1983-02-16

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Hon. Bud Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Madam Speaker, I rise to remind the House of the fact that I recently tabled in the House of Commons a petition containing 11,000 names, which petition is an indication of the concern of people for the future of the petrochemical industry.
True to the generosity of spirit of the people who signed such petition, they were not seeking short and long-term assistance for the oil based petrochemical industry alone, but for the petrochemical industry as a whole. These people are also realistic enough to appreciate that a Government decision based on the task force report will take some time because there is not unanimity of approach, and any such decision must take into account the views expressed by the oil based and gas based petrochemical industries, plus the concerns of Quebec, Ontario, and Alberta, and the fact that inappropriate action could lead to countervailing measures from the United States.
The people concerned and the people employed in this industry, however, have a right to expect an early decision, and hopefully one that provides for short-term and long-term
assistance.


BALTIC EVENING
Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, prior to the changing of the Standing Orders there was a Motion under Standing Order 43 last year which was joined in by the Member for London West (Mr. Burghardt), and the Hon. Member for Dauphin (Mr. Lewycky), which read in these terms:
That this House, in recognition of the contribution to Canada of Canadians of Latvian, Lithuanian and Estonian descent, welcome their honorary consul and representatives of the respective communities to the Tenth Annual Baltic Evening on Parliament Hill.
That motion was accepted unanimously at that time by the House. It is no longer possible for us to move such a Motion, but it is appropriate that, on the occasion of the Eleventh Annual Baltic Evening on Parliament Hill, all Members of Parliament commemorate the contribution to Canada of Canadians of Latvian, Lithuanian, and Estonian descent, and on their behalf 1 make this request.
For many years it has been the wish of countless Canadians that the Honorary Consuls of Estonia and Latvia join the Honorary Consul of Lithuania and be recognized in the diplomatic corps publications of the Government of Canada. I know that this request is supported by Members of all Parties in this House as a simple yet profound method of honouring those Canadians who walk among us as living reminders of the importance of our rights and freedoms as Canadians.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Bossy (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Madam Speaker, the farmers of my constituency of Kent, joining their brothers and sisters across the country, wish to express their support once again for Bill C-85, an Act to create Canagrex, and to urge the Government to put this Crown export agency in place as soon as possible.
Since this piece of legislation was introduced into the House over a year ago, the support for Canagrex has become more and more evident. Recently, in convention, the 200,000 strong membership of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture once again expressed their support for an agricultural products export agency and its immediate need. The farmers of this country feel, as I do, that agriculture is the industry which can help put our economy back on its feet. The time has come to give the people of Canada an export mechanism to do just that and give this nation an opportunity to expand its agri-food international trade market.
This piece of legislation has been before the House for almost 14 months now. It has spent four months before the Standing Committee on Agriculture where it received 14 amendments. Bill C-85 has been talked about enough; it is now time to act. The farmers of the country look forward to its immediate passage.

February 16, 1983


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Madam Speaker, yesterday the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith) belittled remarks by the Elon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) which accurately outlined the consequences of the Government's embrace of socialism. He said:
We on this side of the House believe in social justice within a free enterprise system.
What a joke! He had not been paying attention to the philosophy of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who stated:
We have not been able to make it work, the free enterprise system ... that means the Government is going to take a larger role in running institutions.
And it has been. When asked by a group of students what type of society he would choose-socialist or capitalist, this was the Prime Minister's reply:
Labour Party socialism, or Cuban socialism, or Chinese socialism-
Socialism is nothing more than state control, something abhorrent to Canadians, and we are getting it in spades-state withholding of property rights; state control of communications; state control of energy; state control of culture, state control of agriculture, with closure on the Canagrex Bill, and state destruction of transport and the Armed Forces.
We of the Progressive Conservative Party are the only opposition to this type of control by the state.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council may naively believe that all this, coupled with repressive taxation, the proliferation of non-audited Crown Corporations, arbitrary metric and bilingualism, equates with his espousal yesterday of "social justice within a free enterprise system". It is not ours. Loss of economic freedom means loss of individual freedom. His constituents and other Canadians recognize the Government's slippery slide to socialism. He obviously does not.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Dauphin (Mr. Lewycky).


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin):: Madam Speaker, this day is of special significance to the Canadian Lithuanian Community as they are remembering the founding of Lithuania on February 16, 1918. The first recorded Lithuanian immigrants to Canada arrived at the beginning of the nineteenth century. Lithuanians will be pleased to see that the second edition of the Languages of the World map has been revised to include language groups such as the Lithuanians. This is to the credit of several multicultural groups who drew this matter to the attention of the Commissioner of Official Languages.
With the official recognition of Canada's multicultural heritage in Section 27 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it is now time to revise Section 38 of the Official Languages Act. This Section, which refers to language groups other than English or French in a negative fashion, should be rewritten in the positive style found in Section 27 of the Charter.
The role of the Commissioner of Official Languages should be expanded to include the area of multicuituralism, with the Commissioner becoming the Commissioner of Official Languages and Multicuituralism. Furthermore, a conference on bilingualism and multicuituralism should be convened in the near future to re-examine these areas of national significance, and I know that Dauphin would be delighted to host such a conference.

[DOT] (MIO)


BALTIC EVENING
Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam Speaker, I would like to add my remarks to those made by the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) on the subject of Canadians of Baltic heritage.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I must remind all Hon. Members that this opportunity cannot be taken to congratulate groups or offer wishes on the occasion of a national celebration.
We will keep strictly to the purpose of these statements. I listened very carefully to the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton. I think he barely smuggled in somethinng that was acceptable under the Standing Order. That is where we have to draw the line. I am just reminding Hon. Members.


Jesse Philip Flis: Thank you for the reminder, Madam Speaker. As you know, I always obey the Standing Orders of the House.
To the Government of Canada, multicuituralism is the expression of differing views, traditions and backgrounds of Canadians. It is important to recognize the great contribution that various ethnocultural groups have made to Canada. Many of these people, while able to express their views and traditions freely in this country, are unable to do so in their own homelands. I am speaking today specifically with regard to the Baltic nations, and the Estonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians, a group who have attempted to preserve their culture and heritage in Canada while unable to do so in their countries of origin.
Canada does not recognize de jure the forcible occupation of the Baltic states. It is fitting on the day of the Baltic Evening, and on the day of the sixty-fifth anniversary of the Declaration of the Independence of Lithuania, to remember the contribution that these people have made to Canada.
February 16, 1983

[ Translation]


CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, I am not going to congratulate anyone. This is going to be strictly according to the rules. Last week, a Montreal newspaper reported a million-dollar mistake for which the Minister of Labour (Mr. Caccia) must take the responsibility. It all started when Assistant Deputy Minister Andre Deom, who was hired by the Department of Labour in January 1981, was fired in May 1982. After a dispute with the Deputy Minister, the Government made a private arrangement with Mr. Deom, who since the first of October last year has been receiving $6,700 per month tax free, and will do so for a period of two years, which adds up to a grand total of $160,800 or $280,000 before taxes. Since the Minister of Labour has indicated that it was not his responsibility, that he would have nothing to do with it and that his deputy minister was responsible for managing the Department, and considering the Minister's irresponsibility or incompetence, today I wish to ask the Right Hon. Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau), to preserve the credibility of his own government and to immediately remove this Minister who is refusing to discharge his responsibilities.


MEDICAL CARE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, recently there has been much confusion about the status of the proposed Canada Health Act and the negotiations between the federal Government and the Provinces, and about the nature of this new Act which the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) indicated last year she would like to see enacted.
On previous occasions in the House I have asked the Minister whether she would be prepared to table any drafts of the Act which might be in existence. Failing this, it seems to me that she should be prepared to table any subsequent drafts that are developed as improvements to the draft that the Canadian Medical Association is circulating at this point in time. She should also be prepared to refer the whole matter to the Health and Welfare Committee. Canadians who are concerned about the Canada Health Act and want to have an opinion on it before it actually comes to the House could then have a chance to express their views and, no doubt, lend support to any intention of the Government to eliminate extra billing and other ways in which user pay mechanisms are eating away at the principles of medicare.
But, the Minister must do one more thing. She should put some money back on the table, if she wants to recover the
Oral Questions
moral edge in the medicare debate and have leverage over Progressive Conservative provincial Governments that are hostile to the principles of medicare. She must reverse the cutbacks in federal transfer payments and then seek the support of the Canadian people for a Canada Health Act that will firmly re-establish the five founding principles of medicare.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance, the answer to which might well affect his capacity to continue to act as a Minister of the Crown. When he was Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources did he, on June 30, 1981, sign an agreement between Alastair Gillespie Associates, the federal Government of Canada, and the Government of Nova Scotia, concerning a plan to turn Cape Breton coal into liquid fuel on a commercial basis for use in transportation?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I do not know whether, under the rules, this question should not be addressed to the current Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, rather than to myself.


An Hon. Member:: He is back from Florida.


Marc Lalonde: I think the questions concerning responsibilities in the administration of different Departments are answered by the Ministers currently in charge.


Mr. Crosbie:: Answer the question, Marc.


REASON FOR QUESTIONING MINISTER
Erik Nielsen: One of the
reasons for which I carefully prefaced my question-


An Hon. Member:: Liberal patronage.


Erik Nielsen: -is explanation enough for directing it to the Minister. I said that the answers to my questions might well affect his capacity to continue to act as a Minister of the Crown.
Did the Minister sign, on June 30, 1981, an agreement between the Government of Canada, the Government of Nova Scotia, and Alastair Gillespie Associates, with respect to a plan to turn Cape Breton coal into liquid fuel on a commercial basis for use in transportation?


Marc Lalonde: Again, Madam Speaker, I think the Minister responsible for the Department is in a position to answer that.

February 16, 1983
Oral Questions


John Carnell Crosbie: Come on! Stop stalling!


Roch La Salle: Do you remember?


Marc Lalonde: Yes, I have the answer to this, and I can immediately tell the Hon. Member that if it were a question of my capacity to fulfil my functions, he does not have to worry. I am able to reach these decisions quite well, and the Prime Minister, also. But as far as the answer to the question is concerned, the question should be addressed to the Minister responsible for the Department.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Very weak applause.


Erik Nielsen: It is precisely-


John Carnell Crosbie: What are you hiding?


Erik Nielsen: It is precisely, Madam Speaker, the Minister's exercise of judgment that may affect his capacity to continue. However, since, he refuses to answer the question, may I direct the question to the-


Mr. Trudeau:: Not since he refused.


Erik Nielsen: I am sorry, I did not hear the Prime Minister's interjection.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1 said, not since he refused. It is because you misdirected it.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. No debate across the floor, please.


Some Hon. Members:: Go get him.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Right.


Some Hon. Members:: We want Joe.


Erik Nielsen: If the Prime Minister is patient, I will have a question to ask him, to wind up.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Thank you.


SIGNATORY TO AGREEMENT
Erik Nielsen: May I direct this question to the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources? Did his predecessor, on behalf of the Government of Canada, on June 30, 1981, sign an agreement between the Government of Canada, the Government of Nova Scotia, and Alastair Gillespie Associates, for the purpose of implementing a plan to turn Cape Breton Coal into liquid fuel on a commercial basis for use in transportation?
Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Madam Speaker, I am aware of this project. I think it is a project that is a very valid one.


Some Hon. Members:: Answer the question.


Mr. Chretien:: It involves the development in Cape Breton of some economic activities which are very much needed, and of course I know that Mr. Gillespie is involved. He has been out of the Cabinet for a long time. He is an expert in the field.


John Carnell Crosbie: Not long enough.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I am sure people involved in that project are happy to have an expert working with them.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: A translation, Madam Speaker, of that rather weasely answer-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: -is an admission that that agreement described by me was in fact signed by his predecessor on behalf of the Government of Canada, involving, as it did, funds ranging from seed money of some $900,000 by three Crown corporations, and a joint investment of $1 million between the federal Government and the Nova Scotia Government-


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Erik Nielsen: -to capital put up by Mr. Gillespie and Associates of $25,000.
I want to draw the attention of the Prime Minister to the guidelines that he issued on April 28-


Some Hon. Members:: Order, order!


Madam Speaker:: Order. I think the Hon. Member could now ask a question about the guidelines, but I feel it would further prolong the question, which was already long, if he quoted from the guidelines. He may ask a question about them, of course.


MINISTERIAL CONDUCT
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, on April 28, 1980, the Prime Minister issued guidelines to his Ministers. Mr. Gillespie ceased being a Minister on June 4, 1979. One of those guidelines stipulates, and I read from Appendix 2, paragraph 2 as follows:
In any official dealings with former office holders-
That is Mr. Gillespie.
-Ministers-
That is the Minister of Finance.
-must ensure that they do not provide grounds or the appearance of grounds for allegations of improper influence, privileged access or preferential treatment.
Has the Prime Minister examined the conduct of his previous Minister of Energy, now the Minister of Finance, in order to determine whether there has been compliance with that guideline?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I would not think that the guidelines in this instance would refer to the present Minister of Finance; it would refer to the conduct of former Ministers who have-


Some Hon. Members:: No, no!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If Hon. Members of the Opposition will let me finish-


Mr. Forrestall:: You are finished!


An Hon. Member:: Dream on.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I know I will never finish dealing with this bunch of fools over here.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I take it that calling them a bunch of fools is not unparliamentary. I hear no points of order.


John Carnell Crosbie: It is just not true.


An Hon. Member:: It is sick.


Madam Speaker:: I think we have to make a distinction here. When it is applied to one person in particular it has a different interpretation. I would just remind Hon. Members that this day starts with a "W".


APPLICATION OF GUIDELINES
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the Prime Minister is going to answer that question. Before he does, I would point out that the guidelines I quoted are guidelines for sitting Ministers- Ministers now, Ministers in 1981, and Ministers in 1980.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, it seems to me that the point is whether the transaction was justified and whether it was honourable. If it was, I take it that the Hon. Member has nothing against the Government of Nova Scotia signing this. I take it he has nothing against the former Minister, Mr. Gillespie, signing this, because he is not asking about him.


Erik Nielsen: Yes I do. There is a guideline covering that, too.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Therefore, if the people who signed this agreement are honourable, why would the former Minister be dishonourable because he signed an honourable deal?


REQUEST FOR ENFORCEMENT OF GUIDELINES
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I have read to the Prime Minister his own guidelines, verbatim, which in effect prohibit a sitting Minister, as he then was-the Minister of Finance as Minister of Energy-from having any dealings with former office holders which provide
Oral Questions
grounds or the appearance of grounds for allegations of improper influence, privileged access or preferential treatment.
The kind of treatment accorded to Mr. Gillespie, where he puts up $25,000 and gets in exchange almost $1.9 million, seems to me to fall within the definition of a form of preferential treatment. Is the Prime Minister going to enforce his own guidelines and call for the resignation of the Minister?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Order. Is the Leader of the Opposition seeking the floor for another question?


Erik Nielsen: Same question.


Madam Speaker:: No Minister or the Prime Minister is obligated to answer a question. There is nothing the Chair can do about that.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I am sure the Prime Minister does not need anyone to run interference for him. Will he answer the question and enforce his own guidelines with respect to the action of his Minister of Finance, which has obviously been improper?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I just want to point out that the reason I did not answer the question was that, in the first phrasing of it, there was no question. It was when the Hon. Member stood again and asked his question. That is why I did not rise, not because I did not want to answer a non-question. The Hon. Member quoted from the guidelines "provide grounds of suspicion or of favour", whatever the words are.


Erik Nielsen: Preferential treatment.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is the issue. Did the conduct of the Minister provide grounds, or was there any grounds in this particular case or particular reason to feel it was dishonourable? That is the question I raise. If there is no allegation that the Government of Nova Scotia or Mr. Gillespie acted improperly, why would the Minister who signed with him act improperly?


Erik Nielsen: He acted improperly.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I should like to know the reason there, Madam Speaker. If we talk about providing grounds of improper conduct, surely we must see what those grounds are and how we test them. It is not in the mind of the Hon. Member or in my mind. It is an objective test whether they are doing something wrong or not. If they are doing something which, as the present Minister of Energy says, even in the opinion of the Conservative Government of Nova Scotia

February 16, 1983
Oral Questions
provides jobs and is a useful expenditure of public funds, why would the Government Minister be acting dishonourably in a deal which is judged honourable?


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent).


CANADA-UNITED STATES TEST AND EVALUATION PROGRAM TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH MINISTER IN SRI LANKA
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister that also concerns ministerial behaviour. Just an hour ago I talked to the Minister of Justice in Sri Lanka concerning claims made by the Prime Minister in recent days in the House that, when that Minister was Secretary of State for External Affairs, he had made a statement in the House on April 29. The question I put to the Minister of Justice was as follows: does he agree with the Prime Minister that he inadvertently misled the House on April 29? The Minister of Justice refused to answer that question. What he did say was the following, which is interesting, and I quote: "The Prime Minister is the person who determines Government policy."
How does the Prime Minister interpret the refusal by his Minister of Justice to confirm the assertion that he misled the House last April?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I can certainly understand the Minister of Justice, being in Sri Lanka on Government business, if he gets a phone call from the Leader of the New Democratic Party concerning some discussion in the House of Commons. I would suspect there would be some trap there and I would not want to answer that kind of question. I would say, "Ed, wait until I come back. I will look at the record and discuss it with you, but what are you phoning me here for?" He is not in a parliamentary forum over there.


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, what the Prime Minister had to say, if it pertained to all the facts, would be entirely reasonable. However, the Minister of Justice made it clear to me that he had been briefed on the exchange that had taken place in the House in the past couple of days. He knew in short what the facts of the past two days were all about. I would like to ask the Prime Minister this. Is it not a little unusual that a Minister who is responsible to him, when confronted with the claim made by his Prime Minister that he had inadvertently misled the House last April, refuses to confirm that? Then he goes on to add that it is the Prime Minister who determines policy. The implication of that would seem to me to be that he, Mr. MacGuigan, stands by what he said, and is implying that the Prime Minister is doing some
swift changing of history in terms of what transpired between last April and the present. Would the Prime Minister comment on that?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, to be perfectly blunt, if I received a phone call like that from the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party, when I was half way around the world, about something which is going on in Parliament and apparently showed a contradiction between Ministers, I would tell him to "drop dead". I would tell him that I would be back in a few days and would be able to deal with the question then. If the Leader of the New Democratic Party is asking for my comment, that is it. But if he really wants to get to the substance of the issue, as his seatmate did yesterday, I would give the same answers, Madam Speaker.
I would concede from the outset that the Government had been contemplating the possibility of testing the Cruise. We knew that this was at the back of the mind of the American administration when it was asking for a weapons-testing system. In that sense whether the former Secretary of State for External Affairs used exactly the right words or not, I am not prepared to say. I am anxious to hear his own explanation.
As to the intent of the former Secretary of State for External Affairs, Madam Speaker, I have no quarrel with it. We all know that the Cruise is at the end of the road. That is what is worrying so many Members of the New Democratic Party. That will be the big test. It will not be firing some 303 rifle, it will be whether we allow the Cruise testing or not. That was in Cabinet's mind when we discussed this whole subject.
What I say, what I will repeat, and what I have even said in a letter to the Hon. Member's seatmate sometime last March, is that in fact Cabinet has made no decision on the Cruise. It has made a decision on weapons-testing systems, an umbrella agreement.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Cruise, we know-well-


An Hon. Member:: Malarkey.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister does not seem to recognize that the point at issue here, among others, is that the former Secretary of State for External Affairs has said, not once, but if I remember correctly, three times, that the Government had made a decision in principle to test the Cruise. And it is the Prime Minister in this House who stood up on Monday and said that is not the case. If the Prime Minister stands by that, if the Prime Minister is saying that since last April the Government has not been committed in principle to testing the Cruise, I ask him how in God's name could a Government let ten months go
February 16, 1983

by without correcting the record? Surely, the people of Canada have the right to know clearly what the policy is. Surely, the Government has an obligation to correct some misinformation which the Secretary of State for External Affairs left on the books some ten months ago?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is making an argument, I believe, on phraseology, not on substance. As to the substance, I have conceded that the Cruise is what is at the back of this matter. When the Hon. Members opposite want to argue and ask questions about whether we should eventually test the Cruise, I am prepared to engage in debate on that subject. Whether the debate should have started sooner, for instance, when the Minister said this, I am prepared to say that maybe it should have, but maybe it was the NDP who were not attentive enough to what the Minister said then.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, if they were, Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: Order. Order. We are really entering into debate, and we can do that another time.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister, a supplementary to those asked by the Leader of the Opposition. The Prime Minister indicated in answer to the Leader of the Opposition that the behaviour of Mr. Gillespie was honourable. I would like to read to the Prime Minister very briefly from his guidelines of April 28, 1980, which apply to former Ministers. Within a period of two years after leaving office Ministers should not, "lobby for or on behalf of any person or commercial corporation before any Department or agency for which they were responsible on an on-going basis during the last two years of their participation in the Ministry."
Given that Mr. Gillespie clearly was in violation of these guidelines, does the Prime Minister want to reconsider his answer to the Leader of the Opposition respecting the propriety of the current Minister of Finance when, in his role as Minister of Energy, he violated the guidelines for on-going Ministers in signing this deal with a former Minister who, himself, was not behaving according to the guidelines set down as minimal acceptable behaviour for former Ministers of the Crown? Would the Prime Minister care to answer that question?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, with respect, to the current Leader of the Opposition, 1 suggest that that is a more relevant question. Let us see when
Oral Questions
the contract was signed and when the Minister resigned. If it was a period of more than two years-


Erik Nielsen: June 30, 1980.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: June 30th?


Erik Nielsen: 1980.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1980?


Madam Speaker:: Order. Order, please. Hon. Members today on both sides of the House are speaking to each other. This is not what is to take place in the course of the Question Period-questions, brief; and answers, brief. The Hon. Member for Calgary Centre.


QUERY RESPECTING RATIONALE FOR SIGNING CAPE BRETON COAL AGREEMENT
Harvie Andre: I will accept the Prime Minister's indication that he intends to examine this transaction in view of this obvious violation of the guidelines.
Madam Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The Minister is aware that this agreement provides for Alastair Gillespie and Associates to make a profit of $750,000, three-quarters of a million dollars, on a $25,000 investment. He is also aware that his own officials in the Department advised against this deal on a technical basis as a waste of money. Forgetting about the conflict of interest guidelines in dealing with a Minister who should not have been out there lobbying on his own behalf, and signing deals with that particular individual, in view of that advice from his officials, and in view of this extraordinary profit for a lobbying effort, influence peddling, almost- perhaps it is-could the Minister indicate what rationale other than being kind to your friends led to the Government signing this agreement?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, in the preamble to his question the Hon. Member said I undertook to examine this. I believe we should get the answer on the record right now. The Hon. Member quoted a guideline which indicates a two-year period during which Ministers would not deal with matters of their former portfolios. Was it two years or not? If I am reminded correctly with the figures given by the Leader of the Opposition, the deal was signed June 30, not 1980 as he just said, but 1981. The Minister stopped being a Minister at the beginning of June, 1979. Therefore, it is more than two years, Madam Speaker.


An Hon. Member:: Two years and a couple of days.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I can see them all laughing, Madam Speaker. So what are they going to do, take the guidelines and say they were followed, "but we in the Opposition do not like the way

February 16, 1983
Oral Questions
the calendar works against us"? It is two years or it ain't two years. And in this case it was two years.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POSITION OF PRESENT MINISTERS
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, the guidelines which have been recited by my Leader and by the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre indicate the whole process of lobbying for a contract is part of the prohibition in the guidelines. That contract may have been signed a few days after the two years, but certainly there had to be a preliminary amount of lobbying on the part of Mr. Gillespie. We have had Mr. Donald Macdonald, we have had Mr. Judd Buchanan, and now we have Mr. Alastair Gillespie, former Cabinet colleagues, all involved in special preferential deals. What I would like to know on the question of the morality of the Government, is whether or not it is going to take any action against present Members of its Cabinet who have violated those particular guidelines?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, we now have the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West allegating that there was a violation-allegating there was a violation of guidelines, when I have just demonstrated that there was no violation of the guidelines. So what is he talking about?


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER TAKE ACTION
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I will tell the Prime Minister what I am talking about, Madam Speaker. I am talking about a memorandum of understanding which was signed in October, 1980. Is that good enough for the Prime Minister? I will tell the Prime Minister that the question the people of Canada are asking is, is there any morality left in this Cabinet? Is the Prime Minister going to take any action against the Minister of Finance for violating conflict of interest guidelines?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, while the people of Canada are asking that question, they should also ask themselves if there is any morality left in the Opposition benches where, so long as I have been around here, they have been making allegations that they have never been able to substantiate. Now, if this is a serious allegation, if there is a memorandum of understanding, I would like to know about it.


Erik Nielsen: Table it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: But I have-table it? I did not even know it exists, Madam Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: Well, you know now.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Great laughs over there. It is obviously something which the Member from Saskatoon West knows something about. Why doesn't he make his case, then I will be able to judge? But I cannot know everything which has happened with former Ministers over the years. If he has an allegation to make, let him make it. Then the people will see our answer, they will know what the allegations are, and we will know if the people over there are just making mischief or whether they are serious about governing the country.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister cannot flim flam this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: He knows that the guidelines are clear. In each instance where we bring up a question of conflict of interest by former Cabinet Ministers, nothing happens.


REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE INVESTIGATION
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, in the spirit of the new rules I want to know whether the Prime Minister has the courage to have this matter investigated by a parliamentary Committee so that the facts can come out in an orderly manner rather than the stonewalling we get from the Prime Minister every time we raise one of these questions?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, surely I am not stonewalling this. I am inviting the Hon. Member to state the facts.


Erik Nielsen: Table the agreement.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Why wait for a committee which might take some time to set up? Why don't we hear the facts? The Member talks about a memorandum of understanding dated some unspecified date. Let us hear about it.


Some Hon. Members:: October, 1980.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, let us see it and hear about it. Why wait for a committee, Madam Speaker?


Some Hon. Members:: Table it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Who is doing the stonewalling?


Erik Nielsen: It is your agreement.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: They are playing some hiding game over there and I do not know what it is, but I wish they would be frank and stop covering up their own tracks.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong).
February 16, 1983


INDUSTRY
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Madam Speaker, 1 wonder if someone-


An Hon. Member:: Let them off the hook.


Simon Leendert de Jong: -from the Government benches could bring in the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.


Mr. Nystrom:: There he is.


John Carnell Crosbie: Come on, Lumley; take your lumps.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Madam Speaker, in the past Interprovincial Steel and Pipe Corporation has never been given the opportunity to bid on the steel being used in the construction of hopper cars. Can the Minister give us an assurance today that the manufacturer of the 1,280 hopper cars ordered by the Government will allow all steel mills, including Ipsco, to bid on the steel necessary to build these cars?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, we will do everything we can to encourage the ultimate manufacturer of those hopper cars, which has not been decided yet, to buy Canadian steel. My colleague, the Minister of Supply and Services, yesterday, for example, was speaking to the Canadian Shipbuilding and Ship Repairing Association where he put a real pitch in for them to buy Canadian steel for all ships they build. So obviously, Madam Speaker, this would be a priority for us.


Madam Speaker:: Before I recognize another Member I would just like to say to the House that I very much resent the remark that I heard that I got someone off the hook. At twenty to three every day of Question Period it is time to go to the NDP. The Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young).


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. As he knows, yesterday a Canada-U.S. task force issued a report on toxic pollution in the Niagara River. The report said that international water quality standards are being violated. It also said that some of the chemicals in drinking water can cause cancer, birth defects, mutations and nerve damage, to name only a few areas of concern. Certainly Members of this Party have told the Minister over the last year about the dangers to the Niagara River.
Tomorrow, Madam Speaker, a joint committee of the New York State Assembly is holding public hearings on what to do about the Love Canal dump site. Could the Minister tell us whether the Government of Canada intends to appear before
Oral Questions
that committee and make representations on behalf of Canadian interests, particularly when it is well known that the Love Canal is about the most dangerous site on the U.S. border?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, I have explained frequently, most recently in the Opposition day debate on environmental matters a few days ago, what the position of the Canadian Government is on making appearances before American courts. We have examined that question and came to the conclusion that, while indeed it might be welcome and we would endorse and support other levels of Government or public interest groups in appearing before American courts, it would be counterproductive for the Canadian Government to do so. The reason for that is that in opting to appear before the American court system we would likely foreclose other means of redress we would otherwise have.
In other words, if we decide to commit ourselves to the court process, there is a real danger that American governmental authorities would say, in effect, "You have chosen to go that route, you must live with the consequences. Therefore, we will not respond to you until the court process has dealt with the representations you have made." Since that could be a very lengthy process we are unwilling to cut ourselves off from other options of redress, which access to the court process on behalf of the federal Government might imply.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I draw the Prime Minister's attention to the dispatch in the Canadian Press today which reads as follows:
A memorandum of understanding between Gillespie and his partners-Petro-Canada, Nova, an Alberta Corporation, Nova Scotia Resources Ltd. and Gulf Canada Products Co.-was signed in October, 1980.
Will the Prime Minister undertake to table in the House of Commons today a copy of that October, 1980, memorandum of understanding, and also the June, 1981, agreement?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I have just been talking to the Minister of Energy and he has said that he will investigate this matter, find out if there was a memorandum of understanding, find out the date, find out whether the guidelines were violated, and we will report to the House. We are learning by bits and drabs some suspicions over there. If they want to know about them, we will inquire, Madam Speaker. That is the position I have taken all afternoon. I did not happen to read the Canadian Press dispatch from which the Hon. Member is quoting.

February 16, 1983
Oral Questions


REQUEST THAT DOCUMENTS BE TABLED
Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, it is not good enough to have an in-house investigation by Members of the Cabinet. What this side wants to know is whether or not the Prime Minister will himself, on his own authority, undertake to table in this House of Commons any agreement and memorandum of understanding that he finds?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, if I understood the Hon. Member correctly in his reading of the press report, I did not understand it was a memorandum of understanding concluded with the Government of Canada.


Henry Perrin Beatty: It is so.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Maybe we do not have that memorandum. It is? Well, I understood it was signed between some private parties, not the Government of Canada.


Walter David Baker: And the Government.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If it is in the Government of Canada's possession, we will be able to find it very quickly.


ROLE OF PETRO-CANADA
Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, Petro-Canada is a Crown corporation, an agent of Her Majesty, and its powers can be exercised only as an agent of Her Majesty. The agreement was signed with Petro-Canada, among others.
Will the Prime Minister now give the undertaking that that memorandum of understanding, if it is in Petro-Canada's possession, will be tabled in the House of Commons at the earliest opportunity?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, for all I know the memorandum of understanding may, if it exists, contain a lot of things which are not pertinent to this question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will see. What the Hon. Members are allegating is a conflict of interest. If we find some, we will report on it, Madam Speaker. When we see the dates.


Ronald Alexander Stewart: Limber up the shredders.


INDUSTRIAL SAFETY AND HEALTH
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that grain dust has long been considered a cause of serious lung disease, and that efforts over the past ten years to persuade grain elevator operators to indroduce adequate controls have failed, will the Minister tell us what action he is planning to
protect the health and safety of Canadian workers in this industry?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of Labour: Madam Speaker, we are very concerned with the situation in this particular industry because it has been deteriorating over the years. While compliance with our regulations in 1980 was some 40 per cent, it fell to 25 per cent in 1981 and to less than 20 per cent last year. Therefore we have informed the industry in Winnipeg that we intend to inquire of each employer as to the situation at the present time to show cause why they have not implemented the safety regulations as they should have done. We will, of course, use every reasonable means at our disposal to look after and protect the health of the workers involved. This applies not only to dust inhalation but also to fire and explosive hazards.


BANKS AND BANKING
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. I would like to direct a question his way to allow him to get on the good side of the Prime Minister once again. It concerns Canada's chartered banks that have been enthusiastic in their efforts to reschedule Dome's outstanding debts. They have certainly not demonstrated the same willingness to reschedule loans to farmers and small businesses. We learned today that Canada's largest bank, the Royal Bank of Canada, is suing a farmer who at present is unable to meet his financial obligations to the bank and, I am sure by no coincidence, who happens to be the spokesman for a farm advocacy group opposing the bank's jackboot tactics by forcing premature foreclosure and property sales.
Is the Minister of Finance prepared to sit down and meet with the presidents of the major chartered banks of Canada to ask them if they would not provide the same service and the same enthusiasm for rescheduling loans for small-businessmen and the farmers of Canada as they are showing in their willingness to assist Dome Petroleum?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I must say first of all that I have already sat down with the presidents of Canadian banks about this very subject. I have raised it with the banks individually and I have raised it with the Canadian Bankers' Association in the course of my prebudget consultations. I drew to their attention a number of representations I have received in that regard, and I received a commitment on their part that they would investigate any allegation of inappropriate or unfair behaviour. Since then,
February 16, 1983

every time I have received specific representations I have drawn them to the attention of the Inspector General of Banks who then raises them with the banks concerned.
If the Eton. Member has a specific case, and if he wishes to make the details available to me, I will make sure that it is picked up with the proper bank. However, I might take this opportunity to point out to the Hon. Member that I know of thousands of cases where banks have agreed to reschedule the debts of small businesses and farmers. I do not think the Hon. Member is representing the situation quite accurately.
In addition, I think he should welcome the reduction of the prime rate by the Royal Bank to 11.5 per cent on Friday. I hope the other banks will follow suit and that we will continue to see a reduction of interest rates.


AVIATION INDUSTRY
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. James):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Today in Winnipeg CAE Aircraft Limited announced it is closing, with a loss of 80 jobs in that city. In 1969 when the Government of Canada moved repair work out of Winnipeg, it guaranteed alternative employment, including 700 jobs. In 1974 the Prime Minister promised aircraft repair work for Winnipeg, in that year's election campaign.
The aerospace industry in Winnipeg, the Manitoba Government and the people of Manitoba want to know whether the Minister is prepared to enforce the agreement to provide aircraft work in Manitoba, particularly in light of this closing today?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, I think, if the Hon. Member would like to look at the record over the years since 1969, he would realize that the Government has directed a large number of job opportunities toward the aerospace industry in Manitoba, that Companies have been able to tender on a number of contracts that were available, and that there has been a number of expansions of programs in companies and firms in the City of Winnipeg.
As far as CAE is concerned, over the past year and a half my own Department has worked very closely with them on the development of a work-sharing program and other support. Finally it came to a point in time when they were unable to secure work comparable with the kind of equipment facilities they could offer. As 1 have said before, we cannot replace those kinds of judgments for the marketplace, although we have done our utmost in trying to support CAE in the work they have done and in trying to keep their workforce together. My Department will continue to work to make sure that the workers displaced under that lay-off or closing will find alternative employment.
Oral Questions


PETRO-CANADA ALLEGED EXISTENCE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, I would like to get back to the first question put to the Right Hon. Prime Minister of Canada. At first, the Prime Minister was hesitant about giving the House the information requested by Hon. Members on the possibility of a conflict of interest, not the evidence thereof. In the circumstances, could the Prime Minister now inform the House, in the light of the questions that have been asked, whether he is willing to table in the House all information available, that is, all documentation of initial negotiations that took place between the Federal Government and Petro-Canada-documentation that is as wide-ranging as possible, and that has not been screened by the Prime Minister-to find out whether there was a conflict of interest.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I just answered this question, and I said that I was not aware that such documents existed. I did not know what the Hon. Member was talking about. I first would have to check whether there are such documents and whether their contents were relevant, and I would then report to the House as soon as I have this information. Meanwhile, if Opposition Members have any relevant facts, it is their duty and certainly their privilege to do so. However, I have heard only insinuations and questions and suggestions that conflict of interest guidelines have been violated, although the dates mentioned by the Opposition show that there was no such violation. Therefore, until I receive evidence to the contrary, all I can say now is that I shall look into the matter, Madam Speaker.


Roch La Salle: I have a supplementary, Madam Speaker. If I understand correctly, the Prime Minister is now asking us to prove there was a conflict of interest. I think that in view of the fact that the person concerned, namely Mr. Gillespie, is a former Minister, the Prime Minister should be prepared to table all documents pertinent to this matter, starting with the initial discussions between the Crown corporation, the Government, Mr. Gillespie and others. That is all we are asking in order to provide some clarification to the public on this important transaction. Furthermore, if there was no conflict of interest, the Prime Minister should be more than willing to table the documents. Why the hesitation? That is the question. Why is the Prime Minister taking this attitude today? Why is he so hesitant about publishing documents which are a public matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is asking me why I am hesitant. The explanation is simple. It is because of the questions put by his leader and by the energy critic, alleging that there was a conflict of interest because the former Minister had acted within a two-year period. The fact is that if
22896

February 16, 1983
Oral Questions
we check the dates mentioned by the Minister and by the Leader of the Opposition, it seems that the transaction took place more than two years later. I am therefore hesitant to accept allegations of dishonest or dubious behaviour. Apparently, when we look at the dates mentioned by the Opposition, there does not seem to have been any violation of the conflict of interest guidelines. Therefore, the Opposition should get organized and at least ask questions that clearly demonstrate that conflict of interest guidelines have been violated. These guidelines are public documents, read to us by the Leader of the Opposition, which prescribe that a former Minister is prohibited from doing such and such a thing within a two-year period, and it seems that according to the Opposition's figures, the transaction took place more than two years later.


Roch La Salle: When did he start negotiating?


An Hon. Member:: Why do you not listen, La Salle!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Madam Speaker, I can hear other dates being quoted on the opposite side, and I wish they would table them. This is the first time I have heard about it. Why does the Hon. Member not get up and ask supplementary questions instead of staying in his seat and smirking and shouting?


DATE OF NEGOTIATIONS BEGUN BY ALASTAIR GILLESPIE
Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary. The Right Hon. Prime Minister is trying to prove that the signing of this agreement does not violate criteria which he himself established. In that case, 1 wish to ask the Right Hon. Prime Minister to make enquiries and let us know when Mr. Gillespie started lobbying and negotiating with the Government or Petro-Canada. The public might be interested.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member did not have to go to all that trouble, because I just informed his colleague that we are going to make those enquiries.


An Hon. Member:: He does not understand English.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, that is not his problem. His problem is that he does not pay attention to what Members on his side are saying. If he did, he would know that I said quite clearly that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who has just gone to make those enquiries-


Roch La Salle: If you think there is a conflict of interest-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, there-


Madam Speaker:: Order. I am going to end the question period. It is three o'clock, in any case, but I also want to
remind Hon. Members that they should not talk across the House.
The Hon. Member for Rosemont, on a point of order.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Rosemont):: Madam Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to the wording of Standing Order 21, and my point of order arises from the statement under the provisions of S.O. 21 made by the Member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) this afternoon.
Standing Order 21 prescribes that the Speaker may order a Member to resume his or her seat if, in the opinion of the Speaker, improper use is made of this Standing Order.
Madam Speaker, today, you called to order an Hon. Member who was extending a message of congratulations. As a Member of the Committee on Standing Orders and Procedures, and therefore as one who participated in the drafting of Standing Order 21,1 would like to draw your attention to page 7:19 of the proceedings of the Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure. There we find that the Chair would have the discretion to call to order any Member who sought to use this opportunity to convey congratulatory messages or for frivolous purposes.
Madam Speaker, I read the blues showing the statement made by the Member for Joliette, and I shall quote from them.
... considering the Minister's irresponsibility or incompetence,
He is referring to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Caccia),
... I wish to ask the Right Hon. Prime Minister of Canada to immediately remove this Minister who is refusing to discharge his responsibilities.
Madam Speaker, my point of order is strictly concerned with the form of this statement. I think that if congratulatory messages are taboo, this should certainly apply to personal attacks under this Standing Order, which is being tried on an experimental basis. I would therefore suggest that perhaps the Chair might wish to look into this matter.


Madam Speaker:: No, I do not think so. As I understand the manner in which statements made by Members may be interpreted, I thought the statement by the Hon. Member for Joliette met the conditions of the Standing Order. I think it is quite acceptable for Members on all sides of the House to launch verbal attacks at each other, and I do not think the statement by the Member for Joliette in any way breached the conditions set in the Standing Order.
February 16, 1983



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition in light of the tragic events surrounding the sinking of the Ocean Ranger. Basically, the petition asks that a committee of the House of Commons be struck to monitor and provide appropriate information to legislators and to the public on activities relating to the exploration and development of offshore drilling that will take place over the next two decades in Canada.


POINT OF ORDER
Madam Speaker:: I see the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carle-ton (Mr. Baker) is still in his seat and I am now in a position to rule on the point of order he raised last Friday concerning the fact that a document tabled the Thursday, February 10, 1983 by the Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) was not deemed referred to a Committee of the House.
Standing Order 46(1) stipulates that returns, reports or other papers can be laid before the House in accordance with an Act of Parliament or in pursuance of any resolution or Standing Order of this House.
In addition, Standing Order 46(2) provides that a Minister may table any report or other paper dealing with a matter coming within the administrative responsibilities of the Government. As stated in Citation 379(2) of Beauchesne, these papers may be laid before the House voluntarily.
Let me now quote Standing Order 46(4) as follows:
Reports, returns or other papers laid before the House in accordance with an Act of Parliament shall thereupon be deemed to have been permanently referred to the Committee designated by the Member tabling the report, return or paper.
During the debate on this point of order I indicated how I would read that paragraph but I decided to read it again privately and meditate on it. The key words are "in accordance with an Act of Parliament".
In the case before us, the tabling of the document was not required by an Act of Parliament, but it was tabled on the initiative of the Minister as provided in Standing Order 46(2). I must rule that the document in question does not come under the purview of Standing Order 46(4) and, therefore, there is no point of order.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, thank you for clarifying the matter. I see that the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) is still in the House. He will
Borrowing Authority
recall he indicated that, notwithstanding whatever ruling was made by the Chair, the Chair having reserved, he was going to speak with the Government House Leader to see whether or not, as a matter of policy, those documents would be referred. Has the Deputy Prime Minister done that, and can he report to the House now?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: No, Madam Speaker, I regret I have not had an opportunity to have the kind of discussion I would like to have with the Government House Leader, but I will do so very soon.


SUPPLEMENTARY BORROWING AUTHORITY ACT, 1982-83 (NO. 3) MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Marc Lalonde: that Bill C-143, to provide supplementary borrowing authority, be read the first time.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: All those in favour, please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed, please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion, the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Madam Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Mr. Deans:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is simply this. On Monday last leave to introduce this particular Bill was sought and given. Why, then, did we need to have leave to introduce the Bill sought and given the second time?


Madam Speaker:: The division was on first reading. There are two motions when a Bill is brought into the House, one for leave to introduce it, and one for first reading. That is the reason for the two votes.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Why didn't you find out before voting?


MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS AND STANDING ORDERS
Mr. Dennis Dawson (Louis-Hebert):: Madam Speaker, after negotiations with the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party and with the unanimous consent of the House, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Dubois):
That pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 106, the petition to revive Polyventreprise Ltee and to provide for its continuance, which was presented after the period specified in Standing Order 97, and the three hundred and ninetieth Report of the Clerk of Petitions laid upon the table on Monday, February 14, 1983, be referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders, to enable the Committee to make recommendations as appropriate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
* *
*

Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, I would like to designate this coming Friday as an Opposition day.
* *
*


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Madam Speaker:: The motion is carried.
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

February 16, 1983


Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4,554 and 4,654.


Mr. Stewart: 1.	What yearly quota was set in the Rimouski district office for the recruitment of (a) English language (b) French language applicants for service in the Canadian Armed Forces?
2.	Between January and September, 1982, how many (a) English language (b) French language applicants were admitted into the Forces at the office?
3.	In the past 12 months, have any English language applicants from the Gaspe Peninsula applied for admittance through the office at Bathurst, New Brunswick and, if so, how many have (a) applied (b) been admitted?
4.	At the Rimouski district office, are the English language applications held in abeyance until a certain number of others have been received before initial processing begins and, if so, what number has been set?
5.	What are the recruitment quotas for (a) English language (b) French language applicants at each of the recruitment centres across Canada?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: 1.	The quota system applicable to all regions and districts is as follows: Officer classifications and skilled other ranks are held at National Defence Headquarters. Unskilled other ranks are distributed on a regional basis and a selection board determines which are the most highly qualified applicants. These applicants are given the first opportunity to fill vacancies for which they qualify. The remaining vacancies are then distributed to the recruiting centres to be filled on a competitive basis.
The quota for the Rimouski district for 1982 was: (a) two; (b) 97.
Note: A five-year statistical moving average is used to ensure that changing demographic circumstances are reflected in the allocation of quotas. During the past five years, 1977/78 to 1981/82, 4.69 per cent of the unskilled other ranks Anglophone enrolments were in Quebec. This percentage varied from a high of 5.5 per cent in fiscal year 1977/78 to a low of 3.7 per cent in fiscal year 1981/82. It is projected that 4.5 per cent to 5 per cent of the unskilled other ranks Anglophone quota will be allocated to the Quebec recruiting zone during the current fiscal year.
2.	Unskilled other ranks enrolment at Rimouski for the period January to September, 1982 was: (a) one; (b) 96.
3.	Yes. (a) ten; (b) zero (four are on a waiting list, one is temporarily medically unfit, five have withdrawn their applications).
4.	No.
5.	Recruiting quotas for unskilled other ranks January to
October (inch), 1982 are as follows: Unit	Anglo	FrancoSt. John's	134	0Corner Brook	94	0Halifax	162	0Sydney	106	0
Order Paper Questions
Charlottetown	88	0Saint John	135	0Bathurst	77	36Moncton	71	19Quebec City	3	190Trois-Rivieres	0	94Chicoutimi	0	119Rimouski	1	84Sept-Iles	2	49Montreal	63	418Sherbrooke	0	132St-Jerome	1	128Rouyn	0	80Ottawa/Hull	162	87Kingston	85	1Toronto	213	0Peterborough	110	0Hamilton	152	0St. Catharines	97	0London	130	0Kitchener	100	0Windsor	86	0Sudbury	114	22North Bay	98	19Winnipeg	136	1Saskatoon	75	0Regina	95	0Calgary	91	1Edmonton	101	0Vancouver	147	0Victoria	73	0Kamloops	66	0


Mr. MacKay: 1.	Were 105 Soviet intelligence agents expelled from the United Kingdom in 1971 and, if so, subsequent to the expulsion, were Canadian authorities notified by British authorities of the identities of those KGB agents?
2.	Were any of the individuals, since their expulsion from the United Kingdom, accepted by the Canadian Government as accredited diplomats of the Soviet Union and, if so, in each case (a) what was his/her name and official function (b) what period of time was covered by his/her posting in Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. In 1971 the British Government announced that 105 nationals of the U.S.S.R. were persona non grata in Britain. The identities of the 105 persons were communicated to the Canadian authorities.
2. None of these were subsequently posted in Canada.


David P. Smith: 1 ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

February 16, 1983

Canada Elections Act MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I would ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the notices of motion be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]
["Order. It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 2(1).\nAt 6 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.", 'Thursday, February 17, 1983']
Madam Speaker:: Shall all orders listed under Private Members' Public Bills preceding No. 383 be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South) moved: that Bill C-583, an Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (deposit), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
He said: Madam Speaker, Bill C-583 has been in my mind and in the minds of a number of people who have assisted me in elections for some considerable period of time. The Bill involves the matter of the deposit that a candidate in an election must place with the returning officer in the riding in order to be a candidate.
The deposit under Section 23(2)(j) of the Canada Elections Act has been the princely sum of $200 since 1882. The purpose of my Bill is to increase that figure of 1882 to a more realistic figure in light of today's economic conditions namely to the sum of $2,000.
Over a hundred years ago a deposit of $200 was a great deal of money. Indeed, a lot of people who worked a whole year did not earn $200. It was a very significant sum. It was real honest money that people put up in order to be a candidate in an election. Until very recently, unless a candidate got half the winner's vote he lost or forfeited his deposit. The concept of the deposit was to ensure that those who honestly wanted to run for the House of Commons were prepared to put up some
earnest money and to compensate the Crown for the cost of the election. If they did not get a realistic number of votes, they would lose that money.
The sum of $200 has now become a pretty nominal sum. The average industrial wage today is in the area of $385 per week. Therefore, $200 represents just slightly more than half a week's wages for the average industrial wager earner. It is not really earnest deposit money; it is nothing but a shell in the total organization of an election.
For very little money, someone can be a candidate in a federal election. Some do this for personal reasons, wanting to have their name before the public, advertising their name, if you like. For $200 you can have your name spread before the City of Mississauga for 60 days or more. The Government will print your name on ballots for some 80,000 electors. You will be publicized in the newspapers. This is all at the expense of the Government of Canada. What a wonderful way to get your name across to the public if you have some kook idea!
You can force your way into every all-candidates meeting in the constituency. I have had that experience. People run honest, all-candidates meetings in my constituency. They try to ensure that the point of view of those seriously running for election is made known to those constituents who are interested. Time and again we have candidates who really have no interest and no possibility of winning. They make no personal effort to win other than to appear at the meeting to make a speech, using up the time of the meeting. Because of this the rest of the community cannot get at the issues they want to discuss.
The $200 deposit has made it possible for people to make a joke of our election system. For a very nominal sum, you are entitled to expenses that, according to the Chief Electoral Officer, cost the Government of Canada an additional $1,000 for every candidate beyond three who runs for election. In other words, if a ballot contains three names, it would cost on average $1,000 to put on an additional name. For $200 a person puts the Government to the expense of $1,000. For that $200 the candidate is entitled to ten copies of the voters' list to do with as he or she wants. You receive the names and addresses, the detail of where every single person who has the right to vote in the federal election lives within a constituency. Not only that, you are entitled to demand from the returning officer an election key and election map. What a wonderful amount of material! The material itself, on a straight paper basis, is worth more than $200.
It really is not a question of being unfair when I ask to raise the deposit level. It is really a question of saying to those who honestly want to run in an election: "Pay your own costs". Is it going to deprive anyone who has a chance of winning? I say it is not.
Under the present Canada Elections Act, if a person receives 15 per cent of the vote or better, that $200 is now returned. Indeed, not only is the $200 returned, but, as we know, under the Elections Expenses Act, virtually all the



"it;
m
*
%
[DOT]vSfe.
**
February 16, 1983

expenses of the candidate are paid for by the Crown. Therefore, if you are a serious candidate and can get 15 per cent of the votes cast, there is enough money there not only to run your election campaign and get your deposit back, but everything is the way it should be.
To allow people, however, to enter a federal election who have really no intention of winning or have really no intention of properly presenting issues to the people of Canada which should be presented, and which should be presented in the riding, thus taking advantage of the system, is wrong. It is an abrogation of democracy and of our electoral system. It hurts the communication of those ideas which are properly before the public.
I say to you, sir, that the way to handle this is to do what we originally did in our Canada Elections Act back in 1882. We increased the deposit from $50 then to $200. Today is the day, Mr. Speaker, when we should put the deposit to $2,000 and get it back to where it was intended to be, a realistic contribution by someone who wants to run for office, so that if they did not win or if they did not get 15 per cent of the vote, they would at least compensate the Crown for the costs to which they put the Crown for running the election in the first place.


Hon. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the speech of the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn). Election law is one of my hobbies and I have spent the last ten years serving on the Chief Electoral Officer's ad hoc committee on election law, particularly focusing on the elections expenses legislation as well as the Canada Elections Act itself. We have tried to deal with part of the dilemma which the Hon. Member for Mississauga South has put forward. That is, how can we provide through the taxpayer a significant amount of money and resources to candidates in an election campaign, and make sure the taxpayer receives a proper and just return on the expenditures he makes on behalf of the election campaign itself? We have been dealing, not on the basis of the $200 deposit, but rather looking at it from the point of view of the resources which are turned over to candidates who may or may not be legitimately in front of the Canadian electorate.
Our dilemma is that it is very difficult to tell who is a legitimate candidate before the electorate at a given point in time. Although you and 1 may have our opinion, Mr. Speaker, I believe we have to recognize that the Social Credit Party, which was represented in this House for a significant number of years, the New Democratic Party, the progressive party which preceded it, the election from time to time of Independents, are all people who have come here legitimately through the electoral system. Any kind of a system which we put in place, it seems to me, should not be designed to cut off legitimate dissent from a Party which may at the particular time hold a majority of the seats in the House of Commons. Rather, the system should be designed to make sure that the people's representatives get elected to the House of Commons no matter what Party they may belong to and no matter whether they choose to run within the political Party system or outside of it. The dilemma which we have is to try to balance off the
Canada Elections Act
requirements for an open electoral system against the kind of thing which the Hon. Member for Mississauga South quite properly pointed out, particularly in the urban areas, of having maybe ten or 11 candidates running, when the general public may be really interested in only three, four or five.
How do we separate, if you will, the sheep from the goats? How do we make sure the electorate is able to have the choice it wishes? It is true, as the Hon. Member pointed out, that the $200 fee has become an anachronism. It no longer has the effect it was designed to have. It was originally designed to have the effect of weeding out on a financial basis the sheep from the goats. In terms of those of us who are here, by and large that sum, whether it be $200 or $2,000, could be met by our constituency organizations, but it might be a barrier to people having a legitimate point of view to get across.
An election is not only about electing individuals to the House of Commons, or selecting Parties to govern; it is also about issues, ideas, and about the debate of those issues and ideas. We would, I believe, be hard put to disentangle from the complexity and carnival atmosphere, in an election campaign, just where personality, party, issues and local ideas are intermixed, Mr. Speaker, and how the individual elector makes his determination as to whom he will vote for on the basis of that. There is no question, however, that the ability in the olden days to put a financial barrier up to prevent people from running was an important one at a time when political Parties were far less organized than they are now.
As Sir John A. Macdonald used to put it, there was an enormous number of loose fish out there to be netted in order for him to be able to carry on his Government. In those days, the Party system was not as rigid as it is today. It was a much looser form of shifting coalitions. Members had far more independence. They represented regional interests in a much more precise and direct way than they do today. Our system has a different kind of structure. We have Parties now which are much more imbedded in the fabric of our society. We have people who belong to those Parties and are prepared to come into the House of Commons, to accept the Party Whip, more or less, of the Party whose banner they ran under. There is a fair amount of freedom in our system still because Parties run for office without a very clear manifesto or a very clear idea of what it is they want to do, as contrasted, for example, with Great Britain, where there is a very precise manifesto. Therefore, the electoral system we deal with is quite different from the system which developed the $50 and then the $200 limit.
I approach the problem from a different perspective than the Hon. Member for Mississauga South. I tend to look at it from the point of view of protecting the interests of the Canadian taxpayer and the Canadian electorate. Obviously, there has to be at some point a balance between having everyone and his uncle running as candidates and providing a selection of candidates which is wide enough to give the electorate an appropriate choice; and, as well, to make sure that appropriate views on policy options and opinions are properly heard so the electorate can vote effectively. In order

February 16, 1983
Canada Elections Act
to do that it needs to have a selection of Parties, individuals, ideas and ideologies.
When a person is nominated as a candidate from a recognized political Party, which may be a Party which is represented in the Elouse of Commons and it may well be one that is not, that person receives a number of benefits which the taxpayer gives to him. He has a certain status in law. In addition, the taxpayers say they will pay the cost of one mailing to all of his constituents. That is a substantial amount of money. It is also a substantial amount of power.
In addition to that, and perhaps more impressive, all candidates receive tax credit forms. We all know the system. If someone gives to my campaign $100, I give him a tax receipt for $75. There are restrictions on how these may be used but they are difficult to enforce. So there is no question that is a very powerful economic tool in the hands of a candidate.
Secondly, there is the problem of what happens to surplus funds. A fringe candidate may be able to collect more money than he cares to spend. What do you do with the surplus funds? That is also an important question because those are basically taxpayers' funds. They do not belong to the candidate; they are given by the taxpayers of Canada to allow him to run an appropriate electoral campaign.
Let us look at the situation of new Parties. The tax credit is made available on a year-round basis to political Parties that meet certain qualifications. That again is an important political tool. There is status in law which also provides certain privileges. What we are dealing with is a very complex series of rules laid down in the Canada Elections Act, which also includes what we used to call the Canada Election Expenses Act. There are penalties and obligations which have to be lived up to.
The question we have been trying to wrestle with in the ad hoc committee is, what is the judicious balance between allowing anyone who chooses to stand as a candidate and being able to provide the necessary protection for the taxpayer? The question raised by my hon. friend from Mississauga is, how do we deal with a number of parties and candidates so that the elector can make sense of what is going on?
I confess that the committee has spent a great deal of time trying to determine some specific guidelines, and we have come to some general conclusions. These conclusions have been forwarded to the Government, which we hope will bring them down as a legislative package. But the problem is that we were unable to come up with any hard and fast rules.
All of us agree that there could not be a rule which could be interpreted so as to prohibit or inhibit the information of additional political Parties. We could not say that you can only have so many candidates running at a given point in a given riding, because out of the candidates running there may emerge another political Party; an Independent may well be more representative of his constituents than the candidate put forward by the various political Parties. So we did not want to restrict the ability of a constituency to choose whom they
wanted to be their representative. Therefore, we have come to a very delicate situation.
We looked a little bit at raising the $200 limit but came to the conclusion that with the financial advantages that are there, an effective increase would not really be acceptable to Canadians. Even $2,000 in today's economy is not what $200 was in 1882; it is far less in relative value. So it does not make much sense to go about limiting the number of people who can run by raising the $200 fee. By and large, our conclusion was that the $200 was a very modest obstacle. It was an appropriate token to show that one at least was semi-serious and therefore we should not really look any further at it. Instead, what we have done is try to look at other ways of dealing with this phenomenon.
For example, we have tried to make the petition signed by the constituents a much more important part of the process. Right now, as you know, we have to forward a petition signed by 25 people along with the $200. We looked at increasing that number to perhaps 100, 150 or 200. We thought that for serious candidates that would not be a problem. We then came across the problem the Table has had in the last session: how do you justify the petition? How can you tell whether the names on the petition are valid names, particularly in an urban constituency where you may have 200 names from the city but you may have a number of ridings? How do you prove that the 200 names, for example, are actually from the constituency the Member seeks to run in?
We looked at the problem of trying to find another way of proving one's bona fides. We looked at the cost, the petition, we looked at being able to demonstrate that a person was a serious candidate by actually taking the money he is entitled to and spending it. In other words, if one comes into the system and is eligible to have one piece of literature mailed to every household in the projected constituency, then the money is not given to that candidate unless it is actually spent. In other words, they have to come in with the receipt. Right now it is not clear. You have to prove you spent the money, but the process is somewhat open-ended. We have been struggling to close that gap with some administrative rules to make sure that there was proof the money was spent. We did not want people to come in and present ideas and use the money made available through the generosity of the taxpayer in trying to communicate with the taxpayer. I believe we have been able to deal with that particular problem in a relatively acceptable way.
While I have no precise solutions to offer to the problem which I think was legitimately raised by the Hon. Member for Mississauga South, the fact that we are getting a large number of spurious candidates, who are recognized as such by the electorate, means that there has to be some way of being able to winnow the candidates down to the serious ones, not the ones who are there for a good time. We have to be able to do that with some delicacy because we do not want accidentally to stomp out a legitimate public movement or those who are running legitimately as Independents to push a particular idea.
February 16, 1983

We want to make sure the electoral system is available and easy to understand.
It seems to me the way we should approach this problem of electoral reform is to have one principle paramount in our minds. What we are trying to do is not make life better for ourselves; we are trying to make sure that the system reinforces the elector's right to choose whomever he or she wants to represent them. We should not be looking at it as an inconvenience to ourselves to have these people around; we should be looking at it from the point of view of the elector who should have available to him the broadest choice of tools he wants to govern his country.


Laverne Lewycky: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to be able to speak on Bill C-583, which seeks to increase the amount of the deposit which a candidate has to pay to contest an election from $200 to $2,000. I would like to say at the outset that I think it is important for us to realize that under the Canada Elections Act not only is a deposit of $200 required when you run federally, but also there is to be a nomination paper signed by at least 25 electors in the particular district.
Now, to address ourselves to what the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) indicates is the problem, I really question whether it is as great a problem as the Hon. Member seems to think. I know in his particular constituency in the last election there were some seven candidates. I know there were a couple of independents running and I could see where that could present a little bit of a problem. But on the humorous side, I wonder whether he should really squawk too loudly, because the plurality he had in the 1980 election was only about 403 votes and one of the so-called fringe candidates had 405 votes. So I am just wondering whether he should be complaining too loudly about that.
In more serious vein, I would just like to say that there are several issues at stake here. I think some of them really revolve around the whole question of democracy. What are we really doing if we eliminate the opportunity for anyone who wants to run, regardless of political Party?
Every region of the country is not as well loaded, might I say, as the constituency of Mississauga or perhaps some of the central Canada constituencies where $2,000 may not seem to be that much. In rural ridings, some of the western and northern ridings, $2,000 is actually a considerable amount. It could present a bit of a problem to any person who wants to run because not all Parties are funded by various private corporations.


An Hon. Member:: Get it from the union.


Laverne Lewycky: I hear an Hon. Member interjecting "Get it from the union". All we have to do is take a look at some of the returns given to the Chief Electoral Officer in the thirty-second general election, and we will find tons of constituencies in which there were no contributions from unions or others.
Canada Elections Act
Let us take a look at the return for the thirty-second election. Referring to a couple of constituencies, such as the one of the Hon. Member who presented the Bill, it is very interesting that there were some 46 private corporations which contributed $14,683 toward his election campaign. The Liberals had some 13 private corporations that contributed $2,750 to their campaign; the New Democratic Party did not have any.
Turning to the constituency of Dauphin, my home riding, I notice that the Progressive Conservative Party had 36 private corporations that contributed some $3,930, which obviously was not as substantial as the sum of $14,000 contributed in the Hon. Member's riding.
I raise this issue for Hon. Members of the House because the return of the Chief Electoral Officer is a very thick book and they may not have had occasion to look at it. I think it is worth while because the Hon. Member would not want to discriminate in various parts of Canada. I appreciate the problem in certain parts of urban Canada. But when I look at the whole question of democracy, one of my favourite authors, a past President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln, spoke of democracy as being "the Government of the people, by the people, for the people". Whether it be the Inuit, other aboriginal people or poor people in various parts of the country who make only subsistence livings, I do not feel they should be restricted from running simply because they cannot think of putting down the $2,000 deposit.
It is important to think of the whole question of what we really mean by democracy. Are we trying to bring about disincentives when they are really not necessary? It is really important to think along these lines. Some people may ask whether we have solutions or what exactly we would suggest as an alternative to disincentives. The only oasis of a truly democratic Government is in the Province of Manitoba. Manitoba has had to come to grips with the problem. I refer Hon. Members to the Manitoba Election Act from which the requirement for a deposit has been removed altogether. That is the way it should be.
In fact, I would have been very happy to support the Hon. Member for Mississauga South if he would have decided to remove the deposit altogether. That would have been more in keeping with the whole area of democratic opportunity for any person to run. In Manitoba there is a simple requirement for the nomination papers that 100 or more eligible voters in an electoral division nominate the candidate. That is the way we in Manitoba have dealt with this problem. Therefore, there is opportunity for anyone who is a serious candidate to run. If such a suggestion were made, I am sure some of the problems in Mississauga or other constituencies where there is such a plurality of candidates as seven would be eliminated.
I return to the whole question of a perceived problem in setting up financial barriers for people who may have limited resources. It is important to emphasize this because there is regional disparity in various parts of the country. If one happens to come from a certain area of the country with incomes that range from very modest to some of the highest,

February 16, 1983
Canada Elections Act
then naturally one's perception of the economic means and abilities of those who will be running as candidates will be drastically different from one who comes from a different region of the country. The setting up of two categories of people-those who would be able to run and those who would not be able to run as candidates-is something we would not want to see in the Parliament of Canada.
At one time Abraham Lincoln said:
As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy.
To paraphrase what Abraham Lincoln was saying in different words, the minute we set up masters and slaves categories we take away the whole notion of democracy in Canada. Even if a person does not have the ability to set aside $2,000 from his ordinary livelihood which is used to provide food, clothing and shelter to run in an election, we feel that he or she may have something to offer the country.
I am reminded of what Harry Emerson Fosdick said when he talked about democracy:
Democracy is based upon the conviction that there are extraordinary possibilities in ordinary people.
1 think this is our conviction, that there are extraordinary possibilities in ordinary people, people who come from various working classes or various ethnic groups in society. We must realize that that type of mix is important in the House of Commons and that we should not have any kind of disincentive to prohibit such people from running for the highest office in the land.
Also it is important to stress what we in the New Democratic Party feel. There should be opportunity for true equality, which implies true equality in terms of the opportunity to run for elected office. Thomas Jefferson said:
The mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favoured few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.
We do not feel that there should be inequality or that there should be this barrier of $2,000 established so that people who legitimately feel they could run or want to run are not able to do so.
If there is a contest even for nomination, the people who run for it have to expend money for the nomination convention. Such things are not covered. There is an investment of time and other investments which have to be made. I think we would want to uphold this.
This Bill runs counter to the United Nations' Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1, which says the following:
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
We ought to maintain that right in Canada so that anyone who wants to and is prepared to run for elected office is supported. In this country we ought to maintain the right that anyone who wants to run for elected office who is prepared to and who is supported by other people should have that right. I think there are enough disincentives. The rebate was mentioned. A person must obtain 15 per cent of the votes. If we wanted to eliminate some of the less serious candidates, or
those we perceive to be less serious, then there are opportunities to increase the number of voters who would be placed on a nomination list. That would be one way to deal with that.
We know that in this country there is enough financial inequality. All one has to do is take a look at the way political wheels are greased to see where and to which party the big bucks go.
I think it is important that we do not accept the suggestion made but, rather, that we defeat this Bill and follow the example in Manitoba. In other words, increase the number of eligible nominators. By doing that we would deal with the problem fairly and in a way that does not deprive us of our democracy, yet at the same time dealing with it in a way that addresses the question of equality and fairness.


Mr. Douglas Fisher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, Clause 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights reads:
Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.
In the explanatory notes in the little red book the Government has published along with the Charter, I find this:
The tradition of democratic rights in Canada is specifically guaranteed by the Charter. Citizens will have a constitutionally enshrined right to vote in elections for Members of the House of Commons or a legislative assembly and to seek election to either of those houses.
There is the standard. Whenever we see a Bill of this sort we must measure the Bill against that standard. We must ask ourselves whether the Bill directly or indirectly hinders the spirit of that Clause. I contend that this Bill very directly takes a run at the right of some citizens to seek public office. As such this Bill should be rejected.
I agree with the Hon. Member for Dauphin (Mr. Lewycky) who has quoted from a variety of sources to back up that sentiment. I congratulate him for doing so.
1 think this Bill reacts to a perceived inconvenience. Its intent is to erect a barrier to prevent people who somebody somewhere thinks are not serious from running for office. I do not believe that we have the right to decide whether one candidate is a serious candidate and another is not. I believe we should be removing these barriers to people's participation in elections. I do not think we should be raising new ones.
I can sympathize with the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn). I was at an all-candidates meeting in his riding in 1980. About eight or ten of us were there. There were many people who worked for various parties. After the election I took a look at the results both in the Hon. Member's riding and in my riding. We went through this inconvenience of many candidates on the ballot, but after the election the people said it differently than we did. People did not think it was an inconvenience to have numerous candidates.
In the riding of the Hon. Member for Mississauga South 624 people voted for those who could otherwise be designated
February 16, 1983

as not serious. In my riding another 380 people voted for these independent candidates. In our city that meant 1,000 people voted for non-traditional candidates. Who are these nontraditional candidates? There were two Marxist-Leninists, two Libertarians and two Independents. Each one of those candidates had something to say to people in each of our ridings. They had good messages. I did not agree with them, but they had a message they wanted to communicate to the residents of Mississauga, and I think they should be entitled to do that.
Some of those people would see a $2,000 deposit as a genuine barrier against their participation in an election. I do not think we should be putting up that kind of a barrier, certainly not when 1,000 people in my city vote for these candidates.
Even if only one person in my city wanted to vote for one of these candidates, I would still say they are entitled to do that.
Running as a candidate in an election campaign is a viable platform for an ordinary citizen. It is not one that we should be whittling down to a few elite members of the New Democratic Party, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party. We should be opening up this platform and letting in some of those other ideas.
Anyone who wants to be impressed by this process can take a look American presidential elections. They are perhaps the perfect example. We always look at the two major candidates in American elections, one Democrat and one Republican, but we fail to realize that there are scores of other candidates. We do not hear Americans telling us that these other candidates are an inconvenience or are not serious. But in many respects the Americans are more limited than we are and these people have more rights than our candidates. They have access to TV time, time in public meetings, space in newspapers and so on. The Americans permit this and encourage it. Theirs is a good model for us to follow. These people bring in new ideas and a new perspective into campaigns.
I listened to the concerns of the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid). It seems to me that that Member was bringing us practical concerns and mixing up the principle of democratically operated elections with administrative concerns on such matters as excess funds, excess donations and tax credits. Those things are currently handled in law. If the law is inadequate, let us change the law so that the administration of these practical matters is more carefully handled.
We do not need to keep people out of an election campaign just because they give out tax credits or because they collect donations from other Canadians. We govern these concerns now. If the governing of them is inadequate, let us tighten up the administration. As I said, we should not be mixing up the principle of a democratic society and a democratic election with administrative concerns on matters of this nature.
The Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River also said that candidates have to prove one's bona fides. I do not know what that means, but that sentiment also ran through the discussion of the Hon. Member for Mississauga South. Somehow there are candidates who have bona fides and candidates who do not have bona fides, or there are candidates who are serious and
Canada Elections Act
others who are not serious. I do not know how you distinguish that. One of my colleagues suggests that citizenship should be the standard. I agree with him. That is the only standard applied in the Charter of Rights and that should be the only standard that we apply. We should not be putting up a barrier in the form of extra deposits or longer lists of nominators or any other administrative device.
We should see that anybody who is serious is taken seriously by the voters. Anybody who is not serious will not be taken seriously by the voters. But let the voters decide. Do not put up a barrier that prevents a candidate's name from going on to the ballot, itself. When the candidate's name is on the ballot, then the true test comes of proving to your fellow citizens that you are serious. Who is going to decide that somebody is a nuisance or is serious? That is where we get into difficulties. We should be looking at the relative advantages and disadvantages that already exist in our system.
The big three Parties begin election campaigns with enormous advantages. They get all the media attention, nationally, locally and regionally. A local candidate can be confident in the knowledge that he has scores and perhaps hundreds of volunteers helping to distribute pamphlets, erect signs, make phone calls and write letters and engage in all those traditional electioneering tactics. Candidates for the big three Parties have all those advantages for making their views known. The small independent candidate who decides to run on his own because he is concerned about something, cannot call upon the national press or hundreds of local volunteers.
There is one exception that I think is a constant reminder to all of us. That exception involves the independent candidate who recently ran in Broadview-Greenwood. I believe he originally ran for the Tory nomination but was then walloped by the Tory establishment and kicked out of the Tory Party. He decided not to stand for that Party and ran as an Independent candidate. He was able to attract national media attention and collect scores of volunteers and approximately twice as many votes as the official Tory candidate in that byelection.
Who would have originally decided whether he was serious or had bona fides? If we had taken the attitude of the Tory Party, that candidate, Mr. Worthington, would have been thrown out and not treated seriously as someone with bona fides.


Mr. Kempling:: Tell the truth now.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: In fact, their behaviour toward him subsequently has indicated that they see him not as a man who should be taken seriously but as one who should be kept out.
I do not believe that politics like that should decide whether an individual should put his name on a ballot. 1 do not think that we have any business making that kind of decision. If someone wants to follow the model of Mr. Worthington in Broadview-Greenwood, they should be encouraged.


William James Kempling: If you want him, you can have him.

February 16, 1983
Canada Elections Act


Douglas Glenn Fisher: The Eion. Member says if we want him, we can have him. The Liberal Party is a democratic institution and we would be more than happy to listen to more voices than just those officially sanctioned. We would be quite happy to have him. If he wants to join us, he has to pay his membership fees and prove that he is a member in good standing. That is all he has to do, because we are more than happy to open our doors to the world to attract people, rather than shutting them.
We are not afraid of a man who may have a divergent point of view. We welcome that because we find that it refreshes the Government and our Party. Mr. Worthington can come and talk to us. We were impressed by his character and perseverance. I must say that we were impressed by the fact that he is ready to carry his case right to the people and be so persuasive.
I would not want to discourage any such person who might be interested in joining us. I believe Mr. Worthington said the other day that he would consider becoming a Liberal. If John Turner ever came back to the Liberal Party, then Mr. Worthington would become a Liberal. That is fine; we are anxious to broaden our Party.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I would not be that anxious, if I were you.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: I have diverged from my theme which concerns the point raised by both the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) and the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid). Their point was that a candidate must somehow prove that he or she is serious and has bona fides. I do not believe that that is an appropriate prerequisite. I believe that a candidate must simply put his or her name forward and then let his her fellow citizens decide whether he or she should be a Member of Parliament. That should be the only test. It is not at all appropriate for us to invent new ways to slow those types of candidates down.
In whose view are these people not serious or a nuisance? Who decides this issue? I realize that some can cause problems for those who organize the all-candidate meetings. I know that they can be a nuisance to other local candidates who must wait their turn to answer a question during a meeting since there are so many candidates. I am aware that election organizers find some of these people to be a nuisance. So what?


David P. Smith: That is democracy.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: That is right. That is democracy. The Hon. Member for Don Valley East (Mr. Smith), a democrat of the first order, recognizes that principle. He has just articulated it very well.
I must say that it disturbs me when Members start deciding these questions in the House of Commons. It smacks of a great deal of self interest. We should be careful that we are not perceived to be putting up barriers in order to protect our own positions and privileges. We should ensure that these laws welcome newcomers rather than eliminating opportunities for them. I certainly do not believe that we want to be in a position where Canadians feel that we have either protected ourselves or somehow lined our pockets and added to our privileges.
Instead, we should proceed in a way that encourages trust in this institution and in our electoral system. I do not believe a $2,000 nomination barrier will pass the test of trustworthiness.
The Hon. Member for Dauphin (Mr. Lewicky) indicated what the impact of such a barrier would have in lower income areas. Beyond that, even in affluent areas such as the one in which the Hon. Member for Mississauga South lives, it would be seen as an attempt to protect the establishment and keep out newcomers. We cannot afford to give that perception of ourselves. We should be building up confidence that this is a vigorous system that welcomes everyone, including Independent Member like the Hon. Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) or the candidate who ran in Broadview-Greenwood. We should not put up barriers to their involvement. Nor should we block the public's perception of our openness.
I understand the Hon. Member for Mississauga South. I know why he has raised this question. I was with him in that crowded and excited church gymnasium when Marxist Leninists were saying, "Make the rich pay" and Libertarians were telling everyone to get off the ordinary citizen's back, and when two Independent candidates had ideas that no one could understand. Perhaps they were a nuisance that night. I know that the Member for Mississauga South had a message that he wanted to convey because I did as well. But we had to share our time with these other people. We had to compete for the audience's attention. But we were the better for it. He won his election and I won mine. Obviously, the Independents did not prove their case well enough or we would not be here.
I can understand that he was annoyed by the inconvenience he faced on his path to victory. But those others are entitled to be in his way and propose alternatives in an attempt to trip him up to see if he is good enough to be a Member of Parliament. They have the right to challenge him for that job.
I began by referring to the Charter of Rights. All of us in the House discussed and debated the Charter of Rights. We put into Clause 3 the statement that every citizen of Canada has the right to qualify for membership in the House of Commons. That is in our Charter of Rights, and I do not believe that we want to put forward ideas, seriously or flippantly, that will impede the spirit of that legislation and that great Charter.


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I had not really anticipated speaking in this debate but the words of the previous speaker so inspired and excited me and raised my interest in this subject that I feel obliged to make a few comments.
On numerous occasions I have been tempted to have a similar opinion as that of the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) that it might be advantageous if we did not have a system that lent itself to the existence of frivolous candidates. The first time I ever ran for office during an election was in 1972, and I managed to win that municipal election. However, there were 12 other candidates. I happened
February 16, 1983

to be running against a fellow who was a Nazi leader, and there were a few other very unusual candidates, to say the least. It was very frustrating to attend an all-candidates meeting, having to share time equally with 12 candidates, three-quarters of whom were not in fact what I would consider to be serious candidates.
The temptation is always there to put in place a system which would discourage people from coming forward and running, taking their chances at being elected. The problem, as has already been pointed out by several Hon. Members here today, is that in the final analysis, a truly democratic system is one which somehow strikes a balance between leaving the door open to frivolity and at the same time not making the requirements so stringent that the average Canadian, the ordinary citizen, is unable to run because he simply does not have the money to do it.
As we know, it costs money to run an election these days. We now have in place a system which provides subsidies to candidates who are able to obtain a certain percentage of the vote. However, many candidates are not in fact able to obtain a certain percentage of the vote, and therefore they do not find themselves receiving any public moneys which would be applied toward their campaign. Because of that, they are hard pressed for funds. If, in addition to the demands of their campaign costs, they must also put up a very expensive deposit along the lines which this Private Members' Bill suggests, and I believe it is $2,000, that would indeed work a hardship upon them. I think we would find that many people who would otherwise run, who might otherwise be prepared to participate in the democratic process and take their chances, would in fact be inhibited from taking their chances and putting their names and ideas before the public so that the public can make its judgment. It is a very basic reason as to why I find the Bill, although it is tempting, would not, in the final analysis, be particularly democratic.
What are some of the other considerations which would discourage non-serious candidates from running? I happen to live in an urban area which one can travel around fairly easily because of the short distances involved. However, some ridings in this country are spread out over a very large geographical territory. There are a couple of ridings in the far North, in particular, and one can travel for about 1,500 milles or 2,000 miles and still be in the same riding. We all know how expensive air travel is these days. If a candidate wants to travel around to various parts of the riding and meet all of his would-be constituents, if he has to cover the sort of expenses which would be forced upon him by virtue of the far-flung geography of such very large ridings, and if he must also come up with $2,000 in addition, this would be a very inhibiting factor. It would simply make it impossible for many average Canadians to participate in the democratic process as candidates.
Many ridings have many different towns, and each one of these towns has a newspaper. A candidate might feel obliged
Interest Act
to place an ad in each one of these newspapers. That can be a very expensive endeavour. Just start adding up the costs. 1 remember that several months after an election in which I ran,
I received a bill for $5,000. An enthusiastic supporter of mine had placed many ads in ethnic newspapers on my behalf, but he had not quite bothered to tell me that he had done this, and he had also not paid for them. Suddenly, I received a bill for $5,000 which I was not expecting. My wife was not too happy when 1 told her about it. We managed to sort it out, but it is the sort of expense which can be a tremendous financial burden to a candidate.


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


David P. Smith: I have many more points to make, Mr. Speaker, but I see that my allotted time has expired.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Pursuant to Standing Order 24(2), it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings. Shall all orders listed under Private Members' Public Bills proceeding Item No. 271 be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


INTEREST ACT
Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil) moved: that Bill C-471, to amend the Interest Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this Bill was introduced by me for first reading on May 2, 1980, almost three years ago. I want to say right at the outset that I would probably not introduce a Bill in precisely the same wording at the present time. First, let me put on the record what I was attempting to achieve back in May of 1980. If I could simply read from the Bill, which is contained in just one paragraph, it asks that the Interest Act be amended after Section 10 by adding the words, "Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other Act, a mortgagor may, during the term of the mortgage, redeem the mortgage for the amount of principal and interest then due, plus three months further interest".
I will explain the slight difference because of what has happened in the intervening three years, but the objective then, which is similar to my interest today, was to ensure that a person, for reasons not anticipated when the mortgage was signed, would be able, with a suitable penalty, to pay off the mortgage and either refinance the house or move to another house or another type of accommodation. People would have that amount of freedom.
The circumstances today are not essentially changed. Persons sign for five years and sometimes-and my office is concerned with such a case at the present time-there is what is called a three-month cancellation clause in the agreement.

February 16, 1983
Interest Act
However, in the fine print, in the case in question, it states that the three-month cancellation clause cannot come into effect during the first three years of the life of the mortgage. Thus, for good reasons, the occupant of the house is unable to refinance because, obviously, the penalty is the interest for the remaining period.
At that time it seemed to me to be unfair. Sometimes we are accused of trying to protect the consumer too much, but it must be recognized that when a person signs a legal document, there are often many pages of small print, and we cannot expect all persons to be fully aware of all the implications. I therefore thought it would be worth-while to have it written into law so that it would be possible when the circumstances required it, no matter what was written in the contract document, for a person, with a reasonable penalty, to either pay off the mortgage or refinance in many cases, and perhaps even possibly to increase the mortgage.
At that time I had a few pieces of information at my disposal which 1 want to place on the record. I noted, for example, in answers which I received to questions placed on the Order Paper, that the percentage of residential mortgage loans approved by our chartered banks had been increasing steadily through the early seventies. I do not know what the current figure is today, but it is certainly in excess of 30 per cent. I also noticed that amongst persons who owned single, detached dwellings, some 45 per cent had mortgages. I will correct that, Mr. Speaker. Some 53 per cent had a mortgage, of which 7.7 per cent had more than one mortgage. In other words, 47 per cent of single detached dwelling home owners had no mortgage.
Another interesting fact comes from Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and I find it rather astonishing. I put the following question:
What is the average delay period per housing unit between the initial default of the owner and the final acquisition by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation of properties that have insured mortgages financed by the chartered banks?
I find the answer, with respect to the last 12 month period, for which it had information, rather surprising. It was as follows:
With respect to claims paid to chartered banks ... the average time lag from the date a borrower defaults on payment until title is conveyed to CMHC under the terms of the mortgage loan insurance policies, is 414 calendar days.
That is approximately 15 months. I find that information rather incredible. Of course, in the meantime the bank is fully protected. It knows that the mortgage is insured and that it is going to be fully paid. In my opinion, the bank, then has no real interest in cleaning up this matter because eventually the amount is going to be paid to it by, of all people, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
What annoys me about this is that while Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation may be a Crown corporation, public funds are involved. I feel we should have some means by which these things could be wound up more quickly. Obviously, if a
person who wants to walk away from a difficult financial situation is unable, because of an agreement, to either refinance or pay off a mortgage through refinancing, then in the final analysis they have little choice but to walk away. It is the taxpayer, the person who put money in Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, who has to pick up the tab.
I feel that every mortgage that is insured by CMHC should have clearly spelled out options in it. I realize-and I know that this is going to be the defence-that only when moneys are lent for a long period at certain fixed interest rates, can the banks also pay high interest rates to those who are willing to lend their money and lock it in for a long period of time.
As a case in point, I happened to note this-quite unconsciously on my part-when I re-arranged my Registered Retirement Savings Plan some five years ago this month. At the time, I thought the best thing to do was to put the money into something at fixed interest rates, and I did so. Of course, within a couple of years the rates started to go up. I inquired then about a penalty in order to put the moneys into some other plan, only to find out, to my chagrin, that the money was locked in. As a matter of fact, those moneys only became free this month, five years after the date I put them into the plan and, of course, the rates have come down again.
The other side of the coin is that last summer when I had some cash available to me I was able to go to the bank when rates were very high and place those moneys at very high interest rates and lock them in for a year. That is a very nice situation and, of course, the banks were only able to give me high interest rates for five years because, in return, they were able to lend the moneys out at a fixed rate over that period of five years to someone else who was perhaps a house owner.
Despite the fact that I have both suffered and benefited from this locked-in feature, in any agreement, whether it be a RRSP or a mortgage, there should be alternatives which allow a person to assess the best way to proceed. Certainly, I feel that it is very unfair in the housing market that any home owner should be locked in for a period of five years with no alternative but to pay the full penalty, in other words, to have to pay the interest for the five year period in order to get out of the mortgage. I feel that is quite unfair. It is something that is often forced upon the poor home owner because he is not able to shop around in the ordinary sense. Very few people go from bank to bank inquiring about rates. They are very much the same no matter which bank you deal with. A lot of this is done on good faith, and when the deal is finally signed with the notary, the people are often not made aware of the full implications.
I have chosen to deal with single, detached dwellings because they serve the argument, and the figures for multidwellings and so on are not substantially different and would only complicate the issue. An answer to a question that I put to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation showed that for single detached dwellings, 38 per cent of mortgages are for $10,000 or less; 37 per cent of mortgages are for mortgages
February 16, 1983

between $10,000 and $20,000; and 17 per cent are for mortgages between $20,000 and $30,000. Those figures are quite interesting, because they indicate that a lot of home owners have mortgages-some 75 per cent-of $20,000 or less. With the present value of housing it is quite apparent that many of those home owners could refinance.
Because of the situation we have found ourselves in within the last year, I would consider it highly desirable, in some circumstances, that the homeowner should be able to refinance without substantial penalty. Take, for example, someone who has become unemployed, and that has happened to too many people in the last short while. If he had, say, a $20,000 mortgage on a house valued between $50,000 and $70,000, and was able to go to the bank and refinance, the extra money might carry him through this difficult period. There are many other reasons why a person might want to refinance a mortgage but if the penalty is the balance of the five years at whatever interest rate he is paying, then obviously he has no choice. Under those circumstances he has to find his moneys from some other source. As everyone is aware, if he goes to a bank he is likely to pay 3 or 4 or 5 points above prime rate, and so will pay a very high interest rate indeed. As well, he has a much shorter repayment term. In other words, in difficult times such as we had last year, I would consider it highly desirable that home owners have easy access to the equity in their homes. If they have built that equity up over the years, they should have access to it through taking out another mortgage. I do not mean a second mortgage because the interest rates on them are too high. I mean access by refinancing.
Earlier I spoke of a case with a three month cancellation clause. I estimated that the penalty would amount to a certain sum and that by adding this penalty to the amount of the principal outstanding and then adding the amount of the moneys necessary for the refinancing of other debts, the total package at current interest rates would result in a monthly payment which was hardly different from the amount presently being paid, but with all the problems of financing for different reasons put into one package. In other words, it would be a lot more convenient.
Because the arrangement to speak on this Bill today was discussed last week, I have not had time to draft the kind of Bill I would like to submit in the new session. It would be worded somewhat differently. 1 recognize that if interest rates for a period of five years are going to be paid to persons who have cash available, obviously those moneys will have to be lent at secured rates for long periods.
Nevertheless, I do not think that we here should be worried about trying to solve the problems of our chartered banks. Let them adjust to the circumstances and let them not do it at the expense of the home owner. While in detail there may be some omissions in this Bill because it is now some three years since I first submitted it, I submit that the intent is clear. I somehow doubt whether this Bill will go into committee for study, but if it should, any difficulties that one might have because of the changed situation today could be looked after by amendments.
Interest Act
The principle remains the same. There should be an option in all mortgages insured by CMHC allowing a home owner to refinance with a reasonable penalty. My suggestion is that that should be three months' interest.


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, my contribution will not be long. However, there are two or three matters I want to deal with in connection with this Bill. First, all mortgages, certainly those that are insured by Crown corporations, should have an escape clause whereby a person can pay off the mortgage at any time without penalty. I do not understand why a person who has the money should be penalized. If he borrowed $100,000 one or two years earlier and he has paid the interest during that time; if he suddenly has enough money to pay off the mortgage, why should there be a penalty? He is giving back the whole principal plus the interest, which he has already paid. I cannot follow this penalty business. Every mortgage should have an escape clause so that it can be paid off without a penalty.
Second, this Bill may help some people. The Hon. Member mentioned one case. However, it will be used rarely. I have no objection to the Bill, but I wish it had tackled some of the real problems of interest today, those that worry the home owners, farmers and businessmen. There is no end to what could have been put into the Bill.
We recently had a visit from Ontario farmers belonging to the Canadian Farm Survival Group. A farmer and his wife visited my office. They told me the bank had taken over their farm. In fact, the bank was considering whether to allow them to continue living there. Although the bank had sold some of their chattels, it would not give a report on how much it made. It was complete arrogance. When a bank exercises its rights under a chattel mortgage or similar instrument, it should be required by law to show that that money has been applied to the principal and how much.
I was delighted to read of a number of farmers in Ontario who are fed up with the high-handedness of some banks. One man's chattels were being sold. I do not know whether they included cattle, but they did include his machinery, whatever he needed to make a living. The other farmers bid ridiculously low prices, such as $2 or $3 for a tractor, combine or seeder, and then turned it back to the farmer. That is being real neighbourly. I do not see anything wrong with it. They were endeavouring to give that man back the instruments he required.
If the bank takes away the farmer's means of livelihood, how can he possibly pay off his mortgage? The banks are simply confiscating these farms. After a lot of hard work and worry, this man is losing his equity. That is not fair to the farmer.
When I was a teacher in a rural district during the early thirties, I recall an insurance company taking over a farm. One day the youngsters came to school crying because they had been ordered to get out of the house. The insurance company did not care where they went. They simply told them to get out and leave everything the way it was.

February 16, 1983
Interest Act
I looked into that case. In the latter part of the war, the farmer had borrowed money. His wife had tuberculosis. In those days free treatment was not available. Money was not as important as saving his wife's life. Therefore, he borrowed money to take her to doctors for treatment. She could not be cured; she died.
At the time the farmer borrowed the money he thought he would be able to repay it bushel for bushel. When he was kicked off the farm, he had already repaid the debt three times, but still owed as much as he had originally borrowed. Can anyone tell me that is fair? That is completely unfair.
At that time there was a Social Credit Government-I was not a member-headed by the late Premier Eberhart. He established a moratorium so that people would have time to pay their debts. As well, he established the debt adjustment board. In about 1934, federal legislation was introduced by the Bennett Government whereby an independent referee could review loans and payments. If the referee determined that there was good faith on the part of the farmer, the farm was not to be taken away. In fact, under the Alberta legislation, the Creditors' Arrangements Act, it could reduce the sum. Unfortunately, that was a year or two too late for the farmer I have been talking about. After having repaid the debt two and one-half or three times over he was kicked off the farm.
What did the farmer do? He took a granary on skids and moved it to another farmer's property. He could not take any of his equipment. After a lifetime of work, everything was taken from him. He was ruthlessly kicked off his farm. The insurance company had the gall to threaten him with a lawsuit if he did not take the granary back. They were vicious about it. Thank goodness legislation was introduced after that which saved others from a similar situation. Scores of farmers with viable farm operations in Alberta would have lost their farms had the legislation not been introduced at that time. The Farmers' Creditors' Arrangement Act and the debt adjustment legislation in the Province of Alberta and the moratorium saved their farms and they were able to get a proper settlement. In some cases it was reduced, and there were some cases where the farmer had not played the game, and the Debt Adjustment Board knew what to do with these farmers also. But most of them had played the game in economic conditions over which they had no control. When you have a system which is going to make you pay your debt two and three times over and still owe as much as you borrow, how can any ordinary person overcome that?
I would like to say to the Hon. Member that I wish something like that had been put in the Bankruptcy Act which we have before us. It is useless to anyone who is in difficulty today. We need the Farmers' Creditors' Arrangement Bill, or something to that effect, attached to it so that it would have some teeth in it, some way of settling these matters in a fair and equitable way. These are the things which are worrying me. Farmers are being kicked off their farms and losing their entire equity.
We may think it is a joke and say that the farmers brought it on themselves. Well, the farmers in many, many cases did not bring it on themselves. It was brought about by economic conditions over which they have no control. For instance, the sudden rise of interest rates a short time ago completely changed the picture. People who had bought homes and had to renew the mortgage at a rate which was way beyond their wages, the farmer whose farm cost him far beyond the produce which he could sell, the picture was changed for them. The banks did not play very fair, either. A farmer from Ontario, well educated in agriculture, expanded his operations just before the interest rates started to climb. He wanted to have something for his family, and he bought an old farm. And then the interest rates went up. The banker had said to him when he mortgaged the property. "Don't worry, we'll see you through on this. We'll give you time if there is a rise in interest rates. We'll play fair with you." The bank manager was then moved away and the new bank manager had no heart at all, no interest except in getting that land or getting that money, without any fairness at all attached to it.
I wish, Mr. Speaker, we had some legislation to protect these people. They need protection. That is what we should be doing in this country, protecting our farmers who have equity in the land who are playing the game. We need to have our homes protected so we are not kicked out on the street so that the money lenders can receive their full supply of money. Certainly, we want to be fair to those who are caught in the trap. Let us not give all our sympathies to the people who have all the money and forget about those having tough times because of conditions which they had no part in bringing about.
1 wish, Mr. Speaker, we could have some changes like that, then I could get enthusiastic about this Bill. I cannot now get enthusiastic about it. I suppose the Government will talk it out anyway innocuous as it is. However, 1 am not going to worry about that on this Bill. I will worry about it with some other Bills. But if this Bill had some teeth in it to help those having a tough time meeting their payments, then I would be very, very concerned.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, it is always stimulating to listen to the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) who, this afternoon, was retreating, and I welcome this retreat, into the views which he must have held in his earlier days as a Social Creditor in Alberta. I am always pleased to listen to the Hon. Member for Bow River go after the banks, because the more he talks, the more he sounds like one of that great socialist horde upon which he heaps so much abuse in so many of his other speeches in the House. Unfortunately, we do not have full opportunity to go into it, but I wonder how the Hon. Member for Bow River fits his view of the banks into his general philosophy of free enterprise and into the general conspiracy theory about world socialism, which so many of his colleagues subscribe to. It would be interesting if at some time the Hon. Member would expand on that for us.
February 16, 1983

2291 1
I was certainly moved by the sympathy which the Hon. Member displayed for farmers who are the victims of certain economic circumstances beyond their control. What is unfortunate is that the Hon. Member, and many others of the political tradition which he represents, have not been able to muster the same sympathy for workers who are the victims of economic circumstances which are beyond their control. When seen through the Conservative mind, there is something noble about farmers rebelling against economic circumstances which have been imposed upon them. I agree. I believe it is noble and 1 believe it is called for, but yet through the minds of the farmers, there seems to be something ignoble about workers rebelling against the economic circumstances which have been imposed upon them from beyond, whether it be from the metropolis to the hinterland, whether it is the banks moving in on them, or whatever the circumstances might be.
I believe this is one of the unfortunate divisions within the country, that so often a distinction has been made between the economic problems of the agricultural community and the economic problems of workers in industry in our cities. This is the gap which the political tradition, out of which 1 consider myself to come, tried to bridge, and, indeed, did bridge in many respects in 1933 through a coalition of farmers and workers and, of course others, in the formation of the CCF. That Party wanted to overcome the false distinction between the problems which farmers faced as a result of economic decisions made from afar, and the problems that workers faced as a result of economic decisions made from afar. 1 just wanted to say to the Hon. Member for Bow River.
I, like others, support the principle of the Bill. Certainly, people should have more opportunity to get out of mortgages which they signed at a time of high interest rates, now that interest rates have gone down. It seems to me to be absolutely criminal, Mr. Speaker, that these people are in the position in which they are, that all their disposable income, and indeed in some cases more income than they actually have, has to go toward paying interest, and they end up after the period of time is over having paid only a very minimal sum on the principal. I, myself, had the good fortune in 1978 to sign a five-year mortgage. I am only paying, I believe, 1014 per cent or 1016 per cent, and am amazed at how little I have paid on the principal in the last four and a half years.
This is something, Mr. Speaker, which I believe is at the root of the problems in our economic system, that people must pay out so much for so little. I believe it is a sign of a complete breakdown of economic morality in this country. And 1 would like to remind the Hon. Member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) and the Hon. Member for Bow River that the New Democratic Party moved amendments to the Bank Act in the summer of 1980 which would have had the effect of doing what both these Hon. Members have stood up in this House and said they support. But we did not receive the support of those Hon. Members at that time. Indeed, if you will recall that debate, the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party together voted many, many times against NDP amendments, one of which would have had the effect of outlawing penalties on prepayment of loans and preventing the banks from calculating
Interest Act
interest in such a way as to assure them of a windfall in the event of early payment.
These are the kinds of things we tried to bring in at the time we were reconsidering the Bank Act. And that is not something we get to do very often. The Bank Act only comes up for amendment once every ten years if we are lucky, and my Liberal and Conservative colleagues blew it at that time. They co-operated to vote against our amendments, I wanted to bring that to the attention of the House and all those who are interested in this issue. Whether the Hon. Member for Bow River likes it or not, when it comes to the Bank Act and banking in this country, the Liberals and the Conservatives are of one mind. They demonstrated this on some 20 to 30 votes at that time, if my memory serves me correctly. That is something to keep in mind.
While we are talking about high interest rates, another thing to keep in mind is that the Liberals and the Conservatives, if what I am told is correct and I believe it to be correct, again co-operated back in 1966 when we saw the beginning of this problem. The Liberals and Conservatives allowed themselves to be fooled by the argument that if they took off the 6 per cent limit, the competitive market place, which Members to my right are always foaming at the mouth about, would provide lower interest rates. The banks would be competing with each other in the money markets, interest rates would go down, and what a wonderful thing this new deregulation of interest rates would be. What a wonderful economic gift to the Canadian people it would be. Well, we all know what happened, Mr. Speaker. You can hardly say the control which a small number of banks in this country exercise over the economy is a sort of laboratory of free enterprise.
So what happened, Mr. Speaker? Interest rates climbed and climbed and climbed. At that time we opposed the fundamental and far reaching change in credit policy which I am referring to. At the request of the chartered banks which were seeking to break into the mortgage lending, consumer loans and credit card business, usury laws were abolished. I think that was a big mistake, not just economically but also conceptually. I tend to have perhaps an old-fashioned view of this. I take the view that the notion of usury should have been maintained and that we have gone too far down the road toward morally neutralizing various things like interest rates.


Mr. Evans:: The Small Loans Act was there until 1980.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: So in 1966, for the first time in Canadian history, there was no statutory limit on the rate of interest which could be charged on bank loans. Now, we said at that time that a more sensitive and socially responsible alternative would have been, if you are going to do that, to impose limits on all lending institutions rather than eliminating them completely. But we were not listened to. There have been many occasions over the years when we have not been listened to in the House, when we predicted something was going to happen

February 16, 1983
Interest Act
if you did this, and everybody said: You are wrong. But we turned out to be right. This is one of the many cases where we have turned out to be right. No one can get up and deny that since 1966 interest rates have risen dramatically. The cost of money has risen dramatically. The kind of competition envisaged at that time did not materialize and the Canadian people have not benefited from that change.


John Leslie Evans: You voted to repeal the Small Loans Act in 1980, which took interest rate ceilings off credit unions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. Members should not interrupt the Member who has the floor, and Members should only speak from their seat.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, that is one of the reasons I did not bother to answer the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans), because he was not in his seat. But he does refer to what was done in 1980 with regard to the Small Loans Act, and I know the reason why and he knows the reason why. It is because the credit unions were being hurt by high interest rates. I make no apologies for our support for that change. It does not take away from the substance of my argument in the least.
What we need to do at this time, Mr. Speaker, is to look behind the problem of whether or not people can get out of these mortgages, to the whole financial system in this country and the need for more regulation of the banks in the public interest. That is the kind of direction in which we tried to move this Parliament in the summer of 1980. We believed then that the Act as it was proposed did nothing to protect consumers and small businessmen. It enhanced corporate concentration. It was an Act written to benefit the banks, not the people of Canada. We suggested some amendments, and I would just like to go over them for the record before I sit down so the Government can have the pleasure of talking out this Bill.
We suggested that the Minister of Finance be given the responsibility to monitor the fairness of all interest rates and charges and roll back any unjustifiable increases and charges of any kind by a bank, including credit cards. We opposed the introduction of foreign banks into Canada. We wanted complete information on the cost of loans to consumers and any other bank customers. We wanted to outlaw, as I said before, any penalties on prepayment of loans and prevent the banks from calculating interest in such a way as to ensure them a windfall in the event of an early payment. We wanted to provide for a complete code of financial disclosure and accountability by the banks. We wanted to stop the banks from taking over certain areas of small business such as car leasing and computer data processing. We wanted to give protection to many farmers and cattlemen in the event of a customer being unable to pay for produce. Finally, we said, either we make the banks accountable to the public or we give them a blank cheque to control large sections of the economy. That blank cheque is exactly what Liberal and Conservative Members who spoke today, and their respective caucuses signed in the summer of 1980 when they co-operated against
the NDP to pass that Bank Act without the NDP amendments offered at that time.


Mr. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put on the record that those amendments to the Bank Act regarding the protection of produce in transit where the purchaser has been taken over by the bank were proposed and passed by the Government, and it was Government Members, along with other Members of the committee, who turned back the banks from getting involved in consumer leasing. I must say, though, that I am quite disappointed after hearing these remarks from the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) that his Party did not see fit to have someone attend the meetings which are held during the month of September in the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. We heard witnesses from across Canada, and a lot of these ideas were discussed at that time.
However, I want to get back to the Private Members' Bill we are discussing here tonight. I want to commend the Hon. Member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) on bringing forward his proposal. I do not believe, however, he goes far enough. I fully realize that there are two sides to such an issue and that two parties have to get together to sign an agreement or to sign a mortgage-the borrower and the lender. Just yesterday 1 received a letter from a businessman in my area who took out a $200,000 mortgage a couple of years ago at 18.25 per cent interest. Now he has found funds at a lower interest rate and the lender wants a $20,000 prepayment penalty to pay off the mortgage. He cannot possibly raise that amount of money at the present time. Therefore, he is faced with either going into receivership or trying to sell off some of his assets to pay the prepayment penalty in order to remortgage at a lower rate.
I can well understand the frustration which faces someone like this, but I believe that there is a responsibility on both sides. Rather than having a maximum three-month penalty on prepayment, perhaps there should be something related to the interest rate on the Small Business Bond. Perhaps the banks could accept a three-month penalty at half the bank prime rate plus 2 per cent, which would cut the penalty being asked of this particular gentleman to about $4,500 instead of $20,000. We must realize that when the particular trust company made the mortgage, it was investing someone's fund. In turn, it was committed to a five-year term certificate or some certificate tied to a fixed interest rate. Consequently, it could not very well get off the hook without some form of compensation. I believe that both sides should contribute and suffer the loss.
I would like to go further than just this particular area. I believe we have to re-examine what is happening in the business sector, particularly in the small business and agricultural sectors about which we have heard so much in the last few days. I should like to refer to the series of meetings which took place in September when the Canadian Chamber of Commerce appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. It made a proposal that if we were to look at the adjustments to the capital gains tax
February 16, 1983

structure as such, perhaps we should look at the length of tenure or ownership and relate taxes on that basis. This would catch the windfall speculator and give a break to those people who have invested their lifetime savings back into a particular business or farm. That is one alternative which I believe is very practical and workable.
The other alternative is to apply indexation to capital gains tax. At the present time farm values have decreased between 25 per cent and 30 per cent over the last year or year and a half. Perhaps it is an opportune time to take a look at the possibility of applying indexation to capital gains tax so that we are not taxing away a person's retirement fund but are keeping pace with inflation and protecting the investment for which he worked so hard over the years and which he put back into his operation.
Another area at which we should take a look in these difficult times was mentioned before in the House-the fact that Canadians are regarded as great savers. In 1981 they salted away something like $17 billion worth of personal savings. It is required in today's economy; it is required for small-businessmen and farmers. We should take a look at what could be done with that money if we ensured that it was well secured for the investor. Normally when a businessman or farmer sells, he tries to reinvest the funds in guaranteed term certificates or something that he knows will give him security in his retirement years and allow him the freedom and type of pleasures which perhaps he did not enjoy during his lifetime of labour.
In this particular area we should look at the possibility of investment incentives to private individuals investing in fixed capital assets. There is no reason that a businessman who sells out to his son could not take back a mortgage. I remember that was the way it was when I started farming. A private individual gave me a mortgage, and if I could not make a payment on principal the first year, he was lenient and said, "You will have a better year next year; give me the money when you can". We did this, but in those days we did not have the huge investments of today, although we had tough times.
We should look at the private investor and bear in mind that when a businessman goes to the bank for a small-business loan, or a farmer goes for a farm improvement loan, it is Government guaranteed. We should do the same for private investors on fixed capital assets. For example, if a son wanted to take over a farm from his father, the father could take back a mortgage and know that his investment was secure. I realize that there would have to be some mechanism to protect the public interest and to ensure that the Government was not loaded up with a bunch of bad debts. We have that mechanism in the field at the present time. We have it through the CASE workers in the Federal Business Development Bank. They are experienced businessmen, most of them retired, and they know a good investment when they see it. Also, we have that mechanism through Farm Credit Corporation supervisors. This is a vehicle through which we could enhance the investment climate for the small investor who would like to assist a son, a
Interest Act
daughter or another member of the family to become established in business. This is only one additional step at which we could look. We could go even further. For example, if they are willing to take back mortgages at interest rates lower than the prevailing rate, we should also look at the possibility of giving them a break on income tax payable on interest earned.
We should bear in mind that we are doing this for the banks through the Small Business Bond. They are paying half the bank prime rate plus 2 per cent or 3 per cent. Why should it not be available to the private investor, if it would help a young person to get started with his farm or small business? I believe such an opportunity would bring out a lot of that investment capital which we sorely need in today's economy.
These are the areas at which we have to look, in addition to the proposal of the Hon. Member for Vaudreuil. I wish to express my appreciation to the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) for his comments on the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act and the amendments incorporated in Bill C-653. I tried to incorporate a prepayment penalty ceiling which I believed was fair and reasonable to both borrowers and lenders.
Consequently, as we look at these various measures, I think mechanisms can be put in place to help those in need, particularly those in the small-business, farming and fisheries sectors. In way of a brief recap, I am talking about readjusting the prepayment penalties to a more reasonable level; changes in the capital gains tax structure, either those suggested by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce or through indexation; investment incentives to private investors, small businesses and agricultural operations on fixed capital assets; and assisting young people to become established in businesses of their choice.
These measures alone are not sufficient. We have come through a severe period of high interest rates, low commodity prices, and a recession which has gripped most countries of the western world. In view of the fact that commodity prices are very low at the present time, these measures alone, which we have discussed so far, will not solve the problem and give the long-term security required in this sector. Look at the opportunities available to us. Other countries view Canada as a stable nation, a nation to be trusted which is not one of the super powers. There is a feeling in other parts of the world of wanting to deal with Canada. Many nations do not want to become obligated to one of the super powers.
In this context, I want to point to the various farm organizations and the type of security they enjoy when the economy is booming. It reflects back to other sectors of the small business world, to the allied industries that supply their equipment and other needs of the farming sector. If we are going to bring that type of stability into this area, then we need to have other mechanisms in place. I am referring here to a piece of legislation that is before the House at the present time a waiting report stage and third reading. Bill C-85 will provide a mechanism that has been asked for by the farm organizations of

February 16, 1983
Interest Act
Canada. It will open up new markets for Canada and it will open the way for long-term contractual arrangements with other countries, that will in turn lead to the stability required in the world today. Other countries are looking for long-term security in terms of food supply. We as Canadians, through the farm organizations that we have, can supply it to them and bring about the security and the cash flow required in these operations that are so severely affected today.
I want to commend the Hon. Member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) on the intentions behind his Bill. 1 do not think it goes far enough and if we can take it further through some amendments it will be a Bill that will provide us the type of security needed today.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate Hon. Members on this side who have spoken so clearly on issues involving home owners and farmers. These issues bother all of us. We all want to find the answers they have been seeking. However, a great deal of the problem is being solved because we see interest rates dropping so dramatically. Interest rates are dropping to a great extent, in response to the confidence created by the Government's six and five program.


Mr. Nickerson:: You have to be joking.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: The six and five program is working. That has to be good news for every home owner, every farmer, every senior citizen and every businessman. Everyone has to be happy that interest rates are coming down, that inflation is coming down and that the six and five program is beginning to have a real impact in this country. That is good news for all of us.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Let us take a look at some specifics. Mortgage rates are now less than 12 per cent. In fact, they are almost down to 11 per cent. The prime rate today fell to the lowest level it has been since 1978. The prime rate is now 11.5 per cent. Newspaper writers are telling us that that rate will continue to drop, that this is just one sign of more good news.


David P. Smith: Happy days are here again.


William James Kempling: With two million people unemployed you are saying happy days are here again?


Douglas Glenn Fisher: We are seeing Canada's trade balance continue on a very strong level. We are seeing our dollar respected and held up at high levels on the international market. We are seeing renewed strength coming back in retail sales, a sign that consumer confidence is being rebuilt. These are all indicators of a coming recovery, a recovery that was first started by the Government's six and five program.


An Hon. Member:: How can you believe that?


Douglas Glenn Fisher: The key to all of this good news is that inflation is coming down. We have seen inflation drop more than 2 per
cent since the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) gave his economic statement.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order 24(2). Shall all orders listed under Private Members' Public Bills preceding No. 137 be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


FEDERAL TRANSPORT COMMISSION OF INQUIRY ACT
J. Michael Forrestall: that Bill C-337, to provide for the constitution of a Federal Transport Commission of Inquiry (impartial investigation of transport accidents), be read the second time and be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport.
He said: Mr. Speaker, what a delight it is to see so many Hon. Members sitting there on the other side.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


J. Michael Forrestall: I am pleased to see you here. What a way to attract an audience.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


J. Michael Forrestall: The matter that I had the privilege to introduce for the tenth time in the House is no small matter.


An Hon. Member:: Let's hear it.


J. Michael Forrestall: Look at you bumbling idiots. You should be out to dinner.


An Hon. Member:: They are out to lunch.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. The Hon. Member should address his remarks to the Chair.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


J. Michael Forrestall: We know why you are here, Mr. Speaker. I wonder why there are so many of them over there.
This is a very serious matter. This is the tenth time that I have introduced the House a measure that would have the effect of removing every semblance of the appearance of conflict of interest in the broad question of accident investigation in this country. In the western world Canada remains one of the few countries which has not long ago taken the prudent step of separating from those agencies responsible for the

February 16, 1983

promulgation of regulations the responsibility for investigating accidents that occur within the ambit of these very regulations.
We have seen conflict. We have felt the consequences of that conflict. Yesterday in St. John's, Newfoundland, a memorial service was held for the men who lost their lives on the Ocean Ranger. Let me suggest at the outset that had the concept of my Bill, currently Bill C-337, been accepted by Government when it was introduced some ten years ago, the conflict that exists today would never have occurred. There would have been jurisprudence. There would have been a basis from which to proceed with a legally constituted inquiry. We all know what the difficulties are.
Let me review the situation for a moment so that Hon. Members over there will be aware. Going back to the days when the present Speaker of the other place was Minister of Transport, he agreed in principle to the establishment of a multi-model, independent, impartial commission of investigation. In those days we linked it as well to the principles of an impartial safety board. Without going into the events in great detail, I will put this on the record. I suggest Members read the debates surrounding Bill C-66. As well, there were Bills C-85, C-33, C-226, C-109, C-344, C-40, C-473 and presently Bill C-337. We are given to understand that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) will shortly bring before the House his own version that will apply to aviation accidents. If we are to believe that the Government followed the recommendations of Justice Dubin's Report, the Board to be established will ensure impartiality with respect to safety and particularly with respect to investigation. That Board will report to this Chamber through a Minister other than the Minister of Transport. Therefore, since I have no reason to believe otherwise, I trust that the Minister's piece of legislation will, in fact, be impartial.
If Members read Justice Dubin's first volume, which was written as a result of the findings of the Commission that was established by the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazan-kowski) when he was Minister of Transport three years ago, and compare it with the subject matter of Bill C-337, they will find them to be essentially identical. In other words, it involves the commonsense principle, which was agreed to by a succession of Ministers of Transport, starting with the Hon. Jean Marchand, now Speaker of the Senate, up to and including the present Minister of Transport, that what is good for air safety is good for the marine mode, the surface mode, pipelines and every form of transportation in this country that falls within the ambit of federal regulations.
It is shortsighted to establish a board that deals with only one mode of transportation. It is a waste of time of the House. Beyond that, it constitutes a further delay in ridding the image of conflict of interest in Canada. When we see the legislation we will know how the Government will pursue evidence from across the border relating to that. We will understand quite clearly what the Government is doing. It began this procedure in 1968. We are now in 1983. Why do we have this delay?
Transport Accidents
Why do we permit ourselves to be viewed with mistrust and suspicion by countries like Britain, United States, Australia, West Germany, Japan, New Zealand and Norway because of the conflict that we continue to permit to surround the investigation of transportaiton accidents in our country?
My Bill is straightforward and seizes itself with the necessity of eliminating that conflict. It comes as a result of an expressed concern throughout the transportation industry in Canada, including aviation, marine, rail, interprovincial pipelines and interprovincial trucking. It flowed from a concern expressed by those interested communities that this Parliament should take some time to review the situation and produce legislation which would eliminate that appearance of conflict of interest.
We have not seen that legislation. As I said, we would not even have had Justice Dubin's recommendations had it not been for the distinguished Member for Vegreville during his tenure as Minister of Transport. When we did get Justice Dubin's Report all that we saw done was the setting up of an ad hoc committee to study it. I would remind Hon. Members that one of the people named to that committee was the then Air Administrator, Mr. Walter McCleish, who in fact was the very subject of an extraordinary amount of criticism by Mr. Justice Dubin in his first and second volumes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I apologize for interrupting the Hon. Member. The noise level in the House has risen to quite some degree. I wonder if Hon. Members would hold their conversations somewhere else so we can listen to the Hon. Member who has the floor.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I do not blame them when they are over there wondering what in the name of the Lord they are doing here when they all have other things they would sooner be doing, except that if they are out of here they know what I will do to them in three minutes' time. They will sit there and yack among themselves-


An Hon. Member:: What are you going to do?


J. Michael Forrestall: -and not listen to one of the most important principles that has been in front of the House for 15 years and concerns the whole field of transportation. Do they want to continue this conflict of interest? Do you think it is right, Mr. Speaker, to remove the appearance of conflict of interest with regard to air transportation and let it remain with marine transportation, surface transportation, rails and pipelines? Is that correct? They very principles that we have from Justice Dubin are applicable to all these other areas. Why are we not doing the same thing for marine transportation?


Mr. Chenier:: You are laughing.


J. Michael Forrestall: Listen young man, I am not laughing about this. I have spent 12 years of my life being involved in this issue. Why do you not get up and promote something worthwhile for this country?


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

February 16, 1983
Transport Accidents


J. Michael Forrestall: Get your Minister to do something worthwhile in this Chamber. You have neither the intelligence nor the character to do it.


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: Have some respect for the Chair.


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


J. Michael Forrestall: Do not tell me that I am laughing at my own work, young man.


An Hon. Member:: Sit down, blabbermouth.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) has the floor. Our standing orders provide that when a Member has been recognized to make a speech, he should not be interrupted. The Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, not one of them over there can stand up in the Chamber and point to one single thing that they have ever done. I have been promoting a good idea for 12 years. Do you want to know why it has been rejected over those years? Do you want to know why it continues to be rejected today? It is because it is a good idea and makes common sense. It will help the transportation industry and help the public image of Canada. It was rejected because it came from the Conservative side of the House. We thought of it first, so they do not want to implement it.
Simply because those Members appear to be interested at last, perhaps I will move a motion. Pursuant to Standing Order
8(4)(a) I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby):
That the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of adjournment for the purpose of continuing consideration of Bill C-337, an Act to provide for the constitution of a Federal Transport Commission of Inquiry, on the second reading stage.
I commend that motion to Members of the House. Let us see them put their money where their mouth is.


An Hon. Member:: Sit down, blabblermouth.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: All those who oppose the motion will please rise.
And more than 25 Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Pursuant to Standing Order 8(4)(b), the motion is deemed to have been negatived.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it could be noted that the Hon. Members on the Tory side are ready to stay and fool around tonight, but they were not ready to talk about the Income Tax Act last night.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 2(1).
At 6 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, February 17, 1983