1983-03-02

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval):: Madam Speaker, I would like to recall that in the Quebecair case, the plan to merge Nordair and Quebecair fell through as a result of action taken by Minister Bernard Landry. Today, I want to denounce the attitude of the Minister of Transport, Michel Clair, who at the first meeting of the Parliamentary Committee on Quebecair threatened to use nationalization-in fact, the Government already owns 87 per cent-in a bid to save the airline. The Minister preferred to use threats and ultimatums instead of approaching the case from a strictly economic point of view.
Madam Speaker, I feel this attitude is absurd and highly unreasonable, and it is, once again, typical of these frustrated people who base their thinking on the nationalistic principles derived from a separatist, Parti Quebecois party line.
Madam Speaker, I think it is positively abhorrent to use the Commission's first meeting to play on people's sentiments this way instead of taking a strictly economic approach. The atmosphere in Quebec is permeated by this separatist virus, and as a result, the death knell is sounding for the economic sector in Quebec. In fact, the same philosophy is reflected in higher sales taxes, the highest gas prices in North America, an uncertain political climate and on top of it all, the highest income taxes in Canada. In this connection, Normand Girard wrote in one of the morning papers: The Quebec tax authorities-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


PETRO-CANADA INCREASE IN ESTIMATES FOR 1983-84
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, in 1979 the then Conservative Government, recognizing among other things the potential loss of parliamentary control that Crown corporations represented, attempted either to justify or to dispose of many of these entities. A month ago the Auditor General made the self same point.
The Government, being interested not in parliamentary control but in its own unfettered power, has chosen to move in the opposite direction. Now it plans to pump another $368 million into our old favourite, Petro-Canada, in the coming fiscal year, which is up 272 per cent over current year spending. So much for six and five. Clearly, six and five is only for employees and pensioners. This will bring Government investment in Petro-Canada up to almost $5 billion. Can anyone here imagine a company in the private sector coming into the marketplace with financing of $5 billion?
What has this $5 billion of taxpayers' money bought? Some new signs for already existing service stations and the muscling in on already existing drilling permits. Can there be any wonder that the private sector, like most of the private citizenry of this once favoured nation, has given up all confidence and even hope in this discredited, tottering Government?


PENSIONS
Mr. David Weatherhead (Scarborough West):: Madam Speaker, yesterday the House of Commons agreed to form an all-party task force on pension reform. It will examine our Government proposals in the Green Paper called "Better Pensions for Canadians", including reference to income protection in private plans, survivor benefits, expanding mandatory pension arrangements, financing the CPP, and overcoming special pension problems of women, including homemakers.
I believe that pension reform is the most essential social reform before us today. Liberal Governments over the last 30 years have brought in Old Age Security, Guaranteed Income Supplement, spousal allowance, and the Canada Pension Plan. They provide an income security base for our seniors, but many difficulties still exist in the public and, in particular, the private pension plans, regarding financing, vesting, portability, income protection and survivor benefits. The task force will examine the Green Paper and other recent reports and proposals on pension reform; will retain expert advisers; will hold hearings in Ottawa and across Canada open to all interested groups, and will report by the end of 1983.
I am confident that our Liberal Government, with the cooperation of the Provinces and private sector, will introduce significant pension reform legislation shortly thereafter.

March 2, 1983


S O. 21 HEALTH HEPATITIS IN NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
Mr, Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, yesterday a CP wire story focused on hepatitis in the Northwest Territories, citing that in Fort Rae, for example, 61 per cent of the people tested showed evidence of infection and 12 per cent of these were active carriers-60 times the national average. This is common knowledge to people who live in the Territories where diseases such as hepatitis and amoebic dysentry, which are more often associated with Third World countrie, are endemic.
Medical experts agree that the battle against these diseases will not be won until public sanitation systems can be upgraded to the standards of southern Canada.
In his speech to the Liberal Convention last November, the Prime Minister said, "We will put in place a national program to rebuild our communities" and "there are roads to be built and sewers to be constructed." Let him now keep to his word and work closely with the municipal and territorial Governments to build these desperately needed sewer systems so that our children no longer will be obliged to play amongst the barrels and bags of human excrement which line the streets of northern communities, awaiting collection.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Madam Speaker, 1 would like to state categorically today that I was amazed at the weakness of Resolution L-18 that was tabled by the Canadian delegation to the Human Rights Commission in Geneva this past week. It is about El Salvador but does not mention the real causes of the problems in El Salvador. It does not call on all foreign Governments to stop sending arms to that country, and it does not call for dialogue and negotiations.
In light of these matters the Holy Father, Pope John II, is visiting that region of the world this week. He is attempting to bring about some kind of peaceful solution to the whole area, but at the same time President Reagan of the United States is calling for $60 million more in military aid to El Salvador, as well as trying to increase the number of military advisers in the country.
Secretary Schultz of the United States has likewise, in a most insensitive way, attacked the Church, and particularly Archbishop Arturo Rivera y Damas, recently appointed Archbishop of El Salvador, for the position that the Archbishop holds which calls for dialogue.
Therefore I call upon the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) to make our voices heard in the United States
against such action, and, at the same time, to join together with the Governments of Mexico, France and Venezuela, and all others who are attempting to bring about peace in that region.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

[ Translation]


CANADA WINTER GAMES IN SAGUENAY-LAC-SAINT-JEAN REGION
Mr. Marcel Dionne (Chicoutimi):: Madam Speaker, the 1983 Canada Winter Games closing ceremonies will take place this evening, and I believe that it is fitting that we should draw the attention of the House to the fact that something like 2,000 Canadian athletes from our ten provinces and two territories have taken part in this sporting event. The Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area has hosted the 1983 Canada Winter Games. Close to 5,000 volunteers from the four host cities, namely Chicoutimi, Jonquiere, Alma and Ville de la Baie, devoted their time and energy to ensure the success of that great sporting event.
The Right Hon. the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) attended the opening ceremonies, and he was impressed, as was the public at large, by the show which featured 410 singers, dancers, musicians and entertainers of my region. The 1983 Canada Winter Games were nothing less than the celebration of amateur sports, Canadian unity, and friendship between youths. As well, the Games did contribute to bringing our people closer together while fostering a spirit of cooperation and unity among all public associations of the area. The Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) (Mr. Perrault) has played a leading role in the organization of the Games. The organizers, the participants and especially the volunteers at all levels are to be commended for their contributions.
Finally, I am convinced that the flame of the Canada Games which will be put out in Chicoutimi this evening will be lit anew in four years with as much-

[English\


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, following the release of the Dubin Report, the Department of Transport began a campaign to ensure that every regulation which governed the air industry, and especially the helicopter industry, was complied with to the letter. Rather than attempting to ensure compliance from all sectors
March 2, 1983

of the industry, it is the small operator who is being scrutinized, and special care is given to persecute those in the helicopter industry. As a consequence many are finding themselves in court on charges of a very minor or technical nature for practices which have been followed for years. At the beginning of January alone, there were fifteen such cases in British Columbia.
The situation has deteriorated to such an extent that the viability of small businesses governed by the air carrier regulations is seriously jeopoardized. Why is it that just the small-businessman is being scrutinized, and why is it that the Department only became concerned over possible minor violations after the Dubin Report was released?
To date no progress has been made in reaching a conciliation. The Department, in its mailed first approach, is forcing the independent operator into oblivion. Due to the total insecurity which exists in the industry, applicants cannot even bid for contracts simply because they do not know whether their applications for licences will be approved. Even so, applications are four months behind in processing. As a result the large firms are seizing the small contracts in coastal communities, which were traditionally the preserve of the small operator.
When the economy picks up, these small communities-


Madam Speaker:: Order.


PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, two weeks ago the Conference Board of Canada came out in its latest quarterly provincial economic forecast with the tragic prediction that our economy would grow by only 1.2 per cent in 1983. But even more shocking, Madam Speaker, if you can imagine it, is the fact that the growth rate in Saskatchewan will be 0.4 per cent, or about one-third of the national average. That is lower than any other Province in Canada.
In 1981 Saskatchewan had the highest growth rate in Canada, but after only eight short months of a Tory Government in that Province it has fallen from number one to number ten.


Mr. Epp:: Try Manitoba for size.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Tory times are tough times. I see the Tories are objecting.
Another interesting fact is that bankruptcies are up by 116 per cent in eight months; unemployment has gone up from 4.6 per cent to 7.7 per cent, and that also is in in eight short
Oral Questions
months. History is repeating itself. The Tories are campaigning in our Province that they are open for business. Ross Thatcher and his Liberal Party did the same thing 20 years ago and those were seven long, lean years of liberalism that made our Province a have-not Province.
I ask, if this happens in eight months, just think what would happen to this country if that Party were in power for four years.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications and it arises from his vague national broadcasting strategy which he announced outside the House yesterday. One can now see why he chose not to announce it in the House; it was because it was embarrassing because it contained so little.
The broadcasting strategy contains nothing on radio, and the Government's policy for the CBC is to tell it to study itself. In view of the fact that it is proposing major new competition to private broadcasters, how does the Government expect private broadcasters to plan for the future when the Government is incapable of making up its own mind about what to do with the CBC?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: In reply to the hon. gentleman I notice, for instance, that the Canadian Cable Television Association labels the strategy a significant turning point and the beginning of a new era for consumers and entrepreneurs alike. Yesterday was a significant turning point, particularly in relation to the development of Canadian programming. The Government announced that it would be making a fund of some $60 million available to the private sector in Canada to produce quality Canadian programming. This in turn will bring another $120 million of production funds into the hands of private program producers. What happened yesterday was not only a major advance in the area of program production for the Canadian creative community, it was indeed a quantum leap.


FUTURE OF PRIVATE BROADCASTERS
Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, perhaps now that the Minister has unburdened himself of that little speech he can answer the question. How are private sector broadcasters expected to plan for the future when the Government itself is incapable of deciding what it wants to do with the CBC?

March 2, 1983
Oral Questions
Will the Minister also tell the House why did he last fall, on October 7 when he issued a press release, make false threats against bar owners who had TVRO's that were unlicensed, only to flip-flop on the policy yesterday?


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, I know that there are games that parliamentarians play, and I know full well that if I had come out yesterday with the CBC policy the Hon. Member would have said that i had cast aside the Applebaum-Hebert Report, that I had not allowed sufficient debate to take place in the community, that I had not allowed the Standing Committee on Culture and Communications of the House to pronounce itself on the Applebaum-Hebert Report, and on the models they proposed for the CBC.
I have yet to hear any informed comments by the Hon. Member on how he thinks the CBC ought to develop in the months to come. In the absence of that type of informed comment, I have of course asked the Board of the CBC to let me have their comments on how they see the CBC developing. My own officials are examining the situation, and I trust that during the course of examination of the Applebaum-Hebert Committee Report by the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture, over the next month or so, I will indeed have the advice of that Committee before any hard and fast decisions are taken.
In the meantime, obviously the CBC, which, as I indicated yesterday, is a crucial component of the Canadian broadcasting system, will continue to operate and the private broadcasters will continue to live with a strong public broadcasting component in the Canadian broadcasting system.


POLICY ON LEGALITY OF SATELLITE RECEIVING DISH ANTENNAS
Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, on this side of the House we will be glad to give the Minister all the advice that he wants. We know that he needs a great deal of it. Will he now answer the question I asked before about his flip-flop on bars and, secondly, can he confirm that in fact he told a reporter yesterday that, on two elements of his policy, the two out of four that required parliamentary action, he did not intend to introduce legislation until September? This would likely result in no action being taken until after the next election. When is the Minister going to get moving?


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, on the question of dish antennas, the policy statement made by the Government yesterday was to the effect that we wanted to ensure that Canadians who live in remote areas, particularly those who live in the northern part of Provinces such as Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, like their cousins from the south, have access to a comparable range of programming. We feel that because of the type of satellite development we have gone through with
Canadian industries over the past ten years in the development of technology, that technology should be made available to Canadians in all parts of the country. Indeed, we have opened to Canadians living in all parts of the country access to what I consider to be one of the finest broadcasting systems in the world.


CANADIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION TASK FORCE-REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT CO-OPERATE
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, in the , absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare I will direct my question to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will know that earlier this day the Canadian Medical Association announced the formation of a task force to look into the allocation of health care resources. This task force is, I believe, in response, to the lack of action on the part of the Government, and growing concern about the medical care crisis which is expressed by professional groups, including doctors, nurses, physiotherapists, and by lay groups including churches, unions, and so on. Can the Prime Minister tell us whether or not the CMA request that they receive co-operation from the Government will in fact be met? Will the Government be co-operating with that task force?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: No, Madam Speaker, but I will be happy to take notice of the question on behalf of the Minister.


FUNDING FOR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, the crisis in health care is partly a funding crisis. The Prime Minister has announced his intention to hold a First Ministers' conference to deal with the economy. Can the Prime Minister tell us if on that agenda he will be dealing with the issue of money for the health care system before it is too late and too many people die?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the meeting I am planning with the Premiers on the economy is to deal with the middle and longer-term issues. The Ministers of Finance will be meeting next week and they will be dealing with the short-term issues. I think they will be dealing mainly with the economic issues. In so far as health and welfare issues are concerned, they will, of course, be dealt with by the responsible Minister.


BROADCASTING
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, my question to the Minister of Communications is really
March 2, 1983

supplementary to the series of questions asked a little earlier. The Minister has assured the Elouse that if you live in a bar or in the bush you can watch a satellite dish, but if you live in a senior citizens' highrise or a co-op apartment, you cannot.
The Minister has obviously come out in favour of cable companies to protect their economic interests. Since he has dedicated himself to protecting the profitability of the cable companies, what plans does he have in mind for the cable companies to contribute to the broadcasting industry in some way through tax incentives, or revisions of the Copyright Act, an amount equivalent to the protection they are getting from the Minister?


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, the method that we have opted for is one of reinforcing the Canadian broadcasting system as a whole by making a fund available to independent program producers who, having obtained a distribution agreement either from the private sector broadcasters or public sector broadcasting, can then make a draw on the fund.
As far as cable operators are concerned, our general analysis of the situation is to the effect that, in order to meet the competition that will undoubtedly come from dishes, which will really be the competition for the cable operators in this country, the cable operators on the whole will have to modernize their plant. They will have to get into two-way television. They will also have to offer a variety of new services, both programming and non-programming services, to their subscribers. We feel that with that type of situation the cable operators will not only survive but will be able to compete very effectively with any of the new technology.
I would like to add that this is the same analysis that has been made in other countries, to wit, France, which this year is cabling 27 cities, and Great Britain where the Hunt Report recommends that in the face of the new technology, DBS technology, that country should also go cable, as is the case at the moment in Germany and Austria.


FUNDING FOR CBC PROGRAMMING
Mark Willson Rose: Madam Speaker, there are a number of comments and questions that a person could ask about the Minister's mythical fund. We really do not know anything about it. It provides loans and partial equity, but we really do not know how it is going to go over, and how it will work. In fact we do not even have the fund. It is all somewhere in the distant future, like the minister's mind and his decision.
The Minister calls upon the CBC to provide more Canadian content, and he knows very well that the necessity for Canadian content is so the CBC can compete with all the other agencies which deliver signals. Since Canadian content is based on the amount of money which the CBC can spend on programming, I would like the Minister to take that quantum
Presence in Gallery
leap and tell the House today what he plans to do to improve the viability and financial backing of CBC programming?


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member will remember, undoubtedly, the Applebaum-Hebert Commission had a number of far-reaching recommendations concerning the CBC. One of those recommendations was that the CBC make a greater effort to increase the amount of programming which it contracts out to the private sector. If the Hon. Member reads the document which I tabled in the House yesterday he will see that the CBC can indeed have a call via the private production sector on that fund, and that call can be up to one-half of that fund, that is, up to 30 million new dollars.


SATELLITE RECEPTION IN MOTEL PREMISES
Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister, and it is in respect of his announcement yesterday on satellite dishes and how they will affect hotel owners and so on. I read in The Citizen this morning that Item 3 of his four proposals would affect hotels and motels. Would the Minister tell us if hotel and motel owners will be allowed to direct incoming signals into rooms throughout their premises instead of into one central room where guests would have to go to view it rather than in the privacy of their own rooms?


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, I tabled the document in the House yesterday. If I may be so bold, I suggest to the Hon. Member that instead of simply reading a newspaper account of this he should take the trouble to read the original. If he reads the original, he will see that we have eliminated the requirement for licences for TVRO's which are used for individual purposes. We are also exempting from the licensing requirement certain categories of commercial establishments such as bars, one of which the Hon. Member mentioned before, where the signal is simply displayed for the convenience of the patrons. In the case of redistribution of signals to rooms, or redistribution of signals to various apartments which will be part of a complex, then the MATV rules will apply and would require an application to the CRTC for a licence.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF ONTARIO COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURAL AFFAIRS
Madam Speaker:: I would like to welcome to the presence in our Gallery of the Standing Committee on Procedural Affairs of Ontario, which is Chaired by Mr. George Kerr.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

March 2, 1983
Oral Questions


UNITED STATES PROTECTIONIST MEASURES-CANADIAN LUMBER INDUSTRY
Mr. Claude Tessier (Megantic-Compton-Stanstead):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for International Trade. Following his meeting on Monday with the American Trade representative, Mr. Brock, and his previous contacts with the Secretary of Trade, Mr. Baldridge, and the Secretary of State, Mr. Schultz, can the Minister assure the House and Canadian lumbermen that the complaint being reviewed to the effect that Canada practices various forms of dumping which are harmful to the American industry is unfounded and that Canada cannot accept undue American protectionism on or any protectionist measures which would endanger the Canadian lumber industry, an industry vital for our economy and essential for meeting American demand?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of State (International Trade)):: Madam Speaker, I met with the American Secretary of Trade, Mr. Baldridge, in Washington last Monday to discuss the forest industry and the proposed compensatory charges. It was the third time that I had met Mr. Baldridge to discuss this matter. The provincial ministers, the industry and the Government of Canada have worked together to meet this threat to our industry. I am confident that our position is correct. There are no subsidies on our lumber exports to the United States. We expect the Americans will announce their decision next Monday.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Andre:: Madam Speaker, I assume that applause was for the translator!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Yesterday, by way of a point of order at the end of Question Period, the Minister of Finance gave one more version of what he knew and when he knew it in regard to the "Coalgate" affair. This represents the fifth or sixth time that we have had a change in the story when the previous story would not stand up to examination. Clearly a cover-up is under way.
On Monday I wrote to the Minister requesting that he make public two documents that were not among those he tabled in
the House on February 23, plus all relevant PetroCan documents. Has the Minister asked his departmental officials to check the files of the Scotia Coal Synfuels Project for the January 12, 1981, minutes of the joint management committee? Also, has he had his officials check the July 9, 1981, directive referred to from the Minister to his Deputy which was referred to in a letter by the Deputy on July 14, 1981? Has he asked Petro-Canada for its complete files on this project? In the interest of putting an end to this cover-up, will he table those documents and make them available?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I think I have some technical problems to overcome. In order to table the minutes of January 12, 1 had to seek the consent of the Premier of Nova Scotia. Apparently he has given his consent, so I will be able to table that.
In terms of the directive of July 9, it was a verbal directive so there is no such document.
In terms of the file of Petro-Canada, some of the correspondence involved private sector partners. In that file there is communication between the Nova Scotia Government and Mr. Gillespie and I have to seek the consent of those two parties before I can table the documents.
I hope that I will be in a position to table everything with the consent of all the parties involved by tomorrow. Of course because some of the documents are commercial in nature, and I have to seek the consent of the Nova Scotia Government and Gillespie and Associates.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, the Minister's contention that that directive of July 9, 1981, referred to in the letter from Mr. Cohen to the former Minister of Energy in the letter of July 14, would not lead one to believe that it is an oral communication. He refers to a directive. It certainly looks as if it is a written communication. I would ask the Minister to have his officials re-examine that situation.


REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE INVESTIGATION
Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, if we have the final story on the record and the Minister is willing to table all these documents, in the interest of putting an end to the suspicion of cover-up, and in an effort to repair some of the damage that has been done to this institution by the violation of the guidelines and the failure to accept responsibility by the Ministers, will the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources permit a committee of this House to examine this whole question and look at all the available documentation so that there can be no doubt about what is the complete and true story?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, there has been a lot of debate in the House about this. I have tabled more documents than ever
March 2, 1983

before, and I will table some others when I have the consent of the people involved. I hope to have all these things ready for tomorrow. I had hoped to have them ready for today, but one confirmation is not in yet. I think Elon. Members should appreciate that I have been extremely open in that fashion.


AWARENESS OF DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER OFSYNFUELS PROJECT
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a question that I attempted to deal with yesterday on a point of order. He will recall, and the House will recall, that last Friday he gave an undertaking to the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party to ascertain from his predecessor, now the Deputy Prime Minster and then Minister of Finance, when the Deputy Prime Minister first became aware of the existence of the Synfuels project and the participation of Alastair Gillespie. Is he now in a position to fulfil that undertaking, or perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister would prefer to answer directly?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I have checked with the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He indicated to me that, although he has not been able to find any particular, clear record in this regard, his view is that he would have been made aware some time in June of 1980.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, perhaps we can pursue the antecedents of this fascinating affair somewhere else.


CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION-PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister responsible for the Cape Breton Development Corporation, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. He will recall that he, as well, indicated last Wednesday in response to a question from the Hon. Member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe that he would, I think he said, "look into" the possibility of producing some of the records, documents and correspondence from the Cape Breton Development Corporation. I wonder if he would be good enough to tell the House what progress he has made on this request.


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, immediately after Question Period that day I contacted the president of the Cape Breton Development Corporation and asked him to forward to me any documents with respect to this transaction. At the present time our officials are looking at those documents for relevant information to give to the Hon. Member.
Oral Questions


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for International Trade. For the past two weeks the Minister has been boasting about his new six-month automotive agreement with Japan. Yesterday he said in this House, as reported at page 23333 of Hansard:
-my first responsibility as Minister of Trade is to create Canadian jobs by the export of Canadian goods.
I should like to ask the Minister a clear and simple question and I hope he will answer it just as clearly, instead of going into his usual diatribe. How many new jobs, and I stress the word "new", has this agreement created in Canada?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member asks a very difficult question and I will tell him in a very straightforward manner why he does. The fact that 11,000 fewer cars will come into Canada from Japan in the first six months of this year than last year would presumably create a considerable number of additional jobs in the Canadian car industry were it not for the fact that we are involved in a common market in cars with the United States. Of the cars sold in Canada that are considered to be of domestic origin, 90 per cent are actually manufactured in the United States, while a great number of cars manufactured here are sold in the United States.
Whether the fact that fewer Japanese cars are coming in will mean that more jobs will be created immediately in the Canadian car factories is a matter for Mr. White and UAW to negotiate with the car companies.


Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, it is very obvious that the Minister is as ineffective in international trade as he was in the portfolio of fitness and amateur sport. He knows full well that that agreement does not create one new job in this country.


SALES OF AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS ABROAD
Otto John Jelinek: My supplementary question to the Minister is to ask him what has he done, or what does he intend to do in the domestic auto industry to create jobs in Canada by way of automotive exports, other than exporting Canadian jobs to Japan? Perhaps the Minister will share with us, with the House and with the industry, figures on the sales he has made of automotive products abroad during his extensive travels.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, I have to conclude that the Hon. Member's condemnation of my effectiveness in various portfolios relates not to my performance but to the fact that he is in the Opposition and wants to have his crowd sit over here. They are not going to make it, but that is the basis for his attitude.

March 2, 1983
Oral Questions
Let me say to the Hon. Member that, while 1 have only been in the portfolio for five or six months, my predecessor, now the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, did such a fantastic job that the Hon. Member ought to be really jealous of it. Last year Canada achieved a record in relation to exports. I think the Hon. Member knows enough to know that exports mean jobs in Canada. We are going to continue our record performance in exports. That is how we are creating jobs.
I would also point out to the Hon. Member that it is strange arithmetic that says that if we import fewer cars in the first six months this year than last year, that does not mean more jobs somewhere in the North American car market.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. It concerns jobs. Last November the Prime Minister favoured stimulating the Canadian economy through public investment. Now the Minister of Finance is cooling to that position. Last night he wined and dined himself while the CLC convention of workers got no answers from his Parliamentary Secretary.


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Does this Minister of Finance agree that the economy should be stimulated through public investment, or does he intend to rely on the private sector to stimulate the economy and get Canada growing again?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, as far as wining and dining are concerned, I want to inform my hon. friend I had dinner last night in the Parliamentary Restaurant with another Member of Parliament and his wife whose birthday it was. Those of us who eat in the Parliamentary Restaurant know there is no great wining and dining there.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Clark:: Attacking more public servants.


Marc Lalonde: As far as the allegation of the Hon. Member is concerned, I want to assure him that he should be very cautious about relying on speculation in the press. I said that I will not comment on press speculation about the budget, and I will not comment on the kind of speculation in which the Hon. Member is engaging. There is no basis in fact that I know of for that kind of statement he has just made.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I might remind the Minister of Finance that, while he was dining here, one delegate to the CLC said that his union which operates a clinic in Vancouver was putting
bandages on the working casualties but, in spite of that, they were still bleeding. The workers are suffering, Madam Speaker.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER DIVULGE POLICY
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, let me ask the Minister of Finance what is his Government's position? Does the Minister of Finance agree with what the Prime Minister said? Is he going to use public investment to stimulate the economy, or will he rely on private investment? All the Minister has to do is answer the question. If he is going to stimulate the economy, when is he going to do it? When will we see a budget? The Minister is fiddling while the Canadian worker is burning.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: There is an original line.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, knowing the eating habits of my hon. friend, I would like to know where he dined last night and what he ate.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: We will leave that to speculation for the time being.
My hon. friend invites me to commit a budget leak. At the present time I am not ready to do that even on the floor of the House of Commons. There will be a budget, and I invite my hon. friend to wait for it. I hope in the meantime we will proceed speedily with the adoption of the Bills that are before the House, particularly the Income Tax Act amendments that have been considered for quite a while now and will be going to Committee of the Whole soon. I hope to present a budget to the House at an appropriate time once consideration of these Bills has been concluded.


PROPOSED VANCOUVER PUBLIC WORKS PROGRAM
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, this is a serious matter and the workers want some answers. Let me give a concrete example of a workable and an affordable program to the Minister of Finance.
The Mayor of Vancouver suggested this morning that the City of Vancouver was prepared to go with a $236 million public works program to computerize traffic signals, to build bridges, to build sewers, streets and so on. The City will pay $136 million, about which a plebiscite was taken. Will the Minister of Finance commit himself right now to this form of public investment in the amount of $100 million for the City of Vancouver in this instance, and in general for the Federation of Municipalities across the country?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the Mayor of Vancouver has some very good ideas. Many other mayors across the country have very good ideas for their
March 2, 1983

cities, and many provincial ministers have very good ideas for their provincial Governments.


Mr. Lawrence:: What has happened at the federal level?


Marc Lalonde: And many federal Ministers have very good ideas on how to spend federal money in federal areas of responsibility. Each order of Government which has great ideas and wants to do things has a way of doing them. Every order of Government has a financial market available in this country from which it can borrow money, just as the federal Government has. The financial borrowing requirements of the Government, as the Hon. Member knows, are around $26 billion to $27 billion. That is a fair amount of borrowing in which the federal Government is engaging. 1 invite my hon. friend to invite his colleagues, his friends or even his enemies at the local municipal or provincial level, to do what the federal Government is doing, that is, to go out into the market and borrow to finance a lot of activities across the country. That is the responsibility of all orders of Government, not only of the federal Government.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Do not encourage them to borrow more.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mrs. Eva Cote (Rimouski-Temiscouata):: Madam Speaker, my question to the Minister of Transport refers to the allegations or rather the accusations which were made in a Quebec parliamentary commission concerning the Quebecair situation. Could the Minister of Transport advise the House of the way in which the negociations were conducted between Nordair and Quebecair and the Quebec government in July 1981 which resulted into the plight which Quebecair faces today?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, this would require a great deal of explanations, but one thing is certain, and it is the fact that the more Mr. Clair enjoys talking about my beating about the bush, the less I enjoy talking about his conceited attitude. This government, just like the one before, has experienced much difficulty in trying to amalgamate these two corporations. In spite of their efforts my colleagues, the hon. member for Joliette and the hon. member for Vegreville, have failed. In 1981, however, a concrete proposal was made to the Quebec government, which, for nationalistic reasons, was turned down. That was the situation then.
The situation now is that Mr. Clair would like me to get involved, ahead of time, in the administration of Quebecair which we are trying to get back on track. I refused to do so
Oral Questions
before seeing its auditor financial statements. I believe it was the only safe thing for me to do.


FISHERIES
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Now that the European Economic Community has formally banned the importation of Canadian seal products into the Community, thereby killing the Canadian seal industry and bringing hardship to Canadian fishermen and the Inuit people in the Eastern Arctic of Canada as well, does the Minister intend to recommend to his Cabinet colleagues that Canada abrogate the Canada-European Fisheries Agreement which has given little benefit to Canada? All one-way benefits have gone to the Community.


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, first let me tell the Hon. Member what I have said. The European Community has been hypocritical all along on the question of the seal hunt. Every time 1 meet any Minister from the European Community I have been told that their scientific community fully agrees with our scientific advisers that the hunt is well regulated and there is absolutely nothing to do.
On the substance of the issue, 1 think my hon. friend is wrong. Yesterday the European Community did not impose any formal ban. The Community said there will be a ban starting next October if, in the meantime, there is no agreement between Canada and Norway about a study. Canada has been proposing for years that international scientists study the whole matter. We know that our hunters, our fishermen, have nothing to fear from any inquiry not done by Brigitte Bardot and Brian Davis but by reputable scientists.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre De Bané: On the question of the LTA with Europe, as I have said, my duty is to the Canadian fishermen, not to foreign fleets. If we give fishing allocations to foreign fleets, they will be for past performance. That was the policy I announced two weeks ago. Foreign fleets must buy Canadian fish before expecting access to Canadian waters. My colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and his Department jointly with my Department will announce a decision on the matter very shortly. I am already on record that I am not at all satisfied with the way Members of the European Community behaved last year. While they had access to Canadian fishing waters, they did not open up their country's markets to our fish. Obviously, they will have to bear the consequences of that action.

March 2, 1983
Oral Questions


James Aloysius McGrath: I thank the Hon. Minister for his answer. I hope he will make it loud and clear to the Europeans, now that they have effectively killed this old Canadian industry, that there will not be one metric tonne of fish for them in our zone. That is the message that has to go to them.


KIRBY TASK FORCE REPORT-REQUEST FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, a few weeks ago the Minister released the Report of the Kirby Task Force on Atlantic Fisheries. That Report has not been referred to a committee. The Fisheries Committee will be meeting this afternoon, and indeed there will be a delegation of fishermen from Nova Scotia and Newfoundland appearing before that Committee.
Will the Minister formally refer the Kirby Report to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry so that we can deal with very critical questions, one of which is the incomes of inshore fishermen which are, in many instances, 1 am ashamed to say, well below the poverty level?


Pierre De Bané: Madam Speaker, I shall certainly consider the Hon. Member's suggestion. I also happen to know that Dr. Kirby will be appearing before the Parliamentary Committee very shortly.
As for the Hon. Member's question, we must ask ourselves who is going to be hurt if tomorrow, we cancel our agreement with the Common Market countries. Are they going to be hurt or is Canada?
What comes to mind is that most of our fish exports go to the United States, and it is therefore in Canada's interests to diversify its markets. Provided the EEC is prepared to settle the fisheries and seal hunt issues to our satisfaction, Canada would certainly be very pleased to enter into an arrangement on fisheries that will be satisfactory to both parties.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. On February 17, in answer to a question from the Hon. Member for Provencher, the Prime Minister said, as reported at page 22938 of Hansard:
Yes, Madam Speaker, we are collectively responsible for the policies of this Government-
The Government as a whole is not collectively responsible for some individual agreement-
Does the Prime Minister stand by that statement and, if so, what are the limits of either mismanagement or chicanery performed by officials of the Government or Members of his Cabinet before the Government feels that it is responsible for them?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I did not quite understand the final part of the Hon. Member's question, but I believe that in the quotation of me that he was citing, I was talking of agreements which are made by individual Ministers or sometimes by officials under the authorities they have by statute or delegation. If someone acts improperly in such circumstances, it is not the whole Government that is acting. If a Minister is acting improperly or illegally, he has to be taken to task. However, one could not condemn the whole Government for some act by an individual, unless the whole Government itself had been part of the decision, much as on the other side of the House, if one Tory Member behaves illegally the whole caucus does not stand condemned.


GOVERNMENT MANDATE
Benno Friesen: Is
the Prime Minister saying that if there is some kind of serious mismanagement or chicanery in the upper levels of his administration at the beginning of his mandate, the Government has a four-year mandate and can go on its merry way until the next election before it is held responsible?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Not at all, Madam Speaker. If the Hon. Member is talking about the meaning of responsible government, literally, it means that the Government of the day is responsible to Parliament and can only continue exercising its powers with the authority of Parliament, that is, with the support of the majority of the Members of Parliament. That is what responsible government means.


BANKS AND BANKING
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. We have learned that the banks have been up to their usual skulduggery. The Minister of Finance would only be too sensitive to the fact that Canadian industries have long been forced to be tenants on their own land, and the recent crisis has forced many Canadians to be tenants as well. We learned yesterday that the Royal Bank of Canada has decided to introduce a policy to force farmers off their land, confiscate their land and lease it back to them. It is, in a sense, the twentieth century version of Canadian sharecropping. Is the Minister prepared not to talk but to take action with the Royal Bank of Canada and stop this policy before it proceeds with it any further?
March 2, 1983

[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is aware that according to banking practice-in fact, it is the practice of all lenders in our society-if the borrower defaults on his payments, the lender is entitled to take possession of the property that was given as collateral. Is my hon. friend suggesting that we should have a situation in which we would not only prohibit the lender from allowing the former owner to continue to occupy, for instance, a farm, but also oblige the lender to sell the property to someone else? I think that solution would be far less humane than the one being considered at the present time. This approach, while leaving the lender's rights intact, authorizes the lender to make certain adjustments and eventually, if and when the borrower's economic situation has improved, the latter can be given a chance to buy back the operation he was running before.


MEASURE TO REINSTATE FARMERS' CREDITORS ARRANGEMENT
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I agree with what the Minister has to say in terms of the technicalities of the situation, but he says that he is interested in helping and he hopes that the situation will improve. It is within his ability to improve the situation immediately by promoting Bill C-653, the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, which would prohibit the banks from foreclosing on farmers, in an effort to leave the family farm in place and the food producers of Canada in place, yet make an equitable adjustment between the borrower and the lender. That ability is now before the House, if the Minister simply takes action with his Cabinet colleagues and has that Bill brought forward.
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I think I have already made it clear that the Government is very sympathetic to the Bill that was tabled in the House but there are a number of technical problems that arise in connection with the implementation of the Bill, and that by trying to help people who are in difficulty, we may be creating further problems for a great many farmers, and that is why the implications of such measures must be examined very carefully. 1 would therefore say to the Hon. Member that before we take the action he is suggesting, it is better to be fully aware of its implications.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources will know that the document dated January 15, the memorandum from Mickey
Oral Questions
Cohen to the then Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, had a memorandum in handwriting to Mr. Michael Phelps appended to it which asked for the Minister's comments directly. Can the Minister tell us what comments the then Minister of Energy made in relation to that request, and what action the then Minister of Energy took, having been brought to a state of knowledge that the conflict of interest guidelines had been breached? What was said by the former Minister of Energy? What was done by the former Minister of Energy?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I was not present at the discussions, so it is difficult for me. I did not question the former Minister of Energy about all the meetings he had, and about what he did or did not say. The House asked me to table documents and I tabled them. It is impossible for me to transmit verbal communications.


REQUEST FOR REPORT TO PARLIAMENT
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, since the question concerns when exactly the present Minister of Finance came to the knowledge that conflict of interest guidelines had been breached, since that is an important question, and since it is important for us to know what he did when he knew that the conflict of interest guidelines were breached, will the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources find out what the former Minister of Energy said, what his comments were, and what he did after the conflict of interest had been brought to his attention? Will he report to the House at the earliest possible time?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I do not believe the question was well put, because in the minds of those who sit on this side of the House, and in the mind of the Minister of Finance, the former Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, there was no conflict of interest and there were no guidelines broken. Everything has been done above the table.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Everything was made public. Hon. Members opposite might disagree with that fact, but I just say that there was no breach of guidelines. The Hon. Member may say that, but the House of Commons, in a vote last week, rejected his view.


Charles Joseph Clark: There was a conversation earlier as the definition of responsible government. An honourable Government is one which honours its own conflict of interest guidelines, which this Government consistently refuses to do.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

March 2, 1983
Point of Order-Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich)


REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION OF FORMER MINISTER'S ACTIONS
Charles Joseph Clark: Let me direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Since he knows that his documents have made it clear that there was a request for comment and for action by the former Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and since he has been prepared to table other documents, will he also please come clean concerning the question as to what the former Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, Mr. Lalonde-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Charles Joseph Clark: -did when he was asked for comment, and what actions he took as a result of the memorandum which very clearly demonstrated the fact that Alastair Gillespie was exerting pressure on the Government in a way which broke the conflict of interest guidelines applying to former Ministers?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, we held a thorough debate on this subject last week. It was clear that we tabled all documents available and that for months there was discussion with the Government of Nova Scotia, with private sector partners and so on. Everything was made known to the public. The Hon. Member should get out of the House because he is missing the point, trying to gain a few more votes he will need next June.


PETITION
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the four hundred and fourth report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) on Tuesday, March 1, 1983, and finds that the petition meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During the Question Period we heard enunciated a principle about parliamentary ministerial responsibility based on a majority that Cabinet can
command. If I may, I would like to reserve my submissions on this particular point of order until I check the Hansard blues to ensure that this is what I actually heard. Surely the principle of moral responsibility-


Madam Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member knows that is not a point of order. He may check Hansard and then ask questions the next day if he has some query. It does not necessitate giving notice.


Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: Order.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Madam
Speaker, I have the honour to present the eleventh report of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders, in both official languages.
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (C), 1982-83
[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting Supplementary Estimates (C) of sums required for the service of Canada for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983, and in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution Act, 1867, was presented by Hon. Herb Gray (President of the Treasury Board) and read by Madam Speaker to the House.

Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Orders 62(15) and 63, I move, seconded by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray):
That the Supplementary Estimates (C), 1982-83, tabled earlier this day, be referred to the several Standing Committees of the House as follows:
March 2, 1983

Because the list is rather long and there is a detailed allocation of the estimates to the committees, if it is agreeable to the House, I ask that the list be printed in Hansard as if it had been read. I wish to inform my colleagues that earlier today, I gave the list to the House leaders of both opposition parties.
Order Paper Questions


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: List referred to above is as follows.]
To the Standing Committee on Agriculture Agriculture, Votes lc, 5c, 10c, 15c and 16c To the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture Communications, Votes 2c, 5c, 10c and 15c Secretary of State, Votes lc, 15c, 20c, 30c, 35c and 40c To the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence External Affairs, Votes 5c, 10c, LI9c, 25c and 35c National Defence, Votes lc, 5c and 10c To the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs Finance, Votes lc, 1 lc and 20c
Industry, Trade and Commerce, Votes 10c, 25c, 45c and 60c National Revenue, Votes lc and 5c To the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry Environment, Votes lc, 15c, 20c, 25c and 30c Fisheries and Oceans, Votes lc and LI lc To the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Votes lc, 2c, 3c and 6c National Health and Welfare, Votes 1 c, 5c, 15c, 25c, 30c, 35c and 40c To the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Votes lc, 15c, 30c, 35c and 45c To the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs Justice, Votes 5c, 20c and 50c Solicitor General, Votes lc, 5c and 15c To the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration Employment and Immigration, lc, 5c, 15c and 20c Labour, Votes lc and 5c
To the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates Privy Council, Votes lc and 2c Science and Technology, Votes 25c and 30c Supply and Services, Votes lc and 15c Treasury Board, Votes lc, lie and 30c To the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Energy, Mines and Resources, Votes lc, 31c and 55c Public Works, Votes 10c, 1 lc, 30c, 40c, 55c and 60c To the Standing Committee on Regional Development Regional Economic Expansion, Vote 35c To the Standing Committee on Transport
Transport, Votes 10c, 1 lc, 12c, 35c, 45c, 60c, 65c, 75c, 76c, 80c and L95c To the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs Veterans Affairs, Votes lc and 25c Motion agreed to.


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, today I have the honour to present a petition to the House from the residents of Port Hardy, British Columbia, comprising some 40 pages of signatures, outlining a very serious problem resulting from the Government's removal of access to television programming choice in the Port Hardy area. It is an indication that the Government has discrimated against rural communities in terms of many leisure time activities.
In their petition, the people of Port Hardy wish to point out, and ask for relief from, rulings of the CRTC and policies of the Government which would prohibit their access to programming of their choice, and they ask that the quality of television and radio communications in the northern part of Vancouver Island be improved in general.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I just want to inform the House that the business for tomorrow will be the consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bill C-139.


Mr. Lewis:: Madam Speaker, that information gives us an opportunity to plan for tomorrow. I wonder if the President of the Privy Council would give us some idea as to the business for Friday.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, as my hon. colleague knows, I told him in advance, earlier today, that we were to deal with Bill C-139 tomorrow because that is a change from what was to have been considered tomorrow. However, as usual, tomorrow I will be in a better position to confirm what the business will be for the remainder of the week and as far into the coming week as possible.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 4,662.

March 2, 1983
Order Paper Questions


Mr. McKnight: 1.	Did VIA Rail distribute a 1983 calendar and, if so (a) to whom (b) what was the total cost of the calendar (c) how many copies were printed (d) who authorized the decision to print and distribute the calendar?
2.	Does the cost of the printing of the calendar positively enhance passenger rail service in Canada and, if so, in what manner?
3.	Are there any plans to print VIA Rail calendars for the next year?


Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The management of VIA Rail Canada Inc. advises as follows:
1.	Yes. (a) The calendar was distributed in Canada to recipients of VIA's annual report, business leaders and business contacts, media contacts and travel writers, VIA appointed travel agents, and to similar groups in the United States and Europe, (b) $22,950. (c) 8,000 English, 5,000 French, (d) Vice-President, Marketing.
2.	In the opinion of VIA management, the calendar is a valuable part of VIA's campaign to maintain a positive public image for passenger train service in Canada. VIA requested a Canadian artist to paint five scenes of Canada, as seen from a passing VIA train. The paintings represent each region of Canada at a different season, plus one "Pan Canadian" scene representative of the country as a whole.
3.	A 1984 calendar is under consideration.


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


Madam Speaker:: The question indicated by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has been answered.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, very briefly, could I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he would expedite the answers to my Order Paper Question No. 4,704, involving CMHC, and particularly the Corporation's mortgage porfolio management system. I know that the Corporation is aware of the question. 1 also know that an audit is being carried out. I would like to have the answers as soon as possible so that I would not take up the time of the House unnecessarily in asking unduly detailed questions of the Minister.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I would be delighted to review the matter on behalf of the Hon. Member.


Mr. McKenzie:: Madam Speaker, I would also like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary about Order Paper Question No. 4,175, which I placed on the Order Paper on March 24, 1982. The question asked whether there was correspondence between an R. W. B. Bailey, chairman of the subgroup, and a Mr. R. Gagnon, Assistant Deputy Minister to the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, dated February 17 and 19,
1982, respectively, on the subject of the hiring team to recruit francophone employees.
Apparently they were hiring teams to go into universities and schools in Ontario and Quebec to hire strictly Francophones for jobs in the Government. I would like to know if the Government has sent any hiring teams into universities and schools in any other Provinces, such as the University of Winnipeg or the University of Manitoba. With the record high unemployment rate, it would certainly be beneficial for us to know if these hiring teams are going across Canada or whether they will be restricted to the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec.
I would appreciate it if the Parliamentary Secretary would come back with an answer for me, because I raised this matter on a number of occasions, and the question is a year old.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I am sorry that I do not have the answer available today.


Mr. McDermid:: You never do.


David P. Smith: However, I will look into the matter on behalf of the Hon. Member.


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


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



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS

['Order.', "Order, please. It being six o'clock, the House adjourns 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, March 3, 1983']
Madam Speaker:: Shall all orders listed under Private Members' Notices of Motions preceding No. 61 be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
March 2, 1983



Mr. Robert Gourd (Argenteuil-Papineau) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Income Tax Act to increase to $20,000 the basic exemption for creative artists (craftsmen, authors-composers, choreographers, film-makers, photographers, writers or any other creator of original works of an acknowledged cultural or artistic nature) in order to alleviate the financial difficulties threatening their survival and the survival of the Canadian culture to which they contribute.
He said: Madam Speaker, first of all I wish to thank my colleague from Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) who agreed to second this motion. Among his friends and in his riding, the Hon. Member is known as a friend of the arts, and he was therefore pleased to support the motion.
When I presented this motion on October 15, 1981, some of my colleagues, especially those on the opposite side, told me: You are wrong, because this is going to create a special class of citizens. Your motion wants to make craftsmen, authors, composers and artists a privileged class. I feel, however, that in Canada we have already created a number of privileged groups. Members of the Bar Association are a privileged group; the members of the College of Physicians are a privileged group; architects are a privileged group; engineers are a privileged group; and farmers are as well. Therefore, I fail to see how, now that we are about to review the Applebaum-Hebert Report which concerns that very important issue of Canada's cultural policy, could review cultural policy and ignore the people who create our culture.
Madam Speaker, when I presented my motion, I was thinking of Francine Periard, an artist in my riding, who in the course of her career will probably sell about $20,000, $25,000 or maybe $50,000 worth of paintings. 1 am not mentioning famous artists or famous Canadian authors. I am thinking of Jacques Lamarche for instance, author and citizen of La Petite-Nation who is barely making a living. That, Madam Speaker, is Canadian culture.
And why am I saying all this? Why am I asking for concrete action today? For the simple reason that for sixty years the Government has been examining the feasibility of amending the Copyright Act, legislation which formerly was the responsibility of the Department of Agriculture, although I am sure I do not know why. Today, the legislation is being revised, and the two Ministers involved, namely the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) have assured me that the revised version would be tabled in the House very shortly.
Mr. Speaker, 1 told the Applebaum-Hebert Commission that the rights of our creative artists were being abused. We have a system in which the State subsidizes artists, and as soon as we have the State acting as a patron of the arts, there is a form of prostitution involved. Our artists and authors have to go begging for grants. Instead of making beggars of our artists and authors and photographers and all those who create our
Creative Artists-Income Tax
Canadian culture, we could make them proud and happy to be artists. So many young people cannot participate as creative artists because they have to make a living some other way, in other words, get a job, and give up all hope of ever being an artist.
Mr. Speaker, this brings me to another aspect of the same subject, namely, communications. Yesterday, I attended a press conference given by the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox), when he presented a document bearing the title: Towards a New National Broadcasting Policy. Well, now we have the Appelbaum-Hebert Report, we can probably expect a new cultural policy as well.
I now wonder whether, since the Government has announced that we can expect a new national broadcasting policy, it has also decided to establish two classes of citizens, namely, those living in densely populated urban areas and those living outside those areas. I wonder whether the Government, in connection with the new policy it is announcing, is prepared to make use of an existing program, namely, the Northern Communications Assistance Program in which CN and Bell Canada are involved and which provides for telephone communications in remote areas. Since the Government has that program, 1 suggest that it be extended to all rural areas. In my own riding, which is scarcely 50 kilometers from our national capital, the towns of Papineauville and Saint-Andre cannot get something urban Canadians are now getting, namely, pay television or even cablevision to get all their favorite programs. This is incredible in a country where all citizens are supposed to have exactly the same privileges. Why do people in towns like Thurso which is right near Ottawa, towns such as Sylvan Lake in Alberta or Wartime in Saskatchewan or Cocksiscoe in Newfoundland, why can't they get the same services? Aren't these people Canadian citizens as well? Aren't they all paying the same taxes?
Mr. Speaker, if these people are paying the same taxes, I think the Government should consider providing them with the same services, and in this case, it should consider making an arrangement through its existing program and broadening its scope to cover telecommunications and audio-visual services as well. The Government should consider setting up such programs immediately, especially since this is International Communications' Year, and I hope that in his reply, the Parliamentary Secretary will let me know whether or not the Government intends to take this route.
Mr. Speaker, let me get back to our creative artists. They represent the very basis of our cultural policy in Canada, but what have we done for them since the Massey-Levesque Commission reported? We have conducted more studies, and we now have the Applebaum-Hebert Report which unfortunately does not deal extensively with copyrights.
Mr. Speaker, it is indeed with great reluctance that I am now begging the Government to encourage Canadian artists

March 2, 1983
Creative Artists-Income Tax
rather than merely making grants available to them. Canada is a young country with a promising future, but to what extend do we help our artists? I am seeking the support of the House so that our creative artists, our photographers and our composers may find their place under the sun in Canada and live normally above the threshold of poverty without having to rely on grants.
To those who would ask me how many artists there are in my riding, I would say quite a few, and many people in my riding can indeed become creative artists, writers and great performers. Still, what are we doing for them? All we have are grant programs, which I am suggesting should be abolished. I am urging the Government to consider the possibility of changing those programs with a view to making it possible for any creative artist to earn an honest living.


Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, let me start by congratulating the Hon. Member for Argenteuil-Papineau (Mr. Gourd) for bringing forward this motion, and I congratulate the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) for his concern in seeing that it was brought forward.
I have no doubt what the Government's response will be to the motion. I am sure the Government will invent, as usual, any number of reasons for rejecting decent consideration for the artists of this country. It should be clear that the value of the motion is not necessarily the actual language of the motion. Both the mover of the motion and 1 would agree that the symbolism of pointing out how little has been done in tax policy vis-a-vis our artists is the important issue. There will be those who will argue that a basic exemption for artists different from other Canadians might be inappropriate. On its face, that is a plausible argument; but the point that has to be reiterated in any cultural policy discussion is that, in a way, it does not matter whether you increase the exemption to $20,000 or $100,000 because the average, struggling, full-time artist in Canada has an income of less than $10,000. The Writers' Union of Canada will tell you that people who write for a living, those who do nothing else but attempt to be creative writers in this country, earn on average $7,000 a year.
The Hon. Member for Argenteuil-Papineau knows this motion will not increase their income. I do not think that is the purpose of his motion. I would not pretend that he is trying to kid anybody. What he is trying to say, and what l want to be very clear on, is that our artists have had their issues represented by others to this Government for a long time. I think specifically of the Disney report in 1977 which set out that for the artists in the Canadian community there are different problems than for the average Canadian worker. Therefore, a tax treatment of the way and of the circumstances under which our artists work is absolutely mandatory.
We are entering an era where productivity will be a buzz word. We are increasingly being told that if we are to survive in international trade and in international affairs, we will have to find ways to use our human resources to get more for less
and to be more competitive. There is no other sector in this country as competitive and productive as the artistic community. Ironically, it is the most labour-intensive community in Canada. It is a labour force that works as much for love as for money. As a consequence, it accepts wages, remuneration and treatment from a Government that no other community, organized or unorganized in the labour field, would accept. It is long past the time we recognized that.
I am not going to speak for very long. By making a short speech, I want to say that Members on this side hope that the Government will see that a motion which says "It is advisable to consider change", which is what the Hon. Member's motion says, is overdue for adoption by this House, as is change in the treatment of our artists by this Government. I encourage the Parliamentary Secretary, who I presume will be speaking, to say very clearly that the Government accepts the advisability of the intent behind this motion, and that it will let this motion be adopted by the House of Commons. Our artists will then know that proper treatment, both in fiscal and tax terms, which they have asked for and have needed for so long, will finally be available to them.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak for very long on this motion either. While I do not necessarily agree with the statement made in the motion that it would necessarily help the vast majority of people engaged in the arts in this country, I certainly agree with the intent of the motion. It is a matter that requires extensive examination by Members of this House to find the best ways that Members of Parliament can assist those engaged in the arts through what I consider to be necessary legislation. That kind of examination has never been done.
Why I say that I do not think that the actual language used in the motion would be of significant benefit to those engaged in the arts is that, to my knowledge, and certainly to that of people I am acquainted with in my riding, there are very few artists who earn anywhere close to $20,000 a year. In fact, if many of them had the opportunity to earn an income of $20,000 or more, I am sure they would be delighted, but that certainly is not the case.
I am supported in that by some of the statements in the Applebaum report. I want to quote a few of the sections. They point out that the well-being of the visual and applied artists in Canada has tremendous weaknesses in terms of the initiatives that have been given to the artistic community by Government. The Applebaum report speaks about women in particular who are engaged in the visual arts field. They earn a gross income from their art of only $6,000 to $10,000 annually. I know many artists in my community of Beaches who do not have an income of $6,000 a year. That is for a number of reasons.
Several months ago my colleague for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) raised this point in the House in a question to the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox). She insisted, indeed demanded, that it was time the Government took
March 2, 1983

concrete initiatives to help that segment of the arts community.
While Private Members' motions rarely, if ever, pass through this House, as I said earlier, 1 would like to see this one go through the House and referred to a committee. From what I could see before I got up to speak, with the number of Liberals jumping up and down trying to catch the Speaker's eye, 1 doubt very much that will happen this afternoon.
I would like to say a few words about the important roles which artists play in Canadian life. Workers who are engaged in the arts and are essential to the cultural life of Canada often have earnings which make it difficult for them to provide for the necessities of life. In addition to these difficulties, there is the fact that public access to the arts is being eroded by inflationary pressures and the high unemployment we have in our country today.
If that were not enough to contend with, there is an increasing tendency on the part of Government at all levels to reduce its support of the arts; and as the Estimates which were tabled in the House recently show, this Government has again restricted its own level of expenditures to the arts. Surely it is in the interest of our country that policies be brought forward to ensure that professional workers in the arts receive a just remuneration for their work.
It is equally important that artists receive adequate protection for their creative products by assisting them with information and resources to improve the business aspect of their work. In that regard, Mr. Speaker, the time has long passed when there should have been measures brought before this House to strengthen the Copyright Act and provide real protection for those engaged in their field of work.
Despite its many statements to the contrary, this Government's commitment to promoting the artistic community over the years has been relatively non-existent in reality. It has failed miserably to develop an industrial strategy for the publishing industry, for broadcasting, films and recordings. It has done virtually nothing in the area of increasing Canadian ownership of production and distributing facilities, let alone increasing the share of the Canadian market for Canadian productions. We are still awaiting policies, Mr. Speaker, which would clarify and strengthen the definition of Canadian books and of what Canadian programs mean. The same applies to films and recordings. If those policies were brought forward they would go a long way toward expanding and improving employment for Canadian workers in the cultural industries.
Surely the time has come when Government should adopt taxation policies which would encourage and expand Canadian cultural creations and their subsequent availability to the public. If Government were clearly to indicate it had a serious commitment to the arts, then it would clearly be seen to be doing something rather than simply talking about it. Passing this motion today would be a strong indication that the Government at long last is prepared to make that kind of commitment.
Creative Artists-Income Tax
However, the responsibility rests not only with the federal Government but also with other levels of Government. The federal Government can initiate discussions with provincial Governments; for example, there is a need for a greater degree of co-operation with the cultural agencies of provincial Governments to fund community artistic endeavours. In my own constituency there is a burning need for improved facilities and training in the visual and performing arts. At present, there are numerous groups experiencing difficulty because of a shortage of on-going operating funds. I am sure that many, if not all, Hon. Members in this House know of similar situations.
If there were improved co-operation it could not but help increase opportunities for people to attend exhibitions and performances in their own communities. I might add that it would contribute to the strength of the community. Greater co-operation would also provide the opportunity to make adequate funding available, so as to provide grants which would keep admission prices at affordable levels. It could also bring the arts into the schools and make the arts more accessible to smaller communities in the country.
The rights of performers in film, television, radio and audio recordings are not protected under the Copyright Act. The only rights these workers have to ensure their art is protected is that which is provided under collective agreements negotiated by their unions, such as the Association of Canadian Television and Radio Artists and the Musicians' Union.
With the advent of new technology for distribution of reserved performances such as video discs, satellite transmission spanning the globe, home video recording machines and the like, it is becoming increasingly clear that monitoring such use of performance materials would present major problems for the unions. Enforcing performers' rights certainly would require the support of legislation.
For all those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that this Private Member's motion would find its way into a committee where we could examine it more thoroughly.


Mr. Jack Burghardt (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to take part in this Private Members' discussion. First of all, I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Argenteuil-Papineau (Mr. Gourd) for his foresight back, I believe, in the fall of 1981, when he brought to the attention of this House through this Bill his concern for the artists of Canada. This concern has been brought to bear as well by the importance which the Federal Cultural Policy Review Committee, or the Applebaum-Hebert Committee, has placed on the status of artists. Indeed, the matters raised by my colleague in 1981 and by the motion which we are debating today are crucial to the well-being of Canadian artists, to the state of Canadian culture as a whole, and thus to the quality of life of all Canadians.
Canadian artists do not just help us understand our culture, they create it. Whether it be in the visual or performing arts, in the heritage area, or in the cultural industries such as film, sound recording or book publishing, the federal Government,

March 2, 1983
Creative Artists-Income Tax
to the extent it can, must identify and resolve the unique financial problems faced by our artists.
The previous speaker, the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young), mentioned his concern that the federal Government has not done enough in the fields of broadcasting, television in particular, as it relates to artists and performers. Obviously, he has put his thoughts and notes together without reading through the policy which was tabled in this House yesterday by the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) with respect to a new national broadcasting policy which, of course, states very emphatically that the federal Government intends to set up in one area, at least, a program production fund which would enable private independent television producers to produce better and more Canadian programming. This would, of course, help the entire artistic industry in Canada today.
The plight of the artist has always been with us. It has been acknowledged by international forums such as UNESCO, and by virtually every Government in the world right down through history. Often this plight is reduced to simple financial duress, but no less important are the lack of adequate facilities, the lack of appropriate training facilities and the lack of meaningful public involvement and recognition, as noted by the Applebaum-Hebert Committee.
The Canadian public has recognized that Canadian artists face financial difficulties. For example, in a recent poll analysed by the Department of Communications, three-quarters of respondents favoured Government financial support for artists. Indeed, the Government has over the years evolved a number of mechanisms to deal with a variety of the most urgent problems. Through the Canadian Council, a portion of the core costs of most of our "national treasures" in the arts are directly subsidized. Project grants are available to individuals and a number of sectoral assistance programs are in place.
Efforts have also been made over the years to recognize and compensate for the dysfunction of marketing and distribution systems for our cultural products. The Department of Communications administers a major program of assistance to Canadian publishers, as well as a postal subsidy for books and periodicals, on the principle that it is a basic right of Canadians to have access to Canadian writing. I might also mention in this context the special program of cultural initiatives which assists the cultured community in Canada with the construction of facilities, improvement of management skills, and special projects of national cultural significance.
I remind Hon. Members of the papers that were tabled by the Minister of Communications yesterday, wherein he stated that we were setting out a definite financial program to assist private and independent television producers, which in the long run will affect the entire artistic life in Canada.
Before dealing with the particular problems facing the artist in Canada today, I will like to concentrate on some of the larger issues we must consider in this context. Most important, we must not forget that to a large degree the hands and minds
of our artists shape Canada's international reputation and our shared sense of ourselves as Canadians with a unique history and a promising present, together occupying a very distinctive and sometimes challenging piece of terrain called Canada. We can and to take pride in a successful European tour by the Royal Winnipeg Ballet and the many international awards won by the National Film Board. As a matter of fact, the current controversy which is going on in the United States has been created by films produced and supplied by the National Film Board. They have won many awards on the international stage.
We learn something about ourselves and our country when we gaze at a Group of Seven painting and its startling representation of the Canadian landscape. Our heritage lives and evolves through the continuing work of individual researchers who explore, discover and reconceptualize our past. In many ways, Canada is what it is because individual artists have crystallized new insights into the Canadian reality and communicated them to us, all of us. In short, art is the collective memory of our civilization and, in fact, any civilization.
But what status, what support, do our artists enjoy? Their lives and their families' lives to a great extent are riddled with uncertainties as to employment. They face high costs for training and materials, as well as related expenses for management, promotion and the like. And the financial reward?
The actual statistics are dramatic. Revenue Canada, in its 1982 edition of Taxation Statistics, ranks the average income of self-employed artists and entertainers fourteenth in its 15 occupational categories. Only pensioners lag behind artists, though they pay proportionately more income tax than fishermen, farmers, investors and pensioners.
Most artists lack the basic protection provided by pension plans and Unemployment Insurance. The Hon. Member for Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley) earlier referred to the salaries or fees earned by Canadian artists. According to data supplied by the joint Department of Communications-Statistics Canada Cultural Statistics Program, only 23 per cent of Canada's 3,000 or so professional actors were employed full time in 1979. Around 35 per cent reported a total income from acting of less than $5,000. Nearly 60 per cent earned less than $10,000. These figures portray not just a financial crisis, but an artistic one. In order to supplement their incomes, these artists must spend time and energy on activity outside their chosen profession, time and energy which cannot be spent trying to achieve artistic excellence.
The situation is essentially the same for writers. A Department of Communications study on Canadian freelance writers revealed that one half of full-time writers earned less than $7,000 from their craft in 1978. Similar figures can be cited for every artistic discipline. Overall, individual artists earn on average an income which is below the poverty line for a family of four. This is why I feel it is so important that we discuss in detail and in all seriousness the motion before us presented by the Hon. Member for Argenteuil-Papineau.
March 2, 1983

With the accumulation of data from different studies, different sources and even different countries, it becomes clearer and clearer that artistic and cultural activity is most heavily subsidized by the financial sacrifices of individual artists. Artists, in short, do not receive a financial return which is commensurate with their contribution to the quality of Canadian life and, quite possibly, to the Canadian economy. Something obviously must be done.
The Federal Cultural Policy Review Committee, the Applebaum-Heberl Committee, was established in 1980 to examine the totality of the cultural scene in Canada and make recommendations to the Government for its enhancement and growth in recognition of the fact that, while we have done a good deal in this field, we were certainly not doing all we might, as efficiently and usefully as we might. One of the major areas the Committee was asked to address was specifically the problem of the status of the artist in our society.
They took that challenge to heart and examined the question thoroughly. One of the major conclusions they came to dealt specifically with the tax treatment of artists. I will quote it direct, since it speaks for itself:
Tax provisions respecting the employment status of artists and such matters as the calculation of their costs against income, the valuation of works given for public use and enjoyment, and their entitlement to income averaging must afford equitable treatment in comparison with those applicable to other classes of taxpayers.
All of these concerns are now the subject of continuing study, but there are other broader issues as well. For example, should Government support take the form of direct grants to artists, or should Government expenditures focus on supplying facilities or special services which would constitute indirect support?
Certainly consideration must be given to tax issues to ensure fair treatment for artists, but these issues are complex and careful consideration is needed from a number of different perspectives. For example, if artists are to be treated as selfemployed persons so that they can claim expenses, should they also be eligible for Unemployment Insurance? The easy answer to such a question may not be valid when it comes time to implement a policy. Careful deliberation is essential.
The development of new tax provisions for artists also cannot ignore the Federal Culture Policy Review Committee's diagnosis of the main problem as "not one of excessive tax burden, but rather of inadequate income". Yet the Canadian Conference of The Arts made an important point when it noted that our taxation system had not been used systematically to stimulate cultural, as opposed to economic, development.
The Department of Communications is now exploring these matters on a number of fronts. It is currently studying the impact of federal financial policy on the cultural sector and examining ways to bring specific financial policies into line with cultural policies. To this end, departmental officials are holding on-going meetings with the Department of Finance on possible amendments to financial legislation to improve the economic situation of artists. These discussions are serving to clarify a variety of complex issues.
Creative Artists-Income Tax
The motion now under discussion was placed before this House in October, 1981. Since then, a strong, concerted effort has been made through the Federal Cultural Policy Review Committee and elsewhere to examine the problem and propose solutions.
As I indicated at the beginning of my remarks, this motion highlights a prime area of concern of both the Federal Cultural Policy Review Committee and the Department of Communications, namely support for the creative artist. I want to congratulate the Hon. Member for Argenteuil-Papineau for defining so clearly and recognizing the importance of these key elements of the arts and culture environment. His focus on the artist, his recognition of the artist's plight, his emphasis on changes to the tax structure-all these represent significant contributions to the on-going debate on Canada's cultural future.


Mr. John Gamble (York North):: Mr. Speaker, within a period of 24 hours we have witnessed a perfect illustration of why Parliament has become irrelevant. Last evening, at 5:45 p.m., the House was called to vote on Bill C-139 which, as we all know, provides for substantial amendments to the Income Tax Act. We are now confronted with a motion in the name of the Hon. Member for Argenteuil-Papineau (Mr. Gourd) who apparently urgently believes that it is important that some relief of a kind I shall describe later be offered to creative artists. One would have thought that if the Hon. Member really believed strongly in his motion, he would have stood in this House and voted against Bill C-139. There is no provision in that Bill for the motion he has brought before the House.
We have just listened to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Communications (Mr. Burghardt). He has praised the Hon. Member for Argenteuil-Papineau and at the same time has in no way indicated that it is the position of the Government to support the motion of the Hon. Member. We have, unfortunately, become a useless debating society where Members of the House are afraid to do what they say they wish to do. I lament the fact that Hon. Members take the time of the House to deal with issues in this fashion without substance and without the determination to see that their will is made part of the legislation of this country.
If I may pass on and deal with the provisions of the motion itself, I will say in advance that I am opposed to it, Mr. Speaker. The motion deals with the creation of additional tax exemptions for a select group in society. If the motion were adopted it would have the effect of amending Section 109 of the Income Tax Act which grants to ordinary, individual Canadian citizens a basic exemption with respect to which no tax is imposed. Last year that exemption was in the neighbourhood of $1,700 for an individual unmarried taxpayer. The effect of the motion before us would be to increase that basic exemption to $20,000. It would cover a group identified in the motion as follows:
23376

March 2, 1983
Creative Artists-Income Tax
-craftsmen, authors-composers, choreographers, film-makers, photographers, writers or any other creator of original works of an acknowledged cultural or artistic nature-
It is certainly true that Parliament has used the provisions of the Income Tax Act on a number of occasions to promote industrial or commercial communications activities. For example, there was the tax exemption for commercial mines on income generated during the first three years of operation, with the view of promoting the development of mines in Canada.
From the standpoint of culture and communications we can look to the special advantage for film-makers who are entitled to a 100 per cent write-off of the investment made in Canadian productions. One would suspect that this motion is designed to accomplish the same purpose, but I draw to the attention of the House that both of those other provisions were designed to promote the creation of industrial or commercial development.
There is nothing in this motion that would have the same effect. If you give an operator of a mine an exemption from tax on all the income generated within the first three years of operation, you would imagine that every mine that was operated would produce as much ore as it could during that three-year term. With respect to the film industry, the concept of the capital cost allowance deduction to the extent of 100 per cent obviously generated funds for the film industry.
One would be inclined to believe that the effect of this motion would be to lead to the creation of new artists. It has nothing to do with the actual creation of income for the artists. I would presume, having regard to the statistics given today, that artists are performing to the maximum of their achievement and financial return. What this would conceivably do would be to draw people out of other income-producing activities into activities of the creative artist so that they might benefit from the $20,000 exemption which is not available to the ordinary citizen. I did not know that artists can be created in this way. Either people are or are not able to produce artistic works. It seems unrealistic to turn to a dentist and say: "If you become a creative artist you can have a tax advantage that is not available to you as a dentist". The same might apply to every other walk of life in which Canadians find themselves.
Since the motion would have no effect on the creation of new wealth, I do not believe it is an appropriate undertaking for the House. I would add a further caveat to my examination of the motion, Mr. Speaker. On examination of the categories of artists to which it would apply, I cannot help but think, specifically having regard to the complex provisions of Bill C-139, that there is not any reasonable way that draftsmen can create the category of privileged artists entitled to these special benefits without writing an entirely new Income Tax Act.
One of the great tragedies of the Act as it stands is that it is too voluminous and too complex. The masters of the Department of Finance and the masters of the Department of National Revenue-the Deputy Ministers-would have a heyday playing with the words used in the motion. It would take page upon page to define a film maker. Should that include some of
the large production facilities such as Paramount Studios in the United States, should it undertake activities in Canada? Of course not. It would have to be excluded. What would happen then? They would talk about public corporations which could not qualify, about individuals who incorporated themselves who could not qualify, about groups of artists who got together to undertake projects which would not qualify. If you want to have some fun with the kind of definition that would appear, Mr. Speaker, I urge you to exercise your mind and think how they would deal with the word "photographer".
I suggest that the undertaking of this task by the various Departments that would inevitably become involved in the drafting of the required legislation would render, in its final product, an absolutely confusing, burdensome and useless piece of legislation. That has been our experience in the past. There is no reason to believe that the Department of Finance in conjunction with the Department of National Revenue would treat this particular recommendation by the Hon. Member any differently.


Mr. Douglas Fisher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure for me to comment on this motion, for two reasons. First, I think the Hon. Member for Argenteuil-Papineau (Mr. Gourd) has, as usual, done a very good job of raising an important issue for our attention. All of us are grateful to him for doing so. He has a reputation as a wise and hard working Member of Parliament. I am pleased to rank him as one of my friends and to have his advice available.
Second, for the past 15 years I have been a businessman in the book publishing industry. I understand something about problems facing writers, editors and other artistic people involved in that industry. My own business is on the commercial side. We are distributors and I am a salesman by training. I have seen people spend long hours trying to create a book, to take a vision of the world and to communicate it to readers. I hold these people in the highest regard. I look on this Bill, therefore, with some nostalgia and approval.
One of the toughest ways to make a living is that of writing books. It is not something which will make an ordinary individual into a rich person. There are exceptions, and we are grateful for them. I am thinking of people such as Pierre Berton, Margaret Atwood, Farley Mowat and so on. They are probably in a position where they can earn a comfortable living from their writing. Unlike American and British writers, Canadian artists are usually dependent on some kind of outside income to give them a decent standard of living. Those of us who know something about the industry are always looking for ways to provide extra support and help to people who play such a vital role in our lives.
I have worked in the industry for a long time. I was a publisher's agent for a while and I have seen what it means for an individual to spend six months on a book and then earn only
March 2, 1983

a few hundred or a few thousand for the effort. Obviously, the individual has to find another way to make a living.
Having said all that, I do not personally agree with this technique for supporting artists. It seems to me it is always attractive to single out a special group in society and say that they are worthy of special tax treatment. I look around this House and see people here at the moment who have said that farmers should get special tax treatment because they are engaged in the vital activity of producing food. I am sure we could extend the list to include social workers who are increasing the happiness in life for people who otherwise might be suffering from emotional or social difficulties-


Mr. Althouse:: Liberal MPs.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: -doctors and nurses who are involved in the vital question of personal health, teachers and professors who help us to expand our horizons and bring important training to everyone. All of these people can be described as important groups, people who have more than just a commercial pursuit in life. They are people who leave extra in the world rather than taking from the world. I guess in a way it is tempting to say that we should look at them as potential beneficiaries of special tax treatment.
Obviously, as we begin to draw up such a list the grey areas become more and more apparent and the list gets longer and longer, until we get to the point where no one would be paying any tax at all. That is not a bad idea, but it is not too practical. We always have the temptation to define a special group of people and give them special tax treatment.
On the other hand, we might take a look at a more practical way to go about achieving the same goal. Over the past few years the Government has more and more actively tried to bring in grants as a system of paying people instead of using the tax system.


John Horton McDermid: The big "L" in the corner.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: I hear my good friend and colleague, the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid), making some comment. I might say that the use of grants by the Ontario Government, certainly in the artistic area, has been very constructive. The Ontario Government has used grants rather than tax deductions as an excellent way to reach out to the artistic community. The Ontario Arts Council has often been a pioneer in grant techniques. I remember the system it devised in the early 1970s to pay grants directly to Canadian authors through Canadian publishers, thereby giving the individual target group the maximum amount of help without any government strings attached.


John Horton McDermid: Where does the money come from?


Douglas Glenn Fisher: I find that grants are usually much more flexible. They allow us to get right to the group of people we want to support. In this case it would be artists. I suspect that we would look at nationality as well. We would want to have either Canadian citizens or landed immigrants as recipients,
Creative Artists-Income Tax
and I suspect we would also want Canadian-owned companies to be involved. That has been the thrust of grants at the federal and provincial levels for the past decade.
Grants are also much more accountable. When the Government gives out a grant it is called upon quite regularly to explain why the grant was given to the particular recipient.


Mr. McCuish:: What about Alastair Gillespie?


Douglas Glenn Fisher: 1 recall we had a debate of this nature in the House some time ago on charitable donations. The topic got around to tax deductions versus grants. One of the Members from Halifax stood up, waved a newspaper advertisement and said he wanted to know why a grant had been given to a particular group. That is a very accurate illustration of what I mean. Grants are easily identified and, therefore, the Government is easily called upon to account for their distribution.
I would draw to the attention of the House a report prepared by Mr. Paul Audley of the Canadian Institute of Economic Policy, a private research group based here in Ottawa. He has urged that we move away from tax exemptions and get into a direct grant and tax credit system for artists because he sees the current deduction system as too broad and too open-ended.
Quite rightly, the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown also wants to know where the money comes from for grants. I remind him that expenditures on grants are much more easily controlled than expenditures through the tax system. That is one of the big problems with tax deductions; they are wide open. Anyone can get a tax deduction if they fall into the general category.
The Hon. Member for York North (Mr. Gamble) gave us a colorful description of the problems involved in defining categories. Once you are in the category you get the deduction, whereas a granting system is not open-ended in that fashion. It is a distinct and definable amount of money.
Perhaps the best way to consider this problem is to imagine ten people living on a desert island. The cost of running the Government on the desert island is $100. If one person demands a tax deduction, then that $100 has to be paid by the other nine. Instead of each person paying $10 they then pay $11 and change. If it is a grant, the grant will then be discussed among all of them and everyone will pay the same amount of tax. There will be a discussion about priorities and whether or not the grant should be paid out of the $100, whether the $100 should be increased or another system implemented. In fact, they might even find that the desert island should get into a deficit.
Overall, one will find that the granting system has been used in this area instead of tax deduction because it is more easily targeted. In fact, since grants are not open-ended, they are much more accountable. They are a distinct amount of money that can be spent within a predefined sense of affordability.

March 2, 1983
Interest Act
I would urge the Members of the House to applaud the Hon. Member for Argenteuil-Papineau. He has devised a good idea. From my own experience, I know that he is describing a group of people who are very worthy and have added considerably to our national life. I hope that he will take his ideas on tax deductions and further study the possibilities inherent in a grants system. I do not agree with the particular techniques suggested in the motion but I do agree very much with the spirit behind it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member, but it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 24(2), to interrupt the proceedings.

[ Translation\


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill S-34, an Act to revive Polyventreprise Ltee and to provide for its continuance under the Canada Business Corporations Act, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Shall all orders listed under Private Members' Public Bills preceding No. 474 be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


INTEREST ACT
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton) moved: that Bill C-674, 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, there has been some degree of interest shown about this issue in my constituency. The reason I introduced this Bill is that I was approached by two people from the area of Almonte in my riding. One is a farmer and the other is a householder. They were inquiring about their mortgages and the high interest rates that they were locked into for a long period of time.
In supporting this Bill C-674 which I have introduced, I ask my fellow Members of Parliament to forget about their Party
affiliation and to think squarely about the needs of their constituents. At a time when Canadians, if they have not already lost their homes, continue to risk the loss of their homes, it is incumbent upon Members of this House to do what they can to be of help to their fellow citizens.
This Bill will not cost any Government money whatsoever. The proposal is to change one word in Section 10 of the Interest Act. That Section has not reflected any of the changes which I have proposed in this Bill since at least 1906. However, our practice in mortgages and their interest has drastically changed.
This Bill is designed to benefit Canadians. According to CMHC research, a little over 700,000 Canadians have mortgages at 17 per cent or higher. If this Bill is passed, those Canadians might be able to refinance after one year with the payment of a three-month penalty, thus taking advantage of the presently lower interest rates.
If this Bill is talked out, it will be by those Members who favour the financial institutions and their profits rather than the average Canadian citizen who is unfortunate enough to be caught by the greatest increase in interest rates in history.
I have sought and received agreement from my Party that we will only put one speaker up, which is myself, for a very short period. I have spoken to the NDP and they have agreed to put only one speaker up for a short period of time. I have spoken with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) who has 50 per cent responsibility in handling this legislation. He is quite happy to let the Bill go to committee.
Last week, we postponed this Bill until this week to see whether the Minister responsible for the other 50 per cent would let it go to the committee as well. Today, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) is non-committal. I will be interested to see whether the Liberals talk this Bill out and thus favour the corporations and their profits over Canadian citizens who are having some difficulty at the present time.
Even if this Bill passes second reading today and goes to committee, it will not become law. At the committee stage, the mortgage companies will be able to make their representations as to whether or not this Bill is out of order due to the deposits which they may have locked in. I only hope that this Bill will be approved or perhaps amended and approved at the committee stage after it has received appropriate scrutiny. We can then help those Canadians who are suffering from high interest rates.
I have noted in the last 12 to 16 months the great increase in the number of people who are on Unemployment Insurance, whose ability has been lessened to finance their homes, whether they be rented or, more pertinent to this Bill, mortgaged.
I have also noticed in the business sections of newspapers that some financial institutions are predicting that there will be more foreclosures this year than last year, due to the fact that people will be exhausting their Unemployment Insurance. Therefore, their ability to finance their homes will be less than it was when they were on Unemployment Insurance.
March 2, 1983

My proposed amendment to the Interest Act is very simple. It will cover approximately 700,000 Canadians who have mortgages at a rate from 17 per cent to 21 per cent and who have to worry about their next payment. They see mortgages today at 12 per cent. My Bill proposes a method for these home owners to take advantage of today's lower rates. Quite simply, it will allow the borrower the privilege of paying off their existing mortgage with a three-month penalty after one year rather than the five years which is presently the law under Section 10 of the Act. After one year they would then be able to reapply.
It is interesting to note that until about 14 years ago, Canadians could get a 25-year mortgage. The provision of Section 10 allowed them to pay it off after five years with a three-month penalty, which is in one-fifth of the time. In the last 12 years, mortgage companies, or those people who grant mortgages, have unilaterally cut out the 25-year mortgage and reduced the maximum term on residential mortgages to one of five years. Therefore, by proposing this amendment, I am actually staying in step by asking that it be possible to pay off a mortgage in one-fifth of the term, one year, which is one-fifth of five, whereas the Act is now outdated. Mortgages could be paid off in five years, being one-fifth of 25, apropos to a time when 25-year mortgages were possible.
The Bill meets the needs of our times. No longer are 25-year terms the norm. With the advent of the interest rate chaos we have witnessed in the past few years, shorter terms became the norm. In fact, a year ago one could not obtain a mortgage for five years. One might be able to obtain one over three years, but in many cases it was reduced to a maximum one-year term. However, our Interest Act never did react to this change of circumstance.
Today, let us get on with this overdue change to the Interest Act and forward the Bill to committee. The Bill changes one word, the word "five" to the word "one".
The Canadian Catholic Bishops' statement has been much discussed, but I dare say it has yet to really influence the actions of the House. Oh, there has been much talk about the statement, but as yet there has been no action. Here is the opportunity for action. Here is the opportunity for Hon. Members who rose from their seats on all sides of the House of Commons to praise the Bishops' statement to think and act in favour of the interests of those Canadians we represent.
I have noticed that I am not the first Member of the House to raise this issue. In fact, the issue has touched upon all sides of the House. Indeed, the Hon. Member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) spoke on a similar amendment to the Interest Act only two weeks ago, which Bill was talked out. After having read all the material concerning events of that day, I found there was much talk but not much sense. It was just talked out for the sake of being talked out. I hope that will not happen today.
I also noticed that on January 31, 1983, as reported on page 22340 of Hansard, the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain
Interest Act
(Mr. Deans) asked a question which reflected a similar interest. Indeed, this merely goes to show that whether one is a Progressive Conservative, a Liberal or a Member of the New Democratic Party, it makes no difference. We all receive correspondence from our constituents seeking a change such as the one I have proposed.
It is with this in mind that I call upon Hon. Members, in the spirit of parliamentary reform, in the spirit of acting on the sentiments of the Bishops' statement, to pass this Bill to the committee for further study today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased to enter into the debate very briefly this afternoon because I want this Bill to pass just as much as the Hon. Member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick). I commend and congratulate him for bringing the Bill to the attention of the House. Nothing could be more timely, since interest rates have been so high, in fact I believe the highest in the history of this country, particularly in 1981 and 1982.
One of the greatest concerns expressed in my constituency of Brant is, of course, the extremely high cost of shelter, of home ownership. As we all know, when interest rates soared from around 8 per cent, 9 per cent or 10 per cent to as high as 20 per cent back in late 1981 and into 1982, thousands of people across this country and many in my own riding were forced to give up their homes. It is not that difficult to lose a car because of lack of money or to even lose a refrigerator or furniture. However, when one loses a house because one cannot afford to maintain the mortgage payments, that is indeed an extremely serious matter; often the family begins to disintegrate, and the family is still the social basis of this country. Without the family as the basis for our society, we are indeed in trouble.
As the Hon. Member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton has already explained, this Bill, which is under his name, will in a general sense allow persons to "buy down" their mortgages after a minimum of one year. The reason for this proposal is obvious. It is because a year and a half ago many home owners were forced to renew mortgages at rates in excess of 19 per cent or 20 per cent, and were locked in for perhaps two or three years. Now that the mortgage rate is down to around 12.5 per cent, if they could buy down their mortgages they would, of course, be afforded considerable monthly savings. For example, a $50,000 mortgage amortized over 20 years at 10 per cent would entail a monthly payment of about $475 a month, but at 19 per cent the monthly payment would be $818.69, or virtually double. There would be a tremendous saving to the average of middle-income home owner if this Bill were allowed to pass second reading and go to committee.
As the Hon. Member who introduced the Bill has very forcefully argued, it will not cost the Government one cent if the Bill passes second reading. It will not become law this afternoon; it will go to a parliamentary committee where the banks and mortgage companies will have their "day in court", so to speak, to present the alternative arguments.

March 2, 1983
Interest Act
As it is very relevant and cogent to the discussion this afternoon, I would like to remind Hon. Members that last spring the banks, which we in the New Democratic Party have argued never lose in this country, were crying "foul" and pleading poverty before the appropriate House Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs which was studying bank profits. Our Party, when it came through with a minority report criticizing and indeed condemning the banks for their exorbitant profits during very tough times, was laughed at or scorned by the business sector and certainly by the banking institutions, yet in last night's news and in today's newspapers we were informed that in 1982 the banks indeed had an excellent year. On average, they had a 30 per cent increase in profits over 1981, which was their best year in history. I believe it was the Scotia Bank which had a 62 per cent profit. The Royal Bank had a 39 per cent profit in 1982 over 1981.
Something must be done about the exorbitant profits of the banks. We in the New Democratic Party have stated that, as in some other progressive countries, the banks should be used in part, not in total, as an extension of social policy. In other words, there should be pools of capital which the banks should be forced to set aside for such groups as farmers, who are extremely important producers in a country such as Canada, for small businesses that are viable but are having short-term cash flow problems, for fishermen, and for low- and middle-income earners with respect to home mortgages. This impacts directly upon the Bill which we are discussing this afternoon, Bill C-674.
In the long term it would help to overcome even the necessity for this kind of Bill if we were to go back to long-term mortgages and to stabilized interest rates over at least a ten-year period. This would also stimulate as well as stabilize the home construction industry and eliminate or certainly reduce a considerable amount of the rip-offs or questionable practices in the residential development area which were formerly evident across the country, to some degree because those in the development industry, the builders and real estate agents, looked ahead and saw crests in their industry of two or three years and then troughs of two or three years. Thus they could not adequately plan ahead. Therefore they tried to grab as much as they could in terms of profit, while the grabbing was good.
There are many aspects to this legislation that we commend to the Government. I see no reason why this Bill cannot go to committee, and I warn Hon. Members opposite that if they talk this Bill out this afternoon they will be deliberately assisting the banks, which made a fantastic profit in 1982 compared to almost every other sector of the economy; they are helping out the mortgage companies, whose profits are also high in comparison to the other sectors of the investment community, and they are directly hurting 700,000 Canadian homeowners-which was the figure used by the Hon. Member who introduced the Bill-who hold mortgages the interest rates of which are in excess of 17 per cent. They are hurting those 700,000, most of whom could reduce their mortgages to
more reasonable interest rates and more manageable monthly payments.
I put this to the Liberal Members opposite: put aside partisanship this afternoon. It is not going to bring down the Government, it is not going to force a snap election, it is not even going to result in Bill C-674 becoming law. We are simply asking the Government Members to let it go through to committee for further study. And if that happens this afternoon, that will be a triumph for backbenchers of all Parties in this House. It will be a gigantic step forward in showing the Treasury benches as well as the banking and money-lending institutions that we ordinary MPs still have some clout, as well as compassion for our constituents.


Mr. Robert Bockstael (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am happy to address this Bill C-674, which has been proposed by the Hon. Member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick), to amend the Interest Act.
The idea behind this Bill has been around for quite a while. At first blush it is natural to have considerable sympathy for what it attempts to achieve. The intent of this proposal is to be retroactive, to go back on contracts that have been established and to amend them after the fact.
It was pointed out by the two previous speakers that we used to have 25-year mortgages, and they lamented the fact that we do not have them any more, that they have been reduced to one-fifth, or five-year mortgages. The very process they are proposing this afternoon is to take five-year mortgages and cut them in five slices and therefore make them one-year mortgages for all future mortgage-holders. My central concern is that it would lead to a very undesirable result. The consequences would be more serious than the benefits that might be achieved, and we would end up in a situation where not only mortgage lenders but also homeowners who want to finance a mortgage would find themselves in a worse position than under the present legislative arrangements.
As I said, the purpose of the Bill looks good on the surface. It is only natural that when mortgage interest rates decline, a homeowner with a mortgage at higher rates would want to take advantage of the reduced interest rates. One can envisage circumstances where, even at a cost of three months' interest, this would be to the homeowner's advantage. I suppose it is the equivalent of having one's cake and eating it, too. Why was such a change not written into the Interest Act years ago? There is a good answer to that rhetorical question. One can begin to get a clue to the answer if one looks at the present terms of the Interest Act. This law allows mortgage borrowers with long-term mortgages of, say, 25 years, to redeem the mortgage at the five-year anniversary date. In effect, they can refinance the mortgage at the current interest rate. The result of this arrangement has been that the normal maximum length of mortgages is, effectively, only five years.
Of course there are times, such as we have passed through recently, when financial markets are in difficulties and shorter terms prevail. Not many homeowners were willing, in the fall of 1981, to tie themselves to five-year contracts at the then
March 2, 1983

interest rates of nearly 22 per cent. So the one-year mortgage or even the six-month term, has prevailed recently. But we are beginning to see the return of five-year mortgages. And the important point to understand is that the prevailing maximum term is five years, not six years or four years, because of the provision in the Interest Act allowing mortgages to be paid off at the end of five years.
In considering this Bill before the House, we must appreciate that it would bring about a fundamental change in the mortgage market. The bottom line is that it would, in all likelihood, result in mortgages which would have a maximum term of no more than one year. Why is this? Well, it takes two to make a mortgage-a borrower and a lender. And under the mortgage structure which this Bill would impose, it is clear that the risks for mortgage lenders would increase. They would be quite unwilling to expose themselves to the dangers of a five-year mortgage if the borrower could, at any time when interest rates dropped, pay off their mortgage.
Mortgage lending institutions place great importance on the need to match the term structure of their mortgage assets with the maturity dates of their deposit liabilities, such as the guaranteed investment certificates, term deposits and debentures through which these institutions raised the funds to lend, in turn, in mortgages. Obviously they would not want to be in a position where their own liabilities are tied in for three or five-year terms at fixed interest rates while their earnings from mortgage interest are liable to decline in the event of a decline in interest rates on the market.
That is why the enactment of this Bill would produce a very quick change in the way mortgage lenders do business. It is clear that they would not want to issue mortgages with terms of more than one year. Because of the need to match that term with their own deposit liabilities, the mortgage lending institutions would no longer be offering the option of three or five-year terms for deposits and other investments. We would end up hurting both homeowners wishing to finance mortgages and also Canadians wishing to place their savings for reasonably long terms at a guaranteed interest return. We would, for example, greatly narrow the investment options open to retired persons. It is important for older Canadians to be able to count on getting a fixed return on their savings for a period of years. Under this system they would, instead, be forced into a situation of having their incomes fluctuate each year with changes in the level of interest rates on the market, and they would also face the problem of having to reinvest their funds every year.
A similar problem would face the homeowner with a mortgage. He would have to renew it each year, with the resulting burden of extra paperwork and legal costs. In effect, he would no longer have the benefit which this Bill seemed to promise: namely, the option of taking advantage of a drop in interest rates. He would, instead, be exposed to whatever the market offered at the end of the one-year term of his mortgage, instead of having the assurance of a five-year loan at a fixed rate.
Interest Act
Therefore, the change proposed by this Bill, rather than achieving the good intentions of its sponsor, would end up being self-defeating; and our position would be worse than when we began. Indeed, it is probable that the harmful results would be felt not only in financial markets. It would lead to increased uncertainties about the availability of mortgage funds to finance the house-building industry. Naturally this uncertainty would translate into problems for the construction industry, and probably a reduced level of housing construction.
The importance of stability in our mortgage markets-in interest rates and in the flow of savings into mortgages-can be seen in our experience of the last two years. The wild fluctuations of interest rates in recent years have created severe problems for lenders, borrowers, and house builders. It was less than two years ago, in the autumn of 1981, that conventional mortgage rates hit a peak of nearly 22 per cent. The average mortgage rate for the full year was 18.2 per cent. It is not surprising that the rate of housing starts fell off sharply, and would-be home buyers were scared off by the high rates. That situation continued into 1982, compounded by the effects of the recession which created uncertainties and fears for the future among people who might otherwise have been in the market for a house.
Last year the main activity in the mortgage market involved mortgage renewals, which were at the remarkably high level of approximately 650,000, but the flow of new loan funds into mortgages fell off quite sharply. Indeed, many of those who were renewing mortgages did their best to reduce their indebtedness by paying off as much as they could of their mortgages before renewing.
Since the middle of last year, however, there has been a welcome turnaround in the housing and mortgage situation. Three important factors have been at work: lower interest rates, government assistance programs, and lower housing prices in many areas. Since last June, mortgage rates have dropped by more than 7.5 percentage points. The rate on one-year conventional mortgages has dropped below 12 per cent. This means that the average monthly mortgage payment on a typical $50,000 mortgage, amortized over a 25-year period, has dropped by more than $250 since last June.
The lower rates combined with government assistance programs have helped greatly in improving access to home-ownership, especially for first-time buyers. All of these factors have helped to restore consumer confidence in housing as a viable investment. Most important, there are growing signs that a recovery in residential construction is imminent. Housing starts have been increasing steadily in recent months, and forecasts indicate that 1983 will be a much stronger year in the homebuilding industry than was 1982.
At the same time we have seen a strengthening in the mortgage market. There are increasing reports from lending institutions that borrowers with expiring one-year mortgages are switching to longer-term loans of three or five years. A few months ago it was hard to find a bank which offered five-year

March 2, 1983
Interest Act
mortgages; now these longer-term loans are available at most of the major banks.
That welcome development has been made possible because Canadian investors are increasingly willing to put their savings into longer-term deposits and investments. Thanks to the decline in interest rates, they are moving to lock in current interest rates for three and five years. As a result, the supply of funds for mortgage lending is more than adequate to meet the prospective demand.
So our prospects in housing are more promising than they have been in some time. 1 feel it would be wrong to put all of this at risk by adopting the proposal in this Bill which, as I have indicated, would create far more problems than it would solve.
In fact, it is fair to say that market forces have not been doing a bad job of solving some of the problems which we faced. The mortgage market has proved itself remarkably adaptable, despite the turmoil and uncertainty of the financial situation in the last couple of years.
We have seen an increase in the number of open mortgages, which give the borrower the option to take advantage of a future drop in interest rates, provided he is prepared to pay the necessary premium for the privilege.
Another adaptation is variable rate mortgages, where monthly payments are fixed for a period of one or two years and then subject to adjustment in light of current interest rates in the market. These instruments are taking a substantial share of the market among some lending institutions which are promoting them. In addition, some lenders have adopted a plan whereby the borrower can renegotiate his mortgage at a predetermined cost. What this means in effect is that the homeowner who still has, perhaps, four, five or six months remaining on his current mortgage term, can switch to a new mortgage, locking in current favourable interest rates, at the cost of a pre-set premium.
One major trust company allows a mortgage borrower to switch to a lower interest rate in cases where the market rate has dropped within 30 days after having renegotiated a mortgage.
I believe that in view of this kind of adaptability in the mortgage market, it would be most unwise to attempt to impose a new rule by way of legislation. While recognizing the good intentions of the sponsor of this Bill, I think we must conclude that its adoption would be a mistake and that the market would prove this very quickly.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by the Hon. Member for St. Boniface (Mr. Bockstael). This Bill attracts attention from a lot of people both here and in my riding. In Mississauga there are thousands of new homes which have just been completed. The people are rolling over their mortgages. There are subdivisions in my constituency where the mortgages came due block after block, street after street, all at the same time. With the astonishingly, incredibly high interest rates of the past two years, there have been
difficulties in whole neighbourhoods. It has had a very dispiriting effect on the people living in those homes.
Equally, there are hundreds of small businesses in my riding. The people there are looking for ways to carry on their normal activities, using normal borrowing during a period when profits are down and interest rate costs have skyrocketed. The recent experience with skyhigh interest rates created a very difficult situation for these people. There is not a responsible political person who would not understand the impact of these high rates on our constituents.
In my constituency, and in carrying out my job as Parliamentary Secretary, I have had a lot of conversations with people faced with these difficulties. Last night I attended the meeting of the Canadian Labour Congress. There was an open question and answer period. There is no doubt that the workers represented at that Congress are deeply concerned about the impact of high interest rates on their jobs and on their personal lifestyles.
I was deeply impressed by the interest these people showed in finding some kind of alternative or some relief to the burden we all face. I would like again to extend to them my congratulations for what I thought were responsible ideas and, in many cases, well-expressed alternatives. But, Mr. Speaker, the intention in Bill C-674 will not work. The real answer is to lower interest rates. The real cure in the long run for all of us is to have interest rates back to levels we can all afford.
If we look at major structural changes such as the one recommended by my hon. friend in this Bill, we see that he is really suggesting that we turn over the whole financial system, and I am not sure it would have the results which he hopes for. However, it is the kind of approach toward which we can all be sympathetic. We would like to see one magic answer which we can impose on the whole financial system in the hope that this horrible problem will go away. Contrary to the opinions of the Hon. Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn), those of us who have some reservations about this Bill are not promoting higher profits for our financial institutions. What we are trying to do is to find a long-term legitimate cure, not some instant cure which is going to cause even greater difficulties in some other way. The Hon. Member for Brant, for example, has suggested that we go back to the kind of mortgage patterns which used to exist in the fifties and sixties. He would like to see mortgage terms of ten years or longer so that people can have some security in their home mortgages. I agree with the desire to find some security for these people. I would, however, want him to remember that not everyone in that period could get a mortgage when they wanted it. The mortgage market then was not as wide open or as readily accessible as it is at the moment.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Make it available by law.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: 1 believe I heard some advice shouted at me from across the way, but I could not make out what the Hon. Member said.
March 2, 1983


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Make it available by law.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Yes. The Hon. Member for Brant says, as I was afraid he would, that we should take his idea and enforce it by law. Again we see the pattern which begins to develop here, that one change in the law, as the one recommended in this Bill, must lead to a second change which would enforce some kind of mortgage pool into existence. I presume that if that does not work, we would then have to pass an additional law, an additional regulation. All of these kinds of regulations and interference in the financial market can be avoided if we get back to the real cure for high interest rates and the long-time cure toward volatile interest rates.
There are no magic answers. You cannot come up with an instant cure and slap it on top of a highly mobile situation, such as that of the capital markets in Canada. Last night at the CLC, for example, someone asked me why we did not have exchange controls. If our interest rates were reduced, and if the reduction in interest rates resulted in a flood of capital going out of the country, then we should cure that by bringing in exchange controls. Yet, Mr. Speaker, exchange controls would simply be another magic answer and, again, I am not very sure they are a workable answer.
Mr. Robert Bryce was the official in charge of exchange controls during World War II. In his recent writings his advice has been very cautious about exchange controls. He warns us that Canada is a wide open country. It is a place where we pride ourselves and we prosper on our trade and our openness. To bring in exchange controls on top of this kind of open situation would really not work. There are hundreds of ways in which individuals and corporations could avoid any exchange control if we were to bring it in. Over these past couple of years the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) and other Hon. Members of Parliament have given thorough consideration to exchange controls. We have rejected them because they do not fit either the best part of our national economic character or the reality of our economic system. We would have to impose them and then would find that in their imposition they probably would not work. And so another magic answer, another magic solution, would have to be rejected. Just as we have rejected the idea that you can enforce or legislate a mortgage pool, in the same way I would reject the idea that exchange controls could be enforced.
1 believe the main problem which we would face in all of this is the nature not only of the Canadian economy, but the nature of capital. Capital will move out of these areas very quickly, will move out of this country very quickly, if the Government appeared to be threatening. I believe the advice we received from the Lortie Commission indicated very clearly how fluid capital really is, and anyone who has worked at all in trying to raise funds will know that the capital market does not have any restrictions on it at this time and capital will move away from any situation which looks too threatening. Therefore, long before we are able to put this kind of suggestion into effect, we would find that the funds available for mortgages had disappeared.
Interest Act
The Hon. Member for St. Boniface (Mr. Bockstael) gave us a very good description of the need for balance in this area. For every borrower there has to be a lender. We are not doing the borrowers any good if we drive away the lenders or if we frighten away the money. This is not an abstract problem. This is not an unfair favouring of capital over the needs of the consumer or the needs of the businessman and the worker. This is in fact a realistic assessment of the existing capital market in North America and, indeed, around the world.
We only have to take a look at the French experience after the Mitterand election to see that attempts to change interest rates away from world trends do not work. Attempts to apply magic solutions do not work. The French had to abandon those attempts after the first unsuccessful experiments. We need to remember that there is a fair balance in this part of life, that every borrower has to be matched by a lender, and the lender has to feel that the arrangement is fair and that the money which is lent will be repaid in a proper way.
I have strayed from my topic, a little, Mr. Speaker, because I feel it is important to give that kind of background periodically whenever I hear comments about mortgages or high interest rates. It is important to talk about the background of the capital market and the nature of the Canadian economy within the North American economy, because to do otherwise is to mislead people.
I began my remarks by saying that the real cure for all of this comes in the form of lower interest rates, and the real way to cure the high interest rate problem is to follow the approach which the Government has taken, and that approach is twofold: first, we have said that the over-all high interest rate problem is going to be solved when the inflation level comes down. We cannot reach out into every Canadian's life and magically produce low interest rates for every Canadian, so we must deal with the causes of high interest rates. We have to attack the high inflation rate; second, we also have to react to American interest rates. Those are the two magnets which pull at our interest rates in this country, the U.S. rates and our own domestic inflation. As I tried to explain a moment ago, we would have to increase our interest rates if the Americans increased their rates, but we cannot automatically reduce our interest rates when the Americans do. We must lower our inflation rate at the same time.
As abstract as those ideas seem, they have an important bearing on our lives. Interest rates will come down when we clean up our own act here in Canada by lowering our own inflation. They will also come down when the American rates come down. I am happy to say that we have seen some very good news on those fronts in the past few months.
I should like to refer to a few statistics. The official Bank of Canada rate today is at 9.48 per cent. The one-year mortgage rate is at 11.5 per cent to 11.75 per cent. The prime rates are at 11.25 per cent. Those are record low levels. We have to go back about four years before we find rates that low. In the United States we see the same trend happening. There are now

March 2, 1983
Interest Act
major movements among important American banks to lower their prime rates. Their prime seems to be settling in this week at about 10.5 per cent. Again we would have to go back about four years to find a rate that low.
With our low inflation rate we know that we will be in a position to take advantage of these declining American rates. Our inflation has been showing very good trends over the last six months. In May, our rate was at 11.8 per cent. Today, on a 12-month year-over-year basis, it is 8.3 per cent. In the last six months it has been at 6 per cent. We can see not only that it is lower, but that recent experience will pull it down even more. In January, prices fell by .3 per cent. We have lower prices in our economy. We have lower inflation, combined with lower American rates. The two factors together will give us lots of room to get Canadian interest rates down and to leave them down.
There has been much talk on the other side about Government deficits and how the Government will crowd out other investors in the market. I am reminded of a story appearing in The Globe and Mail today that indicated that federal bonds which were put on the market this week have sold very, very quickly; in fact, they sold at a premium. The bond market seems to be in a very good position.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Perhaps you set the interest rate too high.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: If we look at the availability of funds, there is plenty of room for the federal Government to go out and borrow money without crowding out private sector borrowers. I know that Conservatives like to claim otherwise, but it is important for us to reassure Canadians that federal Government borrowing at this time will not crowd out the private sector, nor cause any kind of resurgence in interest rates.
Today it seems we have the ingredients for some better longterm response on the interest rate front. We have lower inflation. We have lower rates abroad. We do not have a lot of competition on the market for money. We can anticipate that interest rates will be a little more favourable for consumers, home buyers and business people over the next few months. Let us welcome that as a sign that our recovery is on the way.
We can see a few results from all this. The Hon. Member for St. Boniface pointed out, quite rightly, that mortgage rates have come down dramatically ever since the Government introduced its six and five program.


Some Hon. Members:: Nonsense!


Douglas Glenn Fisher: For example, an average $55,000 one-year mortgage is now $250 cheaper every month since the six and five program came in. Housing starts all across Canada have responded to those lower rates. In my own City of Toronto, housing starts in the last month were 75 per cent higher than they were a year earlier. People are getting back out on the market because houses are affordable and because they know that they will be affordable for a longer period of time. We can see through Christmas retail sales patterns that consumers are coming back out on the market and that consumer confidence is reviving.
If people took the time to read it, an interesting story appeared in yesterday's edition of The Toronto Star which quoted a man named Douglas Peters from the Toronto-Dominion Bank who indicated that the consumer response in this period of short inventories will have an immediate impact upon factories and manufacturers. This revival of consumer demand can indeed lead to people being recalled to the job and to a return of greater economic activity. Lower interest rates and the six and five program generally have given us some confidence.
However, we have not forgotten the individual who is in trouble. We have not forgotten the person who has really been pressed by high interest rates. In November, 1981 and in June, 1982 we continued the program of $3,000 grants for people with high mortgages who had to renew them. The people in the greatest despair, the people who were spending more than 30 per cent of their total family income on mortgages, were eligible for $3,000 grants to reduce those carrying costs to a more affordable level. We did that for a category of people who needed the help the most, the people who were spending 30 per cent or more of their family incomes on their mortgages. We want to help those people carry those mortgages and stay in their homes. In the same way we renewed the small business bond and we increased Farm Credit Corporation funds by $400 million.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. The Hon. Member's time has expired.


Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak for a few minutes on this Bill. I must say that on reading it I am somewhat ambivalent about it. I feel it contains some good things, but also some that I question.
The Hon. Member for St. Boniface (Mr. Bockstael) said that it created more problems than it resolved. I am not sure whether I agree with that, because in general I support lower interest rates and the idea of paying off a mortgage as early as possible.
I should like to refer to the Explanatory Note which in part reads as follows:
The Interest Act at present grants mortgagors the right to pay out a five-year mortgage at the expiration of the five-year term, subject only to a penalty of three months' interest in lieu of notice.
It says, "in lieu of notice". Actually that term is usually written into the mortgage, and I understand it. I think it would be most unfortunate to have a one-year mortgage and still have to pay the same bonus, whether it is in lieu of notice or whether it is written in the mortgage papers that one is required to pay three months' interest bonus. As I understand it, if the interest rate were 12 per cent, the three months' interest bonus would probably bring it up to 15 per cent. Thus one would be really paying a very high rate of interest, almost a usurious rate, to pay off the mortgage at the end of the one year.
March 2, 1983

Also I understand that some credit unions have been giving out funds at a flexible rate which fluctuates from month to month, and also that they have been prepared to accept weekly payments. It has been a real boon to their success and to the mortgage payer to have a fluctuating rate and to be able to pay them off weekly, with the payments being calculated weekly not monthly, at six-month intervals or even yearly as some mortgages are.
One matter which concerns me is the cost involved in a mortgage transaction, particularly if one has to refinance or renew it after one year. Today I find that many mortgage companies are not prepared to renew mortgages in the usual way in which it was done over the years. In many cases they say that we no longer want to accept this kind of risk. Usually it is because some people have been in some difficulty with their mortgage payments. They may have been in arrears. They may have brought them up to date but are still having difficulty making their payments from month to month. The mortgage companies, in their wisdom or lack of it, in my view, should assume some of the risky transactions or risky mortgages the same as anyone else, but rather than do that and act as good corporate financial citizens, they are prepared to say to their mortgagees, "We will not renew your mortgage". The individual must therefore look for a new mortgage. It may be very difficult, and in some cases impossible, to find a new mortgage or to get the mortgage that you need if you do not qualify financially.
With regard to mortgage costs, not only the cost paid to the mortgage company is involved or the cost of taking out a new mortgage with another financial institution but there is the whole question of the legal costs. It means another search of title, checking for mechanics' liens, executions and all the legal work that is required in such a situation.
Although interest rates are lower today than they were recently, they are nothing like the interest rates that were in effect just after the war. At that time National Housing Association mortgages were available at 6 per cent for 35 years. Some of those mortgages have matured just recently. They were a Godsend at the time, and rates have been much higher ever since. It is too bad that we do not have some way of guaranteeing a particular rate of mortgage interest over a number of years. I hope that in the Speech from the Throne which will be coming down shortly, the Minister will offer something of that nature.
We are all concerned about lowering interest rates and paying off mortgages as soon as possible at the least cost possible.
I would suggest to the Hon. Member that he change his Bill to indicate that people should be able to pay off any mortgage after one year, without notice and without bonus. That would be an improvement on the Bill and it would be much more likely to obtain the agreement of all Members of the House.
Canada Elections Act


Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think
there is very much time for me to make even a brief comment. As the Hon. Member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick) said in his remarks, I introduced a similar Bill two weeks ago. Hon. Members are well aware of what is going to happen to this Bill in the minute or two remaining.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 24(2) it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings.
Shall all orders listed under Private Members' Public Bills preceding item No. 469 be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Jean-Robert Gauthier: that Bill C-669 to amend the Canada Elections Act (civilian Canadian Forces electors) be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
He said: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My interest in this matter arose several years ago when we discussed in the House extending the law to give teachers and administrators on National Defence posts outside the country the right to vote in federal elections. At that time several of my constituents asked that the law be amended to include employees who were not on military lists or, for that matter, on teachers' lists but were people who worked for the Armed Forces on the bases as advisers, professionals in the service sector, or in administration. They worked on contract but were not public servants under the law.
At that time I was told that this was a complicated subject and should probably be referred to the Chief Electoral Officer. Correspondence continued to come in to me, and so I decided to present a Bill.
This is a very simple and straightforward Bill which proposes to extend the right to vote to all Canadian citizens working for the Canadian Armed Forces outside Canada in any capacity whatsoever. Essentially, that is the purpose of the Bill.
1 have written several letters to different Ministers-The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne) and the President of Privy Council (Mr. Pinard), as well as to the Chief Electoral Officer. I have received-

-a variety of opinions, Mr. Speaker.
The purpose of this Bill, which we shall be discussing for the remainder of the day, is to grant voting rights to some 850 Canadians who are working abroad for the Canadian Forces. At the present time, the only civilians employed by the

March 2, 1983
Canada Elections Act
Canadian Forces to have those rights are teachers, as I mentioned earlier, and members of the administrative support staff in Canadian Forces schools. This exception was made in the House in 1977, when we amended the Act to include this group.
If passed, the Bill would eliminate a provision which 1 consider to be discriminatory, and which allows certain civilian electors to exercise their voting rights, while prohibiting others from doing so. According to my information, a large proportion of the individuals to be affected by this Bill are now eligible to vote, but only as dependants of a Canadian Forces elector. This is why, Mr. Speaker, my comments will be on matters of principle rather than on electoral accounting problems. It would be easy to argue that there are not 850 people-perhaps there are only 300. 1 did not go to the Canadian Forces bases to count them, so I am not going to concentrate on figures but on the principle involved.
To understand the injustice of the present situation, I think Hon. Members should imagine how they would feel if they were a doctor, for instance, who has left his province to practise his profession in Europe on a Canadian Forces base. He reads the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which became effective last spring, a document that has been given wide circulation by the Government. He notices Section 3 of the Charter, which reads as follows, and I quote:
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.
Our doctor says: Great! The Charter is absolutely clear, and I am a Canadian citizen. Even if I happen to be on a Canadian Forces base in Europe, surely I will have the right to vote. When general elections are called, he finds out that he, his wife and his daughter who is of voting age, do not have the right to vote, whatever the Charter says, because of the present wording of the legislation. Our doctor is not a member of the military, nor a teacher nor a dependant of a Canadian Forces elector. He is very disappointed, especially since both his military neighbour across the way and his next-door neighbour who happens to be a civilian teaching elementary school, can take advantage of the mechanisms provided under the Special Voting Rules and vote by mail in federal general elections.
1 have heard three arguments which attempt to justify this discriminatory state of affairs. One was that the civilians who would stand to gain by this Bill had been abroad for a long time and, as a result, would have lost interest in Canadian politics. On the other hand, members of the Armed Forces and teachers are, in many cases, people who have been abroad for a number of years. But they have the right to vote.
In fact, that Canadians who stand to benefit from this Bill are still interested in voting was amply proven by the mail I received from these people at my office, and they are still interested in the political life of their country and in the Government because they are entitled to exercise their voting rights in general elections by casting a vote to show their
approval or disapproval of the Government's activities, and in a democracy like ours, it is essential that everyone be allowed to exercise his voting rights.
Another argument was that the people affected by my Bill were not subject to the Code of Service Discipline and were therefore excluded and thus subject to the laws of the country where they were living, not Canadian law. As a result, it would be impossible to prosecute them in case of any violations of the voting rules. I admit there is a problem, but it seems to me it could be overcome. For instance, Canadians working abroad for the Canadian Forces as civilian employees could be declared subject to the Code of Service Discipline but only for the purposes of the Canada Elections Act.
Third, there is the need for administrative arrangements to put this Bill into effect. Here again, I have received from the people to whom I have written various opinions with regard to the administrative difficulties at hand. I want to read the opinion given to me by the Minister of National Defence. His letter, dated December 6, 1982, is addressed to me, and reads as follows:
To extend the voting privileges beyond members of the Canadian Forces and career members of the Public Service of Canada would require the establishment of permanent lists of electors or continuous electoral rolls. At the moment, both the Department of National Defence and the Department of External Affairs maintain permanent lists of Canadian Forces and Public Service electors based on the information available on personnel departmental files: this information is not available in respect of locally engaged Canadians employed by this Department outside Canada.
The letter goes on:
Administratively it would be extremely difficult and, at times, impossible to maintain permanent and accurate lists of electors and also to ensure that they are afforded the opportunity of voting at federal general elections throughout the world.


Miss MacDonald:: Australia does.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That is the opinion of the Minister of National Defence.
I wrote, as I said before, to the President of the Privy Council. His answer to me, dated November 18, 1982, reads, in part:
Your suggestion about the possibility of the civilian personnel office producing a list of its employees at the time of a federal election is a reasonable one, if this office keeps the personnel records of all public employees abroad. With the cooperation of the Defence Department, the votes of these employees could be forwarded in a similar manner to the votes of the members of the Armed Forces and their dependants.
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, there is a difference of opinion between these two Ministers. I want to come now to the Chief Electoral Officer's letter to whom I wrote on the same point asking the same question. His answer dated November 22, 1982, and it reads in part:
From an administrative point of view, I do not believe that such an undertaking would present any difficulty, providing the Department of National Defence is in a position to process the statements of ordinary residence of such employees,
March 2, 1983

which is the basic requirement for voting under the Special Voting Rules, which form Schedule II of the Canada Elections Act.
As Hon. Members can see, there are divergent views as to the administrative challenge of putting this Bill into effect.
I do not want to take too long to discuss the fourth reason. I think the Charter of Rights speaks for itself. I do, however, want to quote again from the letter written to me by the Minister of National Defence. His point to me on the question of the constitutional right is worth having in our records.
I refer again to his letter of December 6, 1982 on the question of the constitutional right, Article 3. It reads:
Whether or not Article 3 of the Constitution 1981 will override the provisions of the Canada Elections Act and the Special Voting Rules, schedule II to that Act, is a matter which will have to be considered by officials in the Department of Justice and most probably eventually by the courts.
Will the Constitution of this country be a matter for consideration by officials in the Department of Justice? I do not understand, Mr. Speaker. The Minister goes on as follows:
-it would be difficult to recommend that a group of Canadian citizens employed locally by the Canadian Forces outside Canada, who are not subject to the Code of Service Discipline, should be given the right to vote at federal general elections without extending that same right to other Canadian citizens also employed outside Canada by other Government departments or agencies.
To that last point, I would like to add my support for a broader Bill. Possibly this Bill is too narrow in its application. It directs its impact toward Canadians working in Canadian Forces bases overseas. It could be that a committee, which would get a reference of this Bill, would want to extend that privilege to all Canadians, whether they are travelling on business or on pleasure outside of Canada at the time of an election. They would have the process at hand where they could go either to a consul or to an embassy to register themselves and be eligible to vote in a Canadian general election.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Right on.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I do not think it is impossible for us to do that. I do not know that it would be difficult to have a permanent list that would allow us to do that. But I do think it would be a subject matter which would be of interest to all in the House and on which it would be interesting to hear the committee pronounce itself.
I do not want to take too much time because I would like to see the Bill referred to committee. In closing, I would like to thank those constituents and the people living in Lars who have written to me on this subject over the years. I hope for their sake that come the next election they will be able to exercise the democratic right of all Canadian citizens, namely, the right to vote in elections.


Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to this much needed Bill. I want to compliment the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) for presenting it. He is getting a reputation for doing some thinking on his own, a rare commodity on that side of the House, and I want to congratulate him.
Canada Elections Act


Donald W. Munro: When did you last have a thought?


Allan Bruce McKinnon: This Bill will help considerably the lot of people who are serving their country overseas. At present those who are on the voters' lists external to Canada are the Canadian Forces themselves, their dependants, and also, to my recollection, External Affairs employees. Their names are all recorded on various voters' lists which are very well and capably handled in each election that I have seen. 1 simply cannot understand why on earth, if External Affairs can put their Canadian employees on a voters' list in an embassy in a foreign land, the Armed Forces cannot do the same thing.
There are many people serving with the Armed Forces, for instance, in Germany, besides their dependants. Many of the senior positions are civilian positions. There are accountants and newspaper editors. There are people who operate the Maple Leaf services, the shopping centres. They have managers and purchasing agents. There are people who operate automobile agencies. These people are all Canadians and they should be entitled to vote according to the Bill of Rights, if nothing else, which, incidentally, allows all Canadians to vote and makes no discrimination at all, even to age.
The present Act has been improved over the years but obviously it needs some further improvement. Each Member of Parliament now gets a special list of service voters and dependants, and the External Affairs people who mark themselves down as wishing to vote in the Member's constituency. I would like to see that extended to these other employees as well.
While talking about that list, I am sure many Members wonder along with me why the Department of National Defence cannot refer to Navy personnel by their ranks and save us all the embarassment when we send something to a Major McKinnon, for example, who might be listed as being on HMCS Gatineau. When it is sent to Major McKinnon, it turns out he is a Lieutenant Commander. Not only is he mad, but you may have lost a vote. I am sure all Members would agree that this is an improvement which could be made to the Bill when it goes to committee, as I hope it does.
I agree with the Hon. Member who introduced the Bill that to say it is administratively extremely difficult to do something is not a good enough reason to disenfranchise Canadians who are serving their country. I hope that this Bill will not be talked out by the Liberals and that it will go to committee.


Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak on Bill C-669, which is an Act to amend the Canada Elections Act. I too would like to commend the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) for his independent thinking and his persistence with regard to this particular issue of extending the vote to those who are serving our country overseas. I would certainly echo the sentiments expressed by the previous speaker that, hopefully, the Government Members will not talk this Bill out, although I know they will.


Mr. Dingwall:: Oh, come on.

March 2, 1983
Canada Elections Act
I would like to refer to the Charter of Rights as it concerns this Bill. It is a Charter that our Parliament agonized over for a long time, the better part of a year. This is one of the first opportunities that the Government has had to demonstrate the importance of the Charter of Rights, particularly with respect to Part I, Section 3 which concerns the democratic rights that every citizen of Canada has. Our new Constitution says that every citizen has the right to vote in an election of Members of the House of Commons or Legislative Assembly and is qualified for membership therein. It is a pity that this right has not been extended to our citizens who are, in this case, serving with the Canadian Armed Forces, even though they may be employed in civilian categories.
Another part of our Charter concerns the whole question of mobility rights that ought to be recognized. Part I, Section 6 says that every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada. If we recognize the right to vote and the right to be mobile both inside and outside of Canada, it is certainly very puzzling why the Government would want to talk out a Bill of this nature when we should be ensuring that all Canadians have that opportunity, wherever they are or from whatever background. The Charter states that they do have that right.
Aside from the fact that the Constitution indicates that we should support a Bill such as this, we also have to keep in mind the democratic principles under which we operate. On other occasions I have cited the famous quotation of Henry Emerson Fosdick who said that democracy is based upon the conviction that there are extraordinary possibilities in ordinary people. The people whom we want to include under this particular Bill may be considered by others as ordinary people overseas, but in some respects I think they are extraordinary. They are extending the service of Canadians not only here but overseas. They are making sacrifices in many ways by living in countries where they do not have the same kind of amenities that we have in Canada. It is a pity that they are not recognized.
I am pleased that this Bill seeks to extend this right to vote to all. I believe it concerns the basic question of citizenship. It has been said that the most important office is that of a private citizen. Why should certain private citizens be deprived of their opportunity and right to vote? I believe that citizenship is a demonstration of service to the country. One of the best ways to demonstrate citizenship is to allow people the right to vote. 1 would emphasize the importance of this fact.
Fortunately, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier has recognized the importance of voting. Perhaps the other Government Members have not recognized the importance of that right. It has been said that voting is the least arduous of a citizen's duties. He or she has the prior and harder duty of making up his or her mind. Therefore, when people vote, that is an outward manifestation of an inward act which they must perform. I do not understand why the Government wants to talk this Bill out and thereby deprive people serving overseas of the ability to make up their minds. I suspect the Government is fearful that when they do make up their mind their ballots will not be cast in the same way they have been in the past.
I do have some reservations about this Bill. I feel that it does not really go far enough. It seems to be limited purely to
civilians who are working with the Armed Forces. I suggest that there must be an extension of this to anyone who is working in another country. Many of these people have sacrificed much to go abroad. They are still vitally interested in what is happening in Canada, but they are being deprived of a vote. I think, for example, of those working for CUSO. As well, there are those in non-government organizations such as the Mennonite Central Committee. They could also be missionaries who are in other countries.
Our Charter of Rights talks about the fact that we should not discriminate against individuals on the basis of religion, race or age. There should be a basic equality among people. This Bill should take into account all those Canadian citizens who have the right to vote under the Charter that we fought for.
The problem of administrative difficulties should not be of any concern. The previous speaker talked about the fact that we already receive lists of those in the Armed Forces overseas who are entitled to vote. We get their names regularly so that we can send them our "householders" and other information. What is stopping the Government from enfranchising all those overseas who can vote?
This Bill certainly merits the attention of the House. At least the contents of the Bill should be referred to the committee, and therefore I am somewhat disappointed that the Government will talk it out. The fact that the Government talks Bills out in some ways makes a farce out of Parliament. The fact is that this is a good idea, it will be raised in the next session, either in a Speech from the Throne or through proposals from the bureaucracy. I would like to expand on that point. The philosophy of this Bill will be brought forward by the bureaucracy as one of its own ideas. It will receive approval in the next session of Parliament. Here we have something which has been brought forward by Members of Parliament, people who have been elected to present their views. But no, that idea will not be accepted because it came from a Member of Parliament, even though it happened to be a Member from the Government side. However, when it comes from the bureaucracy, it will be accepted the next time around. I know that this is exactly what will happen in this particular case, and the Government is making a farce out of Parliament at this stage. I see the Parliamentary Secretary shaking his head, but this is unfortunately the way we are seeing things operating in the House.
I would therefore urge Hon. Members opposite to think this through, not to talk this Bill out, and at least to refer the subject matter to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections which may study it and bring us some recommendations to restore to Members of Parliament the power that they really deserve to have.


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague and
March 2, 1983

good friend, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) for bringing forth the Bill today. 1 think it is a Bill of extreme importance. I am sorry that the Hon. Member for Dauphin (Mr. Lewycky) could not address himself to the contents of the Bill rather than making a series of rash judgments about other Members of Parliament. However, it is the kind of thing we have come to expect from Members of the Opposition, particularly in the last ten days or so when rash judgment seemed to be about the only act of which they were capable.


Miss Jewett:: Why didn't you listen?


Mr. Kilgour:: How long are you going to speak?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: As long as 1 must in order to express my thoughts, and if some of the-


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. I wish Hon. Members would address their remarks to the Chair, please.


Pauline Jewett: We want the Hon. Member to sit down.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to address my remarks to you and to remind you that the rash judgments are still occurring. The importance of the Bill cannot be exaggerated, because the right to vote is the most fundamental of rights, next to the right to life, in my opinion.


Pauline Jewett: To coin a phrase.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: i would certainly hope that the Government would accept the Bill.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: The Hon.
Member, in speaking to the Bill, said he had written to a number of Ministers and to the Chief Electoral Officer, and he quoted from some of those letters. I must say that whoever composed the letter from the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne) was certainly making some long grasps, it seems to me, because the reasons given were not very valid. In fact, they were hardly rational. It seems to me that it should be easy to establish the mechanisms by which Canadians overseas may be able to vote.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: I see only one major flaw in the Bill, it being that it is too narrow in scope. The mover of the Bill himself has recognized that fact. However, why should we not include the dependants of people who might be working overseas?


Laverne Lewycky: And the spouses.
Canada Elections Act


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Why should it apply only to dependants of those in the Canadian Armed Forces? Why should it not also apply to those who, while they may not be public servants, may be employed by the Department of External Affairs or by CIDA? What about volunteer workers in fields such as medicine, education or social work? Because they are serving humanity outside of Canada, why should they be denied their votes? Why could they not go to the nearest Canadian embassy or high commission and swear a standard affidavit stating that they had not voted in Canada and therefore are eligible to vote in any federal general election? What about missionaries, for instance, as the Hon. Member for Dauphin mentioned? It seems to me that rather than putting roadblocks in the way of people's right to vote, we should be doing everything possible to make it easy for them to vote.


Pauline Jewett: Refer it to committee.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Therefore,
because the Bill is, in my opinion, too narrow in scope, I should like to move:
That Bill C-669 be withdrawn and the subject matter thereof be referred forthwith to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. That motion requires a seconder.


Laverne Lewycky: I will second it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Mr. Dionne has moved a motion, seconded by Mr. Lewycky. Such a motion would require unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


An Hon. Member:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: There is not unanimous consent.


Pauline Jewett: David Smith said, "No".


David P. Smith: They said it was me.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to see that the motion as put forth by the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne)-


Pauline Jewett: Nice try.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: -did not receive the consent of the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith).


Pauline Jewett: He is just a nobody.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: It is a shame that a matter of this significance could not have been referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for study, for detail and for passage

March 2, 1983
Canada Elections Act
because a number of matters could have been raised and discussed at that time, matters which really need correction involving our Canada Elections Act, matters which are anachronistic now. 1 want to congratulate the Elon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) for having brought the Bill forward to the House, for having vented the need for changes to the Canada Elections Act.
I would certainly support what the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier is proposing today. 1 was interested to note that he and others feel that perhaps the whole issue should go much further. It reminds of the time some years ago, long before 1 became a Member here, when I appeared before the parliamentary Committee on Privileges and Elections to put forth a proposal that we introduce absentee voting in this country and that we have a continuous electoral role system in this country such as there is in Australia. There is no problem in Australia managing to have absentee voting and extending the franchise to everyone who is a citizen. I do not think that Canadians are any less competent than Australians to carry that out. I feel that had we been able to send the subject matter to committee, as the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi suggested, we would have been able to discuss that broader issue.


Pauline Jewett: That's right.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: However, I want to suggest to the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier, who has brought this very valuable piece of legislation before us, with regard to Schedule II of the Canada Elections Act, that extending the vote to persons whom he has designated would be one improvement we could make. There is another under Schedule II which he has mentioned, and I am sure that he and other Members of the House have heard this matter raised, as the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) has raised it both as Minister and again as an Hon. Member of the Opposition. I would refer particularly to the dependants, the spouses of Armed Forces personnel and public servants serving abroad who indeed have the vote.
It is clear to everyone here that the Canada Elections Act allows members of the Armed Forces and members of the diplomatic service to declare their place of residence in Canada in January or February of each year. They can designate the constituencies in which their votes will be cast. What I find repugnant and anachronistic is that the spouses who, by and large, happen to be women, must accept such designation of residence for themselves. Those women are not allowed to declare where they will vote in Canada. A spouse must accept the designation of the constituency declared by her husband even though she may never have lived in the riding when in Canada or met any of the candidates for the election, and may not have any connection whatsoever with the particular constituency designated for the vote.
1 have raised this matter with the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne). In fact, I raised it with him in questions on May 10 of last year, and suggested that this was something which could very easily be changed. In fact, when I
raised it with him I suggested that the Election Act could be changed so that in January and February of each year the spouse, at the same time as the member of the Armed Forces is permitted to designate his constituency, could designate the constituency where she had formerly resided and where she had had in the past some connection from the point of view of residence. That is really a very anachronistic situation.
I raised that with the Minister of National Defence. In his reply he undertook to follow it up and said that he would bring it to the attention of the Chief Electoral Officer, but nothing has been done. Months have passed, and nothing has been done. There is an anger and frustration among the wives of the Armed Forces personnel serving abroad who, under the Canada Elections Act, are considered merely an extension of their husbands. They do not exist in their own right.
I would hope that when this Bill goes to committee, as I pray that it will, that will be another aspect of Schedule II, that is, the independent nature of spouses of Armed Forces and diplomatic personnel living abroad, that that subject matter can also be addressed, and that the very much out-of-date section of the Canada Elections Act will be corrected.


William Kenneth Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I want at the outset, as did some of my predecessors who have been speaking today, to congratulate the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) for bringing forth a very timely Bill. It happens to be a matter that he has been working on, as I understand it, for some ten years, and it must make him feel very good at least to see it come before Parliament once again.
The difficulty, however, is that many people in effect are disenfranchised because the Bill does not go far enough. It is noted, however, in the explanatory note, that in 1977 the Canada Elections Act was amended to grant the right to vote to Canadian citizens teaching outside Canada in Canadian Armed Forces schools or employed as administrative support staff in such schools. However, this Bill only extends that privilege to Canadian citizens working for the Canadian Armed Forces outside of Canada. At the present time we merely have teachers being accepted. The civilians working for the Canadian Forces are not accepted at this time, but would be in this Bill.
I agree with my colleague from the NDP that the Bill does not go far enough. It should include all personnel, all Canadians at all missions, embassies, high commission offices, trade offices, immigration offices and so forth, wherever they might be in whatever country. It should include Canadians working on projects and contracts in various countries. For instance, we have a big contract coming up to build a Canadian embassy in Saudi Arabia, and we will have a number of Canadians there. They should have the right to vote in any elections that take place while they are working on that project. At the present time they would not be able to.
March 2, 1983

A number of Canadians are working on CIDA projects that we have in Africa, South America, Central America, the Caribbean and so on. They too should not be disenfranchised and should have the right to vote in elections. Some methods have been suggested as to how this can be done, and I think they make sense. 1 would go even further than that. I believe all Canadians throughout the world, even if they are on vacation, should have the opportunity of attending at the embassy or the high commissioner's office to fill out the necessary forms so that they can vote in a general election in Canada.
Although the Government tends to agree with the purpose of this Bill, it would be premature to go further at this stage since Mr. Hamel's report, to be tabled at the beginning of the new session, is going to discuss the problems related to the voting rights of those living outside Canada.
As a matter of fact, this problem has been discussed many times since 1963. But it has to be reviewed again, now that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the right to vote to each Canadian. Section 3 of the Charter reads as follows:
Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons-
The Justice Department is presently studying the meaning of this right for Canadians who happen to be outside the country on polling days and who cannot vote. They can be classified as follows: the students; the CIDA cooperants; the private corporations' employees; the travellers; and the permanent expatriates, as I have suggested before. At the same time, the office of the Chief Electoral Officer and the office of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) are assessing the technical problems involved here.
To grant voting rights now to one sub-group, the civil employees of the Armed Forces abroad hired locally, is to open the door to all the other groups at a time when the studies referred to above are not yet completed. A comprehensive review of "absentee voting" by the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections should follow Mr. Hamel's report, to be tabled soon.
At the moment, both the Department of National Defence and the Department of External Affairs maintain permanent lists of Canadian Forces and Public Services electors based on the information available on personnel departmental files. Such an information is not available in respect of locally engaged Canadians employed by the Department of National Defence outside Canada. Therefore, the Chief Electoral Officer would have to keep and maintain a permanent register of electors, like as they do in countries with absentee voting systems such as the U.S.A., Australia and France. In Canada also, in the Province of British Columbia, I understand they keep a voters' registry.
But one must understand that, with regard to absentee voting, there is only one acceptable security offered, that is, a permanent list or continuous electoral rolls in which you have
Canada Elections Act
a registration card signed by each elector which is in the Office of the Returning Officer of the elector's constituency.
More than a year or two may be required before this could be put in place, and certainly there are some 15 million people in Canada who would be able to take advantage of it. Whatever the cost might be, and it might be considerable, I think it is important that Canadians world-wide have the opportunity of voting in elections.
I may say that although there may be some administrative difficulties, it is not something that could not be overcome. The Bill that we have before us, I would say, is somewhat inadequate in that it does not go far enough, and all Canadians should be included. 1 would suggest that it be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections at the appropriate time, probably today if this Bill goes through without having been talked out.


Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, it is with mixed feelings that I rise and continue discussing this subject. I must, first of all, compliment the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) for his excellent presentation, for the amount of research work that he has done, and for his good judgment in selecting this particular issue. It is particularly applicable because it must be remembered that school teachers and administrative support staff in the Canadian Armed Forces schools have officer status and are subject to the Canadian Forces Code of Service discipline as contained in the National Defence Act and may be tried by a special general court martial. Therefore, they have a status very close to that of a member of the Canadian Armed Forces and have, by law, been deemed Canadian Armed Forces electors.
This shows that the Hon. Member has done a very thorough job in researching this particular issue, except for the point that has been brought out by the Hon. Member for Dauphin (Mr. Lewycky) and by other spokesmen that it just does not go far enough. For that reason, it should be thought out and worked out carefully. As far as I understand, from the information that I have, it is in the process of being considered. It is being researched and will be brought forward by the Electoral Officer, Mr. Hamel, and in that form will be then considered properly in the proper committee and will undoubtedly come forward as an improvement in the Electoral Act.
I only hope that the Hon. Member will receive the credit that he deserves for the work that he has done, and I hope that this will be signified-


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

Order, please. It being six o'clock, the House adjourns 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, March 3, 1983