections altogether and just let the Gallup poll take care of it? That seems to be how we do it anyway. Let us make it equal so that we in the opposition have the same opportunity as the government. If we see our poll results are really high, we could say, "Hey, we are going to have an election". We could go to the country and it could be done in hours with computers. Think of the word processors and the computer facilities! We could do it in 47 minutes. We would not have to wait the 47 days. Think of the financial savings! The only company who would make any money is Torstar. It happens to practically own the Gallup poll.
I feel badly about the disenfranchised electors, those unfortunate people who are not in the country, particularly during a winter campaign, but are in Florida, Arizona, Hawaii, and
Canada Elections Act
California. Let us try to really help those people and set up polls-


An hon. Member:: El Salvador.


Thomas Scott Fennell: -where our Canadians are. We may as well go where they are. So let us set up polls in Florida, Arizona, Hawaii, and California. When I retire from this House, I would like to be in charge of that.


An hon. Member:: El Salvador!


Thomas Scott Fennell: Well, the hon. member is welcome to El Salvador. I would just as soon have Florida or Hawaii.
I think this bill is failing the country. It is failing the people. It is satisfying only one party. It is appeasing the appetite of one party. It is not helping us. We will have disadvantage for all time. Forty-seven days is not enough time for any new person to get elected. I believe we should vote against this bill and we should strongly urge the committee which will be examining this bill to review the entire election act. The committee should look at proportional representation and I suggest that Senate members be included on this committee. All of this should be done properly. Some members in the other place have more experience than we have had here. I maintain that we must review the entire picture, not just the 47 days versus the 59 days.
I represent a rural constituency. I feel very close to my constituents. Incidentally, they are all staunch Conservatives. I feel most strongly that I should have the opportunity in the next election of having those extra 12 days so I can visit all my constituents, sit around their stoves, have lunch and coffee with them. On that basis, I hope that some of the words I have expressed will be accepted. I hope that when this bill goes to committee it will be redrafted.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell) mentioned that he had had a private conversation with the Chair earlier today. He ought to be commended for the remarkable effort he has made. I just say it was an extraordinary effort and it was very much appreciated.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, 1 wonder if in those few words you uttered, there was a message for me. I heard the argument in the House earlier today about the business of relatives.
I think the hon. member made an excellent point that the bill is targeted to accomplish a specific end. It is not just a 47-day election campaign, but it deals with time limits for all kinds of processes which must be examined. It is also critical for members of this House to bring to the attention of the House the climate or the milieu in which this reform will take place. You cannot exercise your responsibility on behalf of Canadians in dealing with a specific narrow piece of legislation without trying to examine, as best you can, its implications for the total system.

June 5, 1981
Canada Elections Act
Perhaps much of the constitutional debate would have been more enlightening if more attention had been paid, not just to the specifics of the resolution which bound the discussion, but also to sets of general principles and a general framework of the relationship between Canadians and their government. That is what a constitution deals with.
An election act and its subparts deal with the rights of Canadian voters to choose their peer group, which is their jury. In the case of federal politics, that peer group or jury is to be found in this chamber. Any attempt to alter the relationship between the individual voter and his or her right or obligation to choose who represents him or her is a matter which should be undertaken only after very serious thought, and only in the context of our particular form of parliament.
I stand here in this House with a sense of foreboding about the consequences of the proposed change. I think that perhaps the principle which is really basic to that sense of foreboding begins with the notion of process. As we debated the Constitution, I felt that it was most unfortunate that it was a piece of legislation introduced to this chamber by a government, by a small group of members of this House, who had a long-term vested interest. I wonder what the constitutional resolution would have looked like had we had an advisory group consisting of knowledgeable Canadians with no vested interest in this particular source of power called the House of Commons of Canada, to give us ideas and advice. If an advisory group had come up with ideas, suggestions and potential legislation for the House, after which legislation had been brought forward which all members had an opportunity to debate freely, and on which to vote freely, perhaps it would have been better.
I had the same feeling about this proposed electoral change. I think it behooves us in this House to begin an examination of this proposed change with the following in mind: let us assume that government members, members of the Liberal Party, like sitting on that side of the House and like the responsibility of forming a cabinet and deciding which legislation comes forward. But when they propose a particular piece of electoral reform, can they be objective and dispassionate about the consequences of that proposed reform, or is re-election to this chamber uppermost in their minds? I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that is a great deal to ask of any man or woman. It is far too much to ask of the present cabinet, far too much. Everything that has happened in this House since the formation of that cabinet leads inexorably to the conclusion that the retention of political power is the dominant principle in their decision-making.


Mr. Kiigour:: It is the only one.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: My seatmate said it is the only one.
If in the Constitution and if in the National Energy Program we see that the cabinet proposes legislation, legislation that is not good for Canada but good for re-election, if that is the dominant principle, we can expect to find it also in the government suggestion for electoral reform.
I ask hon. members to consider the following: if the first clause of this bill were that the cabinet and the Prime Minister
(Mr. Trudeau) have an obligation, were required by law to select, a minimum of 12 months ahead of time, and to make known the date of the next federal election, then we could have a different attitude toward this piece of legislation. If you approach Canadians on this matter, it comes through that they have some sense that election periods sometimes go on for too long. It is a little more difficult, and it takes a little more time, energy and sophistication to realize that it is the government, and the government alone, which can set the date of a federal general election. Therefore, it is the government, and the government alone, which knows the date of the next federal election for some considerable period of time.
We do not have to look very far back in history to find evidence that the government, the cabinet in particular, backbenchers, fund raisers and a number of people, know with increasing certainty, and with considerable lead time what the date of the next federal election will be. The campaign begins on that date. Government members have that knowledge. They can begin to plan their publicity campaigns and election material and recruit their volunteers. Under our present system they have an unfair advantage.
We look at the past few election campaigns and we see that taxpayers' funds were used to begin the campaign. Look at the legislation generally brought into this House in the 30-day period prior to the dissolution of the House before a general election. Look for the bribery component in most instances. Look at what cabinet ministers do with government jets in the month prior to the dissolution of the House and calling of an election. Look at what they do with press releases and the utilization of staff and their physical location. This is an unfair situation which has existed since the beginning of this nation. The only check on the use of that power is the moral fibre of those who wield it.
The bill before us runs several pages. The underlying principle is clearly that government members opposite have decided to increase the four year advantage by another 12 days. They want to reduce the possibility of being defeated, the possibility of fair play by another 12 days. I want to issue a challenge to members opposite. They can have a 47-day election period, probably with unanimous support in this House, under one condition: give us the date of the next federal election at least six months or possibly 12 months in advance so that everyone has an equal opportunity to plan, nominate candidates and raise money. The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader says to me across the floor of this House from behind the curtain "We are not as dumb as you guys. We believe in hanging on to power."


David Michael Collenette: I didn't say that.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: That is sufficient justification for the thesis I am advancing. They say, "if this bill is allowed to pass, will I be a victim? No. I have an advantage over all of those who choose to unseat me. I have access to this chamber and to the press gallery for an additional 12 days. My opponents have 12
June 5, 1981

days less to become known, to make my record known to the electorate in an attempt to unseat me. Anyone who wants to take my seat will be disadvantaged."
If I were totally motivated by the desire to hang on to power, I would have no trouble with this bill. However, in the long term, on account of short-term gain, to retain power will erode the commitment of the Canadian people to the democratic process. It is another step in the direction which is inherent in the Constitution. It is a fundamental belief in oligarchies, that the strong shall rule the weak. It runs counter to the very first paragraph of Beauchesne, which is the book which each of us receives upon election to this House, about the purpose of this House and Parliament.
I can see the unfairness of this 47-day period even more clearly in the case of a byelection. If you are an astute observer of the rhythm of this House as it unfolds and transpires toward a general election, you can begin to make a reasonable guess as to whether or not we are heading toward an election. That guess is likely to be reasonably correct unless, all of a sudden, an unfavourable Gallup poll comes in, and then it changes dramatically and quickly.
The provisions of this bill would affect byelections. Do all political parties have the same opportunity to see a byelection coming? Do they have equal opportunity to contest that byelection? We need only look at the past decade of behaviour by this government in relation to byelections. You can see how cleverly they wield the power to name the date.


David Michael Collenette: It is the law.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Who made the law?


David Michael Collenette: Everyone in this House.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: The transitory majority wants to change the fundamental law of this country, the Constitution. That same transitory majority wants to amend the fundamental democratic protection we have which is inherent in the elections act. To be on that side of the House and say that it is this House and all of the regions and a reasonable portion of the people in those regions who support the Constitution, or this kind of electoral reform, is to be dishonest. It is dishonest to make that kind of statement. This is a transitory majority, primarily from two provinces, that is determining the Constitution of Canada. That same majority is seeking to weaken-


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I would be happy to accept a question.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: I am curious about how the hon. member can reconcile an apparent contradiction in his comments. I am asking this honestly out of my own curiosity. One of the great differences between a parliamentary system, which I think the hon. member has actively supported and endorsed in the past and probably still does, and a presidential system is that a presidential system has a fixed election date and a parliamen-
Canada Elections Act
tary system has a floating date. Can the hon. member tell me how we can protect Parliament and still have a fixed date?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Kindergarten teachers could think up such complex questions. Had the hon. member been listening, near the beginning of my remarks I said that the government could simply name the date one year in advance instead of 47 days in advance. Why not tell us one year in advance when it is going to be? It would not be a violation of the parliamentary principle. There is one other part of the parliamentary system which is not the same as a presidential system, and that is that the government can be defeated by a majority of the members of this House who have the guts to do so.


An hon. Member:: That's what happened a year ago.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: No, what happened a year ago was an extension of the parliamentary secretary's basic commitment to retaining and hold power regardless of whether it was good for Canadians. That is what happened a year ago.
You could have another provision in the electoral law, that when the government is defeated, we can have our 60-day period. It could occur under that circumstance. But in the absence of a government defeat, give us all equal notice, six-months' notice or a year's notice, and that will not violate parliamentary democracy. That certainly is not the presidential system.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit another question? Does the hon. member feel that the Canadian people would like us to have campaigns that last a whole year?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I think I can speak on behalf of the voters of my riding who have noticed that some campaigns seem to go on for two or three years. The Liberals run a campaign as a government from the day they are elected till the next election. That is the point I have made. Those of us who would like to spare the voters of this country long election campaigns might be better served with certain knowledge of the date of an election further in advance. In the absence of that knowledge, I suggest that the New Democratic Party as well as this party begins to move into an election stance a considerable length of time ahead of an election. Many, many ridings in this country and many political parties had campaign headquarters rented and phones installed for the 1979 election in May and April 1978, yet that election took place only in May of 1979. The government controlled this, a great deal of money was wasted and Canadians were subjected to a very long election campaign.


Walter David Baker: Now they are opening ministerial offices all over the country.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: That is true. The campaign offices today are called ministerial offices and the taxpayers pay for them. That is the difference. Once an election period starts, it is the donors

June 5, 1981
Canada Elections Act
to political parties, hopefully, who pay for most if not all of what those election campaigns cost.


An hon. Member:: How much did the Conservatives get last year?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: There was another question which I did not quite hear from across the floor.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Cousineau) on a point of order.


René Cousineau: My hon. friend is suggesting, I believe, that the members of the party in power are the only ones who receive funds during election campaigns. So, my question is this: has the Progressive Conservative party not also received gifts from the public at large?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: We receive gifts from the public at large. 1 suggest the Liberal party uses taxpayers' funds which, in my riding at least, are not perceived as gifts but rather as compulsory contributions to good portions of the party.
My concern is that there are so many members opposite who have questions about this bill-
[ Translation]


Monique Bégin: I would add that the Progressive Conservative party also sends Liberal ministers requests for funds accompanied by membership cards, like the one I received today, in an attempt to collect funds, because I think the public is giving them quite a lot of trouble.


Walter David Baker: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) will write Norman MacLeod and please take me off his mailing list.


An hon. Member:: Me too.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Take me off too.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, is the quality of debate going up or down? I would point out to the minister that I have received two letters from the Liberal party, and furthermore I responded with a donation of ten cents.


An hon. Member:: Too much.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: They even squandered your dime.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I was just beginning to make the point that as you begin to examine the principles of this bill and try to write them out with some sense of clarity for the Canadian people, the degree of interest on the government side
noticeably increases, and this expresses itself in an attempt by them to ask questions and receive some clarifications.
I hope that has been helpful and that it might encourage some members opposite to sit down and actually read the bill, then prepare some words of wisdom and come to this chamber and talk about it. If they intend to vote for it, Canadian people might be mystified that none of them took the trouble to come and talk about it, that they would simply stand up and vote for it without coming to the chamber to defend it. I think democracy might be somewhat better served if we were to hear some set of real or invented reasons why this bill is supportable.
It is drawing near the time for private members' hour and there is much more about which I would like to talk. Once you restrict the total election period to 47 days rather than 60 days, there are many clauses in this bill which need examination, because they really affect the voters of this country. If I may bring to the attention of the House an example, and this is not a complete list, the time allowed for revision historically has been 14 days. Any of us who have been elected to this House have encountered new Canadian citizens, people who have achieved citizenship in the preceding two months or one year, who did not comprehend the need to read the list and make sure their name was on it but who had been looking forward to the opportunity to vote. Nobody found them and nobody got their names on the list in 14 days. That seven-day revision period is one that should be looked at very closely. This is a complex country in a complex world, and seven days is not enough.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in this debate. I see I have about a minute and a half in which to condense all I hope to say.


An hon. Member:: It's too much.


David Kilgour: They say "too much" on the opposite side. I would like to point out that in my respectful submission, the bill is the parliamentary equivalent of using a band-aid for a severe case of appendicitis. It is not likely to do much about the basic problem, whether it is a band-aid, or in this case this bill, but it allows those opposite in the government to go forward pretending they are doing something about the grave problems of electoral reform. Why not reduce the electoral period to ten days or a week, as I believe somebody suggested on the other side of the House? Why do we need 47 days? It seems to me if you want to assure your re-election, you should have an electoral period of seven days. Since my time is up I would suggest that perhaps somebody would at least address himself to this question, if anyone on the opposite side has the guts to speak on this bill later on. May I call it four o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, public bills, notices of motions and private bills.
June 5, 1981


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Does the House agree to stand all public bills and orders preceding Order No. 33?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


REGISTERED CHARITIES ACT
Walter Franklin McLean: that Bill C-233, to encourage the role of the voluntary sector in Canadian society, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill C-233 is to encourage government action to support the voluntary sector in our Canadian society. The bill calls for a mechanism. It calls for a commission to take existing reports, studies and recommendations and consolidate their suggestions for early action by the government.
The importance or the relevance of the bill is that if we are to maintain a caring society, it is imperative that we undergird the voluntary efforts of millions of Canadians in the face of today's inflationary times and the difficult economic situation many Canadians are facing.
The bill encourages action in two areas affecting the voluntary sector. It relates to the tax law and suggests the need for an amendment which could be prepared to give donors to voluntary agencies the same tax incentives as are given to those who donate to political parties. This was addressed by my colleague, the hon. member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche), on June 9, 1980, when he spoke on a private member's motion.
The second matter to which the bill relates is the sharing of goods and services and the importance of taking tax dollars which have already been used to provide goods and equipment for government to operate and communicate and see that that asset is used during off-hours or non-peak periods by voluntary agencies in order to maximize the use of those tax dollars. This can be done and has been done in some areas where there has been a will to do so. The bill lists several areas which are examples only of what might be done.
The idea I am setting forward in Bill C-233 is not a new one. It has its roots in a substantial volume of research and study which can be traced at least as far back as the 1951 Massey report of the Royal Commission on Arts, Letters and Sciences. There is a large body of research into the needs of the voluntary sector as well as the different means of providing aid in kind assistance to address particular needs. My bill calls for a commission to report its recommended guidelines to the Minister of Finance within six months of its establishment.
Registered Charities
In encouraging passage today by the House of Bill C-233 I would like to underline the importance of the contribution made by the voluntary sector to both the Canadian way of life and our national economy. I do so having been involved in the voluntary sector as a field director for CUSO, as a director of the national voluntary thrust of the Canadian Centennial International Development Program, as an executive director of the Manitoba Association for World Development, as chairman of the Inter-Church Aid Committee and as one who has sat on the boards of a number of voluntary agencies nationally and a number of community and service clubs at the local level.
According to a survey, highlighted by Statistics Canada in the context of National Volunteer Week which was held April 27 to May 3, some 2.7 million Canadians, or 15.2 per cent of the country's working age population, performed volunteer work between February, 1979, and February, 1980. The survey, to be published later this month, was the largest ever conducted on this topic in Canada. A total of some 18,700 households were contacted, which represented 43,000 persons. Results also indicate that 54 per cent of the volunteers were women and 46 per cent were men. An estimated 49 per cent of the volunteers were between the ages of 25 and 44. Another 36 per cent were 45 years of age or over, with the remaining 15 per cent divided almost equally between the 20 to 24 and 15 to 19 age groups.
I would like to quote briefly from the introduction to the forthcoming publication, as follows:
While volunteer work is as old as charity itself, it has become increasingly topical in recent years, and the escalating interest appears to be attributable to a variety of factors. In part it can be related to the advocacy of women's groups and others who wish to promote the recognition of the importance, relevance, and value of unpaid community work, both in itself, and as it relates to possible subsequent paid employment. It can also be traced to a recognition that during times of fiscal restraint at all levels of government, the work of volunteers represents an even greater contribution to community well-being, which would otherwise not exist. Current levels of interest in this topic are also a result of a growing awareness that many of the services provided by volunteer workers, and the profound dedication which they bring to their work, cannot be fully duplicated in the field of social services provided by paid workers.
These figures in the survey now provide an up-to-date framework for the body of research which includes "People in Action", the 1977 report of the National Advisory Council on Voluntary Action, which was presented to the then secretary of state, the present Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts). It also includes two reports prepared under the auspices of the Canadian Council on Social Development entitled "Volunteers: the Untapped Potential" which was produced in 1975 and "Tapping the Untapped Potential: Towards a National Policy on Volunteerism" which was published in 1977. The body of research culminated in the briefs prepared for the meeting between government and the voluntary sector held January 29 to January 31 here in Ottawa called "Consultation '81" and organized by the Committee of National Voluntary Organizations.
Two additional statistics which were circulated at Consultation '81 arose from the labour force survey released by Statistics Canada on January 28 of this year. Total volunteer hours

June 5, 1981
Registered Chanties
worked during the year ending February, 1980, were 373,991,000, which is equivalent to approximately 218,000 person-years of volunteer labour.
If this volunteer labour were compensated at the average industrial wage, it would represent a wage forgone by these volunteers of $3.5 billion for the year ending February, 1980.
The keynote address at Consultation '81 was given by the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Fox), and I would like to read excerpts of that speech since, in the non-partisan atmosphere which exists with respect to this subject, many of the minister's remarks can be shared by many of us here. The minister said the following in that context:
There was a time when a fair amount of mistrust existed in the minds of members of voluntary organizations when they viewed government. There were reasons for that mistrust. In some cases, organizations which had established themselves to promote sound goals were superseded by government programs which took over their mandate. When we now look at that pattern, we wonder if it was the right approach. Would we have been better to have helped voluntarism to give help, rather than giving help ourselves? This is a question which I feel we should answer in seeking stronger linkages between voluntarism and government.
I think that political leaders have come to realize that the voluntary movement offers a rich resource for the delivery of help and services.
The minister was speaking-and I do not wish to take his remarks out of context-of the much debated argument over the advisability of financial support of the government for the voluntary sector, and the possible costs of independence and initiative which are so vital to all voluntary activity. It is my hope, in returning to the notion of aid in kind assistance, that the independence of any agency would be both encouraged and nurtured and their effectiveness so enlarged that centrally-administered government programs could be reduced.
The minister went on to discuss some of the ways by which he felt government could be beneficial to the voluntary sector. He said:
One way is through the tax system. The give and take proposal is an example... In my role as "advocate minister" to the voluntary sector, I am of the view that I must ensure that the National Voluntary Organizations' tax credit proposal is given a thorough hearing by government.
He went on to discuss the problem of the definition of the term "charitable organization" for use by Revenue Canada in granting charitable status to a voluntary organization. This would enable it, as you know, Mr. Speaker, to issue tax deductible receipts for donations.
The minister stated that his colleagues:
-are anxious also to put at the disposal of the voluntary sector the results of government conducted research ... This will be done by establishing a resource centre devoted to this task.
He also said:
1 am committed to the development of a comprehensive federal government action policy developed jointly with the voluntary sector ... I have directed my department to provide toward this end the support services of the Assistance to Community Groups Program, which I am renaming the Voluntary Action Program ... I want to emphasize that this is much more than a cosmetic change. We are devoted to implementing a new thrust to co-operate with the voluntary sector.
He went on to suggest:
-a joint means by which we may ensure that information flows within your own network of organizations, and between government and yourselves.
It is my hope, Mr. Speaker, that the government would see the commission proposed in this bill as a vehicle for the marriage of the research that has already been completed over many years and what the Secretary of State calls a new thrust to co-operate with the voluntary sector. With the announced commitment of the minister and the well known capacity of the voluntary sector for moving things ahead, I believe that such a commission could bear fruit in under six months. The evidence has been gathered; now is the time to show that commitment to follow the words of praise with some government action in terms of goods and services and some tax incentives.
This perception has been confirmed for me by the significant national support I have received from circulating this bill throughout the volunteer community in Canada. I believe that this response has also been communicated to the Secretary of State and to the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen). They will be aware of the support for Bill C-233 expressed by such organizations as the United Nations Association in Canada, the Canadian Mental Health Association, The Order of St. John, the Canadian Paraplegic Association, Frontier College, the Canadian Diabetes Association, Inter Pares, The National Voluntary Organization, the Canadian Public Health Association, and CUSO, whose anniversary we were marking in the House this morning. There are many more, but I would like to go on record as thanking those organizations and others for the inestimable gift which their endeavours represent to all Canadians.
As well, Mr. Speaker, I would like to give this House some indication of the support and interest of many of the smaller agencies. I have found across my riding interest from such groups as, to mention but a few, the Kitchener-Waterloo Regional Council of Canadian Bankers, the North Waterloo Boy Scouts Association, even a chapter of the Mennonite Church. I have found that interest also among the many individuals who see this direction and stimulation by government of that sector as being vital to the quality of life we accept.
Although I would like to continue this discussion which I feel has a direct bearing on the lives of a great majority of concerned and committed Canadians, as has been borne out by the responses to me and to other members of this House, according to our tradition it is now time for the House to hear from other members and representatives of the government. I am as anxious, as are any of these groups and individuals I have mentioned, to hear the response and find out what the timetable will be for action, because there has been a lot of rhetoric around this theme for many years from the government. However, regardless of the government's decision on whether to talk the bill out or let it go on to committee, I hope that it will indicate very shortly a timetable or deadline as to when it will move to support this sector.
June 5, 1981

I want to thank this House for this opportunity to speak about some of the lessons I have learned in my life from the various voluntary agencies of which I have been a part and from others. 1 know that all members of this House join with me not only in congratulating the volunteers of Canada for their contribution, but by passing this bill or letting it move through the House to the next stage, indicating on the part of the government and of Parliament their sense of urgency in developing and encouraging this great Canadian resource. This resource needs to be tapped as well as do the natural resources about which we talk so much, for if it is not cared for, we cannot, within the budget of Canada, replace what is there in terms of making our society the compassionate and caring community that we have and that we cherish.


Mr. Kelly:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the last speaker? 1 will preface it by saying that I am supportive of his bill's intentions but I would like him to tell me how this new commission would affect the existence of the present National Advisory Council on Voluntary Action? Does he see one replacing the other or does he see the two of them merging or the two of them coexisting?


Walter Franklin McLean: I think, Mr. Speaker, the commission is to take the evidence which has been compiled, for example, that contained in the government's major study "People in Action"; the reports of the existing council which are on record; and to recommend to the Minister of Finance what decisions should be taken in relation to the budget and what policy decisions should be taken by cabinet in relation to goods and services that could be made available. So the commission would be established for a short term with a specific task, not to do the work of the councils, but rather to take the evidence and turn it into political action so that we do not have more reports on the record, more briefs and more indications of support, the only consequence of which is to leave that sector frustrated.


Norman Kelly: One further question, if I may, Mr. Speaker. The commission then would exist for one purpose only and after it has made its recommendations it would then automatically disappear. Is that correct? There will be no specific time limit on it? It would not exist for six or eight months and then disappear?


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, the provisions of the bill call for a period of not more than six months, and if the evaluation of the existing recommendations can be done and presented to the Minister of Finance in three months, then the commission would go out of existence. Obviously a private member's bill cannot deal directly with finance. Therefore, I am recommending a mechanism to take the intentions of the government, of this party when we were in government, and to move that forward, not to go on and on with reports that everybody only nods to. So the commission has a specific limited frame of reference.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak very briefly about this bill because I support it, and I would like to underline some of the sentiments written
Registered Charities
into the bill and some of the ideas that the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean) has brought out over the past few minutes.
It seems to me the hon. member referred to some of the non-partisan statements being made by the Secretary of State (Mr. Fox) on the topic of voluntarism and he was quite complimentary about the atmosphere that the minister had created. I would like to turn that compliment around and apply it to the hon. member for Waterloo whose speech was a non-partisan effort which underlined quite clearly his evident concern for voluntarism and community improvement. I think the hon. member should be congratulated for his very evident non-partisan spirit on this.
All of us, I think, support at least the principle behind the bill. The hon. member spoke about the very delicate balance between the public and private sector. I have noticed over the past year as the member for Mississauga a distinct difference between the atmosphere in my riding and, for example, that in the city of Toronto. In my riding a great premium is placed on voluntary activity and on the contribution of a citizen to the betterment of his community. In other communities, such as Toronto, the government might be somewhat more active and step in and take an activist's role; whereas, in Mississauga the government tends to encourage local groups and let the groups do the work themselves.
It would be quite accurate to say that in my riding we would prefer to see volunteers take the lead in community improvement and let government provide the facilities. We would prefer to see the volunteers take on the activities and the ongoing leadership. There are literally thousands of people involved in the entire spectrum of volunteer activities across Mississauga. We have one of the largest soccer leagues in the country. There are community festivals and social activist programs.
For example, I am thinking of the joint co-operation between the federal government and volunteers in Mississauga to help the Vietnamese refugees. There are scores of families who are receiving financial aid and some training through federal facilities. They have been settled in the community thanks to the hard work and the dedication of churches, social clubs, service clubs and individual citizens who have provided them with clothing and housing as well as information on medical treatment, schooling and all social services. Above all, they have become friends of these families. We have followed the model very successfully across Mississauga where the government has made the activities of volunteers possible.
There are many other examples in my constituency where this type of thing has happened. For example, the community saw the master plan for the Toronto airport unveiled. Quite frankly, the master plan attempts to make Toronto airport a good neighbour. This is thanks to the hard work and the pounding of pavement by volunteer and ratepayers' groups.
Over the past ten years they have attempted to get across to the officials in the Department of Transport that it not only

June 5, 1981
Registered Charities
serves aviation but it also serves the local community. Those volunteer groups have added substantially to the improvement of life in Mississauga, Etobicoke and Brampton. They made the effort; they went to the airport and demanded an improvement in facilities. They are good examples of how volunteers groups can outdo the government. They can see a lot further than the government. The end result is a direct public benefit. The people got together out of concern to help make a better community.
Also in the Malton community, a series of ratepayers' groups, social clubs and interest groups got together with the Malton Community Council to advise governments on citizenship, education, day care and a range of other very personal activities, as well as conducting their own activities in their own programs. The result is that the small town of Malton, which normally would be drowned by the surrounding urban environment, has maintained its own identity. Volunteers got together and made the place a living entity unto itself; it is a very good community. The intent in this bill is to support such people and to use government services to underline and support voluntary activity.
Many times we have seen the government moving toward taking over a voluntary cause. This is not always very successful. Fortunately, the government is not doing that as much any more. The volunteer centre for Peel directs volunteers in hundreds of activities across the region. For example, representatives of the centre went to the government and obtained a student grant which enabled them to hire a student to work on a specific project over the summer. It is automatically self-liquidating; it is a summer project. When the student leaves, the volunteer activity will still be there and the benefit will still be there. It will be an ongoing benefit, thanks to the volunteers who are continuing to work through the centre.
We use the summer employment grant a lot across Mississauga to develop such a pattern. The Credit Valley Treatment Centre and the Mississauga Children's Fund obtained students to come in and do some of the special one-time work. The volunteers were there first; the volunteers will be there after the students leave. The federal assistance is enriching a special part of those programs and leaving these projects in a better position to contribute to Mississauga.
In the Peel Multicultural Council last January someone was hired under the winter program through CEIC. A staff person took the efforts of 45 different concerned multicultural groups and pulled them all together in order to give them some focus, a newsletter and a place to telephone during the day for help and for co-ordination. The grant will end some time in January, but the Peel Multicultural Council will be much stronger because of that person's contribution. I suspect the Multicultural Council will go out into the community to find some volunteers and businessmen who will fund that person's payroll through the year 1982. It is a very small amount of money federally, but it was a huge amount of money for the Peel Multicultural Council.
We find repeatedly across Canada that the federal government makes a very small contribution relative to its total
budget, but a huge contribution relative to the quality of life in local communities. There is no guarantee that the federal involvement will be welcome. For example, yesterday I was talking to Mayor Hazel McCallion. The McCallion family are deeply involved in the Bread and Honey Festival in Streets-ville. This weekend, approximately 19,000 to 20,000 people will come to Streetsville for a one-day event. It has been totally operated without government assistance for ten years. The various exhibitors and participants make contributions, including myself. I do not know whether that counts as government assistance. Then, when the festival is over, it ends up with a profit which allows them to finance some work in preparation for the following year.
The same pattern is followed in Malton, Meadowvale, and Erin Mills. These volunteers get together without government assistance. The experience they contribute enriches the communities.
There was a startling example of this a couple of weeks ago. A citizen of the year dinner was held. Approximately 400 people attended, each of them representing hundreds more. Their intention was to pick one person, and by picking that person, the late Ted Glistan, they were able to celebrate volunteer activity and their own personal contributions to the city.
I think we underplay this too much here. We downplay the importance of volunteers too much in Ottawa. We do not pay attention to the impact of volunteers on the country and individual communities. People simply get together to have a good time. In doing so, they add depth and variety to their community. It does not matter if they are activist groups, such as the airport group or the Malton Information Centre, they go after a specific cause. They enrich the community by achieving their goal. It does not matter whether it is a sports group such as hockey or the track and field people who are in the Olympic class; they are adding greatly to the activities young people are able to enjoy in a huge area like Mississauga. It does not matter what role these people play in festivals, sports or activist causes, they indelibly change cities such as the ones in the riding I represent.
Looking at Mississauga from the outside, you might see it as just a huge suburb, but once you are there and involved in its life, you will find that what appears to be massive and anonymous is really broken down into a great deal of variety with active and intimate groups making the city much richer. A number of these people have done this with government assistance. I think they are proud to have received that assistance. I think they know that they cannot rely on it totally. They are pleased to receive it. Some of the programs which we have used in Mississauga, such as the summer student program or the winter program, have added greatly, not only to the individuals who have been hired but to the community at large.
I started off by saying I would be brief. I simply want to give recognition to the people who are doing a very good job in
June 5, 1981

my riding. I also want to acknowledge the hon. member who has brought forward this bill. I think he has an idea which is worth promoting, whether today in this House or whether it is done through the government and the Secretary of State. This is an idea which should be pushed very hard. I want to congratulate the hon. member for Waterloo. I will end my speech at this point so that he has a chance to carry on.


Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make six main points with relation to Bill C-233. First, we support the principles of this bill, although we are concerned that it is far too limited in the assistance it offers to charitable organizations. However, we do support the grants in aid which are mentioned int the bill.
Second, we are concerned that the bill and the establishment of a commission should not be used as delaying tactics which would slow up some of the other changes which are needed, particularly changes with regard to tax reform and the provision for support services and grants for voluntary organizations.
Third, we do not feel that another study is needed. I do not really think that is what is intended because, as has been mentioned, the "People in Action" study done by the National Advisory Council in September, 1977, is very comprehensive. The study suggested many recommendations which can be implemented and which should be implemented by the government right away.
Fourth, we support the reform of the tax credit system, which has been mentioned by other speakers. We also support the give and take tax reform which has been advocated by the Committee on National Voluntary Organizations.
Fifth, we particularly want to broaden the concept of registered charities. In our view there is not much point in having these extra services available if they will only be available to established organizations, the registered ones such as the United Way, which has a professional staff and all the advantages and expertise to help it. We urge that the concept of registered charities be expanded as part of the commission's activities in this regard.
Bill C-233 proposes that a government commission be established to issue guidelines for supplying aid in kind to registered charities. As was mentioned, the bill particularly proposes the use of government telephone lines and computer time in off-peak hours. It proposes to offer special rates on charters, excursion flights and rail travel, special postal rates for informational material and the use of unused premises-government premises, I presume-or meeting rooms.
I support these proposals as far as they go, again provided that these services are made available also to consumer groups, self-help groups and advocacy groups which may not now be considered under the title of "registered charities". Why should taxpayers not have access through recognized organizations, which are registered provincially, to facilities and equipment for which they pay out of their tax dollars? Undoubtedly, maintenance and security problems will be used as an excuse by bureaucrats who resent the intrusion of ordinary citizens
Registered Charities
into their domain. However, our experience has shown that these problems can be resolved if the responsibility to serve the public is a required expectation of all government bureaucracies and departments.
When I was an area manager for Vancouver Resources Board, all local offices of this health and welfare service were planned and administered under the direction of a locally elected board of citizens. Community facilities were designated for community use and had to be open for community groups to use on evenings, weekends and even during the daytime. As a result, people developed a much more positive attitude toward their social service centres. I think the same thing could happen with government bureaucracies. Community schools are another example of where government facilities are being opened and expanded for community use by all age groups on weekends, evenings and all summer long. Again, these facilities come under the direction of local citizens' organizations, which is as it should be. So there are precedents for these kinds of measures. From a federal point of view I would certainly support them.
If this approach works in local communities, why should federal facilities not be more accessible? The problem is, of course, that most of our federal bureaucracies are too centralized and too luxurious for many casual neighbourhood groups. They are sometimes too intimidating for poor people's organizations as places where they could hold informal gatherings. Opening the doors of public buildings could help to humanize Manpower Centres and other federal bureaucracies.
The proposal in Bill C-233 to allow registered charities to use government phones and to enjoy reduced mailing rates is a good suggestion, provided that these services are made available to low-income groups as well as to established registered societies. Non-profit societies have few funds and are cut off from communications with similar organizations across Canada. They are cut off from the government and its policies here in Ottawa. This is a particularly serious matter for organizations which happen to be located in the outlying regions of Canada, in our eastern and western provinces and, of course, in the north. From the point of view of fairness and equity across Canada, I would urge that travel arrangements and these community facilities be made available.
I would now like to move to the main concern which we have, that is to say, that this bill really does not go far enough, both in offering services and in finding a way to redefine the term "registered charities". Although we support the bill in principle, we have serious concerns about this matter. Our first concern is with the major reform of the tax credit system. The National Voluntary Organization, which is a coalition of some 120 national associations, has recommended a tax reform proposal entitled "give and take". It proposes to make two major changes to the Income Tax Act in order to increase donations to registered charities. First, it proposes to eliminate the standard $100 deduction which is now in place, and which we know does not encourage charitable donations. Its second proposal is to introduce 50 per cent tax credit so that taxpayers can deduct 50 per cent of their total charitable donations from

June 5, 1981
Registered Charities
their tax payable rather than from their taxable income, as is the case now. The research of the NVO shows that this proposal will provide more incentive for people to make charitable donations. It is a more equitable measure, since all taxpayers will receive the same benefit regardless of their income. It also creates incentives to give more for less, as is the case with tax credits with respect to political donations. The amount of money which the government forgoes under the $100 exemption is now some $550 million, so it would benefit by the acceptance of tax credits.
We support the given proposal for tax reforms, but only on condition that the definition of "registered charity" be extended to include self-help and consumer organizations and other legitimate community organizations such as welfare rights groups which may have an advocacy function as well as a service responsibility. This latter point, then, is the major area of our concern.
At the present time, most registered charities which qualify for a tax number under the Income Tax Act are established, largely middle-class organizations which have lots of Liberals and Conservatives on their boards, I am sure, who are reluctant to act in an advocacy role for changes. Those which have a long tradition of working for policies and reforms for their clients have been increasingly concerned in the last two years because the government has been taking steps to try to take away income tax benefits from organizations which have any kind of an advocacy responsibility. I understand that this matter is now before the courts. We very much hope that a broader interpretation will be the result.
I notice, under "Charitable Purpose and Objectives", an information circular of Revenue Canada put out in August of 1980 in which it states that "These courts have characterized the objects which are charitable in law within four categories, and they include organizations which are aimed at relieving poverty, the advancement of religion, the advancement of education, and other purposes beneficial to the community as a whole in a way which the law regards as charitable". That clearly indicates that welfare rights groups, tenant advocacy groups, neighbourhood groups, women's groups, native groups, and many other organizations which are working for reforms should be included and be able to apply and qualify as registered charities.
I would also like to say that the long established organizations, which now are registered charities, in their long tradition actually have been advocacy groups, but their style is more acceptable sometimes to the people in power. For example, CNIB, of course, was formed to work for people who are blind and who need services and often need changes in policies and legislation which affect them. The John Howard Society has a proud tradition of working for penal reform. Organizations of the disabled, particularly this year, but also in years past, have worked aggressively for changes in building codes and access to jobs, transportation and housing for handicapped persons. We feel that it is now time to extend the rights which are
available to these groups as registered charities to other groups which are just as deserving, have fewer funds and skills, and do not have the sophisticated experience and expertise, but certainly deserve the chance to develop those if they can get more funding in the way of income tax deductions.
I would like to mention particularly that today I phoned some of the representatives of the anti-poverty movement. I am pleased to note that the Minister for National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), who has been a great supporter of these groups, believes very strongly that in a democratic society we must enable poor people themselves to work for changes on their own behalf. In B.C., the federated anti-poverty groups and a coalition of a number of groups are working very hard with no funds to expand. They are not able to qualify as charitable organizations and have not registered, and at this time believe that they are not qualified to do this under the present federal income tax regulations. That is another example of just how important it is to expand the Income Tax Act itself.
Self-help groups were dealt with in the "People in Action" report, and were defined as follows: "Self-help activities provide an environment where people with the same problems can get together and discuss them, while at the same time providing services." Surely, that is not so revolutionary or so intimidating to the government that we could not include self-help groups as being responsible and justifying the same kind of benefits under the Income Tax Act.
My riding of Vancouver East is a working-class district with a high proportion of unemployed people, many public housing projects with a large proportion of people on welfare, and many immigrant families. It has a very long and proud tradition of self-help. Over the years, we have had many militant citizen organizations. I hope we still do. If they had not been militant, they would never have achieved the kind of community development and self-help programs for which they fought so hard. We have many self-help citizen organizations, nonprofit enterprises and co-operatives which should also be included under these provisions.
Tenant organizations are fighting to control rents and to improve housing conditions, particularly during this desperate housing crisis and the high cost of housing for both tenants and home owners. Neighbourhood planning groups in the five neighbourhoods within my riding have organized and worked with city planners. They continue to press for changes in developing liveable communities and neighbourhoods. People on welfare, many of whom are mothers raising families on their own, are fighting for a better life. Once again, their energies renewed with a new generation of people, they are trying to fight for their rights, for liveable incomes and a better chance for the future for themselves and their kids.
Family centres have developed out of government sponsored employment programs. Again, they are community self-help centres employing local people when they have the funds to employ anyone. They work to help children at risk, to prevent families from breaking up, to strengthen parents with parenting groups and mutual support kind of activities.
June 5, 1981

Of course, like any other riding, we have many ad hoc people's movements starting. They are starting, perhaps, in some neighbourhoods; but they spread across cities, provinces and across our country.
Women's groups are another example. Certainly, the ad hoc women's conference held in Ottawa a few months ago is a great example of women organizing on short notice and coming together. They had no help at all. What a help it would have been had they had phone privileges, mailing privileges and some help with travel expenses to come to that very important conference.
Of course, we also have many consumer groups. The latest is a very active organization of people fighting to protect their homes from the adverse effects of urea formaldehyde foam insulation. They are organizing in cities across the country, particularly in Vancouver, and are demanding government action to compensate them for the removal of this poisonous insulation from their homes.
These are all very worth-while groups which have a very important function. They are credible organizations which could become registered societies and establish that credibility. That should be available to them so they would have the advantages of income tax deductions and tax write-offs for donations to help them organize and carry out their important roles. These groups would also welcome aid of the kind mentioned in this bill, such as phone and travel services, and certainly help with getting out regular newsletters to their members and to others to tell them about the issues which concern them, the kind of programs they are developing and the need for action at various levels of government.


Mr. Jarvis:: This is an NDP filibuster! They are against volunteers.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: This is not an NDP filibuster.


William Herbert Jarvis: It certainly is. It has been 20 minutes so far.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I am certainly in support of this bill, Mr. Speaker.


William Herbert Jarvis: You are against the bill.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I would like to say that I began some of this action, and was supported by the Conservative members during the Conservative government-


William Herbert Jarvis: This is hypocrisy.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: -which developed a voluntarism committee which certainly supported some of the points I am raising.


William Herbert Jarvis: You are not supporting this bill.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Contrary to the quibbling from my colleague to my right-


William Herbert Jarvis: I am not quibbling.
Registered Charities


Margaret Anne Mitchell: -my party and I do support the principles of Bill C-233, Mr. Speaker. We feel it is very important that the aid in kind, which will be available if this bill is implemented, and if the commission can convince the government that this is necessary, this must be made available to low-income self-help groups, to consumer groups, to non-profit co-operatives and to other non-profit societies which are sometimes involved in non-partisan social action.
This requires action in addition to this bill, which perhaps the same commission could undertake to broaden and perhaps to give a more democratic interpretation of registered charities under the Income Tax Act. It also requires a reform of the income tax system itself. This was recommended through the give-take tax proposal to encourage tax donations for those organizations whose greatest need is for ongoing funds as well as for health and aid in kind.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief because of the extended speech my friend to the left has delivered. She said that this bill does not go far enough in the objectives that she would have us follow. But I say to her that it is better to have half a loaf than to spend 20 minutes trying to break a whole one.
I presume the government will talk out this bill because we have had no comment at all from the member from Mississauga directed toward this bill or the reasons why there might be some objections on the part of the government to the bill. In view of the worth-while initiative expressed by my friend from Waterloo, I thought the government side would at least have had the courtesy to address the intent of the bill so we would know how we might move in future to meet these objections of the government in trying to achieve those worth-while objectives of the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean).
Canada is particularly blessed to have the strength of the volunteer sector in this country. It dates from our pioneer days when the whole tradition of self-help was developed as we rolled back the frontier. It is very difficult to maintain in the type of society that we have, as was pointed out by my friend, the hon. member for Mississauga North (Mr. Fisher), particularly in the large urban communities when so many other things are happening around us.
I want to support one element of the bill in particular which I think is very important in view of the oppressive power of government in society today, as it relates to funding, namely the financial support of charitable and volunteer organizations. What we see in the directions that have been proposed toward a change in the treatment of donations to charitable organizations is a means of withdrawing some of the financial support directly from government to support that is indirect, and in so doing to give these organizations a means whereby they can develop a greater degree of independence. If they can convince their fellow citizens of the merit of the services they wish to provide, then they are able to go ahead within their own mandate and with their own supporters to provide that service rather than to rely on governments.

June 5, 1981
Registered Charities
Today as we see the Ontario government being forced to curtail funding of a number of these organizations, the services are contracted. Unless they are able to replace those services, to be financed by independent funding, we will see an over-all cutback in the service provided by volunteer and charitable organizations.
I think we know that it is impossible for governments to provide all the services needed or desired by people in our society today. For that reason, it is very important for a government to try to be a catalyst through the various means that have been set out in Section 6 of Bill C-233, both the aid in kind and the increased support through funding.
I view Bill C-233 as a call for action, certainly not the delaying action which my friend to the left has stated, but as a mechanism that we might move ahead to provide a focus for the government to take action on the various proposals that have been put forward.
I encourage the government to accept the principles which have been established in Bill C-233, to refer it to committee where the particular objections of the government can be addressed in order to develop a bill which will be compatible with the government's objectives as well as those of the hon. member for Waterloo.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.
[ Translation]


Mr. Jean-Guy Dubois (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, what struck me in looking at Bill C-233 in the name of my friend opposite, the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean), was subclause 6(3), which says that in this section, "registered charity" has the same meaning as in the Income Tax Act. This leads me to believe, Mr. Speaker, that it is all very well to introduce such a bill which can have-my hon. colleague has certainly great ideas with regard to this bill, but when it comes to the voluntary sector, we must refer you to existing organizations, and this is the basis of my argument. We must not always depend upon the government. Charities already have available to them various mechanisms to obtain assistance. In my constituency, I had to intervene and make representations
to the Department of National Revenue so that certain organizations could be recognized as charities under the terms of the Income Tax Act and be able to give out receipts for income tax purposes. As I had to take care of a few such cases myself, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues no doubt both on this side of the Elouse and on the other side have had to check with the Department of National Revenue for the licensing of some organizations. I was thinking about two examples in my own constituency, Entraide Sainte-Victoire and Fondation Hotel-Dieu d'Arthabaska. These are voluntary organizations, groups of people who take care of various sectors. The latter is made up of people who would use the provisions of the bill to bring financial assistance to a hospital in providing equipment not supplied by the government because of budgetary restrictions. What did we do? We asked the Quebec government to issue a charter approved by the Department of Social Affairs, and we also asked the Department of Revenue to approve this organization as a registered charity so that it could issue donation receipts for income tax purposes. This is one type of assistance provided by the government and, of course, the provincial governments do the same.
In this regard, I see that the bill would replace the voluntary organizations, which still have a role to play, and the government does not always have to help them. With regard to postal charges, I was very interested in the bill to establish a Crown corporation. In fact, it was proposed that no additional organizations could enjoy special rates.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it five o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The hour provided for private members' business has now expired.
It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
I might mention that the Minister of State for Mines (Mrs. Erola) has asked me to extend on her behalf good wishes for a pleasant weekend to all members.
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, June 8, 1981