1982-04-30

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, the annual report of the Public Service Commission released yesterday showed that the number of federal public servants has significantly risen in the past year. There are now four times the number of government employees earning over $50,000 than there were in 1981, and double the number earning between $40,000 and $50,000. This growth has been condoned by the government for its own questionable purposes at a time when it has been strongly urging everyone else to practise restraint. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson):
That the government launch an immediate investigation into why such growth at the high salaried level of the public service was allowed and promise that, when he is finished his work in Washington, Arthur Erickson not be hired to come to Ottawa and begin designing new, palatial government buildings to house this increasingly affluent multitude.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE ARTS
Mr. Robert Gourd (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Madam Speaker, 25 years ago Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent tabled in Parliament a bill for the establishment of a Canada Council for the arts, humanities and social sciences, which received royal assent on March 28, 1957. On April 30 of that year, the first meeting of the Canada Council was held in the prime minister's own office.
Considering the tremendous development of Canadian artistic expression in subsequent years, for which the Canada Council is largely responsible, I move, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 and seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That the House congratulate the Canada Council on its magnificent performance past and present, and that the House offer its best wishes for the continuation of the Council's success in the future.


Madam Speaker:: The House may wish to demonstrate its admiration in the form of applause.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


METRIC CONVERSION
Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Madam Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 on a very important matter with regard to the welfare of farmers. Metric conversion has caused a great deal of confusion to Canadians, but particularly to farmers. The farmers are beginning their planting season and are handling chemicals and sprays which are very important to the outcome of the crop but which could be hazardous to the well-being of the farmers if not properly handled. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn):
That this House ask the government to place on the labelling of chemicals and sprays instructions requiring amounts in imperial measurements.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FISHERIES
Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of great importance to the B.C. fishing industry. Recent regulations affecting the sports fishing industry have been made without

April 30, 1982
consultation with the minister's sports fishing advisory committee, causing members of that committee to wonder if their role is simply one of rubber-stamping questionable ministerial decisions. Considering the importance of public and industry understanding and support of new fishing regulations, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis):
That this House instruct the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to recognize the importance of prior consultation with the advisory committee, to seek and to heed their advice and, failing this, that this House ask the minister to inform his advisory committees of their true role so that members can determine how they can best contribute their time and effort in protecting their fishing industry.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway):
That this House condemn the Argentine government for failing to respond to the demand in the UN resolution of April 3 that all Argentine forces be withdrawn from the Falkland Islands, and urge the government of that country to respond positively now to that UN resolution so as to avoid needless conflict and loss of life.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INTERNATIONAL HOCKEY
Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, yesterday afternoon in Helsinki the Soviet and Czech hockey teams played to a zero-zero tie, thereby depriving Canada of a deserved silver medal. It was obvious to most observers that neither team was trying to win, which would either have cost the Czechs the silver medal or the Soviets their unbeaten record. In other words, the fix was in. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie):
That this House express its deep disappointment with the hockey federations of both the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia for this unsportsmanlike display and that we call upon the International Ice Hockey Federation to change the play-off structure so that such a mockery cannot happen again.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, the New Democratic Party is often the subject of widespread ridicule and scorn, but it apparently has at least one redeeming feature-purgation. During this week of the spring season, members of the New Democratic Party have cleaned out, shredded, and burned every piece of paper in the ministerial offices of Saskatchewan. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson):
That this House create and award the New Democratic Party the Canadian Parliamentary Good Housekeeping seal of approval.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, whereas dikes on Westham Island in Delta, British Columbia, are in imminent danger of being breached with this winter's heavy snowfall now melting and a resulting high freshett predicted for later this spring, and whereas the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) has refused a request from the municipality of Delta to reallocate funds already designated under the Fraser River flood control program in order to upgrade the Westham Island dikes, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro):
That this House direct the Minister of the Environment to accept the recommendations of the Delta council to divert the $1.5 million presently designated for less urgent diking problems in Delta and redirect these funds to make urgently needed repairs to the dikes on Westham Island.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
April 30, 1982


FINANCE
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In light of the fact that the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), under pressure from the people of Canada, has made a number of amendments to his November 12 budget and has stated on a number of occasions his concern for fairness and equity, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Miller):
That this House instruct the Minister of Finance to reconsider the budget where it affects the taxing of health and dental care plans and the taxing of income not yet received in life insurance plans.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CALL FOR INTRODUCTION OF NEW BUDGET-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Neil Voung (Beaches):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that a group of university professors have said that the recent budget did not provide equity in income distribution as claimed by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), but rather was a document of "creative fiction with figures", I move, seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent):
That this House calls on the Minister of Finance to bring forward a new budget that will be equitable to all Canadians, and that for once he depart from the Liberals' political and tactical tendency not to redistribute income to low-income Canadians except when an election is to be called.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas on Wednesday, in appearing before the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his senior bureaucrats indicated that freedom of information legislation would be put on the backburner for this session, and whereas the Prime Minister indicated that he and his bureaucrats were having second thoughts about the fundamental principle of removal of Crown privilege and the need for independent judicial review, I
Oral Questions
move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle):
That this House express its displeasure at this denial of the fundamental right of all Canadians by declaring a day of mourning for freedom of information legislation in Canada, and presenting a copy of the bill wrapped in black ribbon to the Prime Minister-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows he should not display any objects in the House.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis):
That the Minister of Finance explain to this House by way of a statement on motions why the government is pursuing its economic policy of high interest rates, high bankruptcies and high unemployment which is resulting in reduced productivity, reduced business confidence and reduced job opportunities.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The minister is in the process of announcing-whether he has announced or not it is hard to say, it leaks out-a program called the Canada Home Renovation Plan. It is a program that perhaps will do something for our ailing construction industry, but is as yet just another plan with another series of initials, managed by his department. Could the minister advise the House whether the plan will be available to people generally across Canada? Will people be able in fact to borrow up to one third of the cost of renovations, provided it is within the ceiling of $3,000, for work done on their homes? Could the minister enlighten us with regard to the plan?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the opportunity of talking about the plan. I could not, in the time allocated in question period, give all of the details. The hon. member

April 30, 1982
Oral Questions
indeed has touched on the main elements of the plan. The top limit is $3,000, available to each successful applicant.
The program will be available through the CMHC office in those areas where unemployment in the trade is most severe. I would invite hon. members to check with their own offices to see whether an allocation has been made in those areas. That will assist them in responding to people who probably will contact their offices, as some indeed have contacted my local constituency office this morning. It is a program involving $30 million, distributed across the country, to generate employment in the construction trades. It requires an individual participating to spend $2 for $1 of the grant, which is forgivable and non-taxable.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, is the minister telling us that this is available only to selected Canadians in selected areas, and that the brochure produced by the minister-which says nothing about designated areas and represents that the plan is generally available to all Canadians-is in fact a plan available only to those Canadians who happen to live in those areas of Canada that the minister wants to favour?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, when the plan was announced approximatively a month ago, it was done in conjunction with the announcement of two other initiatives of the government directed especially to those areas in which there was high unemployment in the construction trades. There is no question about it, the plan is designed to assist employment in the trades in the construction industry in those areas in Canada where there is the highest surplus of people unemployed. I do not dispute the position of my hon. friend. This program is an additional $30 million directed to generate employment. It is directed specifically to those areas where that type of employment is in most serious difficulty.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


QUERY RESPECTING APPLICATION TO DESIGNATED AREAS
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that there is tremendous unemployment in the building industry generally across the country, and in view of the fact that the materials for the building industry are almost all Canadian, why is the minister penalizing certain people, giving advantage to other people? Will the minister tell us if his riding of Scarborough is a designated area, and if Mississauga is a designated area?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, the program for this additional $30 million was announced in conjunction with two other announcements at the same time. The first was an increase of 30,000 units
available this year under the Canada Rental Supply Plan. That plan is available across the country and is directed to those areas where there are low vacancy rates. We believe that that plan will generate at least an additional 60,000 man-years of employment in the construction trades.
Secondly, it was announced in conjunction with a change in the CHIP program, the home insulation program, where eligible home dwellings date from 1961 to 1971.
The combination of the three programs, Madam Speaker, was designed to assist those trades in the construction industry. We think that the combination of these plans across the country generally will have the beneficial effect of providing an incentive of jobs, at least an additional 100,000 jobs across the country. I cannot answer the specifics of the last part of the question.


REQUEST THAT PLAN COVER HOMES INSULATED WITH UREA FORMALDEHYDE FOAM
Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Madam Speaker, with your permission I would direct a question to the same minister. The new Canada Home Renovation Plan, CHRP, does not apply to those thousands of Canadian homes which contain urea formaldehyde foam insulation. The government's so-called generous UFF1 plan, which the minister announced not too long ago, covers only about 5 per cent of homes with UFFI, leaving thousands of other houses with this insulation absolutely valueless because nobody wants to buy them. Why does the minister not apply the Canada Home Renovation Plan to those wishing to remove the foam, thereby creating jobs-that is the sole motivating drive for this aid plan-and help solve a major Canadian problem at the same time?
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member should realize that the program we are offering home owners who insulated their homes with UFFI is actually far more generous than the other program to which he is referring here in the House.
The program for owners of homes insulated with UFFI provides for grants of up to $5,000, which are tax-free. The other program offers to pay up to 30 per cent of the cost of repairs, up to a maximum amount of $3,000. Therefore, it should be obvious to the hon. member that our program is the more generous of the two, because the amount offered may be as much as $5,000 and does not pay just a portion, but all of the repair costs involved.


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, the interesting thing about that plan is that it applies to only 5 per cent of the
April 30, 1982

homes which have urea formaldehyde foam insulation in them. The minister knows that, and his statement is misleading.


TAX FREE NATURE OF GRANTS
John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, I want to ask a final supplementary question of the minister responsible for CMHC. The minister said today the grant is non-taxable. Is the minister now saying to the people of Canada that he is providing grants to households earning up to $48,000, tax free?	*


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, the plan is designed in major part to serve families with incomes of up to $30,000.


John Horton McDermid: Tax free.


Paul James Cosgrove: Tax free, and for families earning over $30,000 the amount of the subsidy drops off on a declining basis. Yes, the program is designed to be tax free. If it were otherwise, I am sure the question I would be asked by the hon. gentleman would be on why we are taxing a benefit and why we are slowing down a job-generation program. Hon. members opposite cannot have it both ways. Are they in favour of employment? Are they in favour of our assisting Canadians? Are they in favour of our generating jobs?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ALSANDS PROJECT-GUARANTEES OFFERED TO PARTICIPATING COMPANIES
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, my question, directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, concerns the Alsands project. In its attempt to bribe Gulf and Shell to maintain their position as partners, the government is offering to these advocates of competitive free enterprise a guaranteed market, guaranteed price, guaranteed financing and, finally, a guaranteed profit of 20 per cent. Where is the risk in this package for these companies which really believe in the spirit of competition? Where is the enterprise?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the New Democratic Party is right in pointing out that the Government of Alberta and the Government of Canada together have put forward a very attractive proposal to the private sector, but I want to remind him, on the other hand, that he is wrong in some of the points he has made. First, there is no guaranteed price in this offer. Second, there is no guaranteed return in this offer either, since there is no guaranteed price.
The hon. member asked what the risks are. Obviously the risks are mainly in terms of being able to build a plant on time which would produce the quantity of oil it is planned to produce. The experience with the two existing plants, Suncor
Oral Questions
and Syncrude, has demonstrated that those plants are having some difficulties regularly in terms of production and that all the technological problems have not yet been solved, although many of them have. There are risks involved, and they are not insignificant.


REQUEST THAT ENERGY PROJECTS BE MADE PUBLIC ENTERPRISES
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the home owners who are losing homes all across Canada would like to have the so-called risks that the oil companies are being offered by the government in this deal, I can tell you. I stand by my earlier question.
Considering the whole range of concessions that the government has offered, particularly when it comes to financing, including the fact that the government is getting only 50 per cent of the equity and is putting up 85 per cent of the financing, why does the government not do what the vast majority of Canadians think is desirable, namely, that we should really be operating energy resources as public utilities and not as profit maximizing entities? Why does the Government of Canada not be courageous and straightforward when it comes to putting up this kind of money and, jointly with the Government of Alberta, make them into public enterprises?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I want to remind the Leader of the New Democratic Party again that under this proposal there is no guaranteed price. If the price of oil were to decline or not increase as much as inflation, for instance, over the next ten to 20 years, the rate of return to the industry would be much lower than the one that is otherwise anticipated. There is a significant risk involved there. On the other hand, if there is a profit to be made, if there are significant benefits to be gained, then my hon. friend has partly answered the question himself by pointing out that the governments are equity participants for 50 per cent of the deal.
The people of Canada and the people of Alberta are going to benefit from the project in terms of return on their investment, not only in terms of getting oil. The Governments of Alberta and of Canada, contrary to the position of the New Democratic Party, still believe that it is better to have joint public-private partnership in this regard. We do not believe that the economy of Canada is necessarily going to be better just because it is run by the government, as the NDP would like us to do.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT HAVE HIGHER SHARE OF EQUITY
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the minister knows very well that the people of Canada, as taxpayers, are putting up a disproportionate amount of money and they are not getting equity for that. The multinational companies are once again taking the Liberal government to the

April 30, 1982
Oral Questions
cleaners and holding the Government of Canada up to blackmail, and the government is backing down. I repeat, if we are putting up the dollars for risk investment in the energy sector, surely the Government of Canada should be saying that the people of Canada ought to get equity for every cent they put up. I ask the minister why this is not so.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, under this offer, Canadians will receive profits in proportion to their investments, if any profits are made. We shall have a 50 per cent equity in the project, and we shall be getting 50 per cent of any profits, in addition to the taxes, royalties, etc., that will be paid by the private sector partners in this specific project.
The hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party believes that the offer made by both governments was too generous. If, for some reason, participants in the consortium were to announce this afternoon that they were not going ahead with the project, I am sure the hon. member would rise in the House and accuse us of not having been generous enough.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue and concerns the announcement made by the Minister of Finance in the November budget regarding the mandatory income tax deduction at source for fishermen. Does the government still plan to implement this policy, and when is it going to announce to the fishermen what percentage it will take from them when they land their catch at the buyer's wharf?


Hon. William Rompkey (Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for this question. First of all there is no deduction at source in 1982. No requirement for that has gone out from the department because we have no legal authority until such time as the act is amended.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Epp:: Allan MacEachen doesn't think so.


Bill Rompkey: What the Minister of Finance did in a very responsive and responsible way, Madam Speaker, was to accede to the request of myself and other members of Parliament, and indeed fishermen and of at least one fishermen's union, to provide the legal authority for deducting fishermen's taxes at source. How that authority is administered is up to my department, and we are in the process of deciding how that is to be done.
I might say that on Wednesday morning the Atlantic Liberal caucus had a full discussion on this matter, some eminently reasonable suggestions were put forward, we are looking at them, and my department will announce shortly how we intend to administer the law after 1982. I can assure the hon. member and the fishermen that it will be administered in the best interests of the fishermen.


Melbourne Alexander Gass: Madam Speaker, I am really glad to hear that it is not going ahead in 1982. However, my question would be: does this apply to the freshwater and west coast fishermen as well?


COLLECTION OF TAX ARREARS FROM PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND FISHERMEN
Melbourne Alexander Gass: Madam Speaker, a fisherman in Prince Edward Island who owns a boat and has a helper pays 20 per cent of his catch to the helper. Fishermen who are behind in their taxes are being charged 25 per cent of their catch this year to pay for their tax arrears. So, if the government went ahead with this 20 per cent advance payment of taxes, it would force fishermen out of business; there is no doubt in my mind about that. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has said repeatedly there are too many fishermen in the business. Therefore, is this a policy by the government to force fishermen out of the business deliberately, thereby reducing the number of fishermen?


Bill Rompkey: Madam Speaker, it is because of the policies of this government, particularly the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, that fishermen are-


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: In the mess they are in.


Bill Rompkey: -in the very improved situation they are in today where they can make suggestions and recommendations like this, and we can change the law on their behalf. I think I answered part of that question previously; it will apply to all fishermen all across Canada at such time as the law is changed and implemented.
I repeat that no instructions have gone out from my department for 1982. When the law is changed, then my department will implement it in the best interests of the fishermen.


PIPELINES
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Yesterday he was unable to give us satisfactory answers regarding the Alaska gas pipeline, so today I will give him the opportunity to give us a little better performance.
The minister knows that we on this side are very concerned about the possibility of 250,000 man-years of work being lost if
April 30, 1982

this project does not go ahead. Thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in spin-offs right across the country will be lost. The question I would really like answered is on what date will this project commence. If we cannot be given that answer, what action does the government plan to take if the Americans do not keep to their end of the bargain? There have been veiled threats by the pipeline commissioner and the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is the government considering refusing permission to build a pipeline across Canadian territory, which would be self-defeating? Is it threatening to reduce Canadian exports of natural gas?
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I have nothing to add to what I said yesterday on the subject.


THE CANADA COUNCIL
Robert Gourd: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications responsible for the Canada Council. Could the minister inform the House whether he intends to mark the Council's birthday by seeing to it that the Copyright Act is revised to include mechanisms that will protect authors and composers who are making a very substantial contribution to the culture of this country?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question, and I note that we are indeed celebrating today the twenty-fifth anniversary of the first meeting of the board of the Canada Council. That meeting was held in the offices of Prime Minister St. Laurent who introduced the legislation. Perhaps Madam Speaker would allow me to say how honoured we all are to have with us today a distinguished group of artists and performers-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Francis Fox: -from every province of the country, led by the very distinguished chairman of the Canada Council, Mr. Mavor Moore.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, there is obviously no other institution, public or private, in Canada which has done more to encourage artistic-
Oral Questions


Madam Speaker:: Order. Order. I would ask the hon. minister to answer the question.


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, I was just about to answer the question. I simply wanted to add that the Canada Council has brought artistic expression to a level of unprecedented excellence in this country.

Madam Speaker, the question raised by the hon. member is, of course, an important one for all artists, composers and authors in Canada, and I am very pleased to be able to inform the hon. member that a review of the Copyright Act is a priority issue for both the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and myself as well as for the other government members, and that we intend to continue to make it one of our priorities during the coming months.


PIPELINES
Dave Nickerson: Madam Speaker, thank you for recognizing me again. I do not know that the answer of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources a few moments ago was an improvement at all. I suspect that it was not. His iron cladding is getting rather rusty. I have two specific questions which he should be able to answer, at least partially.
Can the pipeline still be financed entirely privately, or is the minister aware of any suggestion for public financial involvement? Secondly, arising out of the question asked by the hon. member for Yukon yesterday concerning Exxon becoming a major equity partner, can the minister today confirm or deny the rumours of Exxon's major equity participation in the pipeline, as promised yesterday?
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, regarding the first part of the question, private financing in Canada was possible and still is, so far as I know. The Foothills representatives did not mention any problems to me related to financing the project in Canada. As far as financing the American section is concerned, I was told that private financing for an amount of about $24 billion had been arranged, and as far as I know, there has been no particilar difficulty in this respect. I do understand that there are some problems among the various partners, and I may add that I do not have any more information than the hon. member with respect to the rumour about Exxon.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, it has been very difficult to know whether or not the Minister of

April 30, 1982
Oral Questions
Agriculture has been aware of the continuing deterioration in the agricultural financial situation because of the way he has been making promises and talking about things which might happen. The last time he made a promise was about three or four weeks ago when he said that he would announce his plan soon.
Can the minister tell us when this plan, which he has been talking about really for months, will be announced, and will it include for the red meat industry stabilization for 1981 which specifically could result in payments of up to $40 per head? When can we see the action he has been talking about for a long time, or else his resignation which he promised last fall?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, the plan which I am about to submit will be ready very shortly. We promised to call the provincial ministers and farm organizations as soon as it was ready. However, some organizations have changed their minds several times on what kind of plan they wanted. They have now submitted a plan, for instance, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, similar to what I offered them in 1977. They said mine was too good, too great in 1977. Now they have created a plan which they think is their own, but it has about nine of the 12 points I proposed in 1977-78. So there is nothing new in what they are proposing, and it is also very costly. What we are proposing will be the kind of plan which will be good for the entire red meat industry.


PROVINCIAL PARTICIPATION IN STABILIZATION PROGRAMS
Gary Michael Gurbin: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Agriculture, and it is a very specific question. It has to do with stabilization and the way the federal government might come forward with stabilization programs. The minister will know that one of the major difficulties has been that provinces have been encouraged to get into stabilization programs and have been encouraged to provide support in a number of ways. Then in the stabilization process, the federal government would deduct provincial contributions from whatever involvement the federal government had. Does the minister intend to deduct any contributions which the provincial governments may have already made or intend to make to these plans, from federal contributions? Will the minister ask the minister of agriculture of Ontario to meet with himself and all the other ministers of agriculture across the country-this question was asked yesterday-so they can discuss this question of stabilization and the promises which the minister has made for $1 billion to the Farm Credit Corporation and so on, instead of waiting for July 11?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, July 11 is a very good day. That is my birthday.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: I don't know why the hon. member thought about that, because it is a vintage day for sure.


Miss MacDonald:: And a vintage year.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: I will be 57 years old then and I have never felt younger in my life.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: In 1977-1978 I offered the provinces 100 per cent of income assurance for the farmers, and not one province picked it up at that time. They said it was too rich, etc. They are not suggesting anything like that now. I am suggesting that if the provinces want to go ahead with programs on their own, let them pay for them, because we told them before that we did not intend to piggy-back any of their programs at all. We made that clear again the other day, and they know that damn well. Some of them are hoping that I will come forward with money and relieve them of promises which they have made to their producers, some of which were made to producers without consultation with us at all. I promised them consultation on an over-all plan that we intend to submit, one which will not cost their treasuries or our treasuries millions of dollars either.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


STATUS OF WOMEN
Neil Young: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for the status of women. The minister was reported yesterday as saying that she thinks the affirmative action program in the public service is doing quite nicely, yet the annual report of the Public Service Commission, which was tabled yesterday, revealed that female public servants accounted for only 4.3 per cent of the top group in that work force. There were no women in the EX-5 category during 1981. This category is a stepping stone to the deputy minister level. Would the minister explain to the House how she can define these deplorable statistics as "quite nice progress for women in the public service"?


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of State (Mines)):: I would be very happy to, Madam Speaker. I appeared before the committee the other night. At that time I made it perfectly clear that I was not happy with the progress in the civil service, but I was a lot happier with what was happening in the civil service as opposed to what was happening to women in the private sector. A study done in the province of Ontario confirmed that, namely, that women in the public sector are doing much better than women in the private sector. I feel that as minister responsible for the status of women I should be most concerned about those who need help most, namely, women in the private sector.
April 30, 1982


POSITIONS HELD BY WOMEN IN DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES
Neil Young: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. If she is not too happy about what is going on in the private sector and perhaps the public sector, could she explain to the House why, within her own Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, only 5 per cent of the management category of positions are held by women, and that women account for 80 per cent of the lower ranked administrative support category positions?


Judith A. Erola: Madam Speaker, the hon. member obviously does not understand affirmative action as do most people in this country. Affirmative action is not the application of arbitrary quotas. Affirmative action is the kind of plan that attacks systematic discrimination, and because it attacks systematic discrimination it will take some time before we will see women getting to the top. I suggest to the hon. member that he take a look at affirmative action and how it is applied. Then, perhaps, he will be able to support us properly.


FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Communications. The minister has talked about openness in terms of arts and culture, but his record with regard to freedom of information is absolutely deplorable, and so is the record of his governement. Has the minister so misled the Prime Minister and his colleagues that the Prime Minister would say the government at this stage is worried about bringing in a bill because cabinet documents ought to be withheld, when he knows that there is now a specific exemption dealing with cabinet documents contained in Clause 21? Given that situation, what attitude is the Minister of Communications taking with his colleagues and the Prime Minister?
When can this House and the country see, at long last, life breathed into the commitment which the minister made when he almost broke his arm patting himself on the back because he brought in Bill C-43?


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, the hon. member likes to indulge in histrionics. All of us in this House know that very well.


Walter David Baker: Facts, not histrionics, Madam Speaker.


Francis Fox: As a matter of fact, the hon. member is a well known performer as far as the people in this House are concerned. The facts of the matter have not changed one bit since I answered the hon. member in this House a week or two ago. He knows that the common front of the provinces, which was led by the Conservative attorney general of the province of
Oral Questions
Ontario, and which was highly supported by the former NDP attorney general of the province of Saskatchewan, has now dissolved.
I have indicated quite clearly that there is now no longer a question of going with the uniform bill approach in the field of access to information since there is no longer a desire on the part of the provinces to do so.
However, the same letter advising me of the dissolution of this provincial common front, which originated with the Conservative attorney general of Ontario, reiterates on behalf of the attorneys general of the provinces a number of concerns about the wording of the bill. Since that has happened, we on this side have also had the benefit of advice from the Canadian Bar Association, which has been added to the documentation going to my cabinet colleagues who will have to decide whether or not the bill comes back to the House in its present form or whether it will be in order to make some amendments to the bill to ensure that it is both a practical and a credible bill which gives us as much access to information as is humanly possible.


Walter David Baker: Those amendments are usually brought before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. The minister has been trying to elude that committee for weeks now.


Mr. Crosbie:: And delude it.


Walter David Baker: Why does the minister not come before the committee now, and get on with it?


PRESENTATION OF AMENDMENTS IN COMMITTEE
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, the minister knows that we are almost finished consideration of the freedom of information bill. The minister knows that if we can avoid some NDP nit-picking-


An hon. Member:: They have a lot of nits.


Walter David Baker: -three or four substantial hearings on the subject would complete the matter. The minister knows we have given him a commitment to have third reading completed in one day. In other words, Madam Speaker, there is no excuse why this bill cannot be passed by June 30, unless there is no commitment from the government. Will the minister advise his colleagues of this? Will he advise them to move quickly? Will he advise them to come before the committee with whatever amendments they may have, so that we can at long last have a freedom of information law in this country? We are awfully close. The only thing that can hold it up now is either nit-picking by the New Democratic Party or loss of commitment on the part of the Government of Canada.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. This is the second time that particular wording has been used. The question has been asked, and that should be it. Would the minister answer briefly, please?

April 30, 1982
Oral Questions


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, at least ten or 12 questions have been raised by the hon. member.


Walter David Baker: Answer one of them.


Francis Fox: One is why I do not return to the committee immediately. Unlike the hon. member, I do not think there is any purpose in going before the committee until there is a decision by cabinet-


Walter David Baker: You have had two years.


Francis Fox: -as to whether or not amendments are in order. Once this has been decided upon, the government will make a statement as to its intentions concerning the access to information bill and we will be returning it from committee in due course.
I indicated to the hon. member last week that the matter was presently before cabinet. There is no point in going back before the committee until there is a decison on what amendments ought to be brought before the committee; otherwise we will simply be wasting the time of the committee.


HOUSING
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for housing. I would like to get a clarification of policy. Is it the policy of the minister responsible for Housing that the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation should guarantee all applications for renewal of mortgages for UFFI homes. If it is the policy of the government, has CMHC been so instructed and are they so behaving?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, the answer is yes.


REQUEST THAT BANKS BE INSTRUCTED TO RENEW MORTGAGES
Fred Alward McCain: Madam Speaker, it has been reported by those applying for renewal of mortgages on UFFI homes that the banks have hesitated, if not refused, to renew any mortgage on any UFFI home, regardless of the guarantor. Therefore my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance, who is responsible for banking. Has he asked, or will he ask the inspector general responsible for banking to advise the banks that they are morally and, I hope, legally and govermentally instructed and obligated, with a guarantee from Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, to renew every application for mortgage renewal for those who have had the misfortune of purchasing a home which contains UFFI?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I have listened to the hon. member's views and I will discuss the matter with the Inspector General of Banks to determine what is approriate in the circumstances.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Yesterday, in his response to the hon. member for Wetaskiwin, the Prime Minister indicated that the provinces will play a role in deciding who will represent aboriginal peoples at next year's constitutional conference. The Prime Minister stated to me in a letter dated March 8, 1982, that the NIB, ICNI and the NCC would be the national representatives of aboriginal peoples at the conference. What right do the provinces have to decide who will represent aboriginal peoples at the conference? Also, which organizations is the government planning to invite to the conference?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, as far as the federal government is concerned, it is still our intention to want those three national organizations present to argue the case for constitutional change. The hon. member asked further what right the provinces have. The hon. member knows that an amendment to the Constitution can only be obtained with a certain degree of provincial support. Therefore it would be natural in any constitutional conference to consult with the provinces to ascertain their views with respect to timing-as I indicated yesterday-participants, and items on the agenda.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER MEET REPRESENTATIVES OF NATIVE PEOPLES
James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister and all Canadians know that beneath the rhetoric from Indian leaders there is a great sense of hurt and feeling of betrayal. I believe that it is important for the Prime Minister to show some leadership by meeting with them and helping to restore a sense of belonging to Canada.
The Prime Minster has indicated that he was willing to meet with representatives of the national organizations in advance of the constitutional conference in order to discuss the format. Will he hold this meeting at an early date, and will he drop this requirement that there be some form of consensus among the three national organizations since they do represent different people and have different points of view?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member talks of the desirability of this
April 30, 1982

government providing leadership. I would point out to him that it was this government which entrenched aboriginal rights in the Constitution for the first time in our history. The further step of defining the exact limits of those constitutional rights is one which we hope will be taken at the federal-provincial conference which has been made obligatory under the Constitution, again through the initiative of this government.
With respect to the content of that discussion and as to whether there will be a need for similarity of views between the three native groups, I do not consider that as a priority which is necessary, but I will have to have further information as to what kind of distinction the hon. member has in mind. We do not think that there are different categories of Canadians. We believe that all Canadians should be equal and it would be desirable to attempt to define rights in a way which does not distinguish between ethnic groups.


John Carnell Crosbie: Some are more equal than others. What about Arthur Erickson?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Now we have the hon. member for Caligula who wants to participate, Madam Speaker. You may want to recognize him on a supplementary question. His interest for native people is well known since he commented on the Minister of Finance's return from Gabon and described that as a country of monkeys. I do not think that fits him very well as a critic for external affairs.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. He will know that yesterday the Public Service Commission presented its annual report which showed an increase of female employees in the public service last year of some
6,000.	Of those, over 5,000 were in the lower and insecure categories of employment, namely, clerical, stenographic, and indeterminate. Not a single woman made it into the senior executive category. This is just a continuation of the status quo, where women in the public service get locked into low-paying and support positions. I would ask the President of the Treasury Board why the government is satisfied to perpetuate the role of women in the public service as little more than a reserve pool of labour.


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that that is why we have the Affirmative Action Program and the equal opportunities programs. As my colleague, the Minister of State for mines indicated, that is why we regard it as a matter of great concern. But, in fact, the report demonstrates that steady progress is being made. I hope that steady progress is accelerated by the affirmative action plans we have introduced. I might add that we plan on briefing all interested
Oral Questions
members, particularly the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, on the progress which is being made through the affirmative action programs which were introduced when this government returned to power in 1980.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I am sure that even the President of the Treasury Board should understand that those programs are simply not working. In the management and executive category some 310 male employees were added last year and only 14 women. That is the difference and that is why it is not working. Not a single woman made it into the senior executive category.


REPORTED COMMENT BY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSIONER
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the minister about the comment of one of the Public Service Commissioners who said, "It may be that women are not ready or that they do not have the right kind of experience for the top jobs." I deeply resent that kind of comment coming from the Public Service Commissiqn. Is that the opinion of the government, and, if not, will the President of the Treasury Board convey to the members of the Public Service Commission that the change of attitude should begin with them?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I am sure whoever made the comment will take due note of the hon. member's remark. I am not the minister responsible for the Public Service Commission; the Secretary of State is. Nevertheless, I would welcome any suggestions the hon. member may have. She will have ample opportunity to put them forward at the time of the briefing, to indicate how she thinks we can make further improvements. I can assure hon. members that we are taking advantage of every opportunity, exploring every possibility-short of establishing some kind of strait-jacket quota system, which is perhaps what the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands wants. We do not believe that is necessary. We believe that there are qualified women to take senior responsibility in the public service and that is happening. Progress is not as rapid as we would like to see it; that is why we have the Affirmative Action Program. I dearly hope the hon. member will show up for the briefing which I hope will take place in the next several weeks.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Leonard J. Gustafson: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance will know that under the National Energy Program the Canadian consumer is faced with an artificial marketplace with artificially high priced gasoline at $2 a gallon as opposed to the prices in the United States, the lowest of which I heard is 99 cents. The other case involves the artificially low price of

April 30, 1982
Oral Questions
oil at $24 a barrel at Estevan as opposed to $36 a barrel at Williston. In his capacity as Minister of Finance, is he not concerned about the economic problems of this country because he has placed the consumers in this climate of artificially high costs while, at Estevan, he taxes the people between the two levels of government, which will shortly be changed in that province, at $1.36 a gallon-


Madam Speaker:: Order.


Leonard J. Gustafson: That was the end.


Madam Speaker:: Well, I thought so.


Some hon. Members:: Where is the Minister of Finance?


An hon. Member:: Stonewall.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, was there a question?


Mr. Nielsen:: There was a question but you were not listening.


Leonard J. Gustafson: I ask the Minister of Finance is he not concerned about the consumers of Canada in this artificial situation?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker-


Mr. Bosley:: The real Minister of Finance!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: You did write the budget two times back.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, may I remind the hon. member that if we compare Canada's prices at the refinery gate with those of the United States, they are lower in Canada than in the United States, even today. The difference varies from province to province and state to state according to as the hon. member indicated, provincial and state sales tax. If, the government of Saskatchewan will remove the sales tax in Saskatchewan, he will find that the price in Estevan will be cheaper than the prices in neighbouring states.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: This is where the big difference lies. The best evidence with regard to this matter is that if one considers home heating oil, for instance, one will find that the price in Canada is as much as 7 cents to 10 cents a litre cheaper than in the United States today.


Some hon. Members:: Where?


Marc Lalonde: In Boston, New York, Detroit, Chicago, Minneapolis, Milwaukee and Portland, compared to St. John, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, Vancouver and Calgary. Is that enough cities for hon. members?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRIVILEGE
Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South-Weston):: I rise on a question of privilege, Madam Speaker. Just one hour ago it came to my attention that an editorial in the Toronto Sun has totally inaccurately quoted me out of context, as a result of which-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ursula Appolloni: -motives have been imputed to my recent intervention during a hearing before the standing committee on this-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I must remind the hon. member that things written in articles about members of Parliament do not necessarily constitute a question of privilege; but if the hon. member feels that she has a question of privilege, she may give me notice. The hon. member did come to the Chair to tell me that she wanted to be heard on a question of privilege and said that the matter had occurred today. I thought she meant it had occurred during the course of the deliberations this morning. However, if the hon. member feels she has a question of privilege, she might send a notice to my office and it will be dealt with in due course.


Ursula Appolloni: Madam Speaker, may I request that I speak on my question of privilege this coming Tuesday.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In response to some suggestions made earlier today in the standing committee by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), I would like to table, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), two papers in both official languages relating to the shift in the federal sales tax to the wholesale level.

[ Translation]


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Henri Tousignant (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, I just want to know to what extent hon. members are allowed to bring all kinds of
April 30, 1982

unusual documents into the House, and what guidelines we should follow, because if all kinds of documents may be brought into the House ad infinitum, to table them as the hon. member did just now, perhaps I too could use my imagination and bring gifts along for these people next week.


Madam Speaker:: I would urge the hon. member not to use his imagination, because it is absolutely forbidden to bring documents into the House as was done by the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), and the hon. member must have noticed that I said it was not allowed.


PRESENCE OF PHOTOGRAPHERS IN CHAMBER
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, on that point and on a related point, your Honour has no doubt had an opportunity by now to examine yesterday's Hansard concerning the point of order I raised with respect to the presence of still photographers behind the curtains, obviously for the purpose of taking set up photographs of the incumbent in the Chair and another hon. member. At that time I asked that that practice be rigidly prohibited and that the agreement between House leaders be enforced by the Chair. Otherwise, attitudes of hon. members might alter with respect to the continuation of allowing still photographers behind the curtains.
I hope that that kind of incident does not occur again, particularly involving, as it did, the Chair and the hon. member from the government side.


Madam Speaker:: It is not clear that the Chair was involved. However, I take the remarks of the hon. member in good note, because, yes, it is true that photographers have been allowed to photograph during the question period and the permission has been extended to important debates. But the importance of debates would only be determined by the Chair itself and there would then be consultation with the leaders of the different parties.
I can assure the hon. member that the agreement between House leaders will be very strictly enforced. The permission was given because hon. members generally agreed. However, they generally agreed to the photographs being taken under certain conditions, and I am doing my best to ensure that those conditions are observed. I can assure the hon. member that the incident yesterday to which he referred will not occur again.


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, you indicated just now that photographers were given permission to take photographs in the House. I realize this is still at the experimental stage, that you have consulted with the House leaders and that we will have an opportunity to discuss the matter again in the near future. I
Order Paper Questions
feel that incidents such as those that have occurred within the last two days should be taken seriously, and I hope that if and when we should decide to accept photography in the House, you will be authorized to impose a minimum of decorum so as to prevent occurrences of the kind we have seen here today.


Madam Speaker:: What happened today happened in the normal course of the question period. I think the minister will recognize that I did what I could to prevent the hon. member from tabling the documents. I believe the rules of the House were observed today. As for cameras, that is an entirely different matter, and I can assure the minister that I shall try to enforce the rules and conditions we have set on the presence of cameras in the House.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Jim Peterson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 3,759 and 4,081.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton): With reference to the proposal to transfer the distribution unit of the Canadian Government Tourism Office to Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, does the government intend to table all correspondence and interoffice memoranda which flowed between and among the Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism), the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Public Works and all relevant correspondence and interoffice memoranda from the assistant deputy minister of tourism, T. R. G. Fletcher, to the Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism) for the calendar year 1981?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: In so
far as the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism is concerned: No.


Mr. MacKay: 1.	Did Canadair Ltd. engage in a financial transaction with the late William Lear, prominent U.S. aircraft inventor and designer, for the acquisition of airframe design rights for the aircraft known as the "Lear" jet and, if so, what were the considerations for the acquisition of the rights?
2.	Did Mr. Lear, upon informing himself of the results of the modifications proposed by Canadair, insist that his name no longer be associated with the aircraft and, if so, on what date did this occur and what are all the details?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: In so
far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: 1. Yes. Canadair, in exercising its option to purchase the rights to the LearStar 600 design, entered into a

Order Paper Questions
royalty agreement with Mr. Lear in October, 1976 whereby a sliding scale royalty was to be paid on each aircraft sold.
2. No. Mr. Lear did not agree with Canadair's modifications to his original design, particularly the wide body which has since become a strong selling feature of the aircraft. However, he did not insist that his name be removed from association with Canadair or the aircraft. The name change from the LearStar 600 to the Canadair Challenger was principally to avoid confusion in the marketplace with the significantly smaller Gates LearJet family of business jets and the Lockheed JetStar I and JetStar II aircraft; and to properly identify Canadair as the developer and manufacturer of the aircraft, not LearAvia Corp. A working relationship continued with Mr. Lear until his death in May, 1978 and with Mrs. Lear and LearAvia Corp., after his death with the prospect that Canadair might participate in the development and production of his turboprop Learfan 2100 design.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Madam Speaker, if questions Nos. 2,676 and 3,268 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.
[ Translation]


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House tp have questions Nos. 2,676 and 3,268 deemed to have been made orders for return?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	What is a complete list of the government's data banks containing personally identifiable information about individuals in which the social insurance number may be used to access the computerized file and, in each case (a) what is the nature of the information contained in the file (b) on how many individuals is the information kept (c) in what ways, other than by using the social insurance number, can an individual's file be accessed?
2.	What (a) statutes (b) regulations require the use of a social insurance number by an individual to participate in the program?
3.	As of May 31, 1981 (a) how many individuals had taken out social insurance numbers (b) approximately how many applications for social insurance numbers were waiting to be processed?
4.	How many new social insurance numbers were issued in 1980?
Return tabled.
April 30, 1982


Mr. Cossitt: Were funds allotted by the government to the 1981 Canada Community Development Program and, if so (a) what was the amount and what was the breakdown by province (b) what amount was allocated to constituencies represented by (i) Liberal (ii) Conservative (iii) New Democratic party members of Parliament?
Return tabled.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Madam Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred question No. 3,694?


Mr. Cullen: How many applications were received under subsection 5(4) of the Citizenship Act "to reward services of an exceptional value to Canada"?


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Madam Speaker, the answer to this question is as follows. From the commencement of the Citizenship Act on February 15, 1977, there have been two applications received for the grant of citizenship under subsection 5(4) of the Citizenship Act as a reward for services of an exceptional value to Canada. One applicant was granted citizenship by direction of the governor in council and the other application was finalized by the withdrawal of the application by the applicant.
I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining quetions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



EXPORT DEVELOPMENT ACT


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of State (International Trade)):: Madam Speaker, I wonder if I could have permission to revert to bills with respect to introduction and first reading of an act to amend the Export Development Act.


Madam Speaker:: I do not think the minister heard the translation. Does the House give permission to revert to bills?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
April 30, 1982


Edward C. Lumley: for leave to introduce Bill C-110, to amend the Export Development Act.


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


Yvon Pinard: , on behalf of the Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development, that Bill S-19, to provide for State Immunity in Canadian Courts, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Yvon Pinard: , on behalf of the Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development, that Bill S-19 be read the third time and do pass.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I am going to make a few brief remarks today with respect to this legislation. I open my remarks by observing that once again we have the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) nowhere to be seen. He is not involved in the debate with respect to his own legislation, and he is not involved on the floor of the House with respect to matters under his general jurisdiction.
Madam Speaker, if one looks back at the record of the House since the present incumbent, as Minister of Justice, has taken over his responsibility and his portfolio, I think you will
State Immunity Act
find, and I have been here to point it out, that he has not been present in the House for legislation for which he is responsible.


Mr. Cullen:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not know if I am correct in this, but I am under the impression that the rules of the House provide that one member cannot comment on the presence or absence of another member in the House. We all know we have responsibilities not only in the chamber but also outside the House of Commons. It does seem to me, if I remember, that there is a ruling that commenting on a member's presence or absence is not appropriate.


Erik Nielsen: That is not right.


An hon. Member:: Withdraw.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I understand, Mr. Speaker, the point that has been made by the hon. member with respect to reflecting on attendance in the House. But I think it is fair to make reference to the fact that a minister sitting on the treasury benches of the government of the country-


Erik Nielsen: He should be here for his own bill.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: He has not been present at all in this session to introduce legislation for which he has taken responsibility.


Erik Nielsen: He is wrong in that, too.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I say to you, Sir, that that is not a reflection on his attendance in the House. Everyone knows, and those who are able to watch television know, that he is here quite regularly in question period.
The point I am trying to make is simply that the Minister of Justice has no interest in his responsibility to the extent that he does not even come forward to speak on legislation, but sends in a parliamentary secretary or some other functionary on the government side to deal with the legislation for which he has responsibility. I know that over the course of the last two years the Minister of Justice has been preoccupied with constitutional matters, but he has no interest in his responsibilities as Minister of Justice. He has no knowledge of the legislation before the House. He comes grudgingly before parliamentary committees. The man should be replaced. He is waiting with anticipation to get into another portfolio.


Erik Nielsen: He is waiting for the Prime Minister's job.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The minister has done less in relation to his responsibilities than any other minister of justice in my recollection. I venture to say he has done less in relation to his departmental responsibilities than any minister of justice in Canadian history. He has simply been absent. He has never been around to discuss the issues which come before his

April 30, 1982
State Immunity Act
committee, the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
I realize that this is not the most earth-shaking and earth-shattering bill in the world, but why is the minister not here to introduce it at third reading and to indicate the position of the government after committee consideration? Why must I stand and deal with the important issues contained in this legislation? Is no one on the government side prepared to discuss this matter, or will hon. members opposite sit there, collect their pay and say nothing? I want to make that point firmly.
The bill dealing with sexual assault is a very important piece of legislation. It was touted as being an important priority of the government. I was offended that that bill was not introduced by the Minister of Justice and that he was not here in the House to address that matter. His remarks at second reading lasted some five minutes and amounted to a winding up of the debate. The minister said he would see us all in committee. In relation to major amendments to the Criminal Code the minister has demonstrated so little interest in his responsibilities that he neglected or refused to be present, although he was here for question period on the days when that bill was under consideration at second reading stage.
We on this side of the House have been pressing the government to bring forward legislation on matters of justice and legal affairs. We have been beseeching the government House leader to bring forward important matters of priority in relation to justice and legal affairs. I can understand why the government House leader has been embarrassed. He has not been able to bring forward legislation because he has not had the support of the Minister of Justice. That clearly must be the reason this matter has not been brought before the House as a matter of priority.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I notice the hon. member is delighted that he was able to make me rise on a point of order. He reminds me of a lawyer who goes to plead a divorce case before the Superior Court and is actually pleading his case before a criminal court. I get the impression the hon. member does not know what he is talking about, he is entirely out of order, and he is not discussing the bill now before the House. He has made a vicious attack on a minister of the Crown who is respected across this country, he is talking arrant nonsense, and I would ask the Chair to call him to order and ask him to address Bill S-19. According to law, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) has an excellent parliamentary secretary (Mr. Peterson) who is responsible for assisting the minister in his parliamentary activities. I would remind the House that the parliamentary secretary is present and that the Minister of Justice is doing excellent work, since he is more often in the House than otherwise. In the circumstances, I would ask the hon. member to show a minimum of respect for this institution and to speak to the bill now before the House, Bill S-19, and to refrain from making such base attacks on a
minister of the Crown who has done his duty for his country, and done it very well.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. Because of the remarks made earlier by the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen), the Chair has been considering the issue of whether the absence or presence of an hon. member or minister can be the subject of comment. I have not been able to find anything in the Standing Orders which gives me clear direction in that regard. Furthermore, I am aware-as are all hon. members-that it is a common practice to comment.
However, there is a matter to which the Chair can address itself. It is not the matter of presence or absence of a minister but, rather, the matter of relevancy. I was waiting and hoping the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) would direct his remarks to Bill S-19 in due course. The comments of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) related more to relevancy than they did to the matter of absence or presence.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I am glad your ruling supports my position.
I like the Minister of Justice as an individual. He is a very nice fellow. He is a first-rate fellow, and it may be that he is doing government business out in Burlington or wherever he is today. I do not dispute that, but I thought he at least would have the courtesy to be in the House to deal with his own legislation. I made reference to other responsibilities of the minister only to show that he is never in the House when anything in relation to justice and legal affairs, which are his responsibility, is brought forward.


An hon. Member:: What about the bill?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Bill S-19 is an important bill in terms of the ability of Canadians to recover damages and compensation from representatives in Canada of foreign governments, but I just want to point out that, according to my recollection, this is the first bill which has come out of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs by way of report since this session began. I do not want to be irrelevant, but I think it is relevant that there has been no priority given by this government to matters respecting justice and legal affairs. These matters are of secondary importance. I think it is fair to say-and I make no reflection-that the minds of government members are on other matters, and amendments to the Criminal Code dealing with the rights of Canadians to pursue legitimate claims against defendants are secondary in importance.
We hear much about this government's lack of commitment with respect to economic matters. I say that applies equally to matters of justice and legal affairs, the liberties and rights of Canadians to have their rights protected as they should be.
This is the first bill to come out of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. I congratulate the government for this great victory; we now have before us Bill S-19 dealing
April 30, 1982

with diplomatic immunity. This is the extent of the government's accomplishment in the area of the rights of Canadians, and I suppose we should all be grateful. This weekend we will all go home feeling a glow of pride in our hearts because the government has moved so dramatically in the important area of protecting the rights of Canadians! I intend to go back to my constituents in Saskatoon West and tell them how proud I am of this government!
What other things are being dragged out in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs because of lack of commitment on the part of this government? My colleague, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), very appropriately pointed out today in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs that with respect to Bill C-43, which has been dealt with by the committee and almost completed, we now see the sad spectacle of this government's retreating from its commitment to freedom of information. The government very rightly is subject to the serious criticism of public opinion across the country. The government has no commitment to freedom of information and no commitment to civil liberties. The only commitment of the government is to make sure the people of Canada can sue, in certain limited circumstances, foreign diplomats in cases of civil liability. What a great record this government has! I think it should be commended. I say that, of course, without any seriousness at all.
What about Bill C-61, the proposed Young Offenders Act? We dealt with that expeditiously. Why is that not on the floor of the Elouse of Commons to be dealt with?


Yvon Pinard: Bill S-19.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Bill S-19 is before us, and we say Bill S-19 is a light at the end of the tunnel. After a great deal of effort on the part of the official opposition to put pressure on the government to take action, it has finaly moved.
If one looks at Bill S-19, one might get the impression from the title that it is a bill which extends diplomatic immunity to representatives of foreign countries operating in Canada. However, that is not the case; quite the contrary. It is an attempt to codify and set forth in statutory form the provisions, rights and limitations on diplomatic immunity, the rights of foreign countries to carry on so-called commercial activities in our country and the extent to which they are going to be held responsible with respect to contracts, loss, liability or damages suffered by Canadian citizens in the course of carrying on that commercial activity. There is an attempt here to specify the limitations placed on foreign countries represented in Canada and their agents.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Author!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Willow-dale (Mr. Peterson) is one of my favourite members. Not only is he a natty dresser, not only does he wear the latest Toronto
State Immunity Act
clothes, but he is outstanding in his ability to speak from the seat of his pants. He is rarely able to articulate the hopes and aspirations of the people of Willowdale while on his feet, however. I am glad that he is at least in the House today, unlike the Minister of Justice. I hope that we will hear from him-


Ian Deans: Don't start that again!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I just want the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) to understand that I am sometimes encouraged to deal with the presence or absence of the Minister of Justice, who is rarely here to deal with the affairs of his department.


Ian Deans: What about anybody else who is not here today?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Well, we win some and we lose some. Indeed, in some cases I wish that some of the members that are here were not, and I only have to look down to the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain when I say that, without referring to him.


Ian Deans: You are here so infrequently it is a wonder that you recognize me!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I was in my riding when an election was called for April 26. In my riding the result was unanimous, though I take no personal pride in that and no responsibility for it; I just happened to be there doing the government's work, carrying out my responsibilities as a member of Parliament. I admit that I was not here regularly in the last two weeks, but I believe that my constituents desire personal attention occasionally and so I go to my riding to help them. If an election should happen to coincide, that is something over which I have no control.
I have been diverted, Mr. Speaker, when I have been trying to deal with this important legislation and rush it through the House on a Friday afternoon. As we know, this important legislation has to be dealt with, as has the government's record of commitment to civil liberties and the ability of Canadians to protect their interests in the courts of our land.
In the world today there are many governments-including our own-which are getting involved in what are called centrally controlled economies. This involves the creation of so-called Crown corporations. It is an involvement by government in commercial activity which normally has been confined to the area of private endeavour. This legislation is important in that it gives us an opportunity to review circumstances where we have not only the normal diplomatic representation in our country and the normal immunity that is given to such representatives-which is right and proper-but we are facing a situation where governments, agencies of governments and representatives of governments have become involved in commercial endeavours.
Petro-Canada is an example, for which representatives of the People's Republic of China are doing some work on the

April 30, 1982
State Immunity Act
offshore. We also have representatives of Canadian commercial enterprises in other countries, and, of course, other countries have representatives in this country who deal commercially with private citizens and with corporations.
In terms of international law it is important for us to review the rights that Canadians have vis-a-vis representatives of foreign governments, whether they be diplomatic representatives or representatives of agencies that carry on commercial activities. We must consider the right of Canadians to collect compensation for wrongful acts.
The legislation was considered in committee and some concerns were expressed in the course of those hearings. I commend the parliamentary secretary for his conduct of the legislation through the committee. It is too bad that the Minister of Justice was not available at that time but the parliamentary secretary is one Liberal who attended committee.
There is a story going around the Hill that the Minister of Justice has been seen at the Standing Committee of Justice and Legal Affairs. I have not had that story confirmed but I am prepared to put the resources of the research staff of this party to work this weekend to see whether it can be verified.


Mr. Paproski:: He is out on a leadership campaign!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: My colleague from Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski) suggests that he is out on a leadership campaign. I do not want to be diverted from discussing this legislation, Mr. Speaker, but I must say that under its present leadership, I think all Liberals should be out on a leadership campaign, trying to replace the present leader.


Mr. Chenier:: You should know. That is what all of you are doing.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I will deal expeditiously with this legislation if I can get the attention of hon. members on the Liberal side, who insist on trying to interrupt a serious discussion. If I could get their attention I would point out some of the concerns that have been expressed by this party and by witnesses before the committee about the vagueness of the term "commercial activity" which appears in the bill. As presently defined, it means "any particular transaction, act or conduct or any regular course of conduct that by reason of its nature is of a commercial character".
To me that sounds like a definition that commercial activity means commercial activity. It does not elaborate on what kind of activity will be covered by legislation in this country and that would allow individual citizens to pursue to their remedy.
The British law in this area is far more specific. It enumerates the three headings that are included in the term "commercial transaction" as follows:
1)	any contract for supply of goods or services
2)	any loan or other transaction for the provision of finance and any guarantee or indemnity in respect of any such transaction or of any other financial obligation; and
3)	any other transaction or activity (whether of a commercial, industrial, financial, professional or other similar character) into which a state enters or in which it engages otherwise than in the exercise of sovereign authority.
The British law is specific and indicates to the litigant interested in pursuing his or her rights the areas in which this may be done. In this country it will be necessary to develop a body of jurisprudence through the courts. The courts will have the opportunity to define the term "commercial activity" and specify what activities will be available for legal recourse and what activities will not.
A witness who came before the committee, Mr. J. M. Robinson, a lawyer who works in the area of lending to foreign sovereign countries, was most concerned that these arrangements for lending would be protected by the bill, particularly in light of the Polish and now the Argentine monetary crisis. Officials of the department assured us, on the basis of their legal advice, that the situation would be covered. They also assured us that it would be better to leave the definition as broad as possible. Their point of view was that by using very specific definitions, the range of applicability of a section narrows.
I am not totally satisfied with their response, but I am prepared to let this bill go through. I know the Department of Justice will monitor the situation to make sure that the definition is reasonably broad and that we will not be restricting the rights of Canadians vis-a-vis foreign representatives. I would have preferred the other system of definition for more precision and guidance to the courts, and the litigants themselves would have had a better idea of their rights under the legislation.
When I spoke on second reading of this bill I indicated my concerns with respect to enforcement, by execution or otherwise, of civil judgments. Remedies under this legislation are still restricted. Specific performance, injunctive relief, and an order for recovery of land unless the foreign state itself consents, are not available.
I understand the official's argument that these remedies are not available against the Crown in Canada. On the basis of some activities which have been taking place on behalf of Crown corporations in the courts of this land, I think it is fair to say that any commercial enterprise operated by the Government of Canada now apparently has the right to claim immunity from prosecution, and that puts the government in a very strong position. We can see that it is difficult to expect that Canadians will be able to collect against agents of foreign governments when criminal prosecution of government agencies, Crown corporations and ministers is virtually impossible, at least on the basis of the ruling in the uranium cartel case. However, I think that is an area which we must continue to monitor because of the fact that foreign governments are involved through state agencies, whether it be the Soviet Union or countries in the free world. There has been a movement toward centrally controlled economies and commercial activities through government agencies, and I think those agencies should do business in Canada according to the rules that apply to every other citizen of Canada. I think we should keep an eye
April 30, 1982

on the situation with a view to bringing in amendments to this legislation if there has been any serious abuse.
I said I would be brief, Mr. Speaker, and I have been. I was moved to observe the lack of commitment of this government and the Minister of Justice with respect to matters before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. I was egged on by members of the Liberal party to go perhaps a little longer on that topic than I had originally intended. However, I just want to serve public notice on the Minister of Justice, as 1 did on Bill C-53, that if he is not happy in carrying out his responsibilities, then he should ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to relieve him of those responsibilities. I say that in the interest of having the proper attention given to these issues on the floor of the House of Commons. I know I have an ally in the government House leader, who would like to see a higher profile for these issues.


Yvon Pinard: The hon. member seems to be having a hard time trying to kill time. We might call it one o'clock if he promises not to speak this afternoon.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I had not noticed the time. That intervention, Mr. Speaker, has brought me to the reality that 1 have spoken maybe a little longer than I intended. However, I remember when the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) used to plead in the small claims courts of Quebec, where he took a lot of time, too. So I take advice from an expert.
I do want to make the serious point that there are people across this country who are concerned with important issues of social justice. I know this government has been preoccupied with other things. It is floundering in its attempt to deal with economic matters. I do not know if it is trying to deal with them or not, but it seems to be incapable of action. However, there are important issues in legislation which is before us and can be before us, such as freedom of information, sexual assault, prostitution and matters dealing with young offenders. We have tried to push these through.
I think the government House leader will understand that we have not abused the time of the House in getting this legislation through. We have spoken on a very limited basis, spending perhaps two and a half days on this very important bill. What concerns me is that matters are dragging and we are going to have to prorogue, because this session cannot go on indefinitely. We have to have an election every five years, and the way this session is going we are going to be-


Ian Deans: You will still be on your feet in five years.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: -here for five years. I do not know if we can possibly stand that. Perhaps the government can think in terms of proroguing this session and coming back with some new ideas and fresh initiatives, if they are capable of it. On the other hand, we have legislation which is languishing in committee. Some of the ministers do not appear to be looking after these matters and they are letting-
State Immunity Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The Chair is having difficulty with the matter of relevancy again. Would the hon. member like me to ask whether the House is ready for the question?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: One final remark, Mr. Speaker, because I think the Liberal members look lean and hungry and are about ready for lunch. I simply want to advise the government to give some priority to this area, and that we intend to let this bill go through. For the reasons indicated we will be monitoring it, and I hope the government will as well.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity of making these few brief remarks.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I thought perhaps we were going to let it go in a moment, and I was just going to comment that the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) certainly did tell us what was in the bill. It might be difficult for anyone reading Hansard to find out exactly where he told us, but nevertheless I know it is contained within that long dissertation.
We are prepared to see the bill pass today. It was dealt with in some considerable detail in committee, and it reflects a general consensus. If I thought the vote could be taken right now, I would be happy to sit down and allow that to happen.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I have a contribution to make to this discussion and I would like to call it one o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. Provided the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) is present at two o'clock, the Chair will recognize him to continue debate on Bill S-19.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. When the House rose at one o'clock, the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) had the floor.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to impose unduly on the House this afternoon in discussing the provisions of Bill S-19. There are, however, a couple of matters which I think deserve mention, even if the time has passed for introducing appropriate amendments to bridge a gap between this particular bill and an act which is now on the statute books.
Obviously, Bill S-19 has been brought forward-although it is slightly misnamed, if I might say so-because of the growth of state enterprises of one kind or another operating both

April 30, 1982
State Immunity Act
domestically and abroad. We all know about Crown enterprises in this country. We do not know how many of them we have as Crown corporations; I gather that figure is still in dispute. A good many operate in Canada, but that should not worry law makers except that we do not know how many Crown corporations there are.
This bill is directed toward state enterprises overseas and their operations in this country, particularly when they are involved in a commercial enterprise of one kind or another. The normal function of a state, the traditional, historic function when it is operating abroad, made it possible for receiving states to accord immunity to the operations of a sending state when it had a representative in the country. This, of course, was the origin of diplomatic immunity. Clause 3 of the bill provides:
Except as provided by this Act, a foreign state is immune from the jurisdiction of any court in Canada.
We remember the old saying "Don't shoot the messenger". If a messenger brought a message from a foreign state that the foreign state is at war with the receiving state, we would hear: "Don't shoot the messenger; look to someone else to attack". This, in very simple form, is the origin of diplomatic immunity.
There is another act on the statute books, Chapter 31 of the Statutes of Canada, 1976-1977, which gives substance in law to the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations. There we find what the standard functions of a diplomatic mission are. If we were dealing only with diplomatic missions, it would be simple. But because of the growth of state activities beyond their diplomatic activities in foreign countries, a bill such as S-19 was required.
Article 3 of the Vienna convention, which is a schedule to the Diplomatic and Consular Privileges and Immunities Act which I have already cited as Chapter 31 of the Statutes of Canada 1976-77, provides that:
The functions of a diplomatic mission consist inter alia in: (a) representing the sending State in the receiving State; (b) protecting in the receiving State the interests of the sending State and of its nationals, within the limits permitted by international law; (c) negotiating with the Government of the receiving State: (d) ascertaining by all lawful means conditions and developments in the receiving State, and reporting thereon to the Government of the sending State: (e) promoting friendly relations between the sending State and the receiving State, and developing their economic, cultural and scientific relations.
Those are standard diplomatic functions. Generally speaking, in the performance and execution of the duties related to those functions there is traditionally an immunity accorded to the agents of the sending state in the receiving state. When the sending state embarks on activities beyond the diplomatic and becomes involved in matters of commercial enterprise- whether selling grain, oil, buying Candus or grain-this bill makes it clear that the foreign state is not immune from the jurisdiction of a court in any proceedings that relate to "-any damage to or loss of property that occurs in Canada". This would also be true in the area of shipping or transporting material. I suspect that one of the reasons this bill is before us is that there was a state-owned ship which managed to leave
behind it in a Canadian port a mountain of debt which the host company had to assume, with no recourse against the offending state to collect damages. I think that this state immunity bill has been introduced for this and other reasons. As I said, Clause 6(b) of this bill makes it clear that the foreign state is not immune from the jurisdiction of a court in any proceedings relating to damage or loss of property that occurs in Canada.
This brings me to the core of the problem I would like to address. Up until now the statute on the books has dealt with state organisms, not individuals. I feel there must be some protection for individual Canadians. I merely say this because I believe it is important to know that damages suffered by Canadian citizens who enter into contracts in good faith with foreign government agents, particularly in rental situations, and who discover at the termination of the lease that they can be left with a large number of bills for the restoration of damaged leased property, are not taken into account in this Bill. It has happened to me and many others on more than one occasion. There are individuals who are being missed by these two pieces of legislation. There should be some way to protect individual Canadians, either through this bill or the act, from damage which might occur to the property which they rent in good faith to the representative of a foreign state.
I noted in this bill that the foreign state is not immune, but we seem to be missing the individual in this legislation. I hope that the government could at least introduce some small piece of legislation which would take into account what may occur to individuals.
Article 30 of the privileges and immunities convention states that:
The private residence of a diplomatic agent-
Presumably that is a diplomatic officer who has been sent to any foreign country:
-shall enjoy the inviolability and protection of the premises of the mission.
If we return to Article 22 of the convention, we find that:
The premises of the mission shall be inviolable.
Presumably because of that inviolability, the immunity is extended to the premises occupied by a diplomatic agent living abroad. This is an instance where Canadians can suffer. I believe there is a case before the courts-I do not know its status-concerning an individual who rented a premises to a foreign state. For reasons unknown to me, the premises were vacated in mid-winter, without notice, and the pipes froze. A great deal of damage was done to this property and when the owner discovered that the pipes were broken after his tenants had left, he tried to get redress through the courts for the losses he incurred in restoring his house to its proper state. The courts found that the state which had leased the property could claim immunity. This immunity applies even when a diplomatic agent is renting the property, because it is usually the state which signs the lease on behalf of that agent, thereby allowing it to claim immunity from any damages which might occur to that property.
Therefore, I believe that neither Bill S-19 or Chapter 31 of the Statutes of Canada, 1976-77, really extend to individual
April 30, 1982

Canadians the protection they need when dealing with foreign powers.
I merely put this on the record now and urge that this gap be closed. I am sure that it is in the interest of this Parliament to realize that one of its duties is to protect Canadian citizens.
I found it strange to learn this morning that one of the inverted pieces of logic in Bill S-19 is that foreign commercial enterprises operating in Canada have their immunity removed but Canadian Crown corporations are still able to claim immunity. That is an anomaly which this particular bill does not address and does nothing to remove.
A second anomaly which I would like to point out is that not only are individual Canadians inadequately protected from the activities of a foreign state, but they are also not protected from the activities of a Crown corporation in their own country, against whom they will have the greatest difficulty to bring suit.
Elaving put those two matters on the record, I close and thank the House for its indulgence.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Kilgour:: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Yvon Pinard: that Bill C-58, an Act to amend the Canada Elections Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Yvon Pinard: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Mr. Speaker, a year ago 1 thought this bill would be passed quickly, and that was mainly because of the fact that Bill C-58 was almost identical to Bill C-21, tabled on November 5, 1979 by the Progressive Conservative Party in power at the time, and more specifically, by the hon. member for Nepean-Carle-ton (Mr. Baker). In addition, as early as in 1976, the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections had recommended shortening the election period. In 1975, the Chief Electoral Officer submitted a report under the title, "An Examination of Possible Ways of Reducing the Election Period." In his report, the Chief Electoral Officer made a thorough study of perma-
Canada Elections Act
nent lists and continuous voter files. He estimated at the time that it would cost about $30 million per year to maintain a voter filing system that could be updated on a continuing basis up to the time an election was held.
After weighing the pros and cons of permanent voter lists, the Chief Electoral Officer found that it would be possible to substantially shorten the election period by eliminating the printing of preliminary lists and their distribution to voters to inform them that their names were on the list. Early in 1976, the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections discussed the report by the Chief Electoral Officer at several meetings. It became clear that committee members did not, at the time, find it desirable to introduce a permanent list or a continuous voter file. The committee did, however, announce that it was in favour of shortening the election period by eliminating the printing of preliminary lists. On March 23, 1976, it passed a motion to that effect.

So, Mr. Speaker, it is plain to see that support for the two major changes proposed by this bill has a fairly long history. Furthermore, we have taken into account some members' fears that we might be shortening the election period too much, especially in parts of the country where communication and travel are difficult. As a result, we proposed an amendment to the bill, at Clause 2, to change the latest day on which the writ of an election would be issued, from the forty-seventh day to the fiftieth day before polling day. This change was received positively by the Conservative members on the standing committee when it was presented by my parliamentary secretary, and it appears in the amended version of the bill we now have before us.
The second change in Bill C-58 which was brought about in the standing committee concerns the length of the period for enumeration. In the original version of Bill C-58, enumeration was to begin on the thirty-fifth day before polling day and end on the thirty-second day. In other words, enumeration was to take place during a four-day period. Members on both sides of the committee expressed reservations about having only four days for enumeration. The government, after listening to their views on this matter, agreed to change the bill.
Since the first change to the bill which I have just described added three days to the minimum election period, it was a simple matter to add three more days to the enumeration period without disturbing the dates for carrying out the other activities that are required for the preparation and conduct of an election. This change in the enumeration period required amendments to the text of the bill in several places, namely, Clauses 3, 5, 6 and 7. All these minor changes in wording were approved unanimously by the standing committee.
I feel that this new seven-day minimum period for enumeration is an improvement over the present practice, which allows six days for enumeration to be carried out. As a result of these amendments, we can feel confident that there will be enough

April 30, 1982
Canada Elections Act
time for the enumerators to do as thorough a job as possible. I believe we owe this to all Canadians, who expect that we should make it as easy as possible for them to exercise their democratic franchise.
Much credit must be given to the standing committee members for their role in coming to agreement on this bill and for improving its text. All members of Parliament and Canadians in general should be grateful for their thorough review of the text of Bill C-58.
In closing, I should like to express my gratitude, and that of all members, to the Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Jean-Marc Hamel, and his staff. Their very professional and courteous assistance played an important role in helping members of the committee understand and improve the text of this bill.
Finally, I would express my personal wish that after eight hours of debate at second reading and six meetings of the standing committee, we could complete our study of this bill very shortly. The committee members looked at the bill in detail and all parties agreed to the amendments that were put. I see no reason for much more discussion of Bill C-58, and I hope that my friends opposide will allow its passage before four o'clock today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, to listen to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard), one would think he has just presented us with the Declaration of Independence or some other very important piece of legislation. I would remind you Honour that what the bill does, as has been mentioned, is to change two very minor things. It shortens an election writ period by a few days and it increases the enumeration period by a few days. Considered in the light of the problems we have with parliamentary and representative democracy in Canada, I hope to show that it is an awfully small piece of legislation. It has been overworked. It is similar to the idea of using a band-aid for appendicitis. However, speaking for my part of Canada, western Canada, this bill will not make anyone happier about our federal institutions. It will make some of them unhappy.
Concerning the first point I want to make, I stress that I am speaking only for myself and not for the party at all. My first point concerns the question of rural ridings. Your Honour is from a suburban riding. I assure your Honour that you cannot imagine, nor can any of us who are from urban ridings, the problem involved in rural ridings in getting people to come out for nomination meetings, perhaps from several communities. There are problems involved in getting ads into newspapers which are published weekly, perhaps on a monthly basis in some cases. There are problems involved in travelling around ridings to visit people. Parties have problems in trying to get candidates to come forward.
From my limited knowledge of the subject, it would appear that the reason we reduced the number of days for the writ period is that some people in central Canada, those in urban ridings, think election campaigns are too long. However, I can assure your Honour that, as I understand it, people in the rural
ridings across Canada, including those in your Honour's province, are in favour of longer campaigns.
I think many of these people would feel that a better title for the bill would be "an act to ensure the re-election of incumbents to the maximum feasible extent", and I am only being half facetious. To that extent, I would express disagreement with the unstated principle, which is to try to re-elect incumbents. We have enough advantages now as incumbents that I think reducing the election period would be just one more advantage, and would not necessarily ensure that the best people are elected to sit in this House. This is not a good principle on which to embark. Why not reduce the period to two weeks? I bet even the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Dupras) would be re-elected if we had a two-week election period.
Another problem with shortening the election period is that it is difficult for a public servant, and I am an example, to decide whether he wishes to run. It is also difficult for people in business. This may not apply to professionals, but for those in many occupations the longer the writ period, the better. The bill makes it harder for people such as federal public servants to run in an election. We will also be heading in the direction of denying ourselves the best people for public office.
My next point is to ask why two very small matters have been blown up into a bill. There have been all kinds of hearings and debate. At the same time we have ignored some of the major recommendations made by the Chief Electoral Officer, Jean-Marc Hamel, in the 1979 and 1980 elections.
I will give two examples. The first is the question of posting voters' lists on telephone poles in the ridings. I have just returned from Saskatchewan where voters' lists are posted on telephone poles in every community. For example, it lists Mary Smith, her address and the fact that she lives alone. It is outrageous that in urban communities where there is a lot of crime everyone should be advised that Mary Smith lives in a house on such and such a street in such and such a place. One of the recommendations of Mr. Hamel and of many women's groups is that this no longer be allowed. They recommend that each voter be sent a notice to show that he or she is on the voters' list. This information should not be posted. If it will prevent one woman from being raped or one widow from being mugged or having her house broken into, it is infinitely important that that be written into the bill. It should be done. In the very least such a meaningful amendment should be made to our Elections Act. I feel very strongly about this.
Coming from Quebec, Mr. Speaker, I do not think you could possibly appreciate my next point. Election results in most parts of eastern Canada are known to British Columbians when they go to vote. They know how the rest of the country in the different time zones has voted. We have moved into the electronic age and during an election, radio stations in Seattle broadcast information on how many Liberals have been
April 30, 1982

elected in Ontario and Quebec. People in Vancouver have full knowledge that the election has already been decided before they cast their votes.
This is why a number of people, including the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke) and myself, have proposed a very simple process of juggling the hours. Maybe the people of Newfoundland would not have as many hours in which to vote. However, all votes will be counted at the same time. It would not inconvenience the people in your riding, Mr. Speaker, to wait an hour or two until the people in Vancouver were finished voting before the votes in the riding of Lachine were counted. From the standpoint of our institutions, I cannot stress too strongly that it creates all kinds of problems for our democracy when voters in large chunks of Canada know how voters in other parts of Canada have voted.
During the 1880s or 1890s, elections took place over a one or two-week period. That was the reason we moved to having elections all at the same time, hopefully at the same hour. But we forgot that we cannot control the electronic media outside Canada. I am not talking about someone in Ontario calling someone in British Columbia; it is the radio and television stations outside Canada that we cannot control. This is something else that should have been taken care of in this bill. Votes should not be counted in one part of Canada before being cast in another part. There are many other recommendations which should have been written into this bill.
I now want to deal with the question of redistribution. Coming from a province which is supposed to get additional seats under the new formula, naturally you, Mr. Speaker, are in favour of redistribution. I appreciate that no province will have less seats under the existing formula and that your province will get an additional four seats.
My point is that there are probably too many of us in this House now. I do not think we have to reduce the number of seats in any province; we are capable of coming up with a formula that ensures that no province loses any seats and that provinces which grow very quickly will have more seats.
Members may ask, what is my formula. I have not been able to come up with one. I do not think our caucus can accommodate me either. However, that is the direction in which we should be going. There should be a clause in the bill which contains a formula whereby no province shall lose any seats, but provinces which grow shall have the number of its seats increased. That would be a significant offer of hope to people in my region of Canada who know that they are vastly underrepresented in terms of our growing population.
It is no secret that the people of Canada have a lot of criticism respecting members of Parliament. They do not think we should add 28 members to this House at a cost of $140,000 each, including personal and staff salaries, as they do not believe Parliament is functioning properly at this moment. Partly on the basis of cost, and partly because we should come up with a formula to give us a few more seats without depriving any province of its present number of seats, I believe that point should have been dealt with in this bill.
I understand the President of the Privy Council sent letters to all elections commissions across Canada advising them to
Canada Elections Act
get on with the revision of the electoral boundaries to increase the representation by 28 seats. The problem is that the same thing may happen that happened in 1972 and 1974. The commissions came up with new boundaries and we looked at the maps which contained the new boundaries. I believe in about 1983 or 1984 there will be a suspension act saying that everything that has been done will be scrapped. I urge the government not to do that; it would not be healthy for this country. Once again, all this should have been included in Bill C-68.
That brings me to the question: What are our federal institutions doing at the moment, and how do Canadians look at them? For interest, Mr. Speaker, I did a survey in my own riding, a somewhat random survey, and you may be interested in some of the comments. One question was: "Do you favour continuing the existing size of the House of Commons?" In one sample 50 per cent said yes; in another sample, 53 per cent said yes. As to no, it was 13 per cent and 26 per cent. Obviously the majority of people who pay taxes in my riding do not want to see the House changed.
Another question related to another institution, the Supreme Court, was: "Do you consider that the Supreme Court of Canada tends to favour the federal or provincial government in its constitutional decisions?" In the answer one sample had 50 per cent favouring the federal government and another had 28 per cent. To the question as to how many favoured the provinces, I had two results. One was zero per cent and one was 1 per cent. There was a large number undecided.
Question 3 was: "Would you favour any change in the composition of the Supreme Court of Canada?" How many said yes? In one sample it was 47 per cent; in the other sample it was 55 per cent; the noes were 25 per cent and 11 per cent. Again, this only makes the point that a lot of people in my riding feel that the Supreme Court of Canada should become an institution in which we can all have more confidence.
Another question was: "Would you favour giving the provinces as a group a role in making, say, half the appointments to a restructured Supreme Court?" Listen to this. One sample: yes, 72 per cent; no, 14 per cent.
Coming to the Senate, the question was: "Do you think the present Senate should be altered?" The answer was: yes, one sample, 66 per cent; 9 per cent said no. In the other sample 85 per cent said yes, but only 6 per cent said no.
The next question was: "Do you think there is a meaningful role for any form of upper chamber in an updated Constitution?" The number who said yes in the first sample was 50 per cent, with 22 per cent saying no. In the second sample, for yes it was 61 per cent, and no, 29 per cent.
The next question may be an interesting one: "If yes, what basic model would you favour?" Elected: the answer was 47 per cent in the First sample, whereas 53 per cent said senators appointed by provincial governments only. In the second

April 30, 1982
Canada Elections Act
sample it was 58 per cent for an elected Senate and 36 per cent favouring the provinces to elect the Senate.
The next one-I think this should be put on the record-had regard to federal agencies. The question was: "Should the provincial governments as a group have a right to appoint, say, half the members of the board of the Bank of Canada, the CRTC, the CBC, the CTC, the NEB, etc?" In the first sample the yes response was 53 per cent and the no was 31 per cent. In the second sample the yes response was 65 per cent and the no was 26 per cent.
Another question: "Should our lieutenant governors be nominated by Ottawa as they are now?" Some 45 per cent said yes while 55 per cent said the provincial governments should appoint them.
The next question was: "Should our Queen's Bench judges be appointed in future by Ottawa as they are now?" The answer was, 42 per cent for Ottawa and 57 per cent for appointment by the provincial governments. I guess that is enough of that, Mr. Speaker.
What I am trying to say is that respect for institutions in Canada and I think the Gallup polls show it too-is not what you and 1 would like it to be, Mr. Speaker, though perhaps for different reasons. The institution that has the least respect, I suggest, is the Senate of Canada.
Someone once said of the House of Lords in Britain that the cure for admiring the House of Lords was to go and look at it. There is a quote from Walter Bagot:
The whole history of civilization is strewn with creeds and institutions which were invaluable at first, and deadly afterwards.
I took up the list of senators today, and I would respectfully submit, Mr. Speaker, that if you or any of our colleagues look over the list, it would be very interesting. Without getting into personalities, I would respectfully suggest that any former premier of a province should be entitled to be a senator. A mayor of a large city should be entitled also, under our present system, as should a member of a CRT, a trade union, an association or institution in the service sector, or a church. All of these, including university leaders, professors, professional people, should be entitled to be senators. But by any independent criteria such as that, considering a lot of our senators-and I exclude many of them because obviously some are doing good work and working hard-our Senate is not, to put it this way, acceptable in its present form to most Canadians.
What is the answer? I suggest an elected Senate. I have recently, over the last while, changed the view that it should be one appointed by the province, like the Bundesrat in West Germany. It should be an elected Senate with an equal number of senators from each province. That is perhaps the surest and best reform we can make of the parliamentary institution.
I understand that every federal system of government- someone will correct me if I am wrong-in the world has an upper chamber. I am convinced that our Senate could become a more meaningful and acceptable institution if it were elected. One can ask, should it be elected every time there is a general election, or should it be elected by rotations, with one-third
retiring every four years? I think any Canadian of goodwill is open to discussion on that. I wish that subject had been looked at by the committee which was considering the bill before us today. If we had eight senators from every provnce in Canada-I do not say for a moment that some of the present senators would not be in that group-we would have an institution that everybody in this House and in Canada could be proud of.
One might ask, what powers would you give them? Again, I do not have any firm views on that. Perhaps they should not be entitled to present money bills. We do know that our elected Senate is working in Australia, in the United States and in the Republic of Ireland. It is working in many places.
I find it interesting that Senator Roblin, a former premier of Manitoba, made a speech not long ago, in June, 1980, in which he called for an elected Senate. I think he accepted, as I read the notes here, that the Senate in its present form will not do. I should add that a number of senators seem to have accepted that as well. He pointed out that Bill C-60 of your government, Mr. Speaker, tried to introduce a House of the Federation. The Pepin-Robarts commission suggested a Council of the Federation. The Ryan report in Quebec wanted a federal council. The Canada West Foundation called for a House of the Provinces. The Canadian Bar Association and others had other ideas. He goes on to point out that the fact that none of these has proposed an elected Senate he considers to be an error, and I join in that view.
How could we not have a better Senate if it were elected? Senators would then have to go back to their electors and account for their acts. Senators could then do the excellent committee work they are doing now, but as elected men and women. As hon. members perhaps know, people in the west are seriously under-represented in the Senate in terms of population. Some might ask how we can give Prince Edward Island eight senators when there are only 120,000 people there, and how we could give Ontario only eight senators when there are eight million people in Ontario? There would be a million people per senator. However, I submit that the people in central Canada are sufficiently concerned-as are those of us who do not live in central Canada-about what is happening to our respect for parliamentary institutions that they would probably be the first to recommend an elected Senate. Eight senators from Quebec, for instance, would fight tooth and nail for the interests of Quebec. Eight senators from Prince Edward Island would also fight tooth and nail for Prince Edward Island. What person in this House would deny Prince Edward Island the opportunity to have eight senators? I do not think anyone of goodwill would.
It is too easy for a person to say that the trouble with the Senate is that the appointments have not been of premiers of provinces, that there have not been enough people of independent stature in their communities and that the answer is simply to appoint, for lack of a better word, more qualified people to
April 30, 1982

the Senate. However, in my submission it is too late for that. We cannot go back. We are in such a position now that we must go ahead and elect senators from all the regions of Canada. According to the poll, the people of my region of Canada would like that. I know many people in this chamber and in central Canada are concerned about the enormous antipathy building against the government, which is elected from two provinces. This would be one way of providing an outlet for western Canadians and, hopefully, for maritimers, Quebecers and Ontarians.
There are other institutions I could mention which are well beyond the bounds of this bill. I suppose I should not talk about courts and boards except to say that I believe strongly that we should give the provinces a chance to appoint, say, half the directors of the CBC and half the commissioners of CRTC, or at least give them a chance to confirm appointments such as one recently to the head of the CBC. Perhaps we could work out a system which would give members of Parliament a chance to have at least an advisory capacity or consent capacity in relation to these order in council appointments which, as hon. members know, take effect the minute they are signed.
1 remember a time when I was in court with another lawyer; at the lunch hour his appointment was signed and he could not continue with the case in the afternoon. Is that proper? Would it not be better that a lawyer should at least pass before a committee of the Senate or a joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons before he is confirmed in the position?
I am told there are 650 federal judges in Canada. While perhaps a third of them are outstanding and a third satisfactory, in my view a third of the judges in superior courts in Canada should not be sitting in those courts.


Mr. Pepin:: The same as in any other profession.


David Kilgour: One way of weeding out palpably bad appointments would be to have a confirmation procedure whereby appointments would have to be ratified by some democratic institution beyond the whim of one or two ministers.
Your Honour will say I have moved a long way from Bill C-58. It is hard to speak about a bill which covers so little. I have tried to make some points and suggestions which I think would improve the Canada Elections Act and redistribution, and I thank hon. members for listening so patiently.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member did not invite the Chair to comment as to whether he was observing the rules of relevancy, but I think perhaps it would be appropriate if I did. I paid considerable attention to the remarks of the hon. member. Some of his remarks were directed to what is in the bill, and some were directed to what is not in the bill. I think that is fair. I think both types of remarks are relevant, but I ask other hon. members who intend to address themselves to the bill that they try to put a bit more emphasis on what is in the bill or on what they might find to be inappropriate, and refrain from remarks which range into far-reaching connotations.
Canada Elections Act
I waited until the hon. member was finished because I thought his remarks were appropriate, but the question is relevant.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted you recognized me because I am hoping to get to a meeting with the government House leader shortly. If I had to wait for another turn, the meeting might not take place and perhaps no more business would ever be done! I want to take a moment or two to speak about the bill. I will not take more than ten minutes, but I think the bill is important enough that I make at least some comments.
The bill has received a great deal of consideration. Each and every caucus probably agonized over whether the reduction in the minimum election period is an appropriate reduction. I think the compromise worked out is acceptable, but I want to say, partly in answer to other people's comments and partly in answer to the thoughts of certain people across the country who may be interested in a matter such as the period for elections, that I do not really think it matters too much whether we reduce the election period to 50 days or not.
When I was in the legislative assembly in Ontario the period was 37 days. It seemed to me at the time to be an adequate length of time. The period for the recent Saskatchewan election was even shorter, but that did not inhibit the electors from making the choice to defeat a very large number of incumbents.
I suggest that sometimes we get wrapped up in the idea that the shorter the election period the easier it is for incumbents to be re-elected. I suppose theoretically-and even in practice- that could be true if we were to shorten the period so dramatically as to make it impossible for anyone else to get into the race, but I think anything in excess of a month and a half is probably long enough to allow any candidate or political party to represent individual or collective views adequately and in sufficient time for the people of the country who, in my personal judgment after 15 years in politics, pay much more attention to the platforms and the quality of candidates than we perhaps give them credit for. A month and a half does afford a sufficiently long period of time. This does not preclude in any way the kind of electioneering that goes on by people seeking office, whether they are incumbents or otherwise, for years on end. People can canvass door to door regardless of whether it is a year before, two years before or ten years before the election in which they intend to run, and they can become very, very well known. They can in fact get to the point where they can call almost everyone on every street in every constituency by name. The actual official period of time is probably of lesser importance than some of us who are more involved directly in politics might believe.
If there is a deficiency in the bill it is that it deals with a very narrow aspect of the elections, and if it had not come up for discussion for another year it would have made very little difference. I do not expect the changes in this legislation to alter dramatically the outcome of the next or of any other
16798

April 30, 1982
Canada Elections Act
election. It may be inappropriate but I would venture the opinion that if an election were held today or tomorrow we would find that the vast majority of Canadians had already made up their minds at least about who they are not going to vote for. I think the majority of people have decided "out with the Liberals". That is my personal view, and of course it may not be shared by everyone in the House.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Your prediction for Saskatchewan was not too good.


Ian Deans: The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) says that our record in Saskatchewan was not too good-


Jean-Luc Pepin: I said prediction.


Ian Deans: I did not make any predictions. If I were a member of any government today the message 1 would get from any election would be that governments are an endangered species. The political colour really makes no difference; government is in disfavour and the majority of people in the country are looking to change any government. I think that was true in Manitoba and in Saskatchewan and I suspect it is true through most of western Canada, at least. It is the message I get from the people I have met across the country who look at the federal system. No one can say, of course, what will happen two years from now.


Jean-Luc Pepin: We will wait two years.


Ian Deans: The minister says he will wait for two years to find out. Although the majority of people would not agree with that, I cannot blame him. I do not think if I were in government I would want to test these policies at the ballot box any more than he would.
The changes proposed in this legislation are acceptable. The reduction in the length of time may make it easier for candidates to campaign. The changes made at committee in the enumeration period were certainly necessary. In some of the larger constituencies it is very difficult to get the enumeration done in four days. It is going to become more and more difficult to find people to do the enumeration. We just do not pay enough so that we can find people on short notice. And with the increase in two-parent-working families it is difficult to find people at home. Although seven days have been allotted, I dare say we will find that there are only three or at the most four hours per day when people can be found at home and have their eligibility to vote checked. That provision might even have to be reviewed before an election to see if the length of time is adequate.
Nomination day is set at 28 days before the election, and that is fine. Examining and sealing the ballot box in the returning office 21 days before the vote could be of value if it is used properly.
We have to look at the whole process, Mr. Speaker. Although the current process is unwieldly and cumbersome, that is not the problem now. The period of time involved in all the other attendant factors is not going to make for a better government or a better Parliament or a more responsible
representative process. The major changes must take place in the House. To afford people an opportunity to cast a ballot is the single most important part of the democratic process but after the ballot is cast and the election is over, the follow-up is the measure of the success of the process.
Regardless of what changes we make to the Canada Elections Act, unless we come to grips with the archaic system in which Parliament must work-and today was a good example of it-and deal with the relevance of any change to the election process, we will not have a better representative Parliament than we have now.
I do not think you were in the chair this morning Mr. Speaker. I listened to one hon. member debate a bill which came up for debate before this one. Without being uncharitable let me say that I could not help but feel that much of the 35 or 40 minutes was used up on extraneous matters and not on dealing with the content of the bill. This happens because the opportunity for members to gain the floor is limited and when they do, they speak for far too long. The tendency is to use up the time.
We must address ourselves to the question of follow-up. If these changes to the Canada Elections Act are to have any meaning we have to address ourselves to the changes in the day to day operations of the House of Commons and its committees. There is no purpose in going through this exercise today if we continue with the archaic system that does not allow for meaningful debate and gives little opportunity for a proper exchange of views. The present rules almost require members to speak twice as long as they need to, just to take up the time that is available to them. That is not to say that every time a member speaks for 40 minutes the time is wasted. Of course there are times when 20, 30 and 40-minute speeches are justified because of the content of the matter under discussion.
This bill is only a first step, Mr. Speaker. In fact, it may even be said to be the last step. I do not think the changes need to take place right away. The world will not change one iota because of this series of amendments. Indeed, it might have been better had we taken on first the chore of reforming the parliamentary process and, by showing the public that Parliament can work, in that way encouraged its participation. We must encourage people to feel that casting a ballot is an important function in a democratic process. They must feel that when they send someone to Parliament that person has an opportunity to express the views of the constituents and put forward different point of view about how the country should evolve.
I will stop at this point because I realize I am straying ever so slightly from the bill itself, but I am saying this because I think that if we were ever to get the impression that by doing this we have done anything meaningful, then we would be fooling ourselves. If we were to get the impression that we can now sit back because we have made some reforms to the
April 30, 1982

Canada Elections Act, then we would be deluding ourselves. If we were ever to think that by virtue of having done this we might encourage a great deal more participation by the average citizen, who today looks with a jaundiced eye at the goings on in Parliament, then we are living in a fool's paradise. We have so much more to do, and the direction in which we are heading is not encouraging.
We are great technicians and can make things more technical or less technical, but we do not seem to be making them more relevant. I think relevance is a lot more important in the parliamentary process than whether it is set out in a way which will allow it to operate effectively. I think Parliament is irrelevant, not because I wish it to be that way-therefore I do not sound like the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in that regard. I want it to be more relevant. In all fairness, it is irrelevant for most Canadians; Parliament never deals with the things they believe to be important. I do not think they doubt our willingness, but I think they doubt our capacity and opportunity to deal with the important social and economic problems which confront them. With that in mind, I would urge the House that we not stop there, but that we also get on with the job of making this place function properly.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, for once I am completely in agreement with the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). I think his comments are important, and I am delighted he made them.
This bill, the purpose of which is simply to shorten the election period, does not even approach the election process in the manner it should. I also agree that there are larger reforms of this House to be made, but there are no signs that the government is going to convene the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization where we could address ourselves to the reforms needed to make this a more meaningful institution and restore the credibility it once had. This credibility is sadly lacking as a result of the inability of members to come to grips with the important issues of the day by virtue of the government's bringing forward what is sometimes rather negligible legislation.
I think in the eyes of many, this House is irrelevant because we have shown ourselves unable to deal with the major issues confronting the nation. I think this House could deal with the issues of inflation, unemployment and excessive interest rates, but it is not being given the opportunity because of the government's attitude towards these very problems.
To narrow the focus of my remarks, this bill does not attempt to deal in any broad way with the Canada Elections Act. To start with, Clause 5 of the bill amends Section 18(9) of the act whereby:
Each returning officer shall send a notice of enumeration in the prescribed form, not later than Wednesday, the twenty-sixth day before polling day, to each elector residing in a polling division in his electoral district whose name appeared on the preliminary list of electors for that polling division.
I am sure that was written before the 30-cent stamp came out. I would suggest that instead of calling this "an act to amend the Canada Elections Act", we might call it the "Canada Post relief act" because with some 12 million to 15 million voters this will mean a subsidy to the post office of around $4 million for the privilege of carrying these individual notices to
Canada Elections Act
the voters. I am sure there is no provision that where the names appear under the same address, they be mailed together.
I say that somewhat facetiously, but it is necessary to draw attention to that very important aspect of this bill. In addition to the expense of enumeration, printing the roll and so on, we are going to incur this extra cost.
That brings me to the matter of the enumerated roll. Although I attend a fair number of House committees, obviously I cannot get to them all, and I was unable to attend the Committee on Privileges and Elections which considered this bill. I have not followed the proceedings so I do not know whether an attempt was made to consider the possibility of a permanent voters' roll, which is maintained in many provinces including my own. The argument that we always get is that a permanent roll costs too much. However, Mr. Speaker, I suspect that if we could persuade the bureaucracy and one another that a permanent roll was a feasible proposition, we would save at least this $4-million subsidy to Canada Post because it would be the voters' obligation to check. Let us say that on the second day of January and the second day of July of each year voters should go to the municipal office nearest to them, for example, to make sure their names are on the list. If they do not, and an election is called, I say it is just tough. The first duty of an elector is to make sure that he or she is in a position to cast a ballot. The second duty, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, is that he cast it in accordance with the law. I see no problem at all with a permanent voters' list. I regret that there is no consideration of that subject in the bill before us.
There are a number of other matters that a bill amending the Canada Elections Act ought to have considered, matters which have been brought to the attention of the committee, to members, to the federal government and to other governments.
A number of other matters become clearly outlined to us in the course of an election but as the election recedes in our memories, some of them disappear. I do not want them to disappear. I want them to be remembered and incorporated in a bill. One of the most important ones for my money is that of mobile polls. They have mobile polls provincially. They have vans manned with polling officers, scrutineers and ballot boxes. These vans go from hospital to hospital, to homes for the elderly or to those at home in bed who cannot get out to vote. What about those people who did not think it necessary to go to the advance poll but were stricken by an illness or some other misfortune between the end of the advance poll and voting day? They are entitled to vote just the same. The polling officer should have a means to get the ballot box to them.


Walter David Baker: Is that an innovation?


Donald W. Munro: It is not an innovation, Mr. Speaker. I have brought that suggestion forward and I am

April 30, 1982
Canada Elections Act
sure others have done so too. The principle was taken to the committee, but it was ruled out as being impractical. It is not impractical. The bureaucracy would find it cumbersome perhaps. But there is a difference between its being cumbersome for the bureaucracy and its practicality. Not only is it practical, but I think it is essential in a democratic community. There must be some provision to enable those who are prevented because of illness, age, frailty or whatever to cast their vote. I regret that this bill, which claims to be dealing with amendments to the Canada Elections Act, has failed to take that into account.
Another matter I remember distinctly, which I have mentioned before and will go on mentioning, is the ability to vote at polling stations from the very earliest moment. This would be facilitated if we had a permanent voters' list. The voters' list would be in the hands of the returning officer in the polling station on the first day after the writ was issued. These days people have to make long-range plans for holidays so as to take advantage of air fares. They may have booked three or four months ahead. They may have had to leave the day before an election is held or the day before the advance poll opens or even the day before they can go to the returning office to cast their ballots. Therefore, there ought to be full provision for electors to go to the returning office to cast their ballots from the earliest possible moment. The returning officer, of course, must be given a day or two to get organized. But from then on until the advance poll, properly speaking, is organized, electors should be able to go to the returning office and vote and have their names removed from the roll. When the polls are eventually opened on election day those who have voted will be taken off the electoral rolls.
The matter of proxy vote is another matter. My recollection about that, and it is getting a little dim after the number of months which have now elapsed since the last election, is that there is provision in the law for only one person to become a proxy for an elector who may be disabled or otherwise unable to get out to vote. But in a very cumbersome manner a proxy can vote on behalf of only one other person. But the situation may very well be that of an elderly couple both of whom are on the electoral roll. Why should the proxy not be able to vote for both of them instead of having two proxies? I see the unreasonableness of having the single proxy, but 1 do not see why it should be beyond the scope of human intelligence or trust-it may be a matter of trust in an electoral situation for one person to become the proxy for two, three or four people-but what about a home for the elderly? There may be four people who cannot get out to vote. One individual should be able to become a proxy for all of them.
There is another extraordinary situation. I cannot understand the rationale behind it nor have I been able to get the situation changed. If you live in the rural part of a constituency and your name is on a rural poll, you can have a neighbour go with you to the polling office and that neighbour can swear you are who you are if your name is not on the roll. When that is done, your name is included on the roll. But in an urban situation, that cannot be done. That is nonsense. It is sheer nonsense. Why should there not be someone able to swear who you are? If you do not want a neighbour to do it, perhaps
someone with notary power or a justice of the peace can do it. Maybe for the purposes of the act, we could make the polling officer a justice of the peace for the day. Then a person could swear he is who he says he is. He would, of course, have to produce identification. The situation I am talking about is that of the enumerator's roll. I would much prefer to see a permanent roll. Nevertheless, in the case of an enumerator's roll, the person could swear that he is who he says he is and that he has lived for the prescribed time in the riding, is therefore entitled to vote and can vote. People can do this if they live in the rural part of the constituency but not if they live in the urban part of the constituency. In my opinion, that is sheer nonsence. Why does this bill not deal with that problem? This bill deals simply with reducing the number of days in an election campaign.
There is another circumstance that comes to mind, which I have seen take place many times. I am sure every member in this House who does his constituency duty on election day by visiting the polls to see if there is anything that can be done finds many people showing up at the wrong poll. The polling officer is not always sure where these people ought to be. People ask where they can go to cast their ballots if they are at the wrong place. First, I would suggest there ought to be a full voters' list, either enumerated or a permanent one in each polling station in the hands of the polling clerk. In addition, there should be a map of the entire riding, properly marked off so that a person having found his name can look at the map and say "I thought I voted here because I live on the boundary, but I see that I should be voting over there." For instance, let us say a person lives in Sidney, but should be in the North Saanich area and finds that he should be voting in McTavish. It is then a very simple matter. But sometimes people come from work to vote. It may be 6.30 p.m. or 7 p.m. before they arrive to vote. When they find they are in the wrong place, they realize they may miss the vote because they will never make it to the other polling station which might be some distance away. It may happen that it takes too long to find out where they should be voting. I suggest, therefore, that a full map of the riding be put in every polling station along with a complete roll of the voters in a constituency. Either the polling officer or someone else at the polling station can then help them.
Although I do not want to hold this bill up, I am quite upset that it does so little. I suppose what limited provisions there are in it should be passed on to the Senate for consideration.
However, I do not believe that we should be required to debate a bill which has such a narrow purpose, which is to simply shorten the length of an election period, when there are so many other equally important matters in the Canada Elections Act which require reform.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief in my remarks and will indicate that I would like to register my support for this bill.
April 30, 1982

I recall, during second reading of this bill, that I went into some detail on matters pertaining to electoral reform and pointed out some provisions which should have been included. I will not repeat those today. One of the arguments made by some members of the opposition in favour of longer election periods was that a shorter period would tend to favour the incumbents. Since the government of the day would have more incumbents than the opposition, they would get the vote.
The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) has demonstrated this afternoon that this was not the case in Saskatchewan or Manitoba. I believe that as long as the campaign lasts for a least 25 days, a shorter period will have no bearing on an election outcome. Although we saw the government of two provinces change, it was not typical of a shorter election campaign. This can be evidenced by the Newfoundland experience.
Longer election periods in excess of two months were necessary in the early days of confederation when politicians were required to travel across the country by train and to the outlying areas by horsedrawn vehicles. However, with today's instant electronic communication via television and radio, it is not necessary. Even the printed word can be produced very quickly. For example, I recently visited a printing plant in my constiuency and was shown a machine which could print 2,000 copies of anything a customer wanted in ten minutes. Therefore, it does not require long periods of time in order to produce hand bills and other election material.
The primary reason why I suport a reduction in the election period is that it appears to be the wish of the voters and those who have to suffer us politicians through long election campaigns.
During elections in which I was a candidate, people would tell me two weeks before voting day that they were sick and tired of listening to politicians repeating their arguments and hearing them once again every time they would turn on their televisions. They had either made up their mind several days before or they had no intention of making up their mind until they walked into the polling booth. We should show some mercy to the voting public of Canada by not bombarding them with these electoral messages day in and day out, ad nauseam. We should give them a rest and reduce the period of the election campaign to at least the 50 days suggested in this bill.
Another problem concerns enumeration, one which has been pointed out by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) and other members who have spoken to this bill this afternoon. There are probably more complaints with regard to enumeration than any other electoral process. People complain because they are either not on the voting list or are on the wrong one and end up in the wrong polling station. Since people are frequently not at home when the enumerator calls, they fail to be properly enumerated. The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain pointed out that this is particularly true because both parents are working and the children are at school.
There could be two approaches taken to the problem of enumeration. One solution was suggested by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) which was to establish a permanent voters' list. This system has worked successfully in
Canada Elections Act
some jurisdictions and it may be appropriate to adopt that procedure in Canada. At least it warrants more careful study.
Another system would involve eliminating a voters' list entirely. In a number of countries, as is the case in some rural areas of Canada, voters just attend the polling station, identify themselves and are then allowed to vote. In some countries after being sworn in, are stamped with indelible ink so that they cannot vote again. Perhaps we could use a system similar to that. It is similar to having your hand stamped when you go to a social function, thus allowing you to leave the room and then return to it. The election system would perhaps be more sophisticated but the notion of enabling everyone to vote only once is workable.
My last point concerns the appointment of election officials. I am not in favour of the existing system whereby the government in power may appoint the returning officers and deputy returning officers. Its smacks too much of patronage.
As an illustration, just this morning I read a volume of correspondence written by Sir John A. Macdonald. One of the letters in that file was to one of his supporters who was running for office. The gist of the letter indicated that Sir John A. Macdonald had been fortunate enough, in his opinion, to secure the services of a certain returning officer who, he thought, would be favourable towards this particular candidate. This happened approximately 100 years ago. I do not know whether it happens as blatantly today, but I would not put it past some of our friends on the other side of the House.
I have another story about Sir John A. Macdonald and elections. In the old Northwest Territories, before the government stole Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba from us, the lieutenant governor of the day sent a wire to Sir John A. Macdonald concerning the fact that one of the requirements for a voter was that he should be a householder. This was before universal enfranchisement when women were given the right to vote. The question asked by the lieutenant governor was whether people living in teepees should be considered as householders for voting purposes. Of course, the reply was; yes, if they were Conservatives.
In any event, it is my contention that the appointment of electoral officials, returning officers, deputy returning officers and all those officials required to conduct an election should be appointed by and be under the direct control of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada. I believe that he has made that recommendation himself on several occasions, and he has my support for it and, I would think, the support of many other members as well.
Let me say in conclusion that I will be pleased to support this proposed legislation.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to say that I listened to the last speech, which was given by my colleague, the hon. member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) and I enjoyed it very much. The people in the north have a peculiar problem which you and I do not face, as

April 30, 1982
Canada Elections Act
Your Honour, lives in an urban area and I live in a suburban area of the national capital. This problem is not present in Toronto, but 1 suppose something akin to it can be found in some western ridings, and especially the northern parts of Saskatchean, Alberta and British Columbia. If one were to review the minutes of the committees, one would find that those questions and differences have all been addressed. We all hope that the short period set forth in this bill is a reasonable compromise. Therefore, I join with my friends from all over the country to say that I hope this new compromise works.
Speaking personally for a moment as a candidate in four elections, I want to say that the previous election period seemed to be very long indeed. It must be murder for party leaders who travel the country by airplane, going through time changes, time zones, hours of darkness and hours of light, adjusting eating schedules and doing all of the things they must do in order to maintain some semblance of strength and mental order so that they can carry on from place to place. The problems are tremendous. In a period of time when we seem to have the advantages, if they can be called that, of almost instantaneous communication, it is well that we consider this bill and the propositions it sets forth.
As I say, I believe the bill is a reasonable compromise. I do not think we should end our consideration of elections and representation in the House of Commons by saying that we can deal only with time, that we can merely deal with the posting of notices and the shortening of election periods. There are some other matters which are crucial to all of us who are interested in the House of Commons. I regret that some of the problems which have occurred and are likely to occur are problems which have come about by neglect, or perhaps by allowing this House to grow like Topsy. Perhaps this has created problems for members of Parliament in many ways. However, I want to deal with some of the relevant problems when we consider any change in the electoral process. The result of the present electoral process means that at least 282 men and women are sent here to represent Canadians from various parts of the country. This Parliament is a very complex institution. Its wellbeing is affected by many factors beyond the internal rules it sets for itself or the different personalities of which it is composed.
During my period of office as president of the Privy Council, I proposed many changes to the rules of the House of Commons. In the present session of Parliament, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) has promised rules reforms, but none have yet seemed to materialize. I say that regretfully. Strangely enough, an important change is about to be made in the House. It has really been unannounced and it is unwanted by many hon. members in the House. By the next election, there will be an additional 28 members of Parliament to be elected to the House, bringing it to a total of 310 seats. By the year 2001, which is only 20 years ahead, no matter how exotic it may sound, the membership of this House could leap up to the ludicrous total of 374 or 375.
These changes may very well be made without any discussion in the House because a loophole in the legislation required a committee to look into it. This situation had its origins in the
review of representation following the census in 1981. Keep it in mind that the British North America Act requires a new apportionment of seats after each decennial census. Under the law enforced to govern representation under which the size of the House of Commons was basically kept stable, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Manitoba and Newfoundland were to lose seats. This was considered to be unacceptable by members of Parliament from those provinces. Furthermore, it was unacceptable to certain MPs who were to lose their own seats under the terms of the new redistribution. One of those unahppy individuals was the present Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), then the president of the Privy Council and the minister responsible for electoral reform.
So what happened? The boundary readjustment was suspended and the whole issue was referred to a committee. Eventually, a new representation act was passed, embodying what came to be called the amalgam method. It was called that because it combined three different formulae for apportioning seats to small, medium and large provinces. More important, in connection with our present problem, it legislated that in the decennial readjustment of representation, no province was to lose seats. The province of Quebec was to become the basis of calculations for all the provinces. Quebec would have 75 seats, and four more seats would be added after every decennial census. The House would therefore grow very substantially every ten years.
In the federal election of 1979, the first under the new system, 18 new seats were added. The big winners were Quebec, Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. Despite growth in Canada's population, the population of individual ridings had been held relatively constant as a result. The members of Parliament and the minority parliament of 19721974 knew very well that what they were doing was temporary and that they were dealing only with their own situations and were passing the general question as to whether provinces should see their representation eroded on to a new parliament. This is a new Parliament. In fact, this specific provision was included in the new Representation Act, 1974, requiring the House of Commons of 1979 to review the whole formula for setting the number of seats and distributing them among the provinces. I would like to quote the section of the act which calls for that review. Section 7 of the said act states:
The President of the Privy Council shall,
(a)	on a day not later than the twentieth sitting day of the House of Commons
after the 30th day of June, 1979, if there is then an existing Parliament, or
(b)	if there is not then an existing Parliament, on a day not later than the
twenty-fifth sitting day of the House of Commons after Parliament has been
summoned,
propose to the House of Commons that an order be made and referred to the appropriate committee of the House of Commons for the review by that committee of the Rules provided by subsection 51(1) of the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1974, as amended by the British North America Act (No. 2), 1974, and for the recommendations of such committee with respect to any amendments, alterations or modifications thereto that appear to the committee then to be necessary or desirable, and upon such order being referred to it the committee shall consider the matter of the order and report to the House its recommendations with respect thereto.
April 30, 1982

That is delightful draftsman's language. If Your Honour could decipher it, you would realize that the review was to be commenced in the early fall of 1979, even if an election came before the reference could be proposed to the House. I emphasize the word "proposed". A committee was then to hold a thorough review and report to the House. In other words, Parliament in 1974 wanted the House in 1979 to catch the hot potato it was passing on and figure out whether or not it was wise to let the House go on growing.
Unfortunately, the draftsman provided for every contingency but the one which occurred. In the fall of 1979 I, as president of the Privy Council, did propose such a motion to the House. Debate on this committee reference was indeed begun before the twenty-fifth sitting day had elapsed, on November 12, 1979. A detailed discussion paper was being prepared by my officials to assist at committee. That paper set out a number of alternatives to the unrestrained growth of the House of Commons.
Before the reference could be debated further, the House fell and the government changed. No more has been heard of a review of the 1974 Representation Act. The 1981 census has now come and gone. The redistribution that I have spoken about and the number of seats that the process commenced is pretty well fixed in stone, unless there is some other sculptor to change the etching on that stone.
In the most technical sense the requirements of the act have been met. A reference was proposed and called for debate. If the reference lapses, so do all the provisions for the committee review based on that reference. The nullification of the review provisions by a new election was not foreseen by the original draftsman of the Representation Act. Nor did they foresee that a government would happily let this House become a bloated monstrosity without any comment from its members. Rather than address the difficult questions faced and then avoided in 1974 for the reasons 1 have given, the government has decided to avoid them again. I hear nothing about this question now. Worse still, there is no further review of this reckless growth scheduled under the act. All the brakes now seem to be off.
The potential exists, not only for the House to grow after a few decades to the size of the British House of Commons at 635 members but to ultimately surpass it, because there is no end in sight to this growth under the formula at the moment.
What will happen to the Canadian House of Commons if every ten years it grows by about 30 members of Parliament? We are already at our physical limit. To accommodate the new 18 members in 1979, the Speaker's chair was moved right back to the press gallery wall and all the aisles between the seats were made narrower. If we have 30 more members in this House, we will have to replace the desks with benches, knock out the walls or eliminate the aisles altogether and use cranes to lower members of Parliament into their benches.
The cost would be incredible. In 1979 my officials estimated that each additional MP resulted directly in an expenditure of
Canada Elections Act
$140,000 in personal and staff salaries. That would be between $170,000 and $190,000 today. The indirect costs are probably more frightening. In the last 20 years the House has taken over the West Block, the Confederation Building, the Metropolitan Life Building, the East Block, and has rented floor space in a few other buildings. By the time the new Royal Bank building on Sparks Street is ready, we will have to take it as well if there are more members added to the House.
I believe the impact on the operation of the House will be devastating. It is already difficult for many backbenchers to be recognized during question period or during a major debate. More and more members of considerable talent feel that the line-up for a cabinet position or some other key role is already too long. It is too easy to waste years as an MP in waiting. It is incredible to think that a major expansion of the House with all its physical, economic and even its psychological implications will be allowed to take place without a word from those most affected.
There are very serious questions to be addressed by the House of Commons and by the government. Do we want to let the House continue to grow and, if so, by how much? Is it reasonable to try to keep constituencies at the same population level or should we expand staff and technical resources instead of the House itself? Can we allow provinces to lose seats if they lag behind in population growth?
Is Quebec, as the home of most of Canada's French-speaking population a special case? Should there be a floor below which no province can fall, and how should that floor be set? Do provinces gain much if instead of actually losing seats they merely retain a fixed representation while other provinces gain more and more seats?
The answer so far has been to solve this problem by negligence. The House will grow and the people will pay more politicians and the frustrations of parliamentary life will grow as well. I believe the government must honour the spirit of the law and refer this matter to a committee. It should stay referred there so that we can hear from the members of the House of Commons who are interested in the operation of this place. Those cabinet papers that I had should be put there so this whole matter can be considered. It has already wasted time. The census has passed. Unless this Parliament acts, we are going to start this mathematical progression to monstrous proportions in terms of the House.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your indulgence in allowing me to speak to this matter. I feel it is important. It is just as important for the operation of this House of Commons that we consider how we are, how many there should be, what resources we should have, what service should be available to us in our representational capacity and how we can function, as it is to consider how many days we should take to get here. That is the contribution I want to make to this debate. I thank hon. members. I hope they will consider what I have said because it is very important to our wellbeing in the House.
May I call it four o'clock Mr. Speaker?

April 30, 1982
Public Service


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to call it four o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, someone across the aisle says he thought we had an agreement.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I guess I was wrong.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: It would appear you are wrong.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member should address his remarks to the Chair.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: In rising to participate in this debate, 1 wish to echo some of the views put on the record by the previous speaker. The question of enlarging the membership of this House is of great concern not only to the people of my constituency but to all the people of Canada. I have been here since June 10, 1957. On June 10 of this year, I will celebrate 25 years as a member of the Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: During that period I witnessed many changes in the House. The previous speaker referred to changes which were recently made, including moving the front desks closer to each other. Since the prime purpose is to keep them at least the distance of two swords apart, I was beginning to wonder just where the space would be found if we added 25 or more members to the House.


An hon. Member:: Shorten the swords.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 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, private bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall all orders preceding No. 97 stand by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYMENT ACT-PUBLIC SERVICE STAFF RELATIONS ACT AMENDMENTS RESPECTING POLITICAL RIGHTS OF PUBLIC SERVANTS
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West) moved: that Bill C-297, to amend the Public Service Employment Act and the Public Service Staff Relations Act (political rights), be read the
second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
He said: I thank the House for the opportunity to present this bill. I have had it on the order paper for a number of years and I have been lucky in the draw, or the session of Parliament has lasted long enough, that we have reached Bill C-297. It is always appropriate to debate this kind of subject, but it is more appropriate now, since tomorrow is May Day. Around the world, workers celebrate May Day.
All of us have good intentions about the rights of people generally but these good intentions do not go for much if they are not backed up by actions. The best current example we have at the moment is the situation in Poland where people are denied the fundamental freedom of expression. Members of all parties in the House have spoken passionately and sincerely in support of those kinds of rights-for El Salvador, for Argentina-wherever human rights are denied. The Canadian situation is not as extreme but I hope members will recognize the need for political rights for federal public servants of the same kind that all other citizens of Canada have.
The Civil Service Act of 1913 contained a provision, virtually unchanged to this day, severely limiting the civil rights of federal employees. Section 32 of the Public Service Employment Act is headed "Political Partisanship". My bill changes this offensive heading to read "Political Rights".
Clause 1 of the bill would prevent discrimination in employment for political allegiance or activity.
Clause 2 of the bill sets out the political rights of employees who, under existing legislation, can be fired for political activities for or against candidates or parties seeking office. This bill would allow employees to engage in political activity on their own time, when they are off duty, or if they take holidays with pay or get leave of absence without pay. It would allow an employee to take leave of absence to be a candidate in an election-federal, provincial or municipal. An employee elected in such an election would automatically be on leave of absence for up to five years. I am talking about those who come under the Public Service Commission.
I agree that employees who are employed under orders in council or on contract are in an entirely different category. I do not expect a Liberal government to hire a Conservative or a member of the New Democratic Party to be a deputy minister or a branch head or the head of a Crown corporation. I do not expect the government in power to hire somebody to be in a position either to draft or be responsible for implementing a policy with which he does not agree. It is perfectly legitimate,
April 30, 1982

in my opinion, when governments change, for the new administration to bring in people it wants to hold the highest office in the Public Service to draft and to implement the policies of the government of that day. So I am not talking about those who are order in council employees or who work for the government under contract.
Under the existing Public Service Staff Relations Act, public service unions-even the unions-are not allowed to use membership money for political purposes, even if the membership votes overwhelmingly or unanimously to spend some of their money for political purposes. The union itself is barred from doing that. Yet all other unions can do it at any time they want, for any political party. Any organization or association can do it at any time they wish. There is a legislative prohibition against the Public Service unions. Even if they unanimously vote to spend some of their money for political purposes of whatever nature, they can be decertified. Surely that is not fair.
My bill would give Public Service unions the same rights and privileges as have all other unions in Canada-or for that matter all other organizations and associations who choose to spend money for political purposes.
Civil servants, those who are appointed by orders in council or are under contract, can still exercise their political rights; but they will have to take their chances. There will always be people in positions of high responsibility, and the secrecy of government discussions and so forth must be maintained. All the others should have the same rights as other Canadians, the same political freedom to decide whether or not they want to donate money individually or through their unions to a political party or to a candidate.
I would like to remind the House, Mr. Speaker, that when a person takes employment in the Public Service each employee takes an oath of office and secrecy which says:
I will faithfully and honestly fulfil the duties that devolve upon me by reason of my employment in the Public Service and that I will not, without due authority in that behalf, disclose or make known any matter that comes to my knowledge by reason of such employment.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, that is a sufficient safeguard for any legislative body or government. Why, then, with the requirement that that kind of an oath be taken, would any government want to restrict the political rights of its own employees? Surely that safeguard is in place and it is sufficient?
Political rights for civil service employees have worked in practice, although five provinces in this country still deny political rights, they being Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario and Quebec. The other five allow various larger degrees of freedom than we presently have in the federal statutes. The experiences have been good. In Saskatchewan an employee cannot be forced to engage in political work nor can he be discriminated against for taking part in political activity. British Columbia probably has the best legislation. Employees can be granted leave without pay to serve in an elective position for up to five years and can be granted leave without pay to be a candidate. There are no restrictions, other than the oath of office, for employees of the B.C. government who engage in political activities in their own time. I say that the experience has been good, Mr. Speaker.
Public Service
1 have worked in, or run in, about 25 elections, federal and provincial, since 1952. I have seen public servants be candidates or campaign managers or organizers or canvassers. They could just put up a sign on the lawn. They were from all political parties, no matter what government was in power in my province.
I would like to illustrate that. When Mr. Douglas brought in legislation in 1945 guaranteeing political rights for public servants, there was a great deal of worry. But the experience was good. There were civil servants who wanted leave to work on behalf of the Liberals, the Tories, the NDP, the CCF or Social Credit. They returned to their jobs and they carried out their duties conscientiously.
I do not know of a single instance where a public servant who took part in political party activity in his own time, who was not of the persuasion of the party in power in Saskatchewan, who would ever in any way either betray or work against the duties that he was required to do in his employment.
After we were defeated in 1964 and there were five former CCF MLAs working for Crown corporations or government departments, the new premier, Mr. Thatcher, did not fire them. He kept them working. He told them quite frankly that as long as they did their jobs conscientiously and did not do any CCFing while they were on duty, there would be no problem. Similarly, when Mr. Blakeney took power in 1971, two former Liberal candidates in the employ of the provincial government were not fired. Both of them kept working for a number of years. In fact, I think one of them is still working in a government department. They did their jobs conscientiously and properly and retained their political rights. For all I know, one or both of them might end up being candidates for the Liberal party again, although that would not be a good idea in Saskatchewan at the moment. At any event, the experience has been good.
Bill C-297 might not be the perfect solution. Even if hon. members on all sides do not agree entirely with the details of my bill, I ask the House to pass it-preferably-let it go at second reading and let it go to the appropriate committee of Parliament so that a committee of the House can examine it and come back with a recommendation. If the bill does not pass now at second reading I hope hon. members will at least let the subject matter of the bill be referred to the appropriate standing committee of Parliament because this is putting action where our words are. This is following up on what is being done in other places and what is in our Constitution. In fact, it is very possible that a federal government or a provincial government could find itself in court because of a denial of the rights and freedoms contained in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in our new Constitution, and I do not think even this government wants to work that hard at causing trouble for itself.
Surely, what I ask for is nothing more than simple justice and propriety on the part of this Parliament and the government to ensure that the political rights within the framework

April 30, 1982
Public Service
defined in my bill are enshrined in the law of this land for our public servants. I am confident that no matter what party is in power the experience will be like that which we have had in Saskatchewan and British Columbia. The experience will be good. In fact, I suspect we will get even better work and performance out of our public servants.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak about this matter for just a few moments because it is something which has troubled me a great deal and occupied some time in the House of Commons.
I will not suggest-the hon. member who has just spoken also noted this-that we might agree with every clause, every comma and every jot in his bill, but I think the bill raises some very important questions which are quite pertinent at the moment and which, I believe, should be addressed by the House of Commons. We are talking about something which is quite fundamental. As my friend, the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), has just mentioned, we dealt with the Constitution a few days ago. It was proclaimed by Her Majesty the Queen on April 17 when she was here in Ottawa, and the question of the rights of public servants has engaged the House, but it is likely to engage us in a new sense, a constitutional sense, as we go on to consider political rights, democratic rights, equality rights and the application of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We will have to find out what the Charter means, and I do not think it would hurt to begin that examination in a parliamentary committee. If the House saw fit today to refer this bill to a House committee to deal with it, I would cheer. I would cheer even if my friend were to propose-as he did-that the subject matter of the bill go to a committee. I would be quite prepared to move that kind of motion if that were acceptable to him-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Please do.


Walter David Baker: -because I think it is important.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I will second it.


Walter David Baker: I do not propose to speak at length about the bill, and I do not propose to refer to it in relation to a case which has just now been heard under the law with respect to one particular public servant. However, that case has disturbed me because it has raised some real questions in my mind about the state of the law at the moment.
Political rights of public servants are governed by Section 32 of their statute, and that section has caused me to write to the chairman of the Public Service Commission on one occasion. I wrote to him and asked him about how that section might apply. Section 32 of the Public Service Employment Act deals with the political rights of people and says that a person does not contravene the limitations by reason only of his attending a political meeting or contributing money for the funds of a candidate for election as a member or money for the funds of a political party. Then it goes on to talk about the rights of
public servants to make applications. What it says, interestingly enough, is that a person can belong to a political party, he can go to a meeting, he can give money and he can do everything else everyone else in the country can do, but he does not have the right to speak. According to the chairman of the Public Service Commission, he does not have the right to speak by putting a sign on his lawn or to speak in the course of a political discussion.
Neil Fraser and another public servant in eastern Canada who headed a committee dealing with the compensation to be paid UFFI victims were told they could not speak even about matters which did not deal directly with their departments but which were political to the extent that they were programs of the government. I think we have a real problem on our hands, and I do not think the second reading stage of debate in the House of Commons is the time to consider that problem. However, I do believe it is time we faced up to things and had this subject matter before a committee of the House of Commons.
With respect to political rights, I am a member of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, and that committee had before it one night Mr. Edgar Gallant, the chairman of the Public Service Commission, and the next day the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) appeared to discuss this matter. We were discussing it in terms of the fact that in Canada there is no comprehensive codified system yet developed which would apply to all situations for all public servants and employees of Crown corporations, ministers, members of Parliament and so forth. There is nothing. There is no code of ethics. There is no code of conduct. There are some old oaths around relating to one's duties to the programs in one's department, but there is nothing general.
I put a question to the chairman of the Public Service Commission when he was there. Knowing his view that codification may not be the best way, I asked him whether he thought the time had now come when we should review this matter. I asked him if he thought it is an appropriate time for this whole question to go to a parliamentary committee. The chairman, quite honestly and forthrightly, as is usual for him when he is asked questions by members in committee, said, "Yes, I do think it is time this matter was discussed". It was raised in the context of the Neil Fraser case because that was on everyone's mind. It was not pursued in that context because it goes far beyond the elements of that case.
Next day the President of the Treasury Board appeared before the committee and I put the same general question to him and asked how he felt about it. He said he had no objection to the parliamentary committee dealing with the question and that he would consult his colleagues. I gave him a reasonable amount of time to do that. I gather from his answer in the House a few days ago that he is still consulting them or, if he has consulted them, they have not responded yet. I think the government should respond. It could do so today if it wished.

April 30, 1982

The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said that with respect to matters political, civil servants can only talk philosophy. You know, Mr. Speaker, how profitable a discussion on matters of philosophy can be. Sometimes we think the problem with the government is that it discusses philosophy rather than practical matters.
There is no statute law that prohibits the conduct that has given rise to the debate before the committee. I wonder if in the Fraser case or perhaps the case of the employees of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy), the government would have moved so swiftly if the issue being criticized on those occasions was not metric, bilingualism, the Constitution and a few other things but had been criticism of the slowness of the government to act on the freedom of information policy. If Neil Fraser had been criticizing the government on that, I wonder if they would have thought him an ally and done nothing about what he said.
After I put a question to the President of the Treasury Board on February 24 in the House, he admitted to reporters outside the House that the situation of public servants might not be so clear. In fact, he called it a "grey area". Yet he refused to intervene against the dismissal of one public servant who had to be left to his own devices.
The Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais) has said that it is quite permissible for a public servant to speak out and advocate and market programs, even though such programs may be the subject of partisan political debate in the country. That is permissible. A public servant can speak in favour of partisan issues that the government likes but cannot speak against partisan issues that the government does not like. There is a double standard there that should be examined.
The public service of 1982 is not the public service of 1918. It may have escaped the notice of the government, but in the intervening years unions have been allowed in the public service sector, public servants can belong to political parties, and they can stand as candidates in an election. So the evolution in Canada, as in the rest of the world until this case came up, has been in favour of freedom and openness rather than restriction.
Of course a public servant cannot openly criticize the policy of his department, but is he prohibited from expressing himself in other areas of public policy which affect him personally? For instance, if his house is insulated with urea formaldehyde, can he join a group that is intent on attacking the policy of compensation of the government, with impunity? If he feels abused by the government's high interest rate policy, can he march on Parliament Hill with other Canadians, when his unions and affiliates have arranged such a march, as they did?
The example of the senior officer in a firm in the private sector that was used by the President of the Treasury Board when he answered my question on February 24 in the House, was not very helpful. Of course, if that senior person was publicly critical of his firm's policy, then I think this dismissal might be justified. But is there a reasonable case for dismissal if such a man or woman said nothing about the policy of his firm-let us assume it was a law firm-but was critical of the Law Society of Upper Canada? Or if an employee of Mitel
Public Service
was not critical of Mitel but had something to say about the Canadian Association of Advanced Technology?
The practice of government has changed as well. The Liberal government spends millions of dollars advertising programs and policies even before they are passed by Parliament. In 1982, then, are public servants risking dismissal if they write to their MP and urge him not to support, say, a proposal in the budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mac-Eachen) which deals with pensions? I do not think so.
Clearly, then, the case that is engaging the attention of the public, the Fraser case and the other cases that have been referred to, illustrate just how dangerous it is to accept without question the views of the government on the matter. They also illustrate just how important it is that there be some way that this issue can be examined by a parliamentary committee and how important it is that this bill receive the appropriate approval of the House and that the subject matter go to committee.
As the rules stand now, they are unclear and their enforcement is uneven. I believe it is within the capability of Parliament to at least attempt to clear up some of the confusion.
If this bill is helpful, and I believe it can be, to clear up matters that deal with the rights of unions, which are of concern to the hon. member and myself, because that atmosphere is changing as well, then it is equally important that it be used as a vehicle to deal with questions regarding employees of the government and their rights.
In today's mail I received a copy of a letter from a Mr. John L. Fryer, President of the National Union of Provincial Government Employees, which was directed to the President of the Treasury Board. It reads as follows:
Dear Mr. Johnston:
A month has passed since it was reported in the Ottawa Citizen that you had endorsed the proposal to give a Parliamentary Committee the job of trying to clarify the political rights of public servants.
I wrote to you on March 30th commending you on this decision and on April 7th I received acknowledgement of my letter from your Correspondence Coordinator.
Upon enquiring of your office and others it would appear that there is still no Committee and still no terms of reference respecting this very important issue.
Again I wish to advise you that this matter is of major importance to public service employees both in the Federal and Provincial jurisdictions. We deem it a most worth-while exercise to have these political rights clarified for the benefit of the employees themselves as well as the politicians and the public generally.
I urge you to press forward with the formation of this Parliamentary Committee so that it can get on with this most important task.
Today is the day, Mr. Speaker. If the President of the Treasury Board meant what he said, if the words and views of the Chairman of the Public Service Commission are to have life breathed into them, then the time has come for study. Today is the day. Today is the day when a former minister of this government, the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen), or the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Cousineau), can get on their feet on behalf of this government and say: "ready, aye ready; let us examine the program and use the bill of the hon. member for Regina as a vehicle to do it."

April 30, 1982
Public Service


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Don't talk this bill out.


Dave Nickerson: I promise 1 will not talk the bill out, Mr. Speaker. I hope the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) or the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Cousineau) will not either. They would certainly be doing their constituents a disfavour were they to attempt to do so.
I am pleased that the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) has brought this matter to our attention. I will not speak very long on this bill, but I would like to say that in principle I support the idea of having this subject referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates so that it can be looked at in detail. I find a little difficulty with some of the wording, but the thought and the principle behind this bill are good. It is a matter worthy of detailed consideration and serious study in committee.
Like the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), I represent an area where there are many public servants, both at the federal and at the more junior levels. You run up against some very funny things in areas like this. In some areas where almost all the population works directly for the public service, or they have family members who do, it is very hard to get any kind of a political discussion going. It is pretty hard to get assistance for any political party in an election because people are afraid of losing their jobs. They themselves do not know what their rights are. I ran up against an example of that a couple of elections ago when we wished to hire a band to play at an election rally. I am sure the other political parties were trying to do precisely the same thing and probably would have been quite willing to hire the same band, but band members felt that, because their full-time job was in the public service, they could not even do that. They could not play music at a political meeting because in some way their supervisor might not like what happened and they feared for their jobs, An extreme example, I am sure, but a very common problem.
In every election campaign in the area which I represent, whether it be federal, territorial or even municipal, this question always comes up. At all political meetings people want to know what the candidates feel about the matter of political rights for public servants. It has been an issue for many years. I understand that at the territorial level in the Yukon they have come up with some pretty good legislation granting certain political rights to certain classes of public servants. If this matter gets to committee I would suggest the Yukon legislation dealing with this matter be looked at because it appears to have worked reasonably well in that jurisdiction.
I have been requested by many of my constituents to have this matter discussed openly in Parliament so that they will know where they stand. By and large the opinion of public servants is that they would like more political rights. Some people who are not public servants are worried about going too far in that direction. Although they support public servants having a certain amount of political rights, they see a line across which you should not go. One of the difficulties we face in this subject is defining where public servants may get really
involved in the political process and where they should not become at all involved. Obviously if you are a deputy minister you should stay away from partisan activities. In no way should he be seen as an outright supporter of one political party or another. On the other hand, take a person who happens to be a bricklayer or drives a grader for the highways department. Obviously, there is no reason why that person should not be the president of a local political organization. There is no harm done there. But where do you draw the line?
If someone is dealing continuously on important topics with members of the general public and is known to be a strong supporter of a particular party, someone of another political stripe is going to be leery of dealing with that person. People in that kind of position should control what they do. Very often it is a question of a public servant determining in his own mind how far he can or should go in his overt political activities.
The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton cited changes in the public service since confederation. At one time only a small percentage of the working population was employed in the public service. It was something of an elite group, and in those times it was understood that if you got into this type of work you were prepared to give up some of the political rights that other people enjoyed. People could understand and live with that. But now, if you take public servants at the federal, provincial and municipal levels, and include Crown corporations, you probably end up with 35 per cent or 40 per cent of the working population employed by the government in one way or another. The situation is now entirely different because government makes up so much of the modern economy and it is almost impossible not to have someone in a family working for government one way or another. Therefore, we have to change our ideas as to the propriety of people being involved in political activity when they or their relatives are employed by the government. I would not like to see some 35 per cent or 40 per cent of the population excluded from exercising political rights which other people accept as being common.
I enjoyed listening to the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton because he broadened the question somewhat. He cited some recent occurrences which make it very important that these questions be addressed and resolved in the near future. It is not something we should let slip by. We should pursue it with diligence. There is a wider case than just partisan activity that has to be examined. I hope it can be looked at simultaneously when we look at this aspect in committee.
I am now turning over the floor to the hon. member for Gatineau and the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton so they can have ample opportunity to make representations without having to resort to talking out this bill. If they do not talk it out, I am sure we will have some very interesting discussions in committee.


Mr. John Evans (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) obviously did not
April 30, 1982

know there were others in the Elouse as interested in this particular reference as he is himself and as is the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker). But I can assure you that 1 am very interested in this subject. Perhaps surprisingly to some and perhaps surprisingly to the hon. member for Western Arctic, I have been the victim of such a policy at an earlier point. From 1975 to 1979 I was a member of the public service in a senior executive category. When I decided to seek political office I approached the Public Service Commission to see if I could obtain a leave of absence to undertake political activities involving nomination leading to elected office. I was told at that time that I could not have a leave of absence. Being at a senior level in the public service I interacted with the minister. My impartiality as a public servant would be seriously called into question. For example, had I lost in 1979-which I did not-and had I been on a leave of absence only to return to the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, I would have been faced at that time with a Conservative minister. That Conservative minister was part of a cabinet that would have included the individual I had defeated in Ottawa Centre. What an extremely precarious position it would have been for me to be in as a senior public servant!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: He would have kept you working.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. de Cotret, who was the hon. member for Ottawa Centre and whom I defeated in 1979 was made a Senator. He was named to the cabinet and became a minister. The hon. member for Durham-Northumberland (Mr. Lawrence) was the minister of consumer and corporate affairs. The situation could arise where Mr. de Cotret and the minister of consumer and corporate affairs would be in a cabinet committee, which I attended from time to time as a public servant. 1 would be sitting across the table from a man I had defeated in Ottawa Centre.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: What is wrong with that?


John Leslie Evans: You can imagine how much credibility I, as a public servant, would have had in the eyes of the particular minister. I would not have had very much credibility. I would suggest to you that my career as a public servant would have either ended rather abruptly had I received a leave of absence only to return to the public service, or the department, out of kindness, generosity and basic good sense, would have buried me as far away from ministers as they possibly could.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: This bill will protect you.


John Leslie Evans: Should I have been allowed a leave of absence? The hon. member for Western Arctic raised that very point. At the same time as I ran for office another individual in the public service ran on behalf of the New Democratic Party against me in Ottawa Centre, but he did receive leave of absence. He works in the Public Archives and he has run as my opponent in Ottawa Centre in the last two elections. He was granted a leave of absence because he was not in a sensitive position. His position in the public service has not been affected. But that is a perfect example of the spectrum, where
Public Service
one person is in a position where he or she interacts with ministers and makes policy recommendations to ministers.
A public servant has to be objective, fair and impartial. Only in this manner can a minister have confidence in that person being completely politically impartial. But what about the situation of a public servant who does not interact, does not directly make policy, and who is not visible to the minister? The relationship between the minister and his or her department is not affected. 1 can see the need for that difference. But that raises another fundamental issue. What the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Benjamin) is discussing is equal rights for Canadians. I suggest that my rights are as important as the rights of an individual who works in the Archives and who ran for the New Democratic Party. But under any kind of system that we can visualize where we are not going to politicize the public service, my rights would have to be different from the rights of an individual in a different category or in a different type of job in the public service. No matter what you do, you will have situations where some public servants have rights and other public servants do not.
This leads into the question of why am I entering the public service? Is it my role as a public servant to make policy and to enter into public debate on public policy, or is it my job as a public servant to implement policy which has been made by the elected representatives of the people? I suggest that the public service is a very unique type of occupation. It is different from all others. Those of us here in the House, the hon. member for Western Arctic, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton, the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Cousineau) and the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) were elected by the people to be their representatives in the House of Commons and to make public policy. To do that effectively we have to have a body of people to implement public policy. There is a dramatic difference in roles, and that distinction and difference has to be maintained. First, there has to be a body of people which the electorate puts in place in the House of Commons to make public policy and there has to be a body of people who have to be totally impartial, not only from the point of view of politicians perceiving those public servants as being impartial, but they have to be impartial from the public who call upon the public servant to provide those services which they have every right to expect from the public servant.
I should say at this point that I agree with the hon. member for Nepean-carleton that this subject should be debated and it should be examined carefully. I am in favour of that. The discussions that I and the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton have had with the minister indicate that the minister is interested. The chairman of the Public Service Commission has told both the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton and me that this matter should be looked at. I am confident it will be. The minister is consulting with his cabinet colleagues on the matter. I am confident he will bring forward a reference to have the matter looked at.

April 30, 1982
Public Service
But I think we have to go deeper than that. Today is a good day to debate whether or not there are distinct differences between those who are elected to make policy for the people on behalf of the people, and those who are elected to deliver those policies to the people. As I mentioned, there is a confidence factor from the point of view of us, as politicians, being able to depend on that advice, or at least having the perception that we depend on that advice. We should not have a knowledge that the advice may be biased or less than objective because of political persuasion. We have to depend on the public servants and we should not ask questions about their loyalty for one political party or another. Their careers could be in jeopardy as well.
My own example is a case in point. My career as a public servant would have been seriously jeopardized had I remained there or returned to it. I think all members can ask the question: if we were defeated in the next election would we feel comfortable going to work for the public service? There is a curious anomaly concerning the Public Service Employment Act. This question was raised with Mr. Gallant when I was applying for my leave of absence. This anomaly is that when applying for a position in the public service, the Public Service Commission cannot look behind your current application for previous political activities or affiliations. Political affiliation cannot be taken into consideration when a public servant is hired. This means that I could have left my position at Consumer and Corporate Affairs, resigned-as I did-and if 1 had been defeated I could have gone back to the Public Service Commission to apply for my old job, and they could not consider the fact that I had run in an election.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That is the way it should be.


John Leslie Evans: I agree with the hon. member. However, that raises a similar problem. I would have been in exactly the same position, sitting beside the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) in a cabinet committee meeting. In that case, had the member I ran against been elected, he would be sitting across the table from me. Therefore, there are some great anomalies.
Another question, apart from our confidence in public servants who act as politicians, concerns the confidence which the public has when they talk to a public servant that they will be treated with total impartiality and will receive good service, irrespective of what political stripe they may be. There should be no question in the mind of some, when talking to a public servant that if he is recognized to be of a different political stripe he will not get good or fast service. Instances of someone who knows a public servant and has fought with him on different sides in an election campaign, and therefore does not expect to have his problem dealt with quickly is just an example of some of the problems encountered.
The hon. member for Regina West should take note because there are other dangers as well which could result from overt political activity in the public service.
One of those problems is and will be experienced in Saskatchewan. With Saskatchewan's wide open public service it has been known that many of the public servants who worked in the Blakeney government have had strong political affiliations. Now that there is a Conservative government there, how confident is that Conservative premier and his government, which was overwhelmingly elected by the people, going to be in the advice they get from the public servants?
I suggest that we should examine very carefully that very situation over the next several months because if, as I suspect may be the case, the premier of Saskatchewan says that he is not confident that he is receiving the best advice, he may simply fire a large number of public servants through some means. We will then have seen an example of a situation which is totally contrary to the parliamentary traditions of this country and of the mother Parliament where public servants are impartial and not replaced when governments change. We can see the beginning of the over-all change in the nature of the public service. When these hearings, which I believe should be called, are held I suggest that some public servants be summoned to talk about that situation. They should be asked how they percieve their political activities and whether those activities will be potentially difficult for them. They have a right to have an opinion on what the rules will be. As well, we have a right to look into that situation. Therefore, I suggest that this matter be examined before the appropriate committee because it is a matter of great concern to my constituents in Ottawa Centre.
I think that I have perhaps played the devil's advocate today in reviewing what is perhaps the downside of political activity. However, my constituents have indicated that they would like more political freedom to put signs on their lawns, for instance, something with which I do not see any great difficulty. People do that anyway. If a man who works in the public service displays a political sign he simply says that it belongs to his wife, or vice versa. If they both work in the public service they just say that the sign belongs to their son or daughter. This is an example of some of the archaic rules which exist in the Public Service Employment Act, which I do not believe have any major application.
However, there are some fundamental questions that politicians, and public servants who advise us, must deal with together in order to establish a fair set of rules which will allow the type of political activity that our constituents want. At the same time we should not put our public servants in a position where they will be victims of changes of a political party at the government level. This is an important consideration because the public service is an important part of our working environment in Canada. They are dedicated people who work long hours and have long careers. I believe we must take that into consideration as well.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?
April 30, 1982


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to answer a question but if I do that, the hon. member for Regina would have to talk out his own bill.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to ask the hon. member if he realizes that in Saskatchewan, and I think at least four other provinces, no new administration can fire their public servants because of their political beliefs. Only order in council appointees and employees on contracts can be dismissed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is a point of argument not a question.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that if the new government in Saskatchewan finds that it has difficulty with the public service or lacks confidence in it, laws can be passed and public servants could be put in a position where they would be fired. I would not want to see public servants put in a position such as that as a result of some action we may take here without due consideration.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, it is rather ironic that when we are so often accused of talking out a bill, we find the opposition members using 40 minutes out of the hour on a subject for which we have a genuine concern. The chairman of the Public Service Commission has indicated that he feels it is time that this matter is studied. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) has also indicated that this subject should be looked into.
Public Service
I commend the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) because I know that he honestly and sincerely believes the views expressed in this bill. However, even he has indicated that his bill is imperfect. He then suggested that we do not deal with the bill itself but rather that we deal with its subject matter. It seems to me that if we adopt that approach to a subject as important as this we will be doing a disservice to the people we want to help, namely, the civil servants.
Frankly, I would have been more inclined to support the hon. member if he had moved this particular matter by way of a motion. We could have then considered all of the issues. The hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) has already indicated some of the difficulties which he envisions. He was honest enough to indicate that he was playing the devil's advocate role but he did state that he thinks it is time for the subject to be studied. I believe it should be studied in a more comprehensive way.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired.

It being 5 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday at two o'clock p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).

Monday, May 3, 1982