1982-11-19

MOTIONS UNDER S.O. 43   HUMAN RIGHTS CONDEMNATION OF TREATMENT OF ANATOLY SHCHARANSKY BY SOVIET AUTHORITIES

['No.']
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter which deeply concerns me. In light of the fact that Soviet dissident, Anatoly Shcharansky, is currently being force-fed to end his hunger strike over the legitimate complaint that he is no longer allowed to receive mail or visits from relatives, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway):
That this Government condemn the actions of the Soviets in the case of Anatoly Shcharansky, and that it urge that steps be taken to put an immediate end to this flagrant violation of human rights, which is in direct contravention of the Helsinki Accord.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, the case raised by my colleague is one of the most tragic violations of human rights the world has seen. Anatoly Shcharansky, a computer scientist, has been imprisoned in the Soviet Union because of his desire to leave that country. He has asked for simple release from the Soviet Union to rejoin his family.
In the light of this motion, and as we have a Canadian delegation in Moscow at the present time, a delegation which is seeking to restore scientific exchanges between Canada and the U.S.S.R., I would make a plea that one of the basic things this delegation can do is to bring the case of Anatoly Shcharansky before the Soviet authorities, that they make these exchanges conditional upon the release of Anatoly Shcharansky before any are carried out. I would extend that plea further to include the Andrei Sakharovs of this world and to the many other scientists, people of international repute, who are being held in prison in the Soviet Union.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, very briefly, I want to join with the mover and the seconder of the motion in urging Soviet officials and representatives of the Government of Canada to meet to discuss the problem of
refusniks in Russia in general and, in particular, the specific problem of Anatoly Shcharansky. I think it is quite clear to everyone that the lack of human rights within the Soviet Union is a matter of grave concern.
In the attempt by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to establish a more cordial and better relationship with the Government of Russia, one of the things that ought to be considered is the human rights record of the Soviet Union. Pressure must be brought to bear to bring about the release of people who would like to leave the Soviet Union, and who, under the Soviet Constitution, legally should be able to leave but who are suffering as a result of their attempt to exercise that freedom.


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of State (External Relations)):: We support this motion because as so many Canadians-I would even say the vast majority of Canadians-We are very concerned about this fundamental negation of the most elementary human rights in the case of Anatoly Shcharansky. Madam Speaker, as you know, the Government of Canada has interceded on behalf of Mr. Shcharansky several times in recent years, including our intervention at the Madrid Conference on European Security and Co-operation. More recently, that is, on October 22, we informed the Embassy of the U.S.S.R. in Canada of our strong opposition to this intolerable negation of human rights in the case of Anatoly Shcharansky. I therefore join my colleague from Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) and the House Leader for the New Democratic Party (Mr. Deans) in asking that the Soviet Union allow Anatoly Shcharansky to leave and also to receive visits from members of his family.


Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, I would also like to indicate my support for this motion. Members may be aware that in September the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), and myself, had the opportunity to go to the Soviet Union to speak to a number of Soviet officials in order to impress upon them the importance that Canadians attach to this issue. This is an issue that we do not view in a partisan way; we view it in a non-partisan way. It is an issue of human rights and an issue about which Canadians care.
I think the message we want the Soviet officials to understand is that we look forward to the possibility of an improved climate in East-West relations, but in order to do this, this is

one issue that must be addressed and is one about which we, as parliamentarians, feel very strongly.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, while this Party stood alone in the humid days of last August in opposition to the restraint Bill, the sanctimonious Tories to my right voted with the Government to impose six and five, knowing full well that it could apply to Public Service benefits as well as Public Service wages. They are now scrambling around, obscenely saying that they oppose this six and five capping of Public Service pensions. I therefore move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young):
That someone provide a daily road map to those who are confused by all of this about-facing so that we will know when the Tories are on the north, south, east or west side of the fence, or perched on the top like mugwumps.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Madam Speaker, after 13 years of continuous publication, the widely read and excellent publication, The Indian Voice newspaper, is faced with imminent closure because of the withdrawal of funding by the Secretary of State. Because this paper is a project of the Indian Homemakers Association, the Secretary of State and the Indian Affairs and Northern Development officials, who obviously do not bother to read the paper, have taken the position that it only represents the views of native women. This reasoning is absolute rubbish. I therefore move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellen-berger):
That the Secretary of State refrain from playing games with a very valuable instrument of communication and continue to fund this newspaper.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?
November 19, 1982


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Madam Speaker, a tragic civil war continues in El Salvador, with assassinations, disappearances and murders. Last week, El Salvadoran Church officials reported 4,400 documented cases of victims of this violence in the first ten months of 1982. Bishop Arturo Rivera Y Damas and El Salvadoran Protestant Church leaders have called for a dialogue on how the reign of terror might be ended and urgent attention given to the needs of nearly one million refugees, mostly women and children. Therefore I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald):
That the Government of Canada join with concerned regional Governments, such as Mexico and Venezuela, and international humanitarian institutions, in establishing an international commission to consult with all parties in the conflict. This commission would report to the Secretary General of the United Nations with practical procedures for a dialogue to end the war and measures to address the deep social and economic problems of El Salvador.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that negotiations with the United States over the clean-up of the toxic and radioactive dumps along the Niagara have failed to produce a solution, and in view of the fact that the EPA and the Reagan administration have sided with Hooker to stall effective clean-up provisions, demonstrated by the inadequate procedures ordered for Hyde Park, and even less adequate studies and proposals for the Love Canal, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan):
That this House send a 100-Member delegation to Washington to meet with Congress and the Senate to make it clear that there must be full use made of the super fund to clean up, not cover up, at Hyde Park, Love Canal, "S" area, 102nd Street, the radioactive dumps and all other dumps leaching into the Niagara System, further, that this House unanimously endorse the hard work done by Canadian and U.S. public interest groups to clean up the Niagara and the Great Lakes at a time when the Government of Canada has proven to be incapable of influencing the Reagan administration to protect public health.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?
November 19, 1982


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, 1 move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Okanagan-Similkameen (Mr. King):
That this House abhors the decision of the Minister of the Environment who, without a public tender and in defiance of the recommendations of his own staff and of the wishes of the vast majority of the people of Banff, has granted a permit to a former Liberal Cabinet Minister and company to build a unit high density complex that will destroy a unique park with its paths, benches and foot bridges over natural streams which were constructed over the last ten years costing thousands of dollars of the taxpayers' money, and that this House urges the Minister and/or the Prime Minister and his cabinet to rescind this decree by the Minister of the Environment as it is completely out of tune with the environment and common sense.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Economic Development, who knows only too well that 539,000 jobs,
289,000	in the manufacturing sector alone, have been lost in this country since August last year. In view of the fact that the Minister has been in office with his new portfolios for almost seven weeks now, would he tell the House what new steps he has taken to ensure that the private sector, once again, will start creating jobs instead of cutting employment which is falling so heavily on all Canadians, but especially on the youth of this land, where we find, nationally, that 20 per cent of the youth are out of work?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Minister of State for Economic Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Madam Speaker, I do not know where the Hon. Member for York-Peel has been. There have been a series of announcements by the Government on a regular basis. Perhaps one of the most significant, in terms of direct job creation, was the NEED Program announced by the Minister of Employment and Immigration just a short time ago.
Oral Questions
I do not think this is the time and place for me to recite at length all the Programs, whether they be in the research and development sector or whether they be in the industrial development sector under the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, concerning the regional efforts which have been made. I will be quite happy to take the time of the House to go through all these matters if the House wishes, and call upon the Ministers of each Department, on this side of the House, to explain in more detail some of the specific initiatives which have been taken, but the whole thrust of economic development under this Government has been to provide job-creation, but job-creation in areas which will be of long term benefit to the economy of the country and not simply direct job-creation which does not make that contribution. That has been the thrust, is the thrust now, and will continue to be the thrust.


INVESTMENT BY PENSION FUNDS
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Minister of State for Economic Development, who must know, notwithstanding the efforts his Government may have made, that the unemployment figure is up by 500,000 today compared to only last year. Would the Minister specifically indicate if he has given any consideration to encouraging or stimulating the pension funds of this country, in the private or public sector, by putting more equity money into business in order to help create some of these jobs that are being lost at the present time? If he has given some consideration to this approach, would he indicate to the House what the response from the pension fund people has been?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I think the Hon. Member knows full well that the pension fund investments in this country comprise, of course, one of the greatest sources of capital in equity markets. The Hon. Member may be referring to the fact that the pension funds are limited by legislation with respect to the kind of investments they can make, that is to say, that pension funds are limited to a specific purpose, to provide security for people who are retired from the work force. The pension legislation, whether at the provincial or federal level, tries to balance the security issue of pension investments with that part of the fund which may be used for other purposes, more specifically, funds going to companies in certain sectors which do not have an earnings record, a dividend payment record which would justify, if you like, investment for pension purposes per se, but that matter has been considered for many years.
If the Hon. Member has specific representations to make with respect to whether the present amount designated provincially or federally is inadequate for investments other than those that are stipulated in the legislation in question in each province, and federally, then I suggest that he put those

November 19, 1982
Oral Questions
representations into writing and submit them to the Government, and to the Governments of the Province if he feels that progress could be made on that front. I think it is an area worth considering, but I do think it is very important that that balance be maintained. That balance was established with very specific purposes in mind.


MINISTER'S VIEWS
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Again I direct a question to the Minister of State for Economic Development, who will recall a "Government and Business" personal perspective that he wrote in March of this year, which was circulated at the Liberal convention. In the perspective, or viewpoint, the Minister stated:
I do not recall a period when the relationships between Government and business were as poor as they are today.
Would the Minister indicate what steps he has taken to improve those relationships and, specifically, how does he reconcile the $200 million that is being asked for in the form of equity in Canadair, when he stated in the same paper on page 5, referring to Canadair:
When we do not have sufficient public capital available to satisfy pressing social needs ... it is painful to see scarce capital deployed in a manufacturing concern best left to private enterprise.
Could the Minister explain why, if in truth those are his views, he is not taking some corrective steps today to correct both problems that he cited?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, a number of points should be noted. The first one, I suppose, is that the Hon. Member seems to have upgraded his reading.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald James Johnston: The second is that I am sorry that we missed him at the Liberal Policy Convention.


An Hon. Member:: You might have learned something.


Donald James Johnston: Be that as it may, the Hon. Member says, as 1 stated, that relationships were poor between the private sector and Government. That was written in March and I would say that that particular relationship has improved dramatically through a number of measures, perhaps the most important being the consultative process which was led off by the former Minister of Finance and other Ministers on this side of the House. That has continued. 1 think the investment climate and the relationships between business and Government have improved dramatically. We have seen how the business sector got on board and supported the six and five program. Every day the list grows of those in this country who have expressed support in a very concrete way for that program.
The importance of controlling inflation has been recognized throughout the business community, and I think we probably
are seeing a co-operative thrust, the likes of which we have not seen for many, many years, perhaps since the war.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Clark:: What a fraud.


Donald James Johnston: With respect to the investment in Canadair, it falls very much within the criteria which 1 outlined in that paper. I think the statement was made that some investments are best left to the private sector.
I would just like to close by saying that if the Hon. Member is prepared to produce some investors who are prepared to put $200 million into Canadair-


Madam Speaker:: Order!


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: He still thinks he is at the Liberal convention.
 * *


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Madam Speaker, my question, too, is directed to the Minister of State for Economic Development. One of the sectors which could provide the longterm jobs which the Minister is referring to is the petrochemical industry which has been crippled as a result of the heavy, up-front taxes imposed under the National Energy Program. One of those companies is Alberta Gas Chemicals Limited which has stated the Company can survive the world-wide recession and the legislated increases in the price of natural gas, but not both of these plus the federal Government taxes on natural gas. This is a wholly owned Canadian company which employs some 170 people and exports about 85 per cent of its product to the international marketplace. Because of the heavy taxes imposed by the federal Government, the Company has been forced into a position to join with a New Zealand company in a joint venture to develop a new methanol plant in New Zealand. Is the Minister aware of this, and what steps is he taking to avert that transition?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I suppose this question should have been directed to me. 1 do not have the particulars of this case. I will look into them and report to the Hon. Member.


TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION
Donald Frank Mazankowski: My supplementary is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources or the Minister of State for Economic Development. In 1978 there was a sector task force on the petrochemical industry. Might I ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources or the Minister of State for Economic Development if that task force recommendation is being studied, and if they will pay heed to the fact that the Government should reduce its take to
November 19, 1982

allow feedstock to be priced competitively with the U.S. Gulf Coast prices? Is the Minister aware of that recommendation, and what action has he taken to employ that recommendation in the difficulties in which the petrochemical industry now finds itself?
Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Madam Speaker, as my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, told the Hon. Member this week, we are having internal discussions at this time. There is a problem in the petrochemical industry in Canada. The feedstock price is part of the problem. Those in the East with oil feedstock pay about 80 per cent of the world market price for their oil. Of course, the price is going up because there has been no increase in the international price-the Canadian price will increase next year and, therefore, there will be more of a squeeze at that time. We are looking into the problem. We hope to find a solution acceptable to the industry. At the same time we have to compete in the world market, and there is a squeeze in the petrochemical world market at this time. That is a very important factor.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Government House Leader. We learned yesterday that four Liberal backbenchers and one member of the Conservative Party, all of whom supported the six and five legislation, have now indicated that they intend to vote against Bill C-133. Considering that this Bill is totally unfair and denies pension benefits to thousands who have already paid for them, will the Government now come to its senses and withdraw this Bill?


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, yesterday the Right Hon. Prime Minister had a chance to explain to this House that one must look at the spirit of the legislation. Obviously it is not well understood by the New Democratic Party. With regard to the four or five Members that the Hon. Member is talking about, I am not worried at this time. Taking into consideration the answer given yesterday by the NDP House Leader, it appears that the NDP have so many speakers on this Bill that it is unlikely the vote will be taken tomorrow.


John Edward Broadbent: If not tomorrow, Madam Speaker, it is still going to come, I say to the House Leader.


REQUEST THAT DECISION ON LEGISLATION BE TREATED AS VOTE OF CONFIDENCE
John Edward Broadbent: I will switch to the Deputy Prime Minister. Considering that we not only have on
Oral Questions
record the names of four Liberal backbenchers, but there is reputedly at least a dozen who have screwed up their courage and indicated they are going to oppose this measure, will the Deputy Prime Minister agree that this Bill involving finances, connected directly to the Government's six and five program, is in fact a matter of confidence and, if the Government loses this Bill, it will be forced to resign?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member knows from experience which we both shared that a Government never indicates exactly its attitude to a Bill until the moment arrives.


PENSIONS
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the master of systematic ambiguity strikes again.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Now that the Deputy Prime Minister has cast fog over that issue, will he deal with another pension matter, this one affecting every pensioner in Canada, namely, Bill C-131? Considering this Bill is going to rob virtually every pensioner in the country, will the Government come to its senses on this Bill and tell the people of Canada, in particular the pensioners, that they will not be in the front line of the battle to implement six and five? Will the Government withdraw that Bill?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, apart from thanking the Hon. Member for his flattery, or acknowledging his flattery, I wanted to remind him that, on the substance of the question, the purpose of the six and five program is to reduce inflation to 6 per cent. There have already been signs that that program is succeeding. If we do, as 1 expect, make a substantial decrease in the inflationary rate next year, to that extent pensioners will be protected. If we achieve a 6 per cent inflation rate, the pensioners in all categories will be totally protected by the 6 per cent provided for in the legislation. If the Hon. Member got behind the six and five program, that would be the best way to protect the pensioners about whom he is speaking.


POSITION OF LIBERAL PARTY MEMBERS
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It concerns the revolt in the Liberal ranks regarding the retrograde measure which the Government proposes to take in limiting the indexing of pensions for superannuated civil servants. Have these same

November 19, 1982
Oral Questions
Liberal stalwarts come forward to condemn an equally retrograde measure, that is, the proposal she is putting before the House to limit the indexing on senior citizens of Canada, some of whom have incomes of between only $9,000 to $ 10,000?
[ Translation]


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, when the Hon. Member refers to people who are earning $9,000 or $10,000, that income is in addition to their Old Age Security pension, I want to be quite clear on that. Yesterday, the figures given by the Hon. Member in her speech were not always very accurate, I am sorry to say. 1 repeat that in Bill C-131, we are in effect asking Canadians who do not need the supplement to give up part of the indexing and agree to 6 per cent instead of 10 per cent. In fact, all Canadians, are being asked to accept a reduction in income for the purpose of bringing down inflation, which itself would be far more damaging in the long run.


MACDONALD ROYAL COMMISSION
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, my question, in the absence of the Prime Minister, is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and it has to do with the announcement of the appointment by the Prime Minister of the Royal Commission on the Economic Union and Development Prospects for Canada, chaired by the Hon. Donald Stovel Macdonald. I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister, having discussed this matter with the Prime Minister again, if he is in a position to report to the House on the Government's attitude with respect to the propriety of Mr. Macdonald heading this far-reaching Commission, having regard to his aspirations to leadership of the Liberal Party, where he will be attempting to seek support amongst Liberal Members of Parliament and Liberal supporters across the country, and particularly where Mr. Macdonald, having been a Minister of Finance, is the author of certain initiatives and present-day economic circumstances which he should be able to criticize independently?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member knows more about Mr. Macdonald's intentions than I do. To my knowledge, he has absolutely no intention, and has declared no intention, to seek the leadership of the Liberal Party. I would ask the Hon. Member to concentrate on his own Party and forget about ours, because we will handle that effectively on our own.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I know the Deputy Prime Minister at one time had leadership ambitions of his own, which are no longer present. I know that for a fact, because Jim Coutts told me so.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


CHAIRMAN'S DIRECTORSHIPS
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Minister of State for Economic Development, who is a super minister in this group with respect to the economic union and future of our country. Mr. Macdonald will be looking at such things as the banking system in our country, the forestry situation, the chemical industry, the insurance and aerospace industries, about which the Minister is very concerned. Can the Minister tell us whether or not he has now been able to prevail upon the Prime Minister to ask Mr. Macdonald to resign from his directorships in a number of multinational corporations, including Du Pont Canada Inc., Boise Cascade Canada Ltd., and Manufacturers Life Insurance Company? The commitment was made by the Minister of Finance the other day that this matter would be taken up. Has the Minister of State for Economic Development now asked Mr. Macdonald to resign these directorships?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, as the Hon. Member suggests, he asked the question of the Minister of Finance the other day, and now he is asking me whether the Minister of Finance has talked to the Prime Minister, and that I do not know.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Has he done anything about it? You are in charge.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. On July 15 I asked the Minister if there was a possibility of raising the casual earning exemptions for recipients of war veterans allowances, presently set at $3,100 for married veterans and $2,100 for single veterans. In his reply the Minister stated that indeed a study was being conducted in this regard. Could the Minister now inform this House as to the present status of that study?


Hon. W. Bennett Campbell (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. The question of casual earning levels was last reviewed and adjusted in July 1980. In reply to the Hon. Member's earlier question, I indicated to him that the matter was under study. I have asked the Chairman of the War Veterans Allowance Board to review the total area of casual earnings and to bring forward a report. I anticipate receiving that report very shortly, and I can assure all Hon. Members that when the report is received it will be responded to very quickly.
November 19, 1982


REQUEST THAT ADJUSTMENTS BE MADE RETROACTIVE
Melbourne Alexander Gass: Madam Speaker, since it looks as though 1982 will have come and gone without any solution to this problem, I would like to ask the Minister for some assurance that, if legislation is brought forth after 1982 has gone by, it will refer back and include 1982.


W. Bennett Campbell: Madam Speaker, 1 do not want to prejudge the recommendations of the War Veterans Allowance Board, but I would just enlighten the Hon. Member to the fact that legislative changes are not required. We can make the adjustments as recommended by the War Veterans Allowance Board, by regulation. 1 would also draw to the Hon. Member's attention that, in the interim, war veterans allowance benefits continue to be fully indexed and are adjusted on a quarterly basis, responding to veterans' growing costs, as is the case with all other Canadians.


FUNDY TIDAL POWER PROJECT
Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy. While we know of the important programs which have been succeeding in conservation, and the other major exploration projects in the Atlantic area, could the Minister inform the house as to the status of, and position of the Government with respect to that important proposal regarding the harnessing of the tides, the Fundy tidal power project?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, as the House knows, there is an experimental project which has been put in place in the Annapolis Valley. 1 visited that site, even when 1 was not the Minister of Energy. Now it is in operation, and from this experimental project we will know better about both the physical and economic possibilities of using that source of power. We are having some discussion at this time regarding these matters with the Government of Nova Scotia, and we are making progress, but there is no final decision to be made at this time. However, there is a possibility that it will be studied further.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. The Minister is aware, I am sure, that it is now apparent to everyone who is concerned that Nordair has no interest in resolving its dispute with its employees. Rather than sit down and attempt to find a solution, officials even went as far as to ask the Labour Board to
Oral Questions
decertify the employees union in order that a union which they themselves were attempting to set up, might take over. That was refused. I ask the Minister of Labour, given the length of time involved, given that the company does not appear to want to find a solution voluntarily, will the Minister call both parties to Ottawa? Will he involve himself personally? Will he sit down with them and attempt to find a way to resolve this longstanding dispute?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of Labour: Madam Speaker, the synthetic rage expressed by the Hon. Member is not matched by the realities of the world outside. I hope the Hon. Member knows that mediator Waller met with the parties on November 15 and they were unable to come to any settlement. The mediation services are available at any time as soon as the parties indicate they are willing to negotiate in a serious manner.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I put to the Minister there is no synthetic rage. I was simply stating the facts as they are available to anyone. Perhaps the Minister could take a moment and become aware of what is going on in the labour relations field.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER CONVENE MEETING
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, my question had nothing to do with appointing a mediator. I am asking the Minister to make himself aware, for the first time in his life, of the circumstances surrounding the operations of the company and its attempts to eliminate the union as the bargaining agent for the employees, and to become personally involved and ask each of the parties to come to Ottawa to sit down with the Minister and discuss ways and means of resolving this outstanding dispute.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of Labour: Madam Speaker, if I were to believe that my personal involvement would resolve the question, I would have already done so. However, this is a matter which cannot be resolved by political intervention as easily as the Hon. Member may seem to think.


Ian Deans: Have you tried?


Mr. Caccia:: I repeat that, if the parties are willing to negotiate seriously, we have been, we are, and we will be available to mediate at any time.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Justice what he intends to do about the repugnant spectacle of the so-called "sincere"

November 19, 1982
Oral Questions
killers of Pierre Laporte who will be making a profit on their murder?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: Madam Speaker, as the Hon. Member may know, this whole question of proceeds, in that sense, from writing about crime has been referred to a committee for a report to us. It is not a question with an easy solution because it involves the possibility of interference with the rights of free speech-


Charles Joseph Clark: Laporte's rights have been interfered with.


Mark R. MacGuigan: -and it is also a matter, from the viewpoint of the system of justice and sentencing, which 1 have asked to have studied with respect to the criminal law review.


REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO PREVENT PROFITS ACCRUING TO MURDERERS
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, certainly the Minister of Justice has to be concerned with civil rights, but there is also a collective sense of decency in a community-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: -which often takes primacy and priority over individual civil rights. On that basis, as in the situation of the macabre Olson murders several months ago, would the Minister, out of a sense of collective decency, talk to the House leaders and see if, during this weekend, there could be an amendment to the Criminal Code brought in with the cooperation of all parts of this House so that no Canadian can make a profit from the murder of anyone, let alone of a man of the character of Pierre Laporte?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, it would be interesting if, instead of emoting about the problem, as we can all do because we are all concerned about such events, the Hon. Member had a suggestion to make as to what kind of amendments could be proposed.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: He just did.


Mr. Lawrence:: Listen to the question.


Mark R. MacGuigan: If he made an amendment, I am not aware of it, or in what form he has made it.
In any event, Madam Speaker, this is a subject which is very much under review because it is one that very much concerns us.


CANADIAN TRANSPORT COMMISSION
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, I would draw the attention of the Minister of Transport to a letter from the Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce which 1 am sure he has received by now, dated November 8, outlining a Draconian penalty against Air B.C., consisting of the cutting of service between Victoria and Vancouver and other points in the Province, because of an April Fool's prank of offering cut-rate fares between Victoria and Vancouver on April Fool's Day. It is the travelling public-


Mr. Rossi:: Question.


Donald W. Munro: -which is being asked to suffer.
Will the Minister intervene with the Canadian Transport Commission-I am not even sure the CTC has the right to penalize air traffic in this way-to make sure that this Draconian measure is withdrawn?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, for those who do not know what the joke was, it might be a good idea to say what it was. This airline decided, for April Fool's Day, to carry people between the two locations indicated at a ridiculous price of 99 cents, or something of this kind.


Donald W. Munro: Well, why not?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Well, there are rules to be followed in these matters.


Donald W. Munro: For one day?


Jean-Luc Pepin: One of the rules is against predatory prices, for example.
Be that as it may, I have been in touch with the CTC and asked them to review this situation, and 1 will provide an answer as soon as I can.


COMMISSION'S POWERS
Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, can the Minister provide us with the actual statutory or regulatory authorization which the CTC might have, to impose Draconian penalties like this against any airline?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I am not insensitive to the argument brought up by my hon. friend. Indeed, in this matter it is the travelling public which suffers from the eccentricities of an airline.


Mr. Fraser:: The whole thing is so stupid, why don't you fix it up?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Well, who was stupid in the first place is the question, too,-is a relevant question to ask.
November 19, 1982


Donald W. Munro: On a point of order, that is not a stupid question.


Madam Speaker:: There is no such thing as a point of order during question period.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I said, in terms of stupidity, the question could be raised as to who was stupid in the first place, the company that offered this rate as an April Fool's Day bargain, or the CTC which made the decision to punish the company for having done that. I suggest that the CTC was following the rules.
Anyway, I say again that 1 brought the point to the attention of the CTC and I will be in touch with them as soon as I can and report to the House.


ROLE OF COMMISSION VIS-A-VIS AIR B.C. AND VIA RAIL SERVICE ABANDONMENT
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, will the Minister of Transport explain to the House why the CTC has the authority to act against Air B.C. but does not have the authority to conduct public hearings on the abandonment of 20 per cent of the VIA Rail service in the country?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, that is a very easy answer to give. The CTC had explored and investigated ad nauseam the question of railway transportation in Canada.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: What was their decision?


Jean-Luc Pepin: All the routes 1 cut last year about this time had been investigated by the CTC on a one-by-one basis. I wish my hon. friend had a better memory because I explained that profusely at the time. I have said that the investigation by the CTC of each of these railway routes, single line, would not have given up an over-all policy. I suggested that at the time I invoked Section 64 of the National Transportation Act which gives the Minister the power to do that, to take an over-all approach. That is what is meant by the law and that is what I did.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the Minister well knows that the CTC's hearings recommended a continuation of the lines which the Minister, acting in ignorance of the CTC and the public's right to public hearings, unilaterally cut out. He knows he turned his back on democracy, just as he turned his back on the Pepin-Robarts Commission.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


ORIGIN OF COMMISSION'S INVOLVEMENT IN AIRLINE CASE
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, concerning Air B.C., did the CTC receive a complaint from the public, and will the Government table in this
Oral Questions
House any complaint received from the public and any other information which reveals to this Parliament how the CTC became seized of this issue?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I do not know how the CTC became aware or was seized of the Air B.C. case, the April Fool's special. I do not know, but I will find out.
On the other matter, I want to re-emphasize, in trying to reach my hon. friend through a certain wall which seems to be between the two of us at this time, that the CTC can make decisions on single routes, Moncton to Edmundston, or Saskatoon to Regina. They can do that. But that does not give us an over-all plan. The way to get an over-all plan is to take an over-all view, and Section 64 of the National Transportation Act gives the Minister the power to act, even against the decisions of the CTC in implementing conclusions. That is what I have tried to do, and I suggest that many people who might have regretted the cuts 1 brought about a year or so ago now realize that they were necessary, particularly in light of VlA's growing deficit.


VIA RAIL
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Transport will know that this is the last day for the Department of Transport to decide whether it will appeal the decision of the Federal Court of Canada, giving Transport 2000 and the City of Melville, Saskatchewan, joined I believe by Jasper, Alberta, the legal right to question the legality of the Minister's unilateral action in wiping out VIA Rail service. Is the Minister going to appeal?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, a number of cases have been brought to court against the decision which I made approximately a year and a half ago. In all cases of which I am aware, those who went to court lost. Therefore I feel that the right of the Government and the Minister of Transport to use Section 64 of the National Transportation Act has been reconfirmed four or five times; 1 do not think there is any doubt about it.


PETRO-CANADA OPERATION OF CASING YARD IN MULGRAVE, N.S.
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. I have

November 19, 1982
Oral Questions
before me a copy of a letter written by J. B. MacPhail, Drilling Superintendent of Petro-Canada on the East Coast, to Eastern Offshore Services Ltd., a servicing company. 1 want to quote one line of it which reads:
We, Petro-Canada, want to adopt the same policy as two other major oil companies that are presently operating in the Halifax area ... This policy is such that it enables Petro-Canada to operate their casing yard as a non-union yard.
Has the Minister discussed with longshoremen the proposed move of the casing yard by Petro-Canada from Mulgrave, Nova Scotia, to Auld Cove, Nova Scotia? Can he report that he will not allow this employer-and it happens to be Petro-Canada-to close its operations to avoid a collective agreement?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of Labour: Madam Speaker, 1 am aware of the situation which emerged in the last few days. Labour Canada is investigating this matter, and I will be able to report to the Hon. Member very shortly.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I look forward to that report.


LEASING OF OIL RIG
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, if the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources would return to his seat, I would direct my supplementary question to him. The Minister always says that he is a supporter of the little guy. I wonder whether he is aware of a letter from some possible little guys, that is, some of the shipbuilding workers on the East Coast, in Saint John, New Brunswick, who have complained that Petro-Canada, instead of building an oil rig there, is leasing one.
In view of my previous question to the Minister of Labour, does the Minister really believe that Petro-Canada is ours and therefore has to help the workers of Canada, and not engage in anti-union activities but support Canadian shipbuilding? Is the Minister now in a position to tell the House and the Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of Canada of Saint John, New Brunswick, that indeed Petro-Canada will build a rig there and provide jobs for Canadian workers?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I am aware of the problem. Of course the situation in the rig business is not the same as it was before. Some years ago there were prospects that there would be a large need for the construction of new rigs, but at this present time there is a surplus of rigs in world markets. Any corporation has to make a choice based on the best economic decision, and if there are rigs available which are much cheaper than new ones, it is a common-sense decision in business to go the least expensive way possible. This is exactly what Petro-Canada has done.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. "Long Knife", the code name for the RCMP security service corporal who allegedly received $3,500 from the Soviet KGB for betraying a double agent in Montreal, has now been identified in the Winnipeg Free Press as an ex-RCMP corporal by the name of James Morrison. Well over a week ago, even though the Government has been aware of these facts for five years, the Solicitor General referred the question of whether or not there would be a prosecution to the Minister of Justice. Surely the Minister of Justice has made up his mind. Will there be a prosecution, will there not be a prosecution, and, if he has not made up his mind, why not? When will we hear whether or not there will be a prosecution?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, since receiving the request from the Solicitor General, I have directed that an inquiry be made. I do not know when the results will come to me for a decision, but I can assure the Hon. Member that when the recommendation comes forward I will act on it very quickly.


REQUEST THAT MIN ISTER MAKE STATEMENT
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, in this and other allied cases, the impression is left with a number of us that simply because a matter is referred to the Minister of Justice or to the Department of Justice somehow or other we should all shut up and be quiet about it. This is a matter which very directly concerns many people in the country, and it is a matter on which there should have been a governmental statement regardless of whether or not the Minister has made up his mind. Surely he can put some oil underneath his departmental advisers to come up with a decision, now that they have been aware of the matter for some time, and surely the House deserves to have a full statement on this and other allied matters where there have been no prosecutions of Canadian traitors. Will the Minister make a statement as soon as possible, regardless of whether or not he has decided on a prosecution?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, the hon. gentleman's position in the House leaves him the freedom to be irresponsible, just as my job requires me to be responsible.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Since the 1940s the antiquated Charlottetown airport has been patched
m
November 19, 1982

and filled and extended to the point where it is now a disgrace, not only to Prince Edward Island but also to the Minister's Department and indeed to the entire country. Every year since 1977 the federal Government has made glorious announcements about design plans and tenders for a new airport terminal building at Charlottetown and for a new east-west runway. Each time Islanders have been sadly disappointed. Will the Minister tell the House what are the most current plans for the airport, and will he assure the House that those plans will not be set back yet again?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I am almost as unhappy about what happened at Charlottetown before I became the Minister and since, as is my hon. friend. The design works on the air terminal are some six or seven months late now. If everything goes well-and I hope it will-tenders will be called in the fall of 1983. That is the present situation with respect to the air terminal.
In case my hon. friends are interested in knowing why this has taken place, I might say that one of the rules of the implementation of the democratic process in the Department of Transport is that, before going on with the construction of air terminal, we ask the carriers if they would look at and agree to the costs which will be incurred by them as renters of the terminal. It is quite easy to imagine that those costs are always too high in the carrier's view. Thus we are lead to prolonged negotiation and delays. This was one of the reasons for delays at the Charlottetown airport. Finally, conclusions have been reached in discussions on rentals with the carriers, and this is why we can move now. But we are six or seven months behind mostly because of procrastinated negotiations.


Thomas Michael McMillan: The plans for the new Charlottetown airport are not six or seven months behind; they are seven years behind.


CONTROL TOWER OPERATIONS
Thomas Michael McMillan: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Transport. There has been a lot of talk of late about proposals to eliminate or decommission control towers at various airports across the country, including Charlottetown's. In view of the fact that Prince Edward Island has distinct safety requirements because of terrain, climate, weather, and so much else, will the Minister now put to an end any suggestion that air traffic over P.E.I. will be orchestrated by some instruments in a remote tower in some other part of the country?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, let us isolate these problems. First in regard to the construction of the control tower itself, the design work on it is going ahead. As a matter of fact I understand that it has been completed to the 60 per cent level.
On the subject of the reduction of air controls at different Canadian airports, I had a question recently on that subject. In
Petitions
answer I said that indeed we are looking at ways in which money can be saved in this particular area, and I suggest that Canadians would approve of that. If some work can be done in a certain way less expensive than another, we Ministers have the responsibility to try to reach that objective. However, I want to guarantee to my hon. friend and to the population at large that air safety will not be compromised. If there is a reduction of working hours for controllers at airports, it will be because safety can be ensured otherwise.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Rene Gingras (Abitibi):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In an interview with one of the Quebec newspapers, the Parti Quebecois minister, Pierre Marois, said that he had discovered that the New Employment Expansion and Development Program announced last week would be spread over a period of twenty-seven months instead of eighteen. Perhaps the Minister could give the House some clarification in connection with the $170 million that are to be allocated to job creation in Quebec.


Mr. Remi Bujold (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to set the record straight on this employment program, which was announced recently by the Minister of Finance, and by the same token I would like to inform the Member for Winnipeg-St. James that he too may have been mistaken about this program. The Minister of Finance announced the program would last eighteen months, and now people are trying to prove the program will in fact run for twenty-seven months because it covers three fiscal years. Now, the program is to start on January 1 of next year, and if we count the number of months in this fiscal year, next year and the three months of fiscal year 1984-85, it all adds up to eighteen months, Madam Speaker. I should also hope that the Quebec Minister for Income Security will shortly inform us what his intentions are as to participating in the program, and that he will do what he told the press about a week ago, namely, concentrate on employment issues in Canada instead of talking about independence.


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table reports of

November 19, 1982
Petitions
the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Thursday, November 18, 1982, and finds that the petitions meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


PRIVILEGE
Donald W. Munro: On a question of privilege, Madam Speaker, if I heard correctly, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) decided to categorize my question as stupid.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I did not.


Donald W. Munro: I would like to check the wording in Hansard because 1 really do not think it is the role of Ministers to decide-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the Hon. Member also has opinions on other statements that are made in the House. It is quite customary to express opinions on statements made by other members. If the Hon. Member wants to check Hansard, he may do that; but 1 just want to remind him that he did not have a question of privilege, but rather a point of order.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Fred King (Okanagan-Similkameen):: Madam Speaker, it is my duty and privilege to present a petition to this House on behalf of 3,140 citizens of Okanagan-Similkameen, British Columbia. An attached letter over the signature of Lelannd Haver of Westbank, B.C., states in part:
We the members of "Metric Won't Do" wish to bring to your attention a matter of paramount importance at this time, that being the whole question of metrication-
The nature of the petition is to pray and beseech this House to re-evaluate the Government's decision to implement metric and stop the onslaught of worthless and excessive expenditures for a measurement that is less than perfect, with due respect for truth and freedom of choice.
The petitioners hope, Madam Speaker, that you will find their petition in order and that through their efforts, with the co-operation of the Members of this House, the citizens of Canada may be spared the further imposition of forced metric and the forced abandonment of Imperial measure, which they say was established from practical and spiri'ual origins.


Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin):: Madam Speaker, as the Member of Parliament for Dauphin, Manitoba, it is my duty to present before this House a petition representing residents of Sclater, Manitoba and its surrounding community.
The postal services of Sclater were, and remain, withdrawn following the destruction by fire of the postal facilities there. Given the fact that the former post office was located in a general store and, as such, constituted an important focal point of the community, and that residents must now travel in excess of 50 kilometres in order to obtain their mail, the petitioners therefore request that this House ask the Minister responsible for Canada Post Corporation to instruct the President and Chief Executive Officer to restore in full the postal facilities and services formerly enjoyed by the community of Sclater, Manitoba.


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, 1 am privileged, as the Member of Parliament for St. Catharines, to present a petition on behalf of 180 students at Brock University. These students wish to present a petition to affirm and express their commitment to peace and disarmament, and express their opposition to the continuing nuclear arms buildup, and more particularly the role of the Government of Canada in the testing of the Cruise missile. These petitioners humbly pray that Canada will terminate its agreement to test the Cruise missile on Canadian soil.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4,458 and 4,523.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	For (a) 1980 (b) 1981, what were the total amounts and average volumes per farm of (i) gasoline (ii) diesel fuel (iii) oil (iv) natural gas used by agricultural producers in Canada?
2.	What were the average prices to producers of those fuels and how much of the prices comprised federal excise taxes?


David P. Smith: I am informed by Statistics Canada and the Department of National Revenue as follows:
1.	At present there is no comprehensive source of information on amounts of average volumes per farm of gasoline,
November 19, 1982

diesel fuel, oil or natural gas used by agricultural producers in Canada. In Provinces that have farm gasoline tax rebate programs or marked gasoline or diesel fuel (market for offroad use such as farming, mining, logging, fishing, emergency generators) some rough estimates have been made of farm consumption. These estimates are only available for a few provinces and the information is not consistent among Provinces.
The most reliable indicator of gasoline and diesel fuel use on farms in the fuel, oil and lubricant expenditure estimate made by the Agriculture Statistics Division of Statistics Canada which in 1980 was estimated at $721.6 million and in 1981 at $954.5 million. For stove and furnace oil, natural gas and propane used for heating and crop drying the best indicator is the same Division's estimate of heating fuel expenditure which were estimated at $155.7 million in 1980 and $221.4 million in 1981.
Though there is a lack of data at the moment, Statistics Canada's Farm Energy Use Survey conducted in July, 1982 will provide estimates of farm gasoline, diesel fuel, oil and natural gas quantities used by Canadian agricultural producers in 1981. The survey will also provide a basis for the monitoring of consumption during the next few years. The results of the July survey will be available in early 1983.
See also question No. 4,112 answered July 16, 1982.
2.	Gasoline. This fuel is subject to federal sales tax of 9 per cent on the manufacturer's sale price if domestically produced or on the duty paid value if imported, under section 27(1) of the Excise Tax Act. In addition to the sales tax, gasoline is also subject to an excise tax of 1.5 cents per litre under Section 12 of Schedule I of the Act.
Diesel Fuel. Diesel fuel is subject to federal sales tax of 9 per cent on the manufacturer's sale price if domestically produced or on the duty paid value if imported. However, diesel fuels are exempt from sales tax if used for lighting or heating purposes or in the generation of electricity, except where such electricity is used primarily in the operation of a vehicle.
Oils other than Diesel Fuel Oil. These oils are subject to the 9 per cent federal sales tax only.
Natural Gas. Natural gas and gas liquids are taxed under Sections 25.13 and 25.14 of the Excise Tax Act at specific rates. A schedule of these rates of tax follows:
Schedule of Rates of Tax
Product	Feb. 1/82
Marketable Pipeline Gas (per gigajoule) Rate of tax	$ 0.63
Canadian ownership Increase*	0.14*
Total	$ 0.77
Ethane	
(per cubic meter) Rate of tax	$11.65
Order Paper Questions Canadian ownership
Increase*	2.60*
Total	$14.25
Propane (per cubic meter) Rate of tax	$16.00
Canadian ownership Increase*	3.55*
Total	$19.55
Butanes (per cubic meter) Rate of tax	$17.85
Canadian ownership Increase*	3.95*
Total	$21.80
Mixtures of natural gas liquids. Rate of tax and Canadian ownership increase vary according to the proportion of ethane, propane and butanes contained in the mixture.
* Canadian ownership increase. Changes in the amount may be prescribed by Governor in Council.
N.B. Since February 1, 1982, changes in the amount of the natural gas and gas liquids tax may be prescribed by Governor in Council.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	What is the cost to the Government for the production of the information package recently distributed by the Canadian Unity Information Office, which included a pamphlet outlining the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a poster of the Charter and a 1982-83 calendar?
2.	How many copies of each item are being printed?
3.	What is the cost of (a) producing (b) distributing the information package?
4.	Will there be any charge to students or schools receiving the package and, if so, what will the selling price be?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. Production costs:	Pamphlet	$ 5,000
	Poster	$ 26,600
	Calendar	$122,000
	Total	$153,600
2. Number of Copies:	Pamphlet	100,000
	Poster	100,000
	Calendar	350,000
3.	(a) Cost of producing, as stated above (1). (b) Cost of distributing the package: $10,000. CUIO does not know how many requests, for how many copies and where they will be shipped across Canada. Therefore, the mailing cost is not available at the moment.
4.	No.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
20830

November 19, 1982
Miscellaneous Statute Repeal Act


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remainig questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Herb Gray (President of Treasury Board) moved: that Bill C-119, An Act to repeal certain Statutes that have ceased to be in force or have become unnecessary, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to have the opportunity to move second reading of Bill C-119, the miscellaneous statutes repeal Bill. This Bill, together with Bill C-118, the records retention amendment Bill, which was enacted earlier this session, forms an important legislative component of the Government's current regulatory reform program.
[ Translation]
This program was launched by the Federal Government in the fall of 1980, in response to rising concern in the private sector and among consumers about the potential effects of unnecessary or obsolete regualtions on Canadians. Hon. Members may recall that in the fall of 1979, at the First Ministers' Conference on the Economy, these problems were discussed at length, and it was agreed that the Economic Council of Canada would be asked to give careful scrutiny to the regulatory process in Canada. The Council made a thorough study of the subject and submitted a preliminary report in November 1979, followed by its final report in July 1981. In the meantime, Members of the Senate and the House of Commons also made a careful study of these issues. Hon. Members are aware of the excellent work done by the Standing Joint Committee on Regulatory and Other Statutory Instruments. In July 1980, the Committee presented a major report on various aspects of the regulatory process and of parliamentary reform. A special committee of the House had been established to study regulatory reform, and it too submitted a report, in December of the same year.
The Government's regulatory reform program, of which this Bill is a component, is directly responsive not only to the concerns expressed but also to the recommendations for reform that have been made by all the various groups and participants from both Parliament and private sector. The program reflects a growing awareness that there can be unintended negative effects on the efficiency of Government and industry resulting
from the way regulations are implemented and administered. Therefore, the Government must make every effort to ensure both that the objectives of Government regulations are met as efficiently as possible and that unnecessary costs or other negative effects associated with regulations are reduced to a minimum.
The Government will then assess the progress that has been made and consider proposals with a view to taking further measures in the future. In establishing its regulatory reform program, the Government had two major objectives in mind: to improve public administration by reforming the federal regulatory process and to remove undue regulatory pressures on the Canadian economy.
The Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) entrusted co-ordination of the program to the President of the Treasury Board.
I want to recognize the very good work of my distinguished predecessor, the Minister of State for Economic Development (Mr. Johnston), in this very key area of regulatory reform. Our approach to reform is essentially one of improving the management of the federal regulatory process. We will strive to manage the regulatory process in such a way that the proposed regulation is scrutinized to ensure that it is effective. Existing regulations will be reviewed and assessed to ensure that it still meets their goals at acceptable cost.
We believe that the existing regulatory activities of Government, particularly in the area of economic regulations, should be reassessed to ensure that they are consistent with the Government's economic and social policy objectives. We believe that the continuing flow of new regulatory proposals should be subject to an analysis of the potential impacts.
Before being asked to make decisions, Ministers must be provided with better information on the cost and benefits of regulatory proposals, on alternatives to regulatory intervention, on the effects that the proposals might have on the distribution of wealth and income. We believe that there is room for further improvement in the federal regulatory process and its administration. This process and administration should ensure more effective consultation with the private sector during the various steps and stages of regulatory decisionmaking, as well as an improvement where necessary of the accountability of federal regulators.
Our continuing regulatory reform program encompasses a variety of projects, each aimed at furthering the underlying objectives established by the Government. The Bill before us is the product of one of these projects which called on federal regulatory departments to review their statutes and regulations and to weed out obsolete, unnecessary or duplicative provisions.



November 19, 1982



The Miscellaneous Statute Repeal Act would provide for repeal of the 124 acts which have been found to be obsolete to date. Many of these acts have not been enforced for some time, and most are not concerned with regulation. This bill is basically a housekeeping measure, and its main concern is with the primary objective of the regulatory reform program, which is to improve public administration. In fact, it is the initial result, when we speak of repeal legislation, of a very wide-ranging study carried out by federal ministers with a view to ridding our legislation of all unnecessary elements and updating it as much as possible.

To sum up, this miscellaneous statute reform Bill is an integral part of the Government's over-all regulatory reform program and represents an important first step in tackling the job of legislative housekeeping. 1 believe it represents an important measure, among several, that we are pursuing to improve public administration and over-all management of federal regulations. I believe that the introduction of the bill and the cosideration now being given to it by Parliament should give an important message to both the public and private sectors. Members of Parliament through the Special Committee on Regulatory Reform and through the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments have stressed the need for a concerted effort toward regulatory reform. This Government is in agreement that reform is needed. We are committed to take action through our regulatory reform program.
We cannot do everything at one time. Some of our objectives may be difficult to achieve. However, no one should make the mistake that our commitment is in doubt because we may not be tackling a particular problem at a particular point in time or because it is taking some time to see change. We do have a strong commitment to regulatory reform. Our commitment should be judged on the basis of whether we deliver the reforms that are identified as targets in our work program. We promise to weed out obsolete, unnecessary and unenforceable federal statutes. We are delivering on that promise by presenting this Bill before Parliament.
I want to repeat that it represents some very important work done by my distinguished predecessor as President of the Treasury Board, who is now Minister of State for Economic Development.
In its recent submission to the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, the Canadian Bar Association commented that Parliament had not done well in handling certain types of legislation. They commented on our inability to deal effectively and quickly with routine bills that did not involve contentious policy issues and that should not give rise to partisan differences.
1 hope that Members of the House will all agree that this Bill before us now should be viewed as such an item and that collectively we will be able to give it prompt attention. For our part, the Government will be providing to Members who examine the Bill in Committee stage a copy of a discussion
Miscellaneous Statute Repeal Act
paper which sets out a brief justification for proceeding with the repeal of each of the 124 statutes listed.
Therefore, I ask Hon. Members of all Parties to support this Bill, and consistent with Parliament's responsibility to carefully scrutinize legislation, to enact the Bill as expeditiously as possible. By doing so, Parliament will be reaffirming its interests in, and commitment to, regulatory reform. It is a message that I think Parliament should send to the Canadian public.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to note that this is the first piece of legislation which has been introduced by the Hon. Minister in his renewed capacity as President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray). Therefore, it is the first opportunity that I have had, at least in this function, to express my good wishes to him in the fulfillment of the responsibility of his portfolio. I also note that the Hon. Member for Kitchener (Mr. Lang), who was in the House and will be back shortly, is the new Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board.
This means that with respect to the business of regulatory reform, the repeal of miscellaneous statutes, and items such as Bill C-133 with respect to the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act, we have two completely new and uncluttered minds to direct to these problems. 1 know that this will be of some importance to you, Mr. Speaker, and to other Hon. Members in the House of Commons as we consider these problems. I sincerely say to the Minister, through Your Honour, that I wish him well. The process is a good one and we should consider the statutes from time to time.
The full process of regulatory reform is important to the country. I think Hon. Members would be interested in knowing that there are 11 statutes from the Department of Agriculture, one from the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, five from the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, three from the Department of the Environment, 11 from the Department of Finance, four from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, three from the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, two from the Department of Insurance, 11 from the Department of Labour, two from the Department of National Health and Welfare, three from the Department of National Revenue, three from the Department of Public Works, four from the Department of the Secretary of State, one from the Department of Supply and Services, 59 from the Department of Transport and one from the Department of Veterans Affairs.
The list of bills is there. Therefore, I am pleased to hear the hon. gentleman say that he will supply the members of the Committee with a discussion paper and it will be a large one, I imagine, with respect to all those Bills, and it will be of immense help to the Committee.
From the point of view of the Official Opposition, I want to say to the Minister that it is our intention to expedite this matter. Certainly, we must do other things to reform the

November 19, 1982
Miscellaneous Statute Repeal Act
regulatory system. We must take a critical look at the institution of the Comptroller Genera! to see where it can be strengthened. The late Robert Andras was the President of the Treasury Board who finally brought the Bill involving the Comptroller General before the House of Commons. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the distinguished gentleman consulted and presented that Bill so well the matter went through very quickly. He was moved to take decision to Cabinet which ultimately approved it as a result of the work of the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), who pressed hard in the House of Commons for the Comptroller General.
We must consider whether or not that system is appropriate and whether it can be strengthened. Indeed, I must say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the President of the Treasury Board that one of the witnesses before the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, the parliamentary reform committee is going to be the Comptroller General of Canada. We will also be calling witnesses from the Treasury Board, which we think is important as we enter into the new part of the work of the Committee with respect to accountability, closing the loop spoken of by Mr. Lambert in his report and, so eloquently, by the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) and the Minister's colleague, the Hon. Member for Rosemont (Mr. Lachance), who have filed a very interesting report which 1 commend to the Minister.
We ought not to lose sight of two other legislative aspects in reforming the system-because that is what we are talking about, reforming the system. One is the process of sunset legislation whereby, with respect to each agency of Government, there is a provision that every five or perhaps seven years is a review by Parliament to see whether or not the circumstances causing the creation of an agency still exist or whether they have changed, if an agency's circumstances should change, there is a determination whether its programs are relevant or whether the Canadian public is getting the best for its tax dollar with respect to the services of Government. I must remind the Minister that an important part of the changes in machinery, for which 1 understand he is responsible, involves the entire question of the accountability and control by Parliament of Crown corporations, which are proliferating. One could make a very partisan speech about the proliferation which has occurred over the years. 1 do not intend to do that this Friday afternoon, but it is a fact, concerning which there has been a promise of action by the Government. The Government of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) did bring forward a piece of legislation which was all-encompassing. There is presently a piece of legislation brought forward by the Government which does not go nearly as far and is not nearly as comprehensive; but that is something which has been done to bring this administration under control.
The Minister devoted a great part of his speech to the question of regulatory reform which has been given lip service in Parliament and devotion by certain Members of Parliament. Unfortunately, it has not been a priority of the Government, which is far behind concerning the necessary regulatory reform in the country. It is necessary if we are to make Government relevant, if we are to manage with less in a time of restraint, if
we are to make the process understandable to the business sector and have the business sector appropriately relate to Government. There is a wide gulf of misunderstanding between the private sector and the public sector. I believe reforms in that area can bridge that gulf, because if this country is to prosper, all its elements must come together. The federal Government, the Provinces, the private and public sectors, the private sector including managers, owners, small business and labour, must all come together and the regulatory reform process is of vital concern. It has been addressed by the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments, which is co-chaired by a Liberal Senator and a Progressive Conservative Member of Parliament.
I have in my hand the Order Paper, and I am not sure of the number, but 1 believe there are at least six or eight reports, maybe more, involving regulatory reform which have not been addressed by this Parliament or the Government. I want to tell the Minister that the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure is concerned about it, and the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments has indicated to the Special Committee that it wants to come forward to discuss the matter, to link the regulatory reform process with parliamentary reform, because that is indeed what it involves. This institution must have the tools to make the accountability process work. I commend the report to the Minister's attention.
There is another important aspect. I am now referring to the very successful Special Committee on Regulatory Reform which was chaired by the Hon. Member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson) and co-chaired by the distinguished Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) and the Hon. Member for North Vancouver-Burnaby (Mr. Cook). The Committee produced a benchmark report. Because we are not opposing the Bill, we must be assured today or on other occasions that the report on regulatory reform does not gather dust, but rather gathers interest, and that the labour of the members of that Special Committee, the Hon. Member for the Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish), the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby), the Hon. Member for Laprairie (Mr. Deniger) and the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan), was not in vain. It is one thing for Members of Parliament to work on these matters, but what is more important is that there be a discernible response from the Government to such reports, which is what the process of parliamentary reform is all about. That is why there is a provision in the third report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, the parliamentary reform committee, that the Government respond in a comprehensive way, not in a piecemeal way. The Committee can request that. I think it is extremely important that that be done. I do not want to see this work lie fallow, because a lot of hard work by these Members whose names 1 have mentioned and other Members of the House of Commons and the Senate will go by the board if it is allowed to slip.
November 19, 1982

What about some of their recommendations? 1 am not going to read them all. I suspected that the Minister might make the speech that he did and 1 have the recommendations in broad terms. There are some 29 of them which I commend to the Minister. There has not been a statement in the House with respect to these regulations since that report has been filed.
I am going to highlight some of them. They say this is part of a reform process. They recommend that Departments and agencies pre-publish regulations whenever that is appropriate. Why? Because those regulations affect the public; they affect business; they affect labour; they affect fishermen; they affect primary producers of all kinds; they affect small and large businesses. They have an impact. How many times has that Committee on Statutory Instruments heard from what 1 call the aggrieved public as a result of the imposition of regulations? These were not passed in bad faith, I have to say, but with bad judgment, I must say, on some occasions.
It would be better if there was a notification and comment process where, if regulations were to be dealt with, they would be prepared, filed and available at the time of second reading, if that were possible. Before a Bill in this House receives third reading, those regulations would be open to the public which is concerned.
There is a suggestion by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments that perhaps when a statute is sent to Committee to study the merits of a proposal, the regulatory power contained in that statute should be referred to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. At that time the extent of the regulatory power, the question as to whether the Government really needs that power to carry out the intention of the statute, could be dealt with.
I am alarmed about the developing process of producing skeletal legislation and leaving so much of it to regulation. That explains partly why in the United Kingdom there were 800 regulations in one particular period of time, and in Canada there were 3,500 regulations in the same period of time. That is a change of policy I commend to the hon. gentleman.
The Committee also said that there should be an impact assessment of these regulations. How will those regulations impact on the sectors that they are meant to govern, because they are legislative in nature?
There was the recommendation by the Committee that each Department and agency review immediately its regulatory statutes and regulations to identify unnecessary and outdated regulatory statutes and regulations. They should set a schedule so that we and the public will know that the process is going on, a process that would lead to more detailed review and further action.
There was also the recommendation that Departments and agencies ensure that all their regulatory activities are evaluated periodically under the program evaluation system administered by the office of the Comptroller General. The Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure has recommended that the annual reports of Departments and agencies
Miscellaneous Statute Repeal Act
be referred automatically to that Committee. I think that is again a benchmark recognition that will do so much for private Members of the House of Commons and for the process of Parliament to hold Government accountable. The Committee dealt with that. They say that in those annual reports of Departments and agencies that would come to Committees automatically, there should be a summary of the progress each year that has been made in regulatory reform, including the reduction of paper burden, initiation of better service to the public and expansion of the notice and consultation procedures. There should be a summary for the Committees of this House of Commons each year of major regulatory initiatives undertaken in the past year; an identification of major regulatory initiatives contemplated and of program evaluations contemplated in the past year; and a schedule of future program evaluations.
A number of sound recommendations from the Special Committee on Regulatory Reform impact quite heavily on the work of the Committee of Standing Orders and Procedures. I am not surprised because there is a general feeling in the community that Parliament and our processes here by which we hold Government accountable are in a state of disrepair, and that the time has come for some significant changes.
There is an interesting recommendation which I want to bring specifically to the attention of the Minister, if I may do so. That was recommendation No. 12. It says that there should be certain procedural requirements for appeals to the Cabinet from the decisions of regulatory agencies. I recommend that the Minister consider that very carefully with his colleagues. The ones that come to mind are the appeals that come from the CRTC with respect to Bell Canada rates. There is a great deal of concern and worry about Bell Canada rates both from the point of view of the consumer and Bell Canada. 1 have always been concerned that there is not full disclosure to the sides involved of the cases of each other.
I recommend that this Government study the processes that are in place in the Government of Ontario. When I was practising at the Bar and I was appealing decisions of regulatory agencies, such as the Ontario Municipal Board or the Ontario Highway Transport Board, I as an appellant had to disclose my case on appeal to the other side. The issues were there, clearly defined, and there was at least some certainty that all of the issues would be before the Cabinet. The Cabinet would be judged, and they are ultimately accountable-on the basis of how they dealt with those issues. Under the present system nobody knows what the cases are. We can guess, but nobody really does know.
It is interesting, too, that preceding the reference which appointed 20 Members of this House of Commons to the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, which I call parliamentary reform, the Committee on Regulatory Reform had acted as an advance guard with respect to the necessity of changing the system in the House. They talked in their report about parliamentary reforms, that the House of Commons be authorized to perform certain functions on their

November 19, 1982
Miscellaneous Statute Repeal Act
own initiative without reference from the House of Commons, by the way, which is the gist of the Committee processes in the report that is now standing on the Order Paper, having been tabled by my hon. friend from Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle (Mr. Lefebvre), who is the chairman of the Parliamentary Reform Committee. It calls for monitoring of the process; a review of the subject matter of new, subordinate legislation; a review of specifically regulatory activities of each federal Department on its own. It goes on and on. It is an important Bill. It is housekeeping, but a very important part of housekeeping, a very important change in the process.
As the Minister is beginning his sojourn in office, I pray that he will not let grass grow under his feet with respect to regulatory reform. I pray he will not do that because subordinate legislation. Orders in Council, regulations, is a growth industry in Canada. It will be commitment by the Government that will take the lead, supported by an equally strong commitment from all political parties in this House of Commons, that can improve the process of considering that aspect of the accountability of Government.
I dare say that if the Minister or his successor is successful, whether that successor for the purpose of this debate comes from this side or that side of the House-and 1 think it will be from this side-it will tend to do a great deal to bridge the gap of misunderstanding that now exists between the public sector, the Public Service and the broad Canadian public. I think that effort is worthwhile and that is the spirit with which we approach this Bill.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I will be extremely brief. We welcome the move by the Government to eliminate from the statute books legislation which is no longer applicable. The majority of Canadians find it difficult enough to deal with the laws that still apply without having to make their way through laws which are not applicable.
I want to suggest to the Minister a simple process that would make it much easier for all of us to do our work. In the future when we are faced with Bills such as this to repeal certain statutes-and I certainly hope we will be-I suggest as a matter of reform that the Bill read exactly the same in French as in English. That is one of the difficulties with this Bill; I am sure the Minister is aware of it. Although the French Bill and the English Bill are the same, they appear in a different order.
Anyone trying to make sure that what was repealed in English was indeed repealed in French must do far more work than is absolutely necessary. The example I would give is quite clear. The section dealing with the Ministry of Veterans Affairs appears as the second paragraph of the French text and is No. 3. The same section in English appears in the final part of the English text and is No. 124.
We should try to simplify things. That means eliminating obsolete statutes and wiping from the books obsolete regulations. It also means making it possible for people concerned and interested to be able to do so as easily and readily as
possible. I do not pretend for a moment that it is a major concern. Neither do I expect the Minister to respond other than to note it for ease of handling.
In the process of determining the obsolete legislation in the future, in order to ease the process and to answer those who are concerned about such matters, in addition to the Bill there could be an explanation given at the time the Bill is tabled for first reading, listing the various statutes and the reason why, whether they have been superseded, outlived their usefulness or have in one way or another become redundant.
If that explanation could be provided by the Ministries involved, there would be no question in anyone's mind as to the appropriateness of the action being taken either by the Minister in charge or the House of Commons. I would hate to agree to repeal and Act only to discover down the road some obscure reason why we ought not to have done so. I do not suggest that every piece of legislation that appears here need take a great deal of time and discussion as to whether it is still useful. It would ease the process for lawyers when Bills are repealed to know the substantive reason. That kind of information should be readily available at the time of first reading of a Bill. It would be available to them and other jurisdictions for their quick perusal and comment.
I hope this is the first in a long series of similar kinds of legislation. I hope we cull out legislation that no longer need be on the books. I am confident that we carry laws that years ago ought to have been done away with.
It may well be that we require, as the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) quite correctly said, to devote some time looking at the recommendations contained in the Committee's report to see whether there is some ongoing work that could be done which would enable the House of Commons to reduce the number of laws presently in force in this country that no longer have evident applicability.
Beyond that, I would be delighted to pass this bill and get on to dealing with other matters that have much more significance and importance.


Mr. Jim Peterson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Economic Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise in the House today to speak on what is really the first step in our Government's long-term commitment to the process of regulatory reform. The step we are taking today is significant not because it is repealing a number of obsolete statutes which are on the books, but because it is the first step in what many of us feel has been too slow a process in bringing about the necessary regulatory reforms in order that we can efficiently operate as a Government, as a House and as a Parliament. Even more important, we can reduce the burden of regulation on the private sector.
I am particularly grateful to the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) for his very generous comments about the work of the Committee on Regulatory Reform. He is a Member of this House who for many years, in a very non-
November 19, 1982

partisan way, has sought to change the procedures by which we work so that we can all do a more effective job for the electorate.
If I could just go back to some of the fundamentals, many Members from all sides of the House have requested, in terms of our reporting on regulatory reform, that two basic objectives be pursued. One is to increase the opportunity for the private sector to participate in the decision-making process before regulations are brought forward by the Government. This requires notice of what the Government's regulatory intentions might be. The second is to give the private sector the opportunity to comment, consult, be heard and come up with alternative suggestions to achieve the most cost-effective way of accomplishing the necessary public goals that are necessary.
In terms of this major part of our recommendations, and we have many specifics dealing with it, I believe we have made some progress, but not sufficient. A number of Departments and agencies have already implemented this process of notice and consultation on a very effective basis. Based on our recommendations and based, I believe, just on good amendment practices, others have started to implement these types of notice and consultation procedures.
I would like to make special reference here to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet), and particularly to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts), who has published a book on new consultative procedures in dealing with the Department of the Environment. He has also introduced funding for people who want to come to Ottawa to make their views known on particular regulatory measures. I would like to see every Department and agency adopt that type of outward-looking process, and 1 commend the Minister of the Environment on taking the initiative.
I also commend the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs for the efforts he has made regarding the increase in funding which is going to public interest groups. Too often, as Hon. Members are aware, it is only the very well heeled, the very rich, who have the staff and the funds available to keep track of what is happening in provincial capitals and our National Capital. They can afford to send the experts, either hired or on staff, to Ottawa to make their views known and to work with our officials in a co-operative effort.
The regulatory process and the making of regulations is adversarial, at least in nature. Sometimes there are winners and sometimes there are losers. On one side it could be business. On the other side it could be consumers. We are concerned about worker health and safety, which costs money. We are concerned about rate increases which are going to have impact upon people who use our telephones, our railways, or whatever.
People who are not well organized and might not have the funds to come forward and make their views known must have that opportunity. We must aid the various methods which we have outlined to provide the public interest groups throughout our society, concerned citizens, people who do have the interest and knowledge, who do have a very important impact to make,
Miscellaneous Statute Repeal Act
the means of participating in this very important process of consultation. We look forward in the days ahead to seeing these notice and consultation procedures expanded to every Department and agency which have not already adopted them.
The second major thrust of our report was that you cannot have effective regulation-making process, one which involves notice and consultation, unless you also have a certain degree of accountability. We looked at the question of accountability and felt that this House, under its present procedures, would be helpless, that it would be hopeless to attempt to take on added responsibilities. We heard testimony to the effect that some Departments have been waiting for four years to make even simple changes to our legislation. Because we are bogged down and have not yet come to grips with how we can expedite the work of this House, we felt the proper way to proceed would be to look at the Committee system of Parliament to see if the expertise on those Committees could be utilized in a constructive way to help in the regulation-making process. We therefore suggested that for a brief period of time a Special Committee would oversee the implementation of regulatory reform in Canada at the federal level. Then, on an ongoing basis, the existing Standing Committees would have the responsibility of ensuring that Departments and agencies were introducing the regulatory reforms, and in certain cases they would even have the opportunity to look into the substance of regulations which have come forward.
I am sorry to say that to date we have not yet seen that type of role evolve in our Committees. But I am heartened, Mr. Speaker, by the fact that the report of the Committee looking into parliamentary reform, which was published some two weeks ago, goes a long way in dealing with this particular issue. We have waited a long time, but it is a good report because it gives added power to the Committees. It has adopted many of the recommendations which were set forth in Chapter 6 and every one of the most important ones. The Committees will be smaller, will have limited substitution, and will have the ability to develop the expertise to look at all aspects of the regulations. These Committees will have people on them who are committed to dealing with the matter. They will have the tools as well as the research people, and they will have the ability to travel.
The question we still have to examine is whether the automatic reference of an annual report of Departments and agencies is going to be adequate to allow the subject matter with which we are concerned to be discussed on what I believe will be a very non-partisan and highly constructive basis. I think the example with respect to the working of these Committees in the future is set by the task forces. They were small, and although they included Members from all sides of this House, there was very seldom disagreement. They worked in a very non-partisan way. I speak for many people who are backbenchers on this side of the House when 1 say they feel their great talents and expertise can be far better utilized in the Committee system if they have these reforms. Their input would be constructive and meaningful.

November 19, 1982
Miscellaneous Statute Repeal Act
We look forward very much to the implementation of this plan. I hope for the support of all sides of this Elouse for a new process by which the Committee system becomes a very integral part. In fact the front arm of the legislative branch, dealing with representations of private sector groups, not only from business but from labour, consumers' interests groups, people concerned with the environment and with worker health and safety.
I applaud the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) who has brought forward this measure today. He has under his jurisdiction the responsibility of the office of the co-ordinator of regulatory reform, continuing along the steps which have been commenced. It is very frustrating, Mr. Speaker, perhaps because I am a relatively new Member of this House of Commons, to see the slowness with which the tortoise of change moves along the road. I would be better reconciled to its slowness, Mr. Speaker, if in the future I could be assured that its course will be steadfast-that the path taken by the President of the Treasury Board, which is supported enthusiastically by my Minister, the Hon. Minister of State for Economic Development (Mr. Johnston), will be supported and encouraged by all Members on both sides of this House.


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, except for the parts where he was praising the Ministry, I agreed with the comments of the Hon. Member opposite regarding the need for change. I, indeed, enthusiastically support any Bill that repeals existing laws. In fact, if he would like to add a whole bunch more, I would enthusiastically support that. If you look at the two extremes of repealing none and repealing all the laws, you would err less if you repealed them all.
On the question of regulatory reform, which certainly is supported, I have a question. Just how seriously is the Government committed to this process? Four or five years ago, Mr. Speaker, I saw an estimate of the cost of regulation in Canada. It was estimated at that time that the cost of regulation to the Canadian economy was something like $15 billion per year, and it was a terrible burden then on the Canadian economy. Since that time it has certainly not gone down. If no new regulations or interventions have been added, it would amount to about $25 billion in today's dollars, which is terribly costly.
I see you are getting ready to stand, Mr. Speaker. I have two or three minutes left and I will pick up my remarks at two o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. When the House rose at one o'clock, the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) had the floor.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, just before one o'clock I indicated that both 1 and my party did not disagree-in fact we enthusiastically agree-with the idea that obsolete, unused, archaic and useless statutes on the law books of Canada should be repealed. Nobody can disagree with that. But in listening to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) describing this Government's motivation for introducing this Bill, I had to question his contention that somehow introduction of this Bill represents a significant or sincere move in the area of deregulation which is supposedly a policy of this Government.
As I indicated, Mr. Speaker, some years ago an independent consulting group, 1 think it was called the resource group, did a study of regulation in Canada and concluded that Government regulation cost the Canadian economy $15 billion a year. Now, just taking into account inflation and neglecting the fact that we have had scads of regulation since then, the cost today would be $25 billion spent on regulation. Almost every economist, Mr. Speaker, who has looked at the Canadian economy-indeed, the Government itself-has concluded that one of the severe problems this country faces is lack of productivity. We are simply not as productive as the Japanese or the Americans. Indeed, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development we are twenty-third on a list of 23 countries when it comes to productivity.
Now, what does that mean? Does it mean that Canadian workers do not work as hard as workers in other countries? Certainly not. What it means is that we do a heck of a lot of things in this country which produce nothing. One of those things is dealing with Government regulations. Three years ago I was in Japan, Mr. Speaker. It was a real eye opener for me. It is an amazing country; a pile of rock, they cannot feed themselves, they have virtually no arable land, no natural resources, but they have tremendous growth and prosperity. Their productivity performance is incredible.
I asked the Canadian Ambassador, who had been there for a number of years, what the Japanese have that we do not have. How are they able to do this? Well, he said, for one thing they have only 10,000 lawyers in the whole country. He said that only half in jest. The fact is that in this country the two growth industries or professions are law and accounting, because we do nothing in this place but make work for those professions.
In a similar vein, I was reading a story in The Atlantic Review about the deindustrialization of the American economy. The author of the article asked someone what had happened, when did the United States start losing competition to the Japanese. The man drew two lines on a graph, one going from the lower left to the upper right representing the number of graduate lawyers each year; the other one went from the upper left to the lower right representing the number of electrical engineers graduating each year. The two lines crossed in 1970, which is precisely the time at which the Japanese started outperforming the Americans very significantly. That, Mr. Speaker, is the problem in the United States.
November 19, 1982

The problem here is twice that. It amazes me how we sit around and think about productivity and what we are going to do about it. We gnash our teeth and wring our hands over our inability to compete, and our answer is to hire a lawyer to head a Royal Commission and make more work for lawyers. Our answer to every problem is to create more paper work and burden the country with more regulation.
The difficulty I have, in its most fundamental sense, and the most severe criticism that I can make of the Government opposite, is the frequency with which its actions are contrary to its policy statements. In this area of regulatory reform there is no better example. The Minister said proudly that in the Treasury Board there was the regulatory reform commission which had been working for a number of years. What did it produce? It produced this list of laws which should be abolished or repealed, laws such as the White Phosphorous Matches Act. I know there are dozens of lawyers out there looking at this Act daily to be guided in their actions! Then there is The Business Profits War Tax Act, 1916. Thank goodness we do not have to worry about that any more! Thank goodness that burden of regulation is being lifted from the Canadian economy, because it will give such a spurt! When we look down the list we see they are all like that. Sure, they should be abolished, but to claim that it is deregulation is to stretch the truth beyond reason.
In the last four or five years the stated policy of the Liberal Party has been deregulation. We had the introduction of the National Energy Program which, among other things, created three new Government agencies-one dealing with COR, one dealing with PIP, and one dealing with offshore Canadian oil and gas land administration.
Incidentally, I could have mentioned the Canadian Benefits Committee, that joint interdepartmental Committee, and others, but I should like to deal with these three. So far the agency dealing with PIP has 100 employees and the COR Agency has 400 employees. The regulations put out by these three organizations measure in inches, not in centimeters. There is a pile of regulations which has been put out by these three newly-created agencies. The cost to the private sector created by these brand-new agencies of Government is in the tens of millions, in the form of new lawyers, accountants and paper shufflers of various sorts hired to deal with them.
Historically in oil companies-and I am talking about the upstream end of the business where they are drilling for oil and gas-for every three geologists they needed one paper shuffler. The geologists are the people who go out and look for oil and tell the companies where to drill. As a result of the Government's actions, that ratio is reversed. For every geologist, companies now need three paper shufflers to handle the regulations, application forms, etc. This is a totally nonproductive, bureaucratic, regulatory burden.
This is also one of the reasons Canada is twenty-third on a list of 23 countries when it comes to productivity. It is offensive to decency and common sense to listen to the President of the Treasury Board say that the Government is committed to deregulation, that it is working on it, and that this is an
Miscellaneous Statute Repeal Act
example of the fine work which is being done. Yet on the other side of the coin we have the creation of bureaucratic red tape and monstrous regulatory burden by another Department of Government, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. The fact is that the left hand does not know what the other left hand is doing. It is hypocrisy at best. One wonders what it will require to force the executive and the bureaucrats to follow the policy statements of the Government. Why is there such a divergence between promise and performance? Why are there always statements of policies here and actions there?
The closest literary reference to that kind of behaviour which I could find was in George Orwell's "1984", the doublespeak or the mispeak activities of government as a way of controlling the masses, to ensure that everyone pays due respect to and has fear of the government. This is exactly what we have here. They are for deregulation, but on the other hand they create three new agencies with six inches of regulation for people who want to be in business in Canada. If this continues, instead of being in twenty-third place we will be the fortieth out of 40 countries; we will continue to deteriorate and be unable to compete with Japan, the United States and European countries. Also we will continue to see a drop in the standard of living and high unemployment. In other words, we will continue in the economic mess and doldrums in which we have been for far too long.
Instead of appointing Royal Commissions, new advisory committees or hiring new advisers, the Government should fire the 3,500-odd policy analysts in the Public Service who spend their time looking for problems and solutions to them. The Government should do what is promised, namely, cut back on excessive regulatory burdens. If the Government did what it promised, it would give the economy a boost and give the 1.5 million unemployed people some real hope for the first time in many years.
We have no objections to the Bill except to the extent that it is probably not long enough in terms of the list of laws which should be repealed. There are many other laws which should be added to the list. Perhaps we will have some worth-while suggestions for the Minister in Committee. If the bureaucrats will allow him to listen to suggestions from mere elected people, perhaps there will be some further improvement.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, first 1 should like to echo the sentiments expressed by the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) and the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre), but also I should like to indicate that I am entering this debate in a rather disappointed fashion. While the redundant legislation which is being repealed is certainly a step in the right direction, the Minister described at length the progress made in the area of regulatory reform. Certainly the track record of the Government is disappointing, to say the least and to be charitable.
In these times of economic difficulty we should get serious about regulatory reform. It is quite clear that regulatory

November 19, 1982
Miscellaneous Statute Repeal Act
reform has not been a priority of the Government. It is time for action, rather than further talk and examination. It probably goes beyond the stage of simply requesting regulatory reform. We are looking for regulatory house cleaning. This will clearly require joint action by the two levels of Government, and perhaps even the municipalities which are involved as well.
In these times it is necessary to exercise restraint, to reduce business and Government overhead, to enhance producitvity, to be more innovative, more creative and more competitive. These are all crucial elements on the road to recovery. I firmly believe that excessive regulation which exists in the country at all levels has stymied the creative and innovative spirit of Canadians. It has caused our products to be too expensive in terms of penetrating international markets. It has resulted in Canada having a system of Government and control that is far too expensive commensurate with our level of economic growth and wealth in this country.
It seems to me that if we are going to improve our over-all economic performance, we have to grapple with this issue on an emergency basis. We all know that in this country industry has been forced to scale down its operation. Roy Phillips, President of the CMA, has said:
-while Canada's manufacturing sector, which employs about 20 per cent of the work force, has lost about 255,000 jobs in the last year, bureaucracies have grown. While Manufacturing jobs fell to under 2 million-with similar losses in associated sectors which supply manufacturing-the three levels of government hired another 25,000 more people-
Those salaries are really part and parcel of the overhead burden in our country.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton made reference to the recommendations of the Special Committee on Regulatory Reform. There are some 29 of them in total. These are very good recommendations and they represent a lot of hard work, commitment and dedication by Members of this House. But really nothing has happened. The document containing the recommendations sits there and basically gathers dust.
The Economic Council of Canada, that permanent Royal Commission, did an extensive examination of the regulatory process in this country. It produced a document entitled "Reforming Regulation in 1981". That report advanced some 66 specific recommendations. I happen to be interested in it because it deals at length with the regulatory burden in transportation. Twenty-five of those recommendations had to do with the transportation sector. In a general way, this Economic Council of Canada report concluded that Canadians are overregulated. This overregulation results in inefficiency, waste and higher prices. The report further recommended that the economy be stripped of wasteful, damaging regulations and that incentives, rather than punishment, be used to respond to social concerns. Unfortunately, I know of no recommendation advanced in this particular document that has been put into effect. The report merely gathers dust.
When we have an announcement, as we did this past week, of a Royal Commission on the economy, I really wonder what it does to undercut and undermine the status of the Economic Council of Canada, which is an ongoing Royal Commission charged with the responsibility of providing economic advice to the Government and, indeed, to Parliament.
Here we have an institution that is funded by the taxpayers of Canada. It is independent. It does excellent work, but nobody pays any attention to it. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre, talked about the costs of the regulatory burden in Canada. He mentioned a figure in the order of $20 billion to $25 billion. We know that it runs to the billions of dollars, but it is rather difficult to identify with any degree of accuracy. But on the basis of learned assumptions it would seem that figure of $20 billion to $25 billion is not inaccurate.
I had an opportunity to do some research in this particular field. Some companies and industries have, in fact, assessed the regulatory burden in their own operation. Bell Canada assessed its costs of the regulatory burden imposed upon it to range in the order of $35 million to $50 million annually, all of which I might add is passed on to the consumer. Dow Chemical in 1978 monitored its regulatory burden and arrived at a figure of some $20 million. Again, I remind Hon. Members that this $20 million is a cost of doing business and is imposed upon the consumer.
This report dealt rather extensively with the trucking industry. The Economic Council of Canada stated that the licensing process in the trucking industry alone-just the licensing process-costs the industry some $40 million annually. That amount is in addition to huge indirect costs associated with the regulations regarding back haul, load limits, the right to haul to certain destinations and the right not to haul to certain destinations. These restrictions create grave inefficiencies in the system and result in the freight rate being exorbitantly high.
I am told on good authority that when the United States deregulated its trucking industry the fleet capacity increased by 50 per cent without adding one new vehicle to the fleet. It was found under the regime of regulations in place that essentially the trucks were running with a 50 per cent load factor at all times. With the scaling down or removal of regulation, the trucks were able to haul from point A to point B and from point B to point A. As a result, with the back hauls and the rationalization that occurred, it has had the effect of bringing down freight rates in the United States.
Yes, there has been some rationalization in the trucking industry. Some trucking companies went out of business. But if we are really serious about maximizing our efficiency and getting the best bang for the buck, we will have to take a look at that. Some industries have become excessively fat as a result of hiding behind the burden of regulation. That ripples right across the North American continent.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre, talked about the impact of the National Energy Program. It has been
November 19, 1982

suggested that the result of the imposition of these new regulatory agencies and the administration of the National Energy Program will result in some $1.5 billion spent in supervising and regulating the oil industry over the next eight years. Here again there is a direct cost which has to be paid for by someone. That someone is usually the consumer or the taxpayer, in both cases the same person, the one faced with paying the shot.
Let us take a look at direct administrative costs. Taking five rather high profile industries in existence at the present time, the CTC, the National Energy Board, the CRTC, the Atomic Energy Control Board and FIR A, their administrative costs run to approximately $100 million a year. The CTC alone costs about $30 million in administrative costs. These costs are increasing. They have increased anywhere from 25 per cent to 40 per cent over the last three years.
These regulatory industries are supposed to protect the consumer as far as prices are concerned. We now know that really quite the opposite has happened. The recent Statistics Canada report which was leaked-I am not sure if it has been officially published-indicated that those prices which are regulated by agencies on a year-to-year basis have increased, from April to April, at a rate of 17 per cent to 18 per cent over the last year. At the same time, however, prices which are not regulated have increased by roughly 9 per cent. What is the reason for that? The unregulated prices are subject to the vagaries of the marketplace in which they must compete.
It is interesting to note that the consumer price index component of regulated prices amounts to aproximately 25 per cent. Therefore, 25 per cent of the CPI is composed of prices that are regulated by some agency, either federal or provincial. We can only conclude that these agencies are in fact largely contributing to the inflationary pressures that we are trying to deal with and this is certainly not in the best interests of the consumer.
Another matter of concern is the fact that political decisions are being imposed upon the regulatory agencies with increasing frequency. This has the result of usurping, ignoring or upstaging the role of the decision-making bodies and, in many cases, many of these regulatory agencies have become agencies of convenience used as a vehicle to delay a decision, find out information or leave the impression that the public is being heard. The entire exercise is becoming somewhat of a farce.
I am glad the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) is in the House because a clear example of this is the case of the VIA Rail cut-backs. In that instance, Canadian rail passenger service was cut back by 20 per cent with the simple stroke of a ministerial pen. That action reversed an earlier CTC decision which was made after two years of extensive study and consultation with the public. After much public input, a decision on a route structure was made which seemed to be in the best interests of the travelling public and, indeed, in the best interests of Canada. A year later the Minister simply usurped that decision with the stroke of a pen. So the CTC process was
Miscellaneous Statute Repeal Act
essentially useless. A lot of money, time and effort was spent when, ultimately, the Minister ended up making a decision by decree.


Jean-Luc Pepin: We proved that it would not work that way.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I hope the Minister becomes involved in the debate. I would like to hear him challenge that particular observation.
Another example of political decisions being imposed upon regulatory agencies concerns the Bell Canada rate. The ratesetting process of the CRTC was abruptly circumvented when the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) announced back in August that the Bell rate would be limited to a 6 per cent and 5 per cent level. Again, the regulatory process was circumvented.
Another example deals with branch lines. The predecessor to the Minister of Transport, the Hon. Otto Lang, circumvented the CTC process in 1975. On this occasion, 1 think it was done to the advantage of individual farmers, He unilaterally decided that he would insert particular branch lines into the permanent railway network. He proceeded with this decision without the advice of the CTC. Once again, the CTC was circumvented. It played an insignificant role in that decision.
A more recent example concerns the STOL service between Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa. On August 10, 1982 the current Minister of Transport reversed an earlier CTC decision allowing STOL service. After three years of hearings and intensive public discussions, the CTC found that the applicants failed satisfactorily to meet the criterion of public convenience and necessity. The Cabinet decided, however, that there were compelling reasons and benefits that would make the project desirable and thereby approved it. Again, so much for the regulatory process.
There are many examples to demonstrate the fact that the regulatory agencies are really being used in a manner which makes the whole process something of a farce. 1 suggest that we should perhaps consider those agencies in that light. It becomes quite clear that the best laid plans and regulations are being transcended by political decisions with increased frequency.
Another observation that one must make is that the utopian ideal that everything we do can be planned and regulated to perfection has clearly been discredited. As well, we must realize that regulatory agencies go through a natural process of decay. I believe they become too cumbersome and that the administrative overload becomes very costly. In that deteriorating process the agencies themselves, in many cases, become ineffective and unresponsive to the decisions that they are supposed to make. In some cases they end up lacking in independence.
An interesting illustration of that concerns the airlines and the question of deep discount fares. This is a classic example of the agency being captured by the industry it was regulating. The airlines themselves asked the CTC to intervene and disallow the deep discount fares because they were taking a

November 19, 1982
Miscellaneous Statute Repeal Act
heavy toll on their balance sheet. In this case the agency is being captured by the industry that it was intended to regulate.
I suggest it is time for us to stop kidding ourselves. It is time for a major regulatory house cleaning in this country. I believe that many of the regulations and the agencies have outlived their usefulness. Some should be eliminated or at least scaled down or restructured. There is no question that when we are experiencing these very difficult economic times we can clearly identify a number of areas where the regulatory burden, and the burden of government itself, is having very negative effect upon business and commerce in this country without protecting the consumers' needs.
In conclusion, 1 would like to make some suggestions to the Minister. First, he should consider the recommendation made by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association which has called for a two-year moratorium on new regulations which would do nothing to contribute to the economic growth of this country. Second, I believe he should give serious consideration, since the regulatory issue is one which must be tackled at both the federal and provincial levels of Government, to establishing something similar to a federal-provincial deregulation commission. A commission such as that could be charged with the task of untangling the bureaucratic web across the country, reducing duplication and bringing about greater uniformity. Its basic goal would be to remove those barriers which stifle competition, innovation and efficiency and strangle commeri-cal enterprise in this country. This suggestion warrants his careful consideration because much groundwork has already been done. However, it will clearly require the co-operation of both levels of Government, and the provincial Governments are just as guilty of this as the federal Government. If we are to attack some of the structural problems in our economy, it would be a good idea to start demonstrating that the two levels of Government can co-operate in the best interests of commerce and enterprise in this country.
I would like to refer to my third recommendation. When I am speaking about scaling down regulation, I am not advocating total deregulation. However, in the course of this review, this rationalization, we must always ensure that provisions are made to protect consumers and to ensure that the public has meaningful access by which it may make its case. The public must have the opportunity to be heard so that its interest may be protected, particularly as they relate to safety matters. This is particularly true where there is a monopolistic or captive situation. There must be a clear opportunity for the consumer and the public at large to have a say in this process.
The Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton alluded to what would be my fourth recommendation. I believe that all regulations and all regulatory agencies should carry a sunset provision calling for a periodic review. This is really the first piece of legislation brought here during the 14 years I have been in the House which has repealed a significant number of Bills or laws. That is clearly a step in the right direction. We should have the sunset provisions in our regulations with respect to the agencies administering those regulations. We have a habit of churning out legislation, creating new bureaucracies and
new regulations, but we very rarely get to the task of scaling down those bureaucracies, laws and regulations. Therefore, I feel that any new agencies which are established or any new regulations brought in should carry with them a sunset provision.
I think my fifth recommendation is where federal leadership comes into play, because the federal Government has the overall responsibility for the economic fortunes or misfortunes of the country. It is important for the federal Government to take a leadership role and to make a clear commitment, in concert with its provincial counterparts, to reducing economic regulation, to removing the barriers to commerce rather than creating new obstacles. If that were to happen, there would be a tremendous loosening of the entrepreneurial spirit of Canadians. Today entrepreneurs who want to do business are frustrated by myriad regulations from Government level to Government level, from Province to Province. It is a very frustrating exercise and I think that sooner or later we will have to bite the bullet.
I welcome this opportunity to put some of my firm beliefs on the record. I know that perhaps in some instances the case may be somewhat overstated, but I cannot too strongly state the need, from my point of view, for a significant and drastic scaling down of the regulatory burden in this country.
I could go on and speak about the tax system as well, because that is another area which must be simplified and scaled down so that people can understand it and comply with it without the aid of expensive tax accountants and lawyers. I agree with my colleague, the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre, that the growth industry in this country has been the administrative sector which is largely composed of lawyers, tax accountants and those people who are charged with the responsibility of advising their clients how they should comply with the myriad laws, regulations and burdens thrust upon them by eager Governments which want to regulate us to death. I think they do it in good faith, attempting to regulate us into perfection, but really the opposite is true.
I therefore look forward to the passage of the Bill. I simply want to reiterate the genuine need for positive action on deregulation in the country, and I have given the Minister a couple of suggestions which I hope he will seriously consider because I think they have merit. If the federal Government can demonstrate leadership, I believe he will find co-operation in all corners of the country.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I say "thank you" to you, a Speaker who comes from British Columbia. I have just a few comments to make and then I suppose my friend, the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens), will take the floor. I noted the remarks of the Hon. Member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson), who said that this Bill is the first stage in the Government's long-term commitment to regulatory reform. I have read the Bill and if this is the first stage, it is like waiting in a restaurant for a meal. At the first stage one is served hors d'oeuvres, a few pieces of celery to
November 19, 1982

nibble on, and then one waits a long time for the next course. It is too bad we do not have the next course here because this celery is not very much indeed.
1 say to Hon. Members that I would welcome the Government getting on with the implementation of some of the reports of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments. I note that the Hon. Member for Willowdale said that the provisions with respect to notice, consultation and accountability of regulations and regulatory bodies are all-important. 1 think there is all-party agreement that we should get going with that. Unfortunately, we are not the Government, not yet-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: -and we do not have control of bringing in the second course.


Mr. Huntington:: Everything you want, you'll get.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It is amazing to see how one can wake up Hon. Members on a Friday afternoon by suggesting that there is the imminent prospect of a New Democratic Party Government.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say something about the word "deregulation" and some of the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) and the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). I caution Hon. Members and the public to be careful of the word "deregulation". It is a buzz word, a word which means, to certain elements in the country, specifically to very Conservative, right-wing elements, to get the Government totally out of people's lives.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I hear some Hon. Members to my right saying "Hear, hear". Deregulation means to get the Government totally out of people's lives and to allow its friends, the big corporations, to make money. I am speaking of the big corporations with respect to the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre, the oil companies and other companies with respect to other Hon. Members. The Hon. Member for Vegreville quoted, with approval, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, those small businessmen.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: The big employers.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Those big people in Canada.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: The people who create jobs.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It is like giving them a clear go-ahead to make as much money as they can and to do anything they want.
Let me give examples of good regulation and bad regulation. Suncor operates a tar sands plant in northern Alberta which I visited a few weeks ago, and there must be some sort of regulation there. I am not one of the socialists who perhaps believes that everything must be nationalized or taken over. Certain things must be run under public ownership and I believe in things like Petro-Canada. Hon. Members will note
Miscellaneous Statute Repeal Act
that I was not above rising in the House today to ask a question about making Petro-Canada more accountable and a better organization. I raised the matter about its labour relations on the East Coast.
There is room for growth in all sorts of areas in Canada and there will continue to be private enterprise and a mixed economy. We have a mixed economy, let's face it. We will not retreat to the nineteenth century, so let us make it the best mixed economy that we can, one which is applicable to the Canadian situation, culture and needs.
Getting back to the tar sands plant, that has to be regulated in many ways. We have to have health and safety standards. We have to have standards for environment. That particular Suncor tar sands plant had a problem with some spills. They know, if the regulations are there, that they will try and live up to the regulations. If the regulations are not there, there is not that much pressure on them. There are price regulations, with respect to the tar sands plant, governing the price they can charge the Canadian public for the oil. Most of them, after they adjust to it, realize that that has to happen.
We have a regulated economy and we have good regulations; we also have some bad regulations. The Member from Calgary Centre spoke about this. That is one of the few things about which I agree with him. The fact is that some of the regulations for the PIP grant, the Petroleum Incentives Program grant, that vast Government give-away to the poor oil companies in Canada of $8.6 billion, are bad regulations. I agree that business needs certainty and that we have to have fair regulations and fast regulatory processes. But I point out that we should be careful about calling for deregulation. Instead, we should call for better regulation: more efficient regulation and fair regulation.
Since the Minister is in the House and he raised the point about regulation, I want to say something about regulatory bodies in Canada. I hate to mention his name and perhaps I will see some faces brighten up on the opposite benches, but there was a Member of this House called John Turner who, when he was Minister of Justice, did one very good thing, and that was to upgrade the whole aspect of judicial appointments in Canada to get better qualified judges. We have made real progress in the last ten years or so in making some excellent judicial appointments, in consultation with Bar Associations. We are not really radical. We do not elect our judges. Our judges are still by and large Liberal lawyers, but at least they are better.


An Hon. Member:: You are slandering the judiciary.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: 1 am not slandering the judiciary; I am pointing out that we have got better judges. The Liberal Member says I am slandering the judiciary because I call them former Liberal lawyers! On the contrary, I am praising the judiciary, and I am praising the Government, for once. I am

Miscellaneous Statute Repeal Act
saying that the Government has had a conscientious policy under a number of Ministers of Justice to appoint very good people to the Bench and to consult with the Bar. I think that is progress.
I make this point because we have not done that in our appointments to regulatory boards. These are very important boards, almost more important than the judiciary in many ways. They decide for my constituents the price they pay for their telephone, the price they pay for their cable system, the price they pay for their oil and gas and whether they are going to have any oil and gas in the future. These are real bread and butter issues. These are not esoteric issues. These regulatory boards that deal with many of the regulations passed by the Government that are sloughed off to the regulatory boards are very important.
By and large, we find a lot of political patronage in the boards. We find a lot of dead wood; a lot of people that work for one political party in the country are put on these boards. There are problems getting good people to go on these boards. On any of the regulatory boards that have to do with environment, energy, or any such area, we do not have anybody who has been part of the environmental movement of this country, which is a movement almost 20 years old.
Some of us who are having birthdays this week associated with these movements when we were young. They are not young movements any more. You do not see any of those people on the boards, yet they are people who would be excellent, say, on the National Energy Board. We do not have any native people on that Board.
This is getting a long way away from this Bill and regulation, but 1 point that out to the Government that we want to have good regulations. Forget about deregulation. That is what the Conservatives want. They want to get rid of the Government. The Member from Calgary Centre wants to get rid of Petro-Canada, What we want to do is make it better and more accountable. We want to make Government regulations certain, fair and fast. I think that is what the Special Committee on Regulatory Reform is basically saying, and that is why I supported it.
I want to suggest, Mr. Speaker, as one of my colleagues from Prince Albert suggested to me, that when we deal with a Bill like this that repeals such Acts as the Diamond Jubilee of Confederation Act, 1927-


Jean-Luc Pepin: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: You can sleep easier tonight, Mr. Speaker! That Bill is being repealed. An Act to revive and amend The Business Profits War Tax Act, 1916. We can sleep easier this weekend! That Bill is gone.
These Bills should have died by their own accord. There should in fact be some sunset provisions, by which these Bills only last for so many years and then die. I am glad that the Government has seen fit to bring in a Bill, however, to eliminate these old fossils that are around here. 1 am not referring to any Members or any Senators; I am referring to Acts that
November 19, 1982
were passed many years ago. It is about time we did bring them to an end.
I note that some of the recommendations have been made by groups such as the Vancouver People's Law School, which again has a long history of providing legal education courses to ordinary people. Various spokesmen for that group have advocated many times that we have laws that are very simple and easy to read, that we need a procedure that is very simple, that allows some of these laws to expire of their own accord, to die a natural death, rather than having to pass an Act to end them.
It is too bad that we do not have a Stephen Leacock in the House, or maybe the Member from Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose) could do it, but this Bill is so juicy with some great Acts that we are repealing. I am sorry to see them go. I note this one:
An Act respecting the Construction of a line of railway in the Province of New Brunswick by Canadian National Railway Company from a point at or near Bartibog in a westerly direction to the Tomogonops River in the vicinity of Little River Lakes.
1 apologize to the people of New Brunswick. 1 do not know the particular area. It seems a sad occasion, in many ways, to be putting that poor Act out of existence. 1 see the Minister of Transport nodding.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am moved to tears.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: There is another Act in the Schedule. It is called:
An Act respecting the Construction of a line of railway forming part of the Canadian National Railways between Turtleford and a point in Township 48, Range 12, West of the Third Meridian, in the Province of Saskatchewan.


An Hon. Member:: That has been abandoned.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: My colleague says it has already been abandoned anyway. The Minister has already abandoned it. Now he is passing an Act to get rid of the original Act.


Jean-Luc Pepin: We will restore it tomorrow.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: He is going to restore it. But the point is that it is rather an archaic piece of legislation. Some of the Acts obviously represent a very interesting period of Canadian history.
I want to conclude by saying that we are in favour of this Bill going through-and I will sit down and let it go through in a minute-but the Minister did raise the whole matter of regulation. There should be a fast regulatory process, a better regulatory process. There should be better regulators.
I cannot go into this in detail as it is sub judice because of the pipeline lawsuit that I am bringing against the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the entire Cabinet. One of the reasons behind it is the growing Government practice of passing regulations that, in my view, have very little to do with the act that Parliament passed in the first place, in other words, going way outside the scope of the act. It is very

November 19, 1982

tempting to have Government by Order in Council, Government by regulation, but we must have Government by Parliament.
Elon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel): Mr. Speaker, I could not help but rise and speak for a few moments on this Bill which has been brought in by the new President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) because I heard the Minister's remarks that this is the first step in deregulation in this country. I think ail those who have reviewed the Bill would agree that this is a straight misrepresentation. To suggest that Bill C-119 is in some way ushering in a new era of deregulation in Canada is simply untrue.
Before 1 get to the body of my remarks, 1 would like to ask Hon. Members to put this Bill into perspective. Here in Canada we are faced with a situation where our current inflation in 1982 is estimated to be at 11 per cent compared to 4.6 per cent in 1969. We have an estimated real growth this year of minus, and 1 emphasize that, 5.2 per cent compared to the real positive growth in 1969 of 5.3 per cent. We in Canada today have an unemployment rate of 10.9 per cent compared to 4.4 per cent for 1969. We have a total number of people unemployed of 1,297,000 compared to 362,000 in 1969. We have spending at the federal level of $79 billion compared to $13.6 billion in 1969. Above all, we have a deficit this year of an estimated $23,550 million compared to a surplus of $493 million in 1969.
Our gross debt has jumped from $33 billion in that year, which was the debt that was run up during the two World Wars and a great depression, to today's $155 billion. 1 use 1969 because that is perhaps the first year that, in fairness, we can credit or discredit to the Government now in power under our present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).
In that context surely Hon. Members will agree this country has some very serious problems to be dealt with. Can we believe that a government would set its sense of priorities so that the first item we are considering today is Bill C-119, which deals first of all with the repeal of the Royal Agricultural Winter Fair Act of 1926-27, Chapter 9? This incisive, almost dramatic action on the part of the President of the Treasury Board is his first action in the form of introducing legislation in this House.
Think of it. In October the unemployment rate was 12.7 per cent, 1,388,000 Canadians were out of work. In addition, Statistics Canada reports that 369,000 Canadians worked part-time because they could not find full-time employment. At this time the Government feels that the top priority we should be dealing with on Friday, November 19, 1982, is not how to create jobs for those people, but it would like us to agree to the repealing of the Volunteer Bounty Act of 1908. Imagine, at a time when we are being told that 539,000 jobs have been lost in this country, the best that the President of the Treasury Board, one of the senior economic Ministers in the present Cabinet, can offer to us is a Bill which proposes to amend the Volunteer Bounty Act, 1908 by simply repealing the basic act.
I say this because I sense that in the name of deregulating, this Government is introducing in the form of Bill C-119 a Bill
Miscellaneous Statute Repeal Act
that is really an affront to the people of Canada, an affront to those out of work and attempting to cope with the high inflation in this country. The priorities of this Government are a disgrace as far as its governing and legislative program are concerned.
It is not just that. Consider the plight of the youth in this country, that is, people between the ages of 15 and 24 who are now unemployed. This figure has reached 21 per cent in Canada. In Quebec, 43 per cent of the youth below the age of 24 years are out of work.
What is the apparent solution of the President of the Treasury Board as of today, Friday, to their plight? He is suggesting that we should repeal the Demobilization Appropriation Act. Imagine, this is the new President of the Treasury Board in action. That is his sense of priorities.
Let me go further. At a time when unemployment insurance in the first eight months of this year totalled $5.4 billion on an estimated basis and will probably result in a total pay-out of $8 billion-and bear in mind that that is more than the projected total spending of the four Atlantic Provinces together-the best this economic Minister can do is to propose that the House agree to the repealing of the West Indies Trade Agreement Act of 1926. He goes even further. He is very bold here. Not only does he suggest that that Act be repealed, but that, to boot, the War Risk Insurance Act of 1942, also be repealed.
Is that Government worthy of having the continued confidence of this House and the confidence of the people of Canada? Using precious House time, it finds nothing better to do than to propose that certain Acts be repealed, Acts that most people in this country have never heard of. In fact, even librarians would find it a hard job determining where they exist at the present time.
The Minister is vividly demonstrating how absolutely void this Government is of ideas of a constructive nature to start rebuilding this country. It is looking for fillers. It is essentially looking for ways to give the appearance that it is doing something of an effective nature to start reviving the Canadian economy when, in fact, by bringing in this type of Bill it is demonstrating its total lack of any credible programs to relieve the dire situation at the present time in Canada.
It is not just a question of national unemployment, because there is no such thing. It is unemployment in a regional, provincial and local sense. That is the tragedy of Canada today. Newfoundland lives with an unemployment level of 19.2 per cent today; Prince Edward Island, 12.7 per cent; Nova Scotia, 13.5 per cent; New Brunswick, 14.8 per cent; Quebec, 15.4 per cent; Ontario, 11.7 per cent; and even British Columbia, 14.2 per cent.
What is the Government's answer through the key economic spokesperson in the House at the present moment? It is to repeal the Business Profits, War Tax Act of 1916. He is doing

November 19, 1982
Miscellaneous Statute Repeal Act
a little housekeeping, and not even with respect to the last war, or the Korean war, but with respect to the First World War. This Act was passed initially in 1916 and now, for some reason, this very intense "grey eminence", who now heads the Treasury Board in this country, has sought it out and decided it should once and for all be killed and repealed. That is his answer, and 1 would suggest it is a great affront to this House because it is done under the pretext that it is a deregulation, a first phase. Let that Minister or any other Minister, bring in a meaningful program to deregulate some of the overregulated situations in Canada, and I can assure him that he will get the support of the Official Opposition. But I do not think he can expect this House, without comment, to approve Bills such as Bill C-119, when they attempt to represent that the Bill in effect is a meaningful step along the road to deregulation in Canada.
Let me simply say that it is not only a question of people being out of work, it is also a question of business bankruptcies, which must be coped with in this country. Business bankruptcies in Canada, for example, in the first ten months of 1982, totalled 8,963, for a total indebtedness involved of $1,878 million. What a tragedy when that number of enterprises, once providing employment and contributing to the wealth of the nation, have found they cannot continue any longer. They are bankrupt. They are defunct. And what is the answer from this Minister to this type of situation? He is asking us to consider the repeal of the Diamond Jubilee of Confederation Act of 1926-27. Not only would he like us, presumably, to help the economy in some way by repealing that Act, but he would also like us to consider the repeal of an Act of 1912 which authorized the payment of a subsidy to the Collingwood Shipbuilding Co., Ltd.
How can the people of Canada, Mr. Speaker, in any conceivable way have faith or trust in a Government that is almost frivolous with the time of the House of Commons? How can we go back to the Canadian public and tell them that we either supported or helped legislation which was designed to get people back to work in Canada, by considering, for example, a 1924 statute which was an Act respecting the construction of a Canadian National Railway line from the end of the China Clay Branch to St. Remi d'Amherst in the Province of Quebec? That was almost 60 years ago. Perhaps before Bill C-l 19 passes we should read all those Acts just to see their true import. But this is what this intensive, efficient, effective President of the Treasury Board believes is the top priority for Canada. That Act must be repealed because somehow or other he came across it and believes it should be stricken from our statutes.
1 know that one of the great cop-outs of this Government is to say, "Oh, well, you know, maybe you can fault us for not running the economy as effectively as many would like, but it is a world situation. Don't blame us too much." What a misrepresentation! What a fallacy! At a time when we have unemployment of 12.7 per cent, is it not interesting to note that that unemployment level is virtually the highest of any of the major industrialized nations in the Western world? It compares at 12.7 per cent with an unemployment level in
Japan of 2.4 per cent, in Italy of 4.5 per cent, in West Germany of 6.6 per cent, in France of 8.7 per cent, and I could continue.


Mr. Lang:: What about the United States?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I am glad the Hon. Member asked that question because United States unemployment was at 20 per cent, on a percentage basis, below unemployment in this country. I thank the Hon. Member for Kitchener (Mr. Lang) for pointing out that this country, Canada, has a Government, which he supports, which is running an unemployment level, on a percentage basis, 20 per cent higher than that of the United States. Despite that comparatively shameful performance on the part of this Government with respect to unemployment in Canada, what do we find is the main concern of this Minister? He would like us to consider, if we would, the repeal of the Ferries Act, of 1970. Apparently that Act did not go down too well with the President of the Treasury Board and he has decided that it must go. I would like him, if he is permitted a little more time before this debate is over, perhaps to tell the House this; if we do agree to the repeal of the Ferries Act of 1970, is that going to help alleviate unemployment in Canada? To what degree does he believe it is going to curb spending at the federal Government level, which has now reached the point where we are spending almost 45 per cent more than the revenue we are taking in? In what way would the repeal of that Ferries Act help the economic condition in which we find ourselves in this country?
On the question of inflation, the Government may feel it can shrug its shoulders and say, "Sure, we have got inflation, but so have so many other countries". Again, that is not true. My hon. friend from Kitchener asked about the United States. At a time when the United States has 4.9 per cent inflation, we have 10 per cent inflation. We have twice as much inflation in this country as they have in the United States. In West Germany, inflation is at 5 per cent, Japan is at 3 per cent, the United Kingdom is at 6.8 per cent. In short, Mr. Speaker, on average we not only have comparatively high unemployment as compared to all the other Western Industrialized nations, but we have one of the worst inflation levels of any of those nations. If we put a misery rate together by adding inflation and the unemployment level, we find that we are at least number one in one thing among the major industrial Western nations, we are number one in our misery rate.
Today Canada has a misery rate of 22.7 per cent. That compares, say, with Japan at 5.4 per cent; West Germany,
11.6 per cent; the United States, 15.3 per cent. But what is the President of the Treasury Board's answer? He says: if you pass my Bill C-l 19, I can, first of all, tell you that this is the first stage of my deregulation program. Presumably he is suggesting that this misery rate will be improved if we agree to repeal the Freight Rates Reduction Act of 1959, or the Foreign Aircraft Third Party Damage Act, or the Air Traffic Control Services Continuation Act of 1976-77. All these I take it are.
November 19, 1982

in the mind of the President of the Treasury Board, very effective steps toward getting this economy rolling once again.
I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this is an affront to the Parliament of Canada. Whatever the Minister is doing in this Bill, it could better be handled as a footnote to an Act going through this Parliament, which would hopefully have brought in some meaningful legislation to start genuinely deregulating industry in this country, and give the private sector entrepreneurs an opportunity to start producing those jobs we have been talking about. In any event, the Government could stop pretending that meaningful actions are being taken when in reality all that is happening is that a lot of housecleaning measures are being given a priority they do not deserve before the Parliament of Canada today when we are faced with the most serious economic plight this nation has had to face certainly since the 1930s.


Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not intend to speak for very long. The Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) has made most of the points I wanted to make. 1 only wanted to make three quick points because, as one who believes in deregulation, I looked forward to the Bill and was somewhat surprised to find out what it contained. It should be made clear that what is at issue here is more parliamentary reform than deregulation. It ought to be a matter of parliamentary reform, that this Parliament has to deal with the repeal of matters which date back that far. I hope that some day we will see the wisdom of referring these kinds of matters to an all-party committee so that the time of the House is not taken up with this kind of matter. Secondly, 1 had the privilege of spending some time this past weekend with the Conference Board of Canada. When you deal with individuals who are directly involved in the regulation by Government of their affairs, that is perhaps the most direct way to discover what is the problem of regulatory reform which the Government has yet to deal with.
There is a new phrase in the industrial world, Mr. Speaker, which is "the six inch rule." It is a scary rule. According to those who are in the practice of appearing before the regulatory bodies of Government, if your supporting documentation is not at least six inches thick, your issue and your concern will not even be dealt with. It will be sloughed off by the regulatory agencies of Canada because if it is not six inches thick, it obviously does not say anything valuable. That is how far we have gone in making life difficult for business, and that is a shame.
The reason 1 enter this debate is to add one point to what the Hon. Member for York-Peel said. Yesterday the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) was asked in this House by our leader whether the Throne Speech was ready and whether the Government has its new economic measures ready. The Prime Minister of Canada said:
We had envisaged the possibility of having the Throne Speech read at the end of the month of October.
The reason for delaying those measures, Mr. Speaker, was:
-the very important legislation which was already before the House-
Miscellaneous Statute Repeal Act
Further on in the day the Prime Minister reiterated that point when he said:
-we did not begin the session with the Throne Speech, but, rather, postponed it, as I say, until we deal with this legislative backlog-
Apparently what the Government proposes to do, Mr. Speaker, is not to bring in a Throne Speech, not to bring in a budget, but to defer all economic measures for three years to the Royal Commission for study. Three years, Mr. Speaker, so this Government will never have to explain to Canadians what it proposes to do until after the next election. In fact, if that is to be taken seriously, then one is entitled to ask: are the people of Canada seriously expected to believe that Bill C-119, an Act to repeal certain statutes that have ceased to be in force, has a legislative priority in the mind of the Government greater than economic recovery? It makes the whole statement made yesterday by the Prime Minister of Canada unbelievable.
I need not go on at length because the Hon. Member for York-Peel has outlined many of the matters of concern, but I hope someone on the other side explains to the 1.5 million Canadians who are out of work why measures to help them should be delayed while we deal with the Bounty on Hemp Act of 1923.
One can go on, but it seems to me that all Canadians have the right to look to what Parliament is dealing with today, which, in the words of the Prime Minister of Canada, are more important than a Throne Speech, a new budget, or new economic measures. If you simply look at what the Government of Canada proposes the House should deal with today, while action to help Canadians is deferred, then Canadians will get the clearest picture of exactly why this Government and this country are in the difficulty they are in.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I looked through this Bill this morning and noticed that it was to repeal statutes which have ceased to be in force or have become unnecessary, and I thought it would simply be a routine bill. In the Province of Alberta, for example, every five years the Government brings in a similar Bill to prevent laws from becoming redundant and to repeal those which are no longer in use or have gone by the boards and are no longer enforced. So we looked upon it as a simple housekeeping Bill. But when 1 heard Members from the other side of the House this morning saying that this was the start of a great parliamentary reform, 1 took another look at the Bill. I wish the Hon. Minister, when he is speaking to the Bill, would tell me how this is part of the great reform Parliament. I just cannot see it and I do not understand it. If that is so, the Government of Alberta has been carrying out reforms for the last 40 years, to my knowledge.
When this Bill is passed, Mr. Speaker, it will not make one iota of difference to any Canadian. The Acts are not in force now, they are redundant. As a matter of fact, one of them goes back to 1908. I am amazed that it took the Government 74 years to find out that the Act was redundant.
This, Mr. Speaker, is a housekeeping exercise which every Government should undertake at least every seven or eight

November 19, 1982
Miscellaneous Statute Repeal Act
years, and preferably every five years. So 1 cannot understand how this is a big deal. I would get quite excited about this if the Bill were going to repeal the Excise Tax Act, because it is doing so much damage to the country. It puts a tax on gasoline which farmers have to use to distribute fertilizers, which increases the cost of food to everybody, which in turn increases inflation, and then we try to fight inflation. Why not repeal an Act like that? Then I could get excited about parliamentary reform. Or we should repeal the Metric Conversion Act, or Bill C-48, or the capital gains tax measure which was brought in in the November budget, along with several other things. If you want to start parliamentary reform, let us repeal some of those Acts. Let us not make people think they are going to have something different tomorrow when this Bill is passed, when it is simply a housekeeping act which should have been carried out at least every five years since Confederation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I should call the attention of the House to the fact that if the Minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, 1 had intended to begin my closing remarks by thanking all Hon. Members for their contributions to the debate, but I would be less than sincere if I extended those thanks in equal measure to each and every person on the opposition side of the House who spoke, in particular the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens).
The Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) who, I thought, spoke on behalf of the Official Opposition, rose and said that he and his Party welcomed the Bill. The Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) rose and said that he and his Party welcome the Bill. The Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) rose and said that he and his Party welcomed the Bill, that it was worthwhile legislation and that they intended to support it. But then the Hon. Member for York-Peel came in and said that the Bill was an affront. If it is an affront, it must be an affront to the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton, to the Hon. Member for Vegreville and to the Official Opposition for whom they speak. As I understood the position of the Official Opposition, it was that it was a worthwhile and constructive Bill which it supported.
This is just another example of how the Official Opposition is unable to get its act together. It could be that the speech of the Hon. Member for York-Peel was the opening salvo of his campaign for the leadership of the Conservative Party, something he wants to carry forward to the convention next January. After all, the former minister of finance from Newfoundland made a remarkable statement about the leadership of his Party not too long ago, so I suppose the Hon. Member for York-Peel in his own way should have an opportunity to give a signal, perhaps a more subtle signal-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect, I call to the Minister's attention the Bill before the House.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I simply point out that the Bill is supported by spokesmen for the Official Opposition. I am sure they regret very much that their efforts are being sabotaged by the Hon. Member for York-Peel.
It may be that the Hon. Member for York-Peel was absent since October 27 when the House resumed, because we did not begin our efforts in the House with this Bill. We began with the economic statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) which gave high priority to the economy, to the creation of jobs and to the reallocation of $1.5 billion. It was an economic statement which I support and for which I share the responsibility.
I would presume that we are dealing with the Bill this afternoon, at least in part, because of a discussion between our House Leader and the House Leader of the Official Opposition. It is clear from the fact that we began the resumed session with the economic statement of the Minister of Finance that we are giving priority to maintaining and creating jobs in the private sector, to building and strengthening the efficiency and productivity of the private sector. As part of this we must also give a signal that we are interested in strengthening the efficiency and productivity of the Government. The Bill is intended to be a contribution to this.
It was first introduced in June by my distinguished predecessor. We are carrying forward the Bill at this time to clear away the legislative backlog about which Hon. Members opposite spoke. It is one component of our over-all commitment to legislative or regulative or regulatory reform. Yes, it is legislative housekeeping, but it is one element of a more efficient and productive government apparatus.
It is strange that the Hon. Member from Alberta in the back row opposite, again in his own way, contradicted the Hon. Member for York-Peel. He is a distinguished former member of the Alberta legislature who, I am sure, made a contribution to his own Province. He complained that we had not dealt with this matter sooner, but the Hon. Member for York-Peel said that we should not be dealing with it at all, that we should be dealing with it later. That is still another contradiction.
In conclusion, the Hon. Member for Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley) inaccurately suggested that our objective was not to say what we were doing with respect to the economy until after the next election. Certainly this is not our position. We have already begun putting forward our program to deal with the current serious economic situation in the economic statement of the Minister of Finance. What the Hon. Member for Don Valley West accused us of certainly seems to be the position of the Conservative Party, because the former minister of finance from Newfoundland, when asked what his Party would do if it were in office, said, "We don't intend to tell anybody what we are going to do until we get back in". Then he said, "You'll find out".
Looking back at what happened in 1979-80 when he was minister of Finance, I am sure Canadians are very worried that if they make the mistake of voting for them they will find-[DOT]
November 19, 1982


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Again, with all due respect to the Hon. Minister, 1 call his attention to the rule of relevance in the debate.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, 1 accept your admonition. I am simply trying to stay within the parameters of the debate created by the Hon. Member for York-Peel and other Members opposite.
I want to conclude by saying that 1 thank Hon. Members of the House, where they deserve it, for their constructive comments. I look forward to pursuing all the suggestions made when the Bill is in committee.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. I wonder whether the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) would accept a question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will the Minister accept a question?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: If it is relevant, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my question is twofold. Before we deal with the Bill, would the Minister indicate how many jobs are likely to be created as a result of its passage or, alternatively, how much money the Treasury will save as a result of the passage of Bill C-119?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I do not expect that the Bill will create jobs, but l certainly think that it will help save some money in terms of over-all Government administration, and I am sorry my hon. friend seems to oppose that.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.

Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: that Bill C-96, to amend the Financial Administration Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to move second reading today of Bill C-96, the purpose of which is to amend the Financial Administration Act in order to enable Treasury Board further to improve financial control and accountability in departments and agencies of the Government of Canada.
The last major revision to the Financial Administration Act was undertaken in the late 1960s. Since that time a number of important recommendations and agreements concerning
Financial Administration Act
financial administration matters have been made requiring further legislative change. These amendments are included in the Bill. They stem from reports by successive Auditors General recommending specific improvements in a number of aspects of financial administration. Also they stem from the 1975 study of the Accounts of Canada which recommended change to certain budgetary, accounting and reporting practices which for a long time have caused concern about their effect on parliamentary control of expenditures, and from a variety of proposals for making amendments to clarify the intent of the legislation where difficulties in its application have been experienced.
There has also been a request from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) to include several items dealing with government banking and borrowing.
In addition to these externally generated initiatives for change, the Office of the Comptroller General has identified other areas where legislative change is needed. While the majority of items in this Bill are administrative and technical improvements, there are a number of amendments which 1 should like to mention today because of the important improvements they will enable us to implement.
The first significant amendment concerns the proposals for the future treatment of uncollectible debts due to the Crown. As Members may know, Section 18 of the Act at present authorizes the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Treasury Board to make regulations authorizing deletions from the accounts of obligations due to Her Majesty not exceeding $5,000. Deletion of debts over $5,000 requires parliamentary approval.
Section 18 was last changed in 1969. An analysis of the submissions for deletion for a recent one-year period revealed 1,528 cases between $2,000 and $5,000, for a total of $4.8 million, and an additional 1,344 cases over $5,000, for a total of $28.8 million. Although statistics suggest that an increase in the limit from $5,000 to $100,000 would eliminate much of the administrative burden associated with parliamentary approval, and it was recommended that the limit should be removed from the Act and put in regulations where it could be subject to periodic revision.
While it is true that the existing law reserves for Parliament the authority to write off debts, it should be understood that this change is intended to deal administratively rather than legislatively with a variety of relatively small amounts which have proved to be uncollectible. Generally speaking, these include taxes receivable, accounts receivable, accountable advances and a variety of minor items for various purposes. As this type of debt is actually unrealized revenue, it is recorded on a memorandum basis only in the records of a Department, and deletion has no effect on the expenditures of government.

November 19, 1982
Financial Administration Act
Where an item was initially authorized by Parliament through estimates, such as a loan or investment, and that item is on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities of Canada, any amount written off, no matter how large or small, will continue to require legislative approval prior to making an adjustment. Large dollar value items are usually in this category.
I should like to remind the House that any debt which is to be written off under the proposed regulations would be required by law to be reported in the Public Accounts.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, the changes to Section 18 will reinforce the Government's continuing efforts to collect vigorously all revenues and debts due the Crown.
Another amendment concerns loan guarantees. The requirement to provide loan guarantees has arisen on occasion, and the authority to provide these guarantees was obtained through the estimates process because it was considered to be a financial matter and it would not have been realistic to amend program legislation.
If program legislation had a clause authorizing loan guarantees, there would be no need to bring specific items before Parliament. The process now used provides Members of Parliament with an opportunity to review each specific item in committee and to register their concerns, their points of view, and their support if they wish to do so.
Because it is desirable to continue to have Parliament approve requests for loan guarantees, an amendment to Section 22 will allow for the continued use of estimates, that is, appropriation acts, to obtain such authority.
There is an amendment to Section 25 concerning the existing statutory requirement for the certification and recording of financial commitments, which was legislated some time ago. This requirement was met with the Comptroller of the Treasury as the central point for the control of disbursements of public money. As a result of the recommendations of the Glassco Commission in 1962, the position of the Comptroller of the Treasury was abolished and responsibility for, among other things, commitment certification and accounting was given to Departments.
Over the past several years commitment accounting practices in Departments have been addressed in several government-wide studies. There was the Report of the Auditor General of Canada on Financial Management of Canada. There was the Report on the Study of the Accounts of Canada, a study carried out interdepartmentally on the various purposes served by those accounts.
In 1980 the Government announced the creation of the Policy and Expenditure Management System. This system recognizes that policy and program decisions must be taken in the context of, and with the responsibility for, costs and expenditure limitations. The creation of resource envelopes and long-term plans that will provide Departments with a context within which they can examine future costs of ongoing programs and new initiatives is central to the new system. It follows, therefore, that multi-year financial arrangements must not only be considered in terms of the budget year
operational plan but also within the limits set out in the multiyear operational plans.
These facts, plus the introduction of the Policy and Expenditure Management System, suggested the need for a specific and detailed review of Section 25. Therefore, the office of the Comptroller General of Canada launched an extensive review of commitment certification and accounting practices. This review revealed that there are three major problems which create inefficiencies and weaken control over financial obligations entered into on behalf of the Government of Canada. It was found that present Section 25 is not relevant to statutory appropriations. It was found also that the section does not require control over multi-year arrangements and it requires unnecessary costly procedures to control small-value commitments.
In summary, these three problems can be traced to the present legislation, which is the underlying cause of most of the shortcomings identified in previous government-wide studies. Therefore, it has been concluded that the method of controlling commitments should not be in the legislative wording of the Act. The proposed amendment will, however, continue the requirement for control over commitments, but the methods by which that control will be kept will be the subject of Treasury Board policy direction rather than law. I believe the new policy direction will strengthen control over financial commitments while at the same time effecting economies in administrative overhead. It will do so by emphasizing, for statutory appropriations, the need for determination of eligibility prior to payment rather than commitment certification as to fund availability. It will also relate commitment control to the reference levels approved for departmental multi-year operational plans for future fiscal years as well as the current fiscal year.
Section 30 of the Act is being amended to provide better disclosure and improved accountability on the use of budgetary and non-budgetary appropriations on which Parliament has imposed annual ceilings. In general, the amendment would require debts incurred prior to the end of the fiscal year for work performed, goods received, services rendered or debts resulting from contractual arrangements to be recorded as charges to appropriations, even if the inclusion of such charges would result in total charges exceeding the appropriation.
The Section is being amended in conformity with a recommendation of the Study of the Accounts of Canada, which recommendation, as you may recall, was endorsed by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. This amendment, in addition, addresses the concerns of successive Auditors General respecting the non-reporting of the over-utilization of appropriations.
Although Section 30 is proposed to be amended to permit the recording of charges in excess of appropriations, 1 want to stress that the amendment is essentially a recording and reporting mechanism; the requirement of the Government to respect the annual ceiling of appropriation authority granted by Parliament is by no means relaxed. Accordingly, charges in
November 19, 1982

excess of an appropriation will only be discharged if parliamentary authority to do so exists.
I want to mention, by way of conclusion, that since Bill C-96 was tabled for first reading last March, the Government has received a number of comments and suggestions. We have studied all of these very carefully, and in several cases we are agreeing to the suggestions and therefore intend to make appropriate recommendations for changes at the committee stage. These changes include the deletion of Section 20.1 dealing with net voting; Section 101 dealing with interdepartmental charging; and Section 102 dealing with the charging and paying of interest. As well, there will be a number of technical amendments to wording. For the most part we are accepting these changes on the basis of legal advice that they do not in any way undermine our important policy objectives for improved financial control which can be attained within existing legislation.
These are the main issues contained in this Bill, and because of the great interest shown by Members of the House in tightening the whole area of financial accountability and in response to recommendations of the Auditors General over the years and of the Public Accounts Committee, I ask Members of the House to support this Bill for second reading and reference to the committee.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-96 is a Bill which comes before the House from time to time and seems rather technical in nature but one which is routine and which perhaps should slip through the parliamentary process without undue examination or consideration.
However, a closer examination of the details of this Bill shows that it is, in fact, much more than routine. The manner in which Parliament examines and controls Government spending through the estimates and through the appropriation Act, Acts that come in at the end of a supply period, changed very profoundly in 1969 with the introduction of new rules to the House, by closure I might add. A provision was introduced to our Standing Orders which dictated that when estimates are brought in-after the money has already been spent in many cases-there is a certain period of time in which the estimates could be examined. At the end of that time they are deemed to be reported to the House, and on that last day a bill is introduced to appropriate the funds for those expenditures. That Bill is passed without debate or consideration. There is no provision for debate or amendment to any part of the Appropriation Act. In fact, it is an automatic rubber stamp and it is a farce to call the Appropriation Act an Act of Parliament in the same sense as other Acts of Parliament are passed.
Prior to that time it was the habit of Governments to use the Appropriation Act's mechanism as a method of making minor adjustments and changes in law via what we call dollar items. When there was an opportunity to discuss and amend the Appropriation Act, perhaps this was not an undesirable or extreme situation as long as it was not done to excess, because
Financial Administration Act
it would then involve omnibus legislation. But if debate served as an administrative aid, it was proper.
Once rule changes were brought in by closure which denied the opportunity for debate and amendment to the Appropriation Act, it became most inappropriate for the Government and its bureaucrats to use that vehicle to introduce new legislation and ideas. When that change was introduced, the bureaucrats continued to use that vehicle to bring in those laws it wished. Various Members of the House objected to that procedure. They did so formally on March 10, 1971, on December 10, 1973, on March 6, 1974, on June 22, 1976, on March 22, 1977, on June 7, 1977, and several times since then. They raised objections to the Speaker by indicating that this type of procedure was improper and in violation of what parliamentary authority is all about.
Various Speakers, including Mr. Speaker Lamoureux, Mr. Speaker Jerome and, most recently, Madam Speaker Sauve, acknowledged that this was not proper. Mr. Speaker Lamoureux expressed concern about that procedure on several occasions. That did not stop the Treasury Board or the bureaucrats from continuing to use it. They just proceeded, ignoring the clear expression of concern from the House.
Mr. Speaker Jerome underlined and emphasized those concerns and said, "Please do not abuse the House and continue to use that technique to circumvent Parliament and the legislative process." That did not faze the Treasury Board or the bureaucrats at all. They continued to do so.
Finally last June, after compiling this support which had gone back over a decade, argument was presented to Madam Speaker Sauve. She agreed that it had gone on for too long. All of her warnings and those of her predecessors had been ignored for too long. It was time to act and declare that mechanism out of order and unacceptable. She struck down many of the votes in the estimates and potential items in the Appropriation Act that had been put forward by the Treasury Board and the bureaucrats who were trying to abuse the House as they constantly do.
On Wednesday afternoon the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Collenette) praised me in the House for the effort at that time and the decision of the Chair with respect to what happened. He said that it was the only proper decision to make. But does that faze those people, the bureaucrats, who really run the country? Does it faze the young Liberals, those manipulators, those people hired by Michael Pitfield to tell us what to do? It does not faze them one bit. They simply wrote another bill, Bill C-96, which proposes to force a law through Parliament to let them do what Parliament has been saying for the last ten years was improper.
That is exactly the purpose of this Bill. What must we do to restore parliamentary democracy to this country? How frequently will those nameless, faceless manipulators continue doing this? When will the House say no? We are the elected representatives. Perhaps that does not make us as important as those who are appointed, but it should, if you believe in democracy.

November 19, 1982
Capital Punishment
If one believes in democracy, those who are elected should be the most important because they are the ones whom the citizens can get at through the ballot box. It is not these appointed bureaucrats who keep abusing our system with measures such as this.
I am shocked and ashamed of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) who has allowed himself to be manipulated in this way. Let met say in his defence, however, that this Bill was tabled during the tenure of his predecessor, and he is simply being an errand boy for what the bureaucrats had decided upon earlier.
I suggest to the President of the Treasury Board that this is his opportunity to stand up and demonstrate that he is his own man, that he does have a backbone and has respect for the House and our institutions. This is his opportunity to show that he will not allow the House to be abused by saying that he will not push the Bill through. If he does that he will receive a great deal of respect from me. Mr. Speaker, may I call it five o'clock?


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall all orders preceding No. 108 stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


CAPITAL PUNISHMENT ACT
[Stage Direction]
MEASURETO impose the death penalty
Mr. John Kushner (Calgary East) moved: that Bill C-308, to amend the Criminal Code (punishment for murder), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I want to reflect not only my own feeling but also the feeling shared by many Canadians that the Government has lost sight of its purpose. I would like to cite a few examples.
Did the Canadian people ask to have capital punishment abolished? Did the Canadian people ask for the metric system to come into being? Of course not. Did the Canadian people ask for bilingualism in the present form? I must say that I personally can speak five languages. I have nothing against the French language. I think French is beautiful. I really do.


Mr. Prud'homme:: So is Black!


John Kushner: But I want to say this-


George Albert Proud: Black is beautiful!


John Kushner: Yes, it is. Black is beautiful. However, I want to say there is more to Canada than just the French and the English, there are the Italians-


George Albert Proud: And the Polish.


John Kushner: -and the Poles, and the Croatians and the Germans. May I ask, did the Canadian people ask that we play around with the Constitution at the time the country was in need of some direction and leadership in the economy? We probably would never have been in the mess we are in today had the Government given that leadership. However, the Constitution was just used as a smokescreen. Did the Canadian people really ask for high inflation which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) assured us he would wrestle to the ground? Of course not. Did the Canadian people ask for the high interest rates which have destroyed so many small businesses, big businesses and individuals? It will be next to impossible for the country to be restored to the position enjoyed before, and to even come close will take a long time. As a matter of fact, without question, the country has floated so far down the river that we no longer have any control as far as interest rates are concerned. Did the Government ask Canadians if it should be buying oil companies when it could not even run the Post Office? The Government threw up its hands and turned the Post Office over to a Crown corporation, which has doubled the rates and cost us much more than it did before, and now we are in a worse mess than ever.
Did Canadians from right across the country, from coast to coast, send petitions in every possible form and delegations to request a return to capital punishment? As many as 80 per cent of the Canadian people today have requested that. We tell ourselves that we are democratic, but our democracy is slowly slipping away. Without question, the Canadian people have lost confidence even in their Members of Parliament because we no longer reflect their wishes as Canadians. They no longer respect us. The Government is now interfering with the free enterprise system. Instead of signing an agreement with Alberta, it signed an agreement with Mexico. That is why Canadians are so disenchanted and why they have lost respect for Parliament, which is slowly drifting away into a dictatorial system.
Speaking of safety and security for the Canadian people, even the Prime Minister has more than doubled his personal security over the last six months because he, too, fears for his safety. In this so-called permissive society, he does fear. One can see that in seven years or less murderers are back out on the streets with the likelihood that they will repeat their offences. I do not want to refer to the Olsons and other horror stories that we hear about every day through the media. As it happens, the victims are often either related to or have known the perpetrators of the crime. We are coming to the point where law and order is being made on the streets. Again, I must say that the main team, the Government, has lost sight of its purpose. The Government should be keeping well on track as far as making laws to run this country is concerned, rather than interfering with our enterprise system and destroying it.
November 19, 1982

It is hard for me to comprehend the poll results we have been hearing. The latest shows that the Conservatives are leading, with about 46 per cent to the Liberals' 30 per cent and the NDPs' 21 per cent. One would almost think that the results were manufactured because, considering the state the country is in, it is hard for me to believe the Liberals still rate that high.
Returning to the matter of security and stability that we once knew, at one time children, the elderly and even people going to and from work, felt safe. However, now people who return home late from work cause alarm to those at home because it is feared that something may have happened to them. Such fear was unheard of not too long ago. Today, we are advocating not only that we lock our doors, but also bolt them and perhaps even bar our windows to give us a feeling of safety. Because we have lost control and respect for law and order, many Canadians feel that capital punishment is a deterrent to crime. 1 do believe that it is a deterrent, and many other Canadians do as well.
When we consider the type of society that we are building under fear, one would almost think we are living in the days of the Roman Empire, days in which the society destroyed itself from within. The Canadian people are losing much confidence in law makers. We are even destroying the practice of the shaking of the hand, which was probably a much better form of agreement reached between two people than that type of agreement made with lawyers. Even though agreements are carefully written, they are not as effective as the ones which were confirmed by a shake of the hand not so long ago.
As sophisticated, educated and experienced as we are, and with the knowledge gained from communications with other countries, we know full well that capital punishment is a deterrent. I have nothing against those who feel that capital punishment is not a deterrent. I think they have that right. I do believe in the democratic process, but I do not believe that the Government today is responding to the needs of the people. The Government is not listening. No wonder we are in the mess in this country that we are. We are in a mess economically, which is alarming. We are deteriorating slowly and creeping into a dictatorial system by which we have encouraged, by design or otherwise, the highjackings that are taking place, the hostage takings, and the sit-ins. It is shameful that we have allowed ourselves to drift slowly into such disrespect for law and order in this so-called permissive society. In comparison with the 1940s, there has been a ten to one increase in murder crimes. If this is a so-called Just Society where we very strongly favour the criminal rather than the victim and their families, it is about time that we started looking at ourselves, because we are encouraging more and more poeple to take law and order into their own hands and encouraging them to the degree where they will be forced to carry guns.
I do not believe that it is too late to change around. We slowly got ourselves into this mess by ignoring the situation and thinking that the problem would go away. It must be
Capital Punishment
almost impossible to be a member of a police force because of the procedural things and accounting that they have to do in order to be able to do the kind of job that is required today. They too have strongly advocated capital punishment across this nation.
It only goes to show that we have had a Government that has been in power too long and is no longer listening or responding to the needs of the people, and it is time for a change. Without question we must have hope. It is hard for me to believe that the Liberals were returned to power in the last election, especially in view of the errors they have made. The only way we have in this democratic system of bringing back some democracy to this Parliament and making our country a safe and better place to live in, is to have new direction under a new Government. The only alternative we have today is the Conservative Government, and I know that if the Conservative Government had remained, we would have had a free vote on a return to capital punishment in this country.
What has happened is unfortunate. 1 do not think that the Liberal Government will ever be back in power in this country.
1 feel that they have destroyed hope for Canadians. I believe that we will return in this country to a two Party Government which will be made up of the Conservative and the NDP. This is my prediction, and I feel this is the way it is going to happen. It cannot be anything else. Certainly there is not hope in returning to a Liberal Government, no hope at all.


An Hon. Member:: We are here.


John Kushner: You are here more by coincidence than by good management. The Canadian people are paying very dearly and very heavily to the extent that it will take us many years to overcome this, and to pay for the mistakes that the Liberals have made.


Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South-Weston):: 1 thank the Hon. Member from Calgary East (Mr. Kushner) for again giving me the opportunity to express my views in this House on the question of capital punishment. I also thank him for giving us some interesting insights into the Tory platform for the next election. Many of us have been asking ourselves, what do the Tories stand for, because up to now we have heard what the Tories are against.
The Hon. Member for Calgary East has told us exactly what will happen if the Conservatives ever get to power again. The only thing that we are sure will happen is that people will hang. I am not sure that the Canadian people on the whole would vote for a Party just to make sure that people hang. However, time will tell.
I had hoped that as in the past any debate on capital punishment would be concentrated on the issue, and not so much on partisan politics, because what we are talking about is, in essence, human life. What we are talking about is the protection of society, and what we are talking about is the need, if there is one, to protect society from the wrongdoings.
I think it would be more appropriate not to mention only, as the Hon. Member has just done, many of the ills of society. 1

November 19, 1982
Capital Punishment
think it would be more appropriate to ask ourselves what is the cause of those ills, to ask ourselves to take a look at people who are now in prison and who are now convicted of murders- shall we limit our discussion just to murderers-and have a look at their lives and ask ourselves on what torturous route did those people bring themselves to commit murder.
We could also ask ourselves how many of the most ghastly kind of murders have been committed by people unknown. Who are they, these unknown murderers who have escaped? I can tell you that many of them were probably in organized crime, and those murderers will never be hanged. They will not be hanged even if the Conservatives do get back to power. They will never hang because they have enough money to defend themselves, and usually they have the intelligence to defend themselves. History in every single country of this world has proven-


John Kushner: You can buy justice under a Liberal Government.


An Hon. Member:: Come on.


Ursula Appolloni: I would hope the Hon. Member would pay me the courtesy I extended to him of allowing me to speak without intervention.
As 1 was saying, the history of every country in this world is replete with the histories of poor, downtrodden, uneducated people who have gone to their death by state execution. It is also replete with the unknowns who have escaped because they had the money to "buy" a good lawyer. I am not going to be the one to put the noose around anyone's neck because they do not have the money to be properly defended. That is one of the points.
The previous speaker began his remarks by asking the question, "Who asked for abolition?" I think I am quoting him correctly, but obviously I do not have the "blues" in front of me. As a result of the Hon. Member's beginning his speech with so many questions, I now ask myself whether he wants Government by Gallup poll. Is that what he wants? Does he think that Government should be a leader of public opinion or a follower?
That will be a big question in the next election. The people of Canada want their MPs to govern, not just follow. We could have another total debate on the Gallup poll. If I had more time, I would quote what Edmund Burke thought elected representatives should do, but I will leave that to my colleagues who want to enter this debate.
This Bill is different from any others which preceded it in that it specifies the type of capital punishment. Instead of hanging, I gather the Bill speaks about some kind of lethal injection. At first sight that might mean that the proposed execution would be more humane than in the past. However, I want to quote from an article published by Amnesty International on this very topic. It reads:
-it is a contradiction in terms to consider making the death penalty more humane-by, for instance, administering lethal drugs. Quite apart from the
question of a doctor having to defame the Hippocratic Oath and the recent Tokyo Declaration of the World Medical Association, such a discussion avoids the true hell of the death penalty. According to evidence from the United States, prisoners under sentence of death mutilate themselves, cover themselves in their own excrement, commit suicide or try to, and go insane-waiting, waiting to die. As Albert Camus wrote in his famous essay, Reflections on the Guillotine, in 1960: An execution, he wrote "is not simply death. It is just as different.. .as a concentration camp is from prison .... It adds to death a rule, a public premeditation known to the future victim ... for there to be an equivalence, the death penalty would have to punish a criminal who had warned the victim of the date at which he would inflict a horrible death on him and who, from that moment onward, had confined him at his mercy for months. Such a monster is not encountered in private life.
In other words, the method of execution is not that important. The inhumanity of a premeditated execution remains the same.
In 1976 Parliament debated at length the whole subject of capital punishment. At that time I voted freely for the abolition of capital punishment. 1 believe I said at that time that I had not always been an abolitionist.
When I was about 17 years of age, living in England, there was a tremendous series of murders. The police arrested a man by the name of John Evans. He was accused and eventually convicted of those horrible murders. In the public frenzy whipped up by the popular press at that time, 1 as a 16 or 17 year old was quite impressed. I thought "that guy deserves to die, he has to die." Then they killed him. He was executed. I had one little problem in the back of my mind. 1 repeat, I was an impressionable 16 or 17 years old. When reading the public accounts of the court proceedings, there was a problem that nagged me. It was that the man was illiterate. I thought to myself, how could an illiterate man understand the complexities of those proceedings. I had qualms. However, like most of the British population at that time, 1 welcomed his death sentence.
A few years after the man was dead and buried in whatever grave they buried criminals of that day, it became quite apparent that the man had been totally innocent. The man who was subsequently convicted of the crime was his landlord, a person by the name of Christie.
That incident was enough to change my view on capital punishment. It convinced me that for the rest of my life 1 would have to be extremely careful, not only in condemning people, but in destroying their ability to ever prove their innocence. Obviously there is nothing quicker than death to terminate one's possibilities of defending oneself.
Having turned into an abolitionist, frankly 1 do not believe that killing is always sinful. Sometimes it is absolutely necessary to protect your life or the lives of other people, such as in war. Then it can be necessary. However, I would do ail that I could in my power to prevent the outbreak of war. That is my personal opinion.
Does the state have the moral right in its responsibility to kill in order to protect its people? Perhaps that is the fundamental question raised by the Hon. Member for Calgary East. In the absence of any other way, probably yes, and probably if
November 19, 1982

the death of the aggressor were to be a deterrent. However, when we are speaking of the termination of human life, 1 cannot in honesty, intellect and conscience, accept the word "probably".
I do not need tremendous evidence, but certainly a preponderance of evidence, that the death penalty would be a deterrent. We do not have that evidence in Canada or throughout the world. 1 wish to quote the former solicitor general speaking in 1979 as follows:
-existing data indicates that there has been no disproportionate increase in the number of violent crimes.
1 can also quote Statistics Canada "Law Enforcement Statistics Section 1981 Preliminary Homicide Data", which 1 just received today. It reads:
Homicide and its constituent categories have generally been on the decline since 1977.
That is since the death penalty was abolished.
While homicide and murder rates for 1981 increased for the first time in four years, these rates still remain below those of 1977 and 1978.
To return again to the words of the former solicitor general, the Hon. Warren Allmand, he said:
-evidence shows that capital punishment does not effectively lower murder rates. In fact, the lowest murder rates in the world are found in those countries and those states where capital punishment has been abolished for a long time, as an example, Sweden, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Rhode Island, Maine. Conversely, those that have retained capital punishment over a long period have the highest murder rate, as an example, France, Spain, Florida, South Carolina, Louisiana and Georgia.
No one has been able to prove that capital punishment is a deterrent and even if there were evidence to support that theory, only a preponderance of that evidence will convince. 1 will come back again to Amnesty International. Speaking at the Conference on the Abolition of the Death Penalty, Declaration of Stockholm, December 11, 1977, this Conference on the abolition of the death penalty, composed of more than 200 delegates and participants from Africa, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, North and South America and the Caribbean region, recalled that the death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment and violates the right to life. The Declaration says, among other things, that execution is an act of violence, and violence tends to provoke violence; the death penalty has never been shown to have a special deterrent effect; execution is irrevocable and can be inflicted on the innocent.
I have already cited a case in point which happened in England during the time 1 was living there. There was another case, the name of which escapes me now, but it was quite recent. It took place, 1 believe, in the eastern part of Canada, where a man was proven innocent after many years of imprisonment. These cases do happen, and in my judgment, Mr. Speaker, we cannot, as a society, afford to condone even one case of the innocent being punished.
Finally, the Hon. Member spoke of the social ills of our time. I felt he spoke with some nostalgia for the past, but nostalgia, like many other things, is not always too accurate. He spoke of the "good old days". He spoke of the Roman Empire. I can think of little less brutality than that which was
Capital Punishment
shown to the world at the time of the Roman Empire. He spoke of prostitution. Is that something new? He spoke of other crimes, but he did not speak of the undercurrent, the underlying reasons for the rise in social crimes, and there are many, not least of which, perhaps, is the unequal distribution of wealth and opportunity for Canadians. But we can rectify that, and this Government does intend to rectify it. However, you do not create a better society by killing half its members.


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Mr. Speaker,
1 would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Calgary East (Mr. Kushner) for introducing this Bill today. He is speaking up on behalf of the Canadian people. He understands the role of a Member of Parliament and that of a politician, and he made his point very well. We are the servants of the people, but there are so many in this House who have reversed that over the last few years. Now it is the people who are the servants, and somehow the Liberals think they are the masters and they will keep the people in line.
1 believe that capital punishment should be in our Criminal Code. It should be there when needed. It is not necessary, in my opinion, that we have capital punishment for every type of murder, but it should be there. The United States is returning to capital punishment in many of its States.
The former speaker from the Liberal Party mentioned the problems of society today, but it is the Liberals who have introduced the permissive society into this country, easy bail and weekend passes, and what have you, and if we did return to the "good old days", as the Hon. Member from Calgary mentioned, we could bring back the paddle and the strap and have some discipline. That is what the criminals fear. We would not have so much crime today if criminals knew they were going to be faced with these punishments.
The group who really understands crime and murderers, Mr. Speaker, is the police. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police have made their point repeatedly in calling for the return of capital punishment, and they are far better judges than we are in respect of whether or not capital punishment should be returned. Police are not irresponsible people, they have experience in dealing with crime and criminals and we should be listening to their advice, but we completely ignore it. We will not back them up, and this is a serious mistake we have been making.
The criminal element, the underworld, does not want capital punishment brought back. We saw a recent example of that in St. Calixte, Quebec. This is a story out of the Winnipeg Free Press dated November 18, 1982, where threats and shots failed to halt a capital punishment crusade, and I quote:
Undaunted by threatening phone calls and an apparent attempt on his life last week, the head of a group lobbying for the return of capital punishment says he will press on with his campaign.
Fernand Pellerin, president and director general of the Citizens Committee of Canada, said he was driving near this town 40 kilometres north of Montreal last Thursday when a man in a car travelling in the opposite direction fired two shotgun blasts at him.
The first blast blew out the windshield, the second, the rear window. This man established the Citizens' Committee last

November 19, 1982
Capital Punishment
December, Mr. Speaker, and the committee is currently organizing across Canada to demand a referendum on capital punishment. It would seem that the underworld will go to any limits to deal with anyone who is organizing to this extent.
There was a very sad case earlier this year that touched me very deeply. During the Archambault prison riot last spring or early summer, a prison guard was knifed to death, murdered, and left to die in a pool of his own blood. In some dark hall in the prison, I suppose. The prison guard was knifed to death by a convicted murderer, and the sad thing here, Mr. Speaker, is he had only one hour to go on his shift, and not only did he have one hour to go on his shift, but he was to retire in one hour. He was 60 years of age and he was knifed to death in a prison by convicted murderers. That was his fate because we will not re-introduce capital punishment.
The Liberal Member who spoke prior to me mentioned that some innocent people have been put away. That has happened in some cases and that is most unfortunate, but there are many cases where a murderer has murdered twice. In Winnipeg, where I come from, there have been cases where an individual has murdered twice. I recall one case where a murderer was imprisoned for eight years, he was released, and within a short period of time murdered again. He murdered a young girl at the same hotel where he had committed his first murder. This should prove that there are a lot of advantages in having capital punishment.
The Hon. Member for Calgary East mentioned the lastest opinion poll where five out of every six Canadians favour the suggestion that a referendum be held. I have no objection to having a referendum. I would like to see the next Conservative Government have a legitimate free vote again, a proper debate on capital punishment, referring the subject matter to committee, because the type of capital punishment we use has been mentioned. We can discuss the rope and other ways that capital punishment can be implemented. We could also have police officers as witnesses, or anyone else. I am not afraid to have a proper debate on capital punishment. We would certainly be acting on behalf of the majority.
We continually read, Mr. Speaker, of the horror stories. There is the recent case of a man admitting in court that he killed 30 people. He was not mentally disturbed, he was a hit man and had murdered 30 people. Then down in Atlanta, Georgia, there was the slaying of 38 women, described as Atlanta's hidden tragedy. Think of the 38 families and the suffering they have gone through. I hear repeatedly these arguments from the Liberals, but they never mention anything about the families or the victims, they are always so concerned about the murderer. They would not want anything to happen to the murderer. There is never a word at all about the mother or the father or the daughter or anyone else. Another horror story is that of a nun who was raped and robbed. A lot of the murderers are not just satisfied with murdering an individual, they want to rape and murder them. Heaven only knows what else happens before the final thrust, Mr. Speaker. A colleague
of mine, the Hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers), recently distributed a questionnaire on capital punishment, and 2,223 of the people responding indicated they favour capital punishment, with 112 favoring abolition. So in some areas of the country 90 per cent of Canadians want the return of capital punishment.
I remember a very sad case in Toronto a couple of years ago of three grown up men sexually attacking a 14 year old shoeshine boy who had been working on Yonge Street. They picked him up and took him away to some deserted building and sexually tortured him before they killed him. Heaven only knows what that 14 year old lad went through at the hands of those three men. As I remember, some of them, when they were convicted, said they would sooner receive capital punishment than be sent to jail. Then there is another case in Chicago of one man murdering 36 people, and he was not mentally unbalanced. On and on it goes, Mr. Speaker.
I feel it is about time we started listening to the Canadian people. It would not be a bad idea for this Bill to be referred to committee. The Liberal Member who spoke prior to me made some excellent suggestions, and the place to discuss them is in committee with witnesses. Because this Bill is sent to committee does not mean that we would immediately start hanging people. Perhaps when we have finished our deliberations we would find that we would not have to implement capital punishment but that there might have to be some changes made in the law.
I do not want to be the one who is going to come anywhere close to talking out this Bill, and I hope the next Liberal to speak on this Bill will consider allowing it to go to committee.


Mr. Gary F. McCauley (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, since four o'clock I have listened to this debate with some interest, particularly to the remarks of the Hon. Member for Calgary East (Mr. Kushner) and the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine ((Mr. McKenzie). As I listened to the Hon. Member for Calgary East and heard him go through a litany of what was wrong with this country, such as bilingualism, the metric system, the Post Office, highjackings and hostage takings, and heard him try to put the issue of capital punishment in that context, I could not help but think he is a man who yearns for simple answers to complex problems. He is a man who thinks that the good old days, where questions and answers were simple, where everyone knew what was right and what was wrong and where appropriate punishments were always applicable, is an age that he would like to return to. I suggest that that time never existed, and certainly to return to it in respect of capital punishment would be a regressive and barbaric move. I can understand his emotions. We all share in the anguish of the victims of violent crime.
The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine mentioned the tragic incidents at Archambeault Penitentiary. The guard that he referred to is a constituent of mine, and it was and is a tragic situation. The Hon. Member also spoke of victims of crime, that somehow those of us who are abolitionists have no feelings for them. That, I suggest, is foolishness. Does the Hon. Member suggest for one minute that somehow capital punish-
November 19, 1982

ment will recompense the victims of crime, the families of those who are murdered? That is not going to bring them back from the dead.
We live in a complex society today, Mr. Speaker, and there are always those who think we can return to simpler times. I refer to a debate in this House on June 11, 1981, when my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), made the following remarks:
People feel that the moral order has been transgressed, as it has, and that something must be done to show that these are not mundane events but rather events which, if permitted or regarded lightly, would eventually call into question the very basis of civilized society. They are morally outraged that such things can happen. It is moral outrage we are dealing with when we talk about the call for a return to capital punishment, moral outrage and powerlessness.
That is a very human emotion. When we have this call for a return to capital punishment it gives us a sense that we are restoring the balance, making things equal. It satisfies an emotional need; an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. But at what price, Mr. Speaker?
My colleague, the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mrs. Appolloni), referred to the Evans-Christie case of a number of years ago in Great Britain, where an innocent man was hanged. She also made passing reference to a case in Nova Scotia recently, that of Donald Marshall, who at the ripe old age of 17 was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder. Now it apears, Mr. Speaker, that Donald Marshall is innocent. Suppose he had been hanged by the neck until dead? What would we do today? Would we somehow restore him to life and say, sorry, young man, we made a mistake? The Hon. Member for York South-Weston made reference to the fact that justice is not always done in these matters. The case of Donald Marshall is a case in point. 1 should like to refer to a story which appeared in The Globe and Mail with reference to the atmosphere at his trial. The headline read, "Racial tensions, fear gripped Micmac's trial". Of course, Marshall is a Micmac Indian, and in that atmosphere of racial tension and fear, he was convicted on the flimsiest of circumstantial evidence.
Apropos of such cases, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine said that it was most unfortunate that an innocent man or woman spent 11 years of his or her life in jail or was executed. Indeed it is very unfortunate, especially if one is dead.
Is our system of justice equal? I suggest that Hon. Members opposite should check the figures for American prisons to see how many Blacks are in American jails in proportion to their presence in the American population. How many are in jail? Far in excess of the ratio in Canada. How many native people are in Canadian prisons in proportion to their presence in the population? How many poor people are in Canadian prisons, people without power, money or connections? Who gets convicted in the end? Does the system of justice in Canada apply fairly? Can we guarantee that the innocent will not be executed?
Capital Punishment
There are some interesting figures and comments made with regard to capital punishment by those who have been involved in it. I refer the House to some remarks made by Albert Pierrepoint who, for over 25 years, was the British hangman. He officiated at several hundred hangings. In 1974, years after his retirement, he wrote his discreet memoirs. The memoirs include the following passage:
Executions solve nothing and are only an antiquated relic of a primitive desire for revenge which takes the easy way out and hands the responsibility for revenge to other people ... It is said to be a deterrent. I cannot agree. There have been murders since the beginning of time and we shall go on looking for deterrents until the end of time. If death were a deterrent, I might be expected to know. It is I who faced them last, young lads and girls, working men and grandmothers, I have been amazed to see the courage with which they take that walk into the unknown ... All the men and women whom I have faced at that final moment convince me that in what I have done I have not prevented a single murder.
There are some interesting statistics. In the 1950s a Canadian joint parliamentary committee caused a tabulation to be made on the only matter on which full data was available- persons sentenced to death in Canada from Confederation onward. That tabulation was carried forward in "Capital Punishment" published by the Department of Justice in 1965. It indicates that from Confederation in 1867 to 1962, 1,487 people were sentenced to death in Canada. Of this number only 47.7 per cent were executed, 38.4 per cent had their sentences commuted, and 13.9 per cent were otherwise dealt with by courts of appeal. Thus, for the 95 years that we had the death penalty in Canada, if the police solved the case, and the murderer was convicted, that murderer still had a better than even chance of not being executed. It is striking that the British figures for commutation in this century are quite similar to the Canadian experience. Even if all the proper procedures are followed, there is no certainty.
As far as Gallup polls or other polls are concerned as to what Canadian people or people in general want, there have been suggestions that those of us who are abolitionists are not following the will of the people. I would say two things. First, polls are an imperfect instrument of measurement. I draw to the attention of the Hon. Member for Calgary East, the sponsor of the Bill, that the Harris poll taken in the United States in June 1973 began by asking respondents whether or not they believed in capital punishment. Three out of five said yes, but then the poll went on to ask a more complex set of follow-up questions, suggesting capital punishment as a penalty for a specific list of crimes. For none of those specific crimes did more than 41 per cent favour the death penalty; a drop of 20 per cent when one moved from the general and abstract to the specific and concrete. Certainly when one asks a general question one gets a general answer, but when one zeros in on more specific questions, the picture changes-the polls change and the response is different.
If, as the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine suggested, we are not doing our duty as Members of Parliament and reflecting the will of the people on this issue, is that our job? Sure it is, partially, but it is also our job to think. It is also our job to look at the facts dispassionately and render a decision

November 19, 1982
Capital Punishment
based upon the facts. It is also our job to be compassionate and progressive.
I remind the Hon. Member for Calgary East of Edmund Burke in his now classic 1774 "Address to the Electors of Bristol" who said that a representative owed his constituents:
-his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience... Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
If we were only to be robots reflecting the opinions of the electorate, then we are not needed because the opinions of the
electorate in this technological age can be simply transmitted by pushing a button.
[ Translation]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired.
It being five o'clock, the House stands adjourned until Monday next at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, November 22, 1982