1983-11-25

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Fred King (Okanagan-Similkameen):: Mr. Speaker, farmers in Okanagan-Similkameen have reason to feel unjustly put upon. Economically many who may not survive the winter can only wonder at the Government's failure to act in their defence. Now farmers find that the very structure of their industry is under attack, perhaps being destroyed by federal government action under the Combines Investigation Act.
One industry official told the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), "We have been operating this system for nearly 50 years. If we have been doing something wrong, tell us and we will correct it, but don't take action which will cost us hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend. We are in deep financial trouble without that."
To discourage farmers in the area further, the CBC reported in a most inflammatory manner alleging racial bias, intolerance, and harassment of orchard workers, in generalized statements which are condemned and challenged by the industry.
A further series of unworthy statements made to the Special Committee on Visible Minorities on behalf of transient workers from Quebec is so overstated as to cause despair on the part of the vast majority of Okanagan farmers who are decent and fair in their relationships with their labour.
It is a sad day when a farmer, receiving five cents for a product which costs him 13 cents to produce, and who is paying the highest farm wages in all of Canada, should be subjected to the kind of abuse which seems to be thrown at him by Government, CBC and individuals with an axe to grind.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member's time has expired.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell), in the course of a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Lumley) on November 24, 1983, in a very cursory manner commented that "Stelco is now planning to shut down its Hilton works in Hamilton and move everything to its new plant". 1 have contacted the executive director of Stelco in Hamilton, Mr. Peter Gordon, and he categorically denied planning such a move, indicating that the statement is just not true.
I am very concerned that a Member of Parliament would make such an irresponsible comment concerning the Hilton works in Hamilton, a plant which currently employs 10,000 workers. Surely there are enough anxieties and worries in the life of many of the employees these days without the aggravation of such comments that have no foundation in truth.


EXCISE TAX
Mr. Bud Bradley (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, 1 notice that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) has announced a task force to examine the current method of indexing the excise taxes on alcohol and tobacco products, chaired by Dr. Douglas Peters. He states that the task force is being established in response to industry's concerns about the technical operation of the indexing system. Surely the word "industry" includes the tobacco-growing industry. This is the industry the Government is systematically setting out to destroy, and that destruction must stop.
The recent 15.8 per cent increase in federal tax on cigarettes is totally unacceptable, and the provincial ad valorem tax in Ontario on top of that is unbearable. The federal Government alone took in $1.14 billion in tax on tobacco last year when the market value to growers was only some $285 million, a four to one ratio. The task force, indeed, has a serious task, that is, to reverse this government rip-off of the agricultural sector.
I note that individuals and associations are asked to make submissions to the task force and to send them to Dr. Peters at the Department of Finance. I would call on any one in this country who is concerned about the Government's abuse of agriculture to make such a submission to Dr. Peters.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, Colony Farm is the last large farm left on the north shore of the Fraser River, in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, near metro Vancouver. This 800 acre farm is owned by the British Columbia Government. That Government now wishes to privatize it and sell it to developers so that it can be blacktopped.
Action has been taken at the community level to save this farm. The reason 1 raise this issue in the House of Commons is that representation has also been made to the federal Minister of Agriculture, asking him to set up an agricultural research station on the farm.
In light of the quickly disappearing farmland in the country, and particularly in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, and in light of the fact that today the livestock from that farm is going up for sale, and that we do need agricultural research facilities in the area, I urge the Minister of Agriculture to enter into negotiations with the Province either to purchase the land itself, or to buy the land in conjunction with the University of British Columbia.
The matter is urgent, and the Minister will be pressed next week by the former Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody and by the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett). I urge the Minister of Agriculture to act on this right away if he does not want to lose his green hat.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker,
I have a number of questions to ask. Why is the Government blocking questions regarding Hugh Hambleton, the Canadian spy who worked in the NATO Secretariat in Paris, in Peru and Haiti ostensibly for CIDA, but in reality on behalf of the KGB? Who is being protected? Why is the Government attempting to prevent all of the truth from coming out?
The Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) tells me that the case is closed as far as he is concerned. The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) tells me that he is in no position to comment on the matter. How can the case be closed when we do not yet know who in the Government granted Hambleton immunity although he was known to be a spy? We do not know who warned him not to go to Britain where, as he was told, he was certain to be tried on charges of espionage. Who tipped him off in Britain before he went through the immigration line by suggesting that it would be in his interest to return to Canada? Who is covering up these traces of espionage?
November 25, 1983
Who recommended Mr. Hambleton for a ranking position in CIDA as soon as he had joined that organization and had been sent off to Peru? Perhaps most important of all, given all of the things that were known by early 1982 about his work on behalf of the KGB, why was he not brought to trial in Canada? Was he delivered up to the British authorities because a trial in Canada would have brought out some unpleasant home truths?


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Government cannot begin to make up for all of the damage it has caused Canadian farmers through its ridiculous policies. However, it has a responsibility at the very least to remove the federal tax on farm fuels and fertilizers.
Let us look at the Government's record on agriculture. It has refused to provide the Farm Credit Corporation with enough money to keep Canadian farmers afloat. It has forced the Western Grain Transportation Act through without regard for those who must bear the financial burden, namely, the western Canadian farmers. The Government agreed to consider changes in the Western Grain Stabilization Act only after many farmers had gone bankrupt waiting for long overdue changes to be implemented. Those changes have not even occurred as yet.
New statistics show that 390 Canadian farmers went bankrupt between January and October 31 of this year. In my home Province of Manitoba, nearly twice as many farmers have gone bankrupt so far this year as compared to the same period last year. That is absolutely unacceptable.
It should be reasonable to expect the Government at least to aid farmers by dropping the federal tax on farm fuels and fertilizers. This gesture could be the first step toward loosening the financial stranglehold in which the Liberal Government has placed thousands of Canadian farmers.


THE DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about the handicapped in Canada. As the Government knows, corporate profits in the third quarter of this year have gone up over 90 per cent as compared to the same period last year. Yet at the same time, unemployment has increased, especially for the handicapped. It is estimated that the unemployment rate for the handicapped is in excess of 50 per cent.
In the 1981 Report to the House of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped, entitled "Obstacles", it was recommended that the Canadian Government take a number of steps to increase employment opportunities for the

November 25, 1983

handicapped in Canada. Among the steps recommended was that wheelchairs be provided for the handicapped right across the nation. At this time it is possible in the Province of Manitoba to have wheelchairs paid for by the Government of that Province. However, the same thing is not possible in the Province of Nova Scotia.
In addition, it is important that the Government give a high profile to the concerns and problems faced by the handicapped. I would urge the Government, in the Speech from the Throne which we expect in two weeks time, to set up a senior secretariat for the handicapped. 1 would encourage the Government to get all-Party agreement and have a special committee of this House as an ongoing pressure group to work on behalf of the handicapped and to make certain their concerns are expressed to the Government and to the House.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, who is also Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. This is a follow-up to the questions posed yesterday by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Elgin. At that time the Minister was not familiar with the pronouncements being made by the Minister of State responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board.
Last night on television we were able to see Senator Hazen Argue, in the flesh so to speak, addressing the Alberta Wheat Pool. At that time he was advising Canadians to buy Soviet bloc automobiles and farm equipment, specifically Lada automobiles and Belarus farm equipment. Was the Minister of State responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board stating government policy?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have not yet seen the specific statement made by my colleague, the Minister of State responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. I think he was speaking in his capacity as Minister responsible for selling Canadian grain products abroad, and it is not Government policy.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the Minister therefore is repudiating the statement of the Senator.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: He must be the one Cabinet Minister referred to in the television broadcast as saying that Senator
Oral Questions
Argue is going to get his knuckles rapped when he gets back. 1 see the knuckle rapper is sitting in the House today.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


CANADA-U.S.S.R. TRADE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, in light of this apparent conflict between Cabinet Ministers on a very important matter, and particularly in light of the fact that substantial moneys are being spent on the bail-out of Massey-Ferguson, and moneys have been extended by way of assistance to Canadian Co-operative Implements Limited, can the Minister advise the House, as Minister of Trade, whether or not statements made by the Senator were a part of any deal made with a Soviet bloc country, a condition precedent as it were, with respect to the sale of Canadian agricultural products?


Edward C. Lumley: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member, who comes from western Canada and from a Province which produces most of the wheat sold abroad, will appreciate that 30 per cent of the gross national product in this country is generated by exports. Consequently any trading nation must do a substantial amount of two-way trade. What Senator Argue is basically saying is that we have to be knowledgeable of this and that we must import as well as export. As I indicated to the Hon. Member earlier, the specific statements attributed to Senator Argue are not the policy of the Government.


IMPACT OF MINISTER'S ADVICE ON CANADIAN FARM IMPLEMENT MANUFACTURING COMPANIES
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, one of the concerns is that Senator Argue has taken upon himself to flog specific products coming from the Soviet Union, in other words, Lada automobiles. How can the Minister reconcile his position? What is he going to say to Senator Argue when he has been the proponent of support for the Canadian auto industry? What is he going to say to Senator Argue with respect to the position of many, many thousands of Canadians who are farm dealers for various domestic farm implement companies especially in light of the very tenuous condition of the farm implement manufacturing sector? What is the Minister going to say to Senator Argue when he gets back to Ottawa?


Mr. Stevens:: Straighten him out.


Edward C. Lumley: Mr. Speaker, I will be very happy to tell my hon. colleague what I will say to Senator Argue, if he would be willing to tell me what he tells his Leader about every single policy put forward by his Party. 1 want to remind the Hon. Member that Senator Argue has been one of the strongest proponents of the Government of Canada assisting Massey Ferguson as well as White

November 25, 1983
Oral Questions
Farm, on behalf of the farmers of Canada. Ele has been fairly consistent in his comments.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER STATE VIEWS
Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Mr. Speaker, it is not satisfactory for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to try to give these cute little retorts. It is not good enough, at a time when Massey Ferguson and International Harvester and virtually thousands and thousands of Canadians are unemployed. The Minister is responsible for international trade and for getting our products into world markets. What is his view of the comments made by the Minister of State for the Wheat Board?


Edward C. Lumley: Mr. Speaker, rather than be like the Opposition, it is our actions which really count rather than words. It is the Government of Canada which saved Massey-Ferguson, and it is the Government of Canada which has twice saved White farm, in the interest of farmers, labourers and dealers across this country.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, any Minister who tries to coerce Canadian farmers into buying inferior products, which will lead to delays in spring planting, which is very serious in the West, is not fit for public office.


KNUCKLE RAPPING REPORT
Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, my second question relates to a news report that the Minister of State would have his knuckles rapped. Would the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce tell us when these knuckles will be rapped, where, who will do it, and can I come over and have a punch, too?


Edward C. Lumley: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to take responsibility for anything written or said by the media in this country.


THE ECONOMY
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment who knows from figures released by Statistics Canada yesterday that corporations are doing quite well. Profits for Canadian corporations are up by more than 92 per cent. Clearly the Government's corporate tax give-aways of hundreds of millions of dollars are at least producing a recovery for corporate profit margins. My question concerns the nature of a true recovery for Canadians. Will he tell us why profits are up more than 92 per cent but
unemployment levels, year over year in percentage terms, remain virtually unchanged?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I disagree, certainly to some extent, with the concluding part of the Hon. Member's question. There has been a continuous drop in the unemployment rate over the last seven months. Indeed, it has dropped by almost one percentage point over the period to which he refers, so there has been a considerable improvement on the employment side. If he looks at the employment figures rather than the unemployment figures, he knows there has been an increase in permanent jobs in the Canadian economy of well over 300,000 since last autumn. I do not think the picture is as bleak as his citation of the figures would show. Clearly there is great room for improvement on the unemployment side, and that is the focus of the policies of this Government.
In reply to the first part of his question, I would say the increase in profits reflects the extraordinary low level they were at before and I would have thought he would be rejoicing at the existence of those profits, since those profits and their reinvestment in the economy are the source of the creation of jobs in the economy. It is something we should be pleased about and not something which the Hon. Member appears to regret.


LEVEL OF BUSINESS INVESTMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, unemployment levels remain virtually unchanged. A year ago we had about 1.5 million unemployed, and today we have 1.5 million unemployed in real numbers. As to the Government's theory on the way to get a recovery, if increased profits are supposed to lead to new investment and produce jobs, why have two different agencies, one government, and one private, said it is not working? The Conference Board of Canada said that for 1983 investment is going to be down by more than 10 per cent, while profits have gone up by 92 per cent. Statistics Canada, a Government agency, said investment for 1983 is going to be down by more than 7 per cent, while profits are up by 92 per cent. Why are corporations with very high profits not investing to create the jobs the Minister says they ought to be creating?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, there are so many points one could make, but perhaps we could start with the most important one, that the Hon. Member has semantically shifted his terms. He was talking originally about the rate of increase being high, and is now arguing that profits are very high. Well, the original question was concerning the rate of increase. Now he is talking about the level of profits. I think he would not receive general agreement to his argument that profits are too high. The rate of increase has been high because they were so low, but the level of profits themselves is not necessarily extraordinarily high.
November 25, 1983

It is clear that the approach we are taking to the creation of employment is based on the belief that the private sector is the motor force in creating jobs in the economy. I do not think that the Hon. Member agrees with that approach. That is the approach that we are following.
Of course, in the whole range of commentary about the effectiveness of the Government's economic proposals, and in the forecasts of what will happen in the future, one finds those who are more optimistic and those who are more pessimistic. The hon. gentleman, with that pessimism which characterizes his questions, seizes on some of the worst estimates. I believe, and it is clear that the Minister of Finance, in expressing his view to the House on past occasions, believes that in fact the Canadian economy is strengthening and the private sector is increasing in jobs. The statistics seem to be showing that the Canadian economy is generating more jobs. It has generated
350,000	since last November.
I would not say that the recovery of the economy is galloping, but there are more and more signs of increasing strength in it, and that increasing strength will lead to increasing employment. The profits about which the hon. gentleman has been commenting so negatively are an essential part of that job creation process.


FORECASTS OF 1984 PROFIT AND UNEMPLOYMENT LEVELS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker I say to the Minister in all seriousness that businessmen are not stupid. If they are operating at only 70 per cent capacity now, they are unlikely to take the great corporate tax giveaways that the Government has given them, and reinvest them. I repeat, they are not stupid. They have got excess capacity and they are not going to create more excess capacity.
To go back to the nub of the issue, considering that profits have almost reached the pre-recession levels, of 1981, and in the coming year will exceed those levels, could the Minister tell us where the justice is if, in 1984, profit levels are going to be right back to where they were in 1981 but, according to the Government's own forecast, unemployment is going to remain at a much higher level than in 1981, in fact around 11 per cent? Does the Minister not believe that the people of Canada really would see justice in the return of profit levels to old levels only if employment levels are returned to the same pre-recession level?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the hon. gentleman is right in his characterization of the figures in comparison to 1981, to what has happened in the past, and he may not be right in his forecast what is going to happen in the future. His forecasts about the future rarely have been right.


John Edward Broadbent: Check the figures.


John (Moody) Roberts: In terms of the unemployment figures on which he is concentrating, he has to remember, and I hope
Oral Questions
Hon. Members will remember, that as the economy improves there will be encouragement to those who have been discouraged and left the labour force to re-enter it. So in some way, paradoxically, as the economy recovers, unemployment figures will not show the full impact of that recovery. The full impact of that recovery will be shown more clearly in the job creation figures.
The Hon. Member, for reasons of pessimism which I mentioned earlier, wants to keep going back to the unemployment figures. If he would instead look at the other side, job creation, he would have to put a much more optimistic face on the remarks he is making. He clearly does not want to do that.


TRUST COMPANIES
Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the Acting Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and the Parliamentary Secretary, I will direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister.
The Minister is aware that some trust companies are requiring mortgagors to waive their right of prepayment of a mortgage under Section 10 of the Interest Act and similiar provincial legislation, as a condition of their granting a mortgage. Inasmuch as many learned legal practitioners have expressed doubts as to whether the waiving of rights would stand the test in a court of law, will the Minister make a reference of this subject to the Federal Court so that the matter may be adjudicated at a level higher than the office of the loan institution?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I can say on behalf of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs that she is actively pursuing this matter. Indeed, 1 will refer the worth-while suggestion of the Hon. Member to her. I am sure that she will act upon it.


REAL ESTATE SELLING TACTICS
William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, I am told that more than 30 per cent of the homes on the real estate market today in many parts of Canada are as a result of foreclosures due to high interest rates. The Minister has had a report on this matter. She has had a report that contains information on bait and switch tactics, misleading advertising, and so forth. The report is complete, yet she is keeping it secret.
Why is the Minister keeping this report under wraps? Why is she hiding it? Why is she waffling while Canadians are losing their homes?

November 25, 1983
Oral Questions


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, i would ask the Hon. Member to be patient. 1 am sure the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs will be making an important announcement in this regard pretty soon.


AGRICULTURE
Frederick John King: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister who, 1 carelessly assume, may be conversant with government policy and actions.
In response to the information press clippings which I circulated to all Members of Parliament some weeks ago, indicating the very serious situation facing agriculture in Okanagan-Similkameen, 1 was pleased to receive a letter from the Deputy Prime Minister which stated, "preserving a strong agriculture community is of great importance to this Government." Considering that this probably indicates a policy discussed in Cabinet, where, in the recent actions of the Government, is this demonstration of government determination to preserve a strong agricultural community?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, since all Government measures tend to protect Canadian agriculture, in the circumstances we must maintain a delicate balance between preserving Canada's domestic interests and free exchange policies in international trade. In fact, I am pleased to see that a Member from Western Canada is asking for more protection. As far as farmers are concerned, we often hear complaints from Western Canada that the Government is too protectionist, and I am therefore pleased to see a Member from Western Canada asking for more protection for agriculture in British Columbia. It is always a problem for the Government to determine how much protection certain sectors should be given, while not closing our borders too often so as to preserve our international interests.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT DEMONSTRATE COMPASSION
Frederick John King: Mr. Speaker, considering that the Farm Credit Corporation does not have enough funds to serve agriculture, that the loans it does make are at 16.75 per cent and beyond the ability of most farmers to pay, that Revenue Canada is terrorizing farmers who must seek other employment to feed their families and keep their farms going, and considering the fact that the federal Justice Department is now harassing the B.C. tree fruits industry with questionable action under the Combines Investigation Act, where is the compassion which one would expect from a Government which is intent on preserving agriculture?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think that in all circumstances the law of the land has to be followed by every citizen. I am sure that the farmers, like anyone else, want to make their contribution to the national scene. The different governments must apply the law of the land has it applies to all sectors of the Canadian economy.
Some years ago, I believe, farmers had no problem paying their taxes. Like other citizens, when their income is better they pay their taxes. If they do not have any such problem they will not be harassed by any officials of the Government.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Robert Daudlin (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In the course of the question directed to the Minister yesterday by the Hon. Member for Ontario, a comment was made that Stelco is considering a move of its Hilton works to Nanicoke. Could the Minister confirm or deny that such a move is contemplated or, in fact, in progress?


Edward C. Lumley: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday when the question was asked,
I am not aware of any move being contemplated by the company. I believe the Hon. Member for Hamilton West was in contact with the Chairman of the Board of the company, and the company is also not aware of any move as alleged by the Opposition yesterday.


EMPLOYMENT
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Despite increased corporate profits, women workers continue to be condemned to low paying, part time, non union jobs. The Government also discriminates, since only 20 per cent of the former NEED program participants were women. Will the Minister tell us what percentage of the current federal job-creation programs will be targeted to women?


John (Moody) Roberts: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank the Hon. Member for giving me some indication that she would want to raise this matter in the House. I can say that in our job-creation programs over-all, the percentage of women participants is about one-third. I could break that down for her into the four main programs which we have. Under Canada Works, 31 per cent of the total participation is by women. Under the LEAD Program it is 38 per cent. Under our Career Access Program,
November 25, 1983

44 per cent of the participants are women. Under the Job Corps Program, 56 per cent of the participants are women.


WOMEN'S EMPLOYMENT IN SERVICE SECTOR
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, an expanded service sector would provide permanent jobs for many women, particularly women who are displaced by the recession and high technology. Therefore, what steps will the Minister take to expand jobs in the community service sector, in services such as universal child care and home care for the elderly, since these kinds of jobs also meet real social needs in communities?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, 1 agree with the objective which the Hon. Member has described in her question, the importance of creating jobs in those sectors, and the importance they will have for the employment of women. I hope that when she hears what is said in the Speech from the Throne she will feel that the approach the Government has taken will indicate some sensitivity to the concerns she has expressed.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the Government's continued harping criticism of the accomplishments in the country of Grenada, would he indicate if the Government has at long last taken any positive steps on what has transpired in Grenada? Has it made contact with the interim government officials and with Governor General Scoon to indicate our support for what they are doing? Has it offered any assistance and, if so, what has been the nature of that assistance in particular?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to give a precise answer to the Hon. Member, but at least the position of the Government on this situation is quite clear. Our policy on Grenada is not as quoted by the Member for St. John's West in the paper this morning, "to befuddle the reporters and befuddle the public." We have not agreed to the actions of the Americans, but I am sure that our officials in External Affairs who are dealing with this country are doing what is necessary at this time. 1 am not in a position to report, but at least we have a position and are not like the Tories who speak out of both sides of their mouths on this issue.


GOVERNMENT AID INQUIRY
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I will give the Acting Prime Minister an opportunity to show that they are not befuddled. Would he indicate what specific aid package has been offered to Grenada? The Americans have offered
Oral Questions
$15 million to help rebuild the economy, the roads, and other services on the island. Has the Canadian Government made any similar offer to help these people, who feel they have been restored to freedom?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker,
I am glad that the Hon. Member believes that this present Government has a good policy on aid. He wants to know if this policy on aid applies to Grenada at the moment. A few months ago they were complaining because we were giving too much to Grenada. I do not know what is being done precisely today because I am not the Secretary of State for External Affairs. However, 1 just want to tell the Hon. Member that on the first day of the invasion his Party was supporting the Americans. When they saw that Prime Minister Thatcher condemned the Americans, they became silent.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: That is not true.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Their policy, in the words of their former critic, is to befuddle the public, and 1 believe it is well known that they are on both sides of the argument. At least our position is clear on the policy toward Grenada.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Chuck Cook (North Vancouver-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. I think 1 am speaking for all Canadians in this concern. As the Minister is aware, there is a federal program intended to lure business entrepreneurs to Canada. However, 1 note that the Immigration and Passport Branch of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police has indicated:
-there's always the concern that criminals get in, but that's basically Immigration's role in screening these people, and we just sort of have to go along with them. If there's no convictions, then we have nothing to fall back on.
Does the Solicitor General agree with that assessment of the role of the RCMP in terms of this new immigration policy?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not an accurate statement on the responsibility of the RCMP in relation to the screening of immigrants. They have a duty to do that. It is part of the visa vetting process. They do not necessarily stop at the list of criminal convictions of the individual. They are responsible to look into the whole question of the character of a candidate for immigration to Canada under any of the programs. They make their report to the immigration officials, and it is the responsibility of the immigration officials, under the leadership of my colleague, to make decisions in particular cases about whether admission should be granted.

November 25, 1983
Oral Questions MINISTER'S POSITION


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: Mr. Speaker, "If there's no convictions, then we have nothing to fall back on", unfortunately, whether the individual is notorious or has a bad general reputation, source of funds is also important. Does the Minister realize the implications of what he has said and what the RCMP is saying? In effect, the implications are that if someone has made $1 million out of loansharking, prostitution, blackmail or extortion, he or she can still qualify to come to this country with that $1 million to set up business again.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member asks whether I realize what I am doing. Yes, I am contradicting the statement he has just read.


THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Solicitor General. On September 1, 1982, the Minister entered into a contract with Dan Sullivan Associates of Toronto to improve the positive image of the Minister in the eyes of the public. During the following year over $43,000 was spent on this rather formidable task. How can the Minister possibly justify this expenditure of public funds to spruce up the Minister's public image?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, that is a good question for the Order Paper.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: That is not what the contract was about. I would be very happy to table information to inform the House exactly what the contract was about.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Given the Minister's performance, he would probably sue for breach of contract.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION OF CONTRACT DOCUMENTS
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that in a confidential document of August, 1982, the consultant proposes to "increase the positive share of mind that this Minister" and office "has with key publics" and show that "the Solicitor General of Canada is an active forwardthinking influential leader", will the Minister today make public all documents relating to this incredible contract?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I will try to do it today, but I will certainly do it as promptly as I can.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Hon. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Revenue 1 will direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. He spoke about the law of the land to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Okanagan-Similkameen. Could he tell us what new laws have been passed by the Government which allow the Minister of National Revenue to enter, without warning, the bank accounts of taxpayers of the nation who happen to have temporary cash flow problems, and who ask for some relief in terms of the obligations due him as Minister of National Revenue?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of this particular matter. If the Hon. Member has a grievance to express, he can communicate with the Minister of National Revenue. Of course it is always a very difficult task for the people charged with collecting income tax to do their work. If the Hon. Member has some specific complaint, he can write to the Minister of National Revenue, and he will certainly look into the matter.


OFFICIALS' ARBITRARY DECISIONS
Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, I am asking the former Minister of Justice and the Acting Prime Minister what new laws have been passed which now allow the Minister of National Revenue to enter without warning, without any courtesy extended to the owners and holders of bank accounts in Canada, and demand payment of obligations which Revenue Canada says are due. Have we now moved to a point where everybody in the country is guilty until proven innocent? Is the Minister not worried about the arbitrary nature of decisions being imposed upon Canadians, particularly in this time of economic distress?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker,
I am not in a position to give a legal opinion. The Hon. Member has been in the House for a long time and knows that Members are not supposed to ask for a legal opinion in the House of Commons.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: I am not asking for an opinion. What laws are you using?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: If the Hon. Member has some complaint, he can always raise it with the Minister of National Revenue. On the other hand, the officials in that Department have to administer laws which have been passed by Parliament. Of course, if the bureaucrats are not following the law, there is some recourse, and that is why there are courts in the land.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: You do not even know the law.

November 25, 1983


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. It concerns the deplorable condition of the Quesnel RCMP office, which I pointed out to him in a statement under Standing Order 21 on October 17. The Minister knows that there are 42 staff members in that office, that there are about 3,000 square feet of space, and that there are six cells in that space. This works out to 29 square feet per person. Also, the wiring has been condemned and the heating system is a failure. The warmest the building can get in winter is 60 degrees Fahrenheit. Would the Minister please tell me what he will do about this situation?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, 1 have concluded a contract through the RCMP to provide an additional 1,100 square feet of space. Work will begin very shortly, and I suspect it will be concluded long before next summer.


REQUEST THAT NEW HEADQUARTERS BE CONSTRUCTED
Lorne Everett Greenaway: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister aware that the 1,100 square feet of space is up on the next floor? This will not be the answer because it is inconvenient to get up there. Also there is the matter of the heating, wiring, plumbing and cells, which are all obsolete and old.
This is a DPW building, and I point out to the Minister that, under the DPW Act, government employees are supposed to have a minimum of 100 square feet of space within which to work. There have been grievances by the lay staff, not the RCMP personnel, to their unions. What we need in Quesnel is a new RCMP headquarters. It is a large subdivision, and this extra space will simply not be the answer.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, the information I have is that this important improvement will bring the office up to the standards it should have. I remind the Hon. Member that police do not basically work within the office premises; they work within the community. They spend less time in the office than other officials of the Government of Canada. The minimum space requirements for police needs are not the same as those for full-time employees who stay in a particular office all day.


THE DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. The problem of finding employment for handicapped workers continues to be very serious, with unemployment ranging between 50 per cent
Oral Questions
and 90 per cent across the board. Will the Minister move soon to implement, on the one hand, the recommendations of the "Obstacles" report which would require the Government to enter into agreements with employers doing business with the Government to hire handicapped workers and, second, to amend the Canada Labour Code to bring the minimum wage for handicapped workers at least up to the level of the minimum wage for all other workers in the country?


An Hon. Member:: Are you awake over there?


André Ouellet: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker; I was reading a document. Perhaps the Hon. Member could ask his question again.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I will ask the question again in lieu of a supplementary. 1 was saying to the Minister that employment for the handicapped continues to be a very serious problem right across the country, with between 50 and 90 per cent of the handicapped unable to find employment. Will the Minister take two steps, one recommended in the 1981 "Obstacles" report, which suggested that the Government ought to incorporate into its contracts that it undertakes with private firms a clause which guarantees employment for a reasonable percentage of handicapped people and, second, amend the Canada Labour Code to bring the minimum wage applicable to those who are employed under the category of handicapped up to the level at least of the minimum wage that is applicable to all other persons in the country?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, 1 am delighted with the Hon. Member's two suggestions. They were indeed worth repeating.
I can give him the assurance that my Department is, in fact, considering these two questions and that we hope to be able to find a satisfactory solution very shortly.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the one asked earlier by the Hon. Member for York-Peel with regard to aid to Grenada. The Acting Prime Minister will be aware that, shortly before the difficulties on the island, we suspended the cocoa rehabilitation program because Grenada did not have the cash to meet its part of the obligation. Has this matter been taken under advisement, and is Canada now prepared to go ahead with the program on its own, waiving for the time being the necessity of Grenada coming up with its share of the cost of that program?

November 25, 1983
Oral Questions


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to give the Hon. Member a yes or no answer. I will certainly pass his question on to the Department of External Affairs and ask them to communicate directly with him.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. Has he had an opportunity to reconsider the statement he made, to the effect that in the Hambleton case neither he nor any Canadian authority made an offer of immunity from prosecution to Mr. Hugh Hambleton, the KGB spy?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: No, Mr. Speaker, 1 am not prepared to reconsider that statement. That is a fact. I reviewed the file carefully and no offer of immunity at all was made to the spy, Hugh Hambleton.


EVIDENCE GIVEN IN BRITISH TRIAL
Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister then suggesting that in the British trial they used either falsified or tainted evidence?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that in the course of the trial in Britain it was suggested that the arrangement that existed in Canada amounted to an immunity. That was no material evidence, in the sense that the evidence against Mr. Hambleton would have been affected by that characterization of the Canadian arrangement one way or the other.


PORT OF CHURCHILL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. As the Minister knows, the provincial Government of Manitoba has been requesting for some time that improvements be made to the Port of Churchill, the rail line to Churchill, and also that the federal Government provide some help in providing a hydro line to the Port of Churchill. Has the Government made a decision on these projects and, if so, when can we expect announcements on them?


Edward C. Lumley: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, these projects do not come under my specific area of responsibility. However, I know that the Minister of Transport and I have had several
meetings with the Manitoba Government with respect to possible joint co-operation on the projects the Hon. Member raises.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. As he knows, the North Slope Project Review Group set up by his colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, three weeks ago turned down proposals by Gulf for Stokes Point and by Kiewit and Sons for King Point. Kiewit and Sons are still negotiating with the Minister's officials, apparently for a loan of somewhere between $80 million and $170 million. Will the Minister explain to this House and to Yukoners what the process is for the acceptance of the Kiewit and Sons proposal for King Point when the process has been so muddied by his colleague, and that same project was turned down just three weeks ago?


Edward C. Lumley: Mr. Speaker, 1 am not aware that my officials are carrying on discussions because clearly the decision rests with my colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Solicitor General. He now talks about an arrangement which the Government had with Hugh Hambleton. 1 am wondering how he distinguishes between an arrangement and an offer of immunity. Was one in writing and the other one simply by word of mouth? Was he, or was he not, offered immunity?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will recall that this was the subject of the Question Period for many, many days. I explained fully, in answers to the House, the relationship between the Security Service of the RCMP and Hugh Hambleton. I invite the Hon. Member simply to review that to find exactly what the difference is, if he does not know it, between an offer of immunity and any other arrangement.
November 25, 1983


PIPELINES
Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The British Columbia Government has been holding hearings on a natural gas pipeline to Vancouver Island. I believe the hearings are now completed. Has the Province made any representation to the federal Government for prospective funding for that natural gas pipeline?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we have had discussions with the British Columbia administration about the proposed pipeline. However, they had to hold public hearings and look at both the ecological and economic problems associated with that. We have always said that we have to ensure that it is economically viable. We do not know that as yet. There has been no specific discussion about a financial contribution, but they did indicate that, if they were to proceed, they would come to the federal Government for some help.


NATIONAL RESOURCES
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet I would like to correct something 1 said yesterday. In reply to a question from the Hon. Member for Kootenay East-Revolstoke, I said that 1 had not received any communication from the British Columbia Government on the coal lands. 1 have, in fact, received a letter, and I have replied. This information escaped my mind yesterday. 1 apologize to the Hon. Member for not giving the correct answer yesterday. 1 have already told him privately that it had escaped my memory.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin-Swan River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. As he is aware, there is an affirmative action program which has, as target groups, unemployed women, the physically handicapped, and our native population. What type of consideration has the Minister given to seeing that the visible minorities are also included in any affirmative action employment program brought forward by the Government?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, that is a very important element, one which we are examining with some care. The Job Corps Program is, 1 believe, particularly ready to be focused in on
The Late Graham Spry
that kind of approach. The matter the Hon. Member raises is of great concern to us. We are trying to find ways of responding to the kind of question he has raised.


PIPELINES
Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a supplementary question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It concerns the question just asked about the two proposals for a natural gas pipeline from the mainland to Vancouver Island. I listened carefully to the Minister's answer. Is he saying that there is in fact no commitment whatsoever from the federal Government with respect to financial assistance for a gas pipeline to Vancouver Island after the provincial Government decides which route is preferable? Is that the position that the Minister is taking?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we have always taken the position that, if it is a viable approach, the Government will consider putting money into the project. The first consideration is to determine whether there is a relationship between the cost of the project and the benefits of it.

Of course, one of the problems at this time is that many of the prospective buyers of natural gas on the Island have used other forms of energy for conservation purposes. I suppose that in every case there must be a relation between the demand and the cost. This is being analysed at this time. If, of course, it is a viable project, we will have to look to the Government to find out if there are any prospects of financial help. I can say that we first must know if the project is viable.


PETITION
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis) on Thursday, November 24, 1983, meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


THE LATE GRAHAM SPRY
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the House the fact that yesterday Graham Spry passed away. He was 83 years old and died peacefully.

November 25, 1983
The Late Graham Spry
Mr. Spry was a reporter, war correspondent, scholar, lobbyist and Canadian par excellence. His Canadian Radio League in the early 1930s pushed for a public broadcasting network in Canada and Parliament created the CBC in 1936. That is why Mr. Spry was called the father of the CBC. He was also one of the founders of the CCF and was an assistant to Sir Stafford Cripps. Mr. Spry leaves behind his wife Irene, herself a distinguished economist and historian, and a son and a daughter.
Mr. Spry even stood for this House a number of times and in his own words was always defeated by large and enthusiastic majorities! Yet he still offered to Canada his ideas and his visions of a united federal Canada through communications. Those ideas and visions were adopted by all three Parties which are presently in the House.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, he was a journalist and a man of great depth, and we shall miss his vision and his ideas.

Perhaps I may conclude by saying that 1 had the honour to meet Mr. Spry when he was 80 years old and it was a great privilege for me. I could see that sparkle in his eyes. He was a humble man yet he had done so much for Canada. He was truly a great Canadian who had given a great deal to my generation. 1 believe that the generation to come, although they will never know him personally, will be the beneficiaries of his ideas, of the CBC and of some of his other accomplishments in the area of broadcasting in Canada. During his 83 years he contributed immensely to Canada. He was really a great Canadian and we will miss him.


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for Vancouv-er-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) for the excellent idea of taking notice of this sad and important event, an event which is especially sad for the family of Graham Spry. 1 am one of those who had the privilege to know Mr. Spry, although from somewhat of a distance. As a young man, 1 knew what he had done because I lived in an isolated rural community in the Province of New Brunswick. I realized very early that the radio broadcasts of which he was very much one of the founding fathers had linked Canadian communities and Canadian people in ways which were not always as visible as this institution but which were no less real.

I think that in the history of our country, we shall have reason to remember people like Graham Spry. I know that his desire to see a greater understanding among Canadians made him choose this form of transmitting the information and knowledge that form the sole basis for understanding and tolerance among people who, historically have differed in origin, language and beliefs.

I believe this country will survive not only because of its wealth but because of its citizens. Graham Spry sensed a very
long time ago that understanding and tolerance would come from knowledge, and that broadcasting could transmit that knowledge. In every sense of the word, Graham Spry was a father of the new Canada.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with those who have already spoken in tribute to the late Graham Spry. I am particularly pleased to be able to speak in tribute to this man as Graham Spry, among his many other accomplishments, was a good and faithful servant of the Province of Saskatchewan for many years. He served as Agent General in the Ofifce of the Province of Saskatchewan in London.
One of the things that I most particularly recall about Graham Spry, not knowing him personally but knowing of him and his family and the distinction with which all of them have served our country, was his love for the Gatineau Hills. He had a residence in the Gatineau Hills where he spent many, many hours of his life. I know he spent those hours with the greatest of enjoyment, as many of us have had the privilege and pleasure of doing the same.
As has been pointed out, he was a distinguished citizen of the country and a Companion of the Order of Canada. He was a recipient of the John Drainie Award in 1972 for his distinguished contribution to broadcasting. He will be sorely missed by all Canadians because of his contributions and I know that I speak on behalf of ail Members of the House when I extend to his widow and his children our sincere and heartfelt condolences.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling the First Report of the Special Committee on Visible Minorities.


FISHERIES AND FORESTRY-PRESENTATION OF SEVENTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Miss Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
[Editor's Note: For above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
November 25, 1983


WAYS AND MEANS
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 64(1), I wish to table in both official languages a notice of ways and means motions to amend the statute law relating to income tax and to make related amendments to the Canada Pension Plan and the Unemployment insurance Act, 1971. In accordance with Standing Order 64(2), I also ask that you designate the Order of the Day necessary for the consideration of these Ways and Means motions.


PETITION
Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour today to present a petition to the honourable the House of Commons in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned constituents of the Riding of Kootenay East-Revelstoke in the Province of British Columbia and other concerned citizens, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefore provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that waiters and waitresses are being unfairly taxed on gifts in the form of tips and gratuities.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to change the regulations so that tips and gratuities would be like political contributions and not be taxed as income to the recipients. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Motions. Can 1 follow the procedure of inviting Hon. Members who wish to have the motions in their names presented to rise at this point? If no Hon. Members rise, we will proceed to Questions on the Order Paper.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4,888 and 5,338.


Mr. Gass: I. Does the training centre at (a) Touraine, which is owned by the Department of Public Works (b) Cornwall, which is owned by the Department of Transport (c) Rigaud, which is owned by the Department of National Revenue,
Order Paper Questions
Customs and Excise (4) Arnprior, which is owned by the Department of Public Works (e) Heron Road (Ottawa), which is owned by the Department of Public Works, pay municipal and provincial taxes and, if so, what was the amount paid by each centre to the municipality and/or province in each of the past five taxation years?
2. For the fiscal year (a) 1981-82 (A) 1982-83, what was (i) the total number of employees at each centre (ii) the total amount paid in wages at each centre (iii) the income received by the government from each centre?


John Leslie Evans: I am informed by the Departments of National Revenue, Public Works, Transport and the Public Service Commission as follows:
In so far as the Department of Public Works is concerned:
1.	(a), (6), (c), (d) and (e)-See Appendix "A".
2.	(a) and (6)(i), (ii) and (iii)-See Appendix "B".
In so far as the Department of Transport is concerned:
1.	(b) See the Department of Public Works' reply to Part 1.
2.	(a)	(b)
1981-82	1982-83
(i)	271	300(ii)	57,609,785	$10,158,000
(iii) The Transport Canada Training Institute recovers the direct costs relating to training, accommodation and meals for residents. Total recoveries for 1981-82 and 1982-83 were $2,693,910 and $2,655,890 respectively.
In so far as the Department of National Revenue is concerned:
1.	(c) See the Department of Public Works' reply to Part 1.
2.	(tf)(i) 61 employees
(ii) $1,385,385
(iii) The Customs and Excise College is an in-house training centre for Customs and Excise employees only. Therefore the College does not operate on a cost recovery basis.
(b)(i) 62 employees
(ii)	$1,616,164
(iii)	See reply to Part 2 (iii).
In so far as the Public Service Commission is concerned:
1. (c) See the Department of Public Works' reply to Part 1.
2. Touraine Training Centre
(i)	Total number of employees
(ii)	Total amount paid in wages
(iii)	Income received
a) 1981-1982	b) 1982-1983
41	46
$ 964,000	$1,102,000
$1,734,000	$3,101,000
The amount shown as income is derived from recoveries made through the Staff Development Revolving Fund. The Source of income is other government departments and agencies.

November 25, 1983
Order Paper Questions
1. Municipal and provincial taxes TRAINING
CENTRE	MUNICIPALITY	1978(a) Touraine	La Ville de Gatineau, Quebec Commission scolaire Champlain Greater Hull Protestant School Board TOTALS	52.499.04 11.347.05 470.50 64,316.59(b) Cornwall, D.O.T. Training Centre	City of Cornwall TOTALS	46,959.76(c) Rigaud	Ste-Madeleine de Rigaud Parish School Commission-Vaudreuil TOTALS	48.347.00 48.347.00(d) Arnprior	McNab Township Ontario TOTALS	18,119.39(e) Heron Road Training Centre (Ottawa)	City of Ottawa Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton-Fire Supply Charges TOTALS	163,008.54 1,733.89 164,742.43NOTE: PROVINCIAL	TAXES PAID TO PROVINCES-"NIL"	2.	TOURAINE(a) 1981-82	(b) 1982-83i)	TOTAL EMPLOYEES	1	1ii)	WAGES	MAM-08 $9.64 hr.	MAM-08 $10.60 hr.iii)	REVENUES	See PSC's reply to Part 2 (iii)


Mr. Taylor: In 1983 to date, for each constituency, what was the exact amount of money allocated under the (a) Canada Works Program (b) Local Employment Assistance and Development Program?


John (Moody) Roberts: See reply to


Part I tabled this day.: *


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 5,033 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House to have question No. 5,033 deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



APPENDIX &quot;A&quot;


[Stage Direction]
1979	1980	1981	1982	TOTAL51,728.05 27,234.67 823.21 79,785.93	74,839.82 18,918.21 423.33 94,181.36	85,508.17 11,998.12 209.64 97,715.93	98,650.86 11,381.40 372.79 110,405.05	363,225.94 80,879.45 2,299.47 446,404.86497,908.66	708,812.79	1,255,007.63	1,430,120.65	3,938,806.4939,618.00 267.304.30 306.922.30	65,872.00 163.696.44 229.568.44	72.246.00 15.856.00 88,102.60	78,346.85 8,091.79 86,438.64	304,430.45 454,948.53 759,378.9816,894.03	16,593.19	17,872.84	20,357.68	89,837.13175,099.52	237,981.46	274,476.23	309,371.07	1,159,936.821,733.89 176,833.41	2,796.97 240,778.43	3,252.29 277,728.52	3,772.66 313,143.73	13,289.70 1,173,226.52ARNPRIOR	APPENDIX HERON ROAD (OTTAWA)	(a)1981-82	(b)1982-83	(a) 1981-82	(b) 1982-8323	24	7	7$425,442.17	$430,136.41	$160,743.00	$177,486.00$285,485.90	$536,297.15	$158,932.96	$533,946.43

Mr. McGrath: 1.	For the fiscal year 1983-84, by Constituency, what amount was allocated under the (o) Canada Works Program (b) Local Employment Assistance and Development Program?
2.	By Constituency, what is the (a) labour surplus (b) labour force (c) labour surplus rate (per cent)?
Return tabled.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I have noticed a practice creeping in to the business of replying to questions. 1 find it a rather ominous one. There are two questions answered each day. 1 am sure more than two questions are put on the Order Paper each day. There was a third question today, the answer to which was to be deposited because it was rather long. I think the Government ought to be
November 25, 1983

a little more assiduous in pushing ministries to reply more generously to questions on the Order Paper.
I had cause yesterday, for example, to look at questions which were put on the Order Paper in 1980. 1 did not actually count them, because 1 did not have the time. I was hoping though that more than two questions would be answered today, but I find only two questions are being answered today. However, I would say there must be about 60 questions left over from 1980, probably even more from 1981, even more from 1982, and certainly more from 1983.
To reply to these questions two at a time is, to my way of thinking and I think the House will agree with me, really not serving the purpose for which questions are placed on the Order Paper. I was told yesterday that I ought to put some questions on the Order Paper, but to put them on the Order Paper is to bury them, virtually for all time.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure exactly what the Hon. Member is trying to imply. If he is implying that the Government is holding back answers to questions, he is totally wrong. We have answered 85 per cent of all the questions which have been placed on the Order Paper in this session. Three were answered today because three answers were ready. When there are more than three answers ready, I bring them to the House immediately. When replies to questions come back from the Department and have been signed by the Minister or by the respective Parliamentary Secretary, they are tabled in this House immediately. There is no intention or attempt by this Government to refuse to answer questions or to hold back answers to questions which are prepared to be tabled. Exactly the contrary is true, Mr. Speaker.


Donald W. Munro: Eighty-five per cent-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member has made his observations. Nothing has been said today that has not been said on a number of occasions in this House, including the references.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


André Ouellet: that Bill C-172, an Act to amend the Labour Adjustment Benefits Act and to authorize certain payments in relation thereto, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.


Mr. Pinard:: Mr. Speaker, I think the motion should be amended to refer the matter to the Committee of the Whole.
Labour Adjustment Benefits Act We have an agreement that this Bill and the following be dealt with through all stages today, with one speaker per Party.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I want to confirm the understanding of the Government House Leader that we intend to deal expeditiously and with dispatch with these two items.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Ouellet, seconded by Mr. Pinard, moved:
That Bill C-172, an Act to amend the Labour Adjustment Benefits Act and to authorize certain payments in relation thereto, be read the second time and, with unanimous consent, referred to a committee of the whole.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-172 proposes certain amendments to the Labour Adjustment Benefits Act. This legislation, which was passed by Parliament many months ago, provided, as a last resort, financial aid to older workers affected by permanent lay-offs in designated industrial sectors or communities in Canada. The sectors in question could be designated either nationally, regionally or locally. Industries designated at the national level include textiles, clothing, footwear and leather. As the House is aware, these sectors are experiencing major economic problems as result of competition from imports and industrial restructuring. At the end of September, we had 2,080 active files under this program. Sixteen more communities and a number of other industries were also designated under the Industrial and Labour Adjustment Program. At the present time, 321 people are receiving assistance under the program which comes under the Labour Adjustment Benefits Act.
The amendments to Bill C-78 as proposed in Bill C-172 are the results of presentations made by Members on both sides of the House, by union representatives, especially the CSD, and by employers and private citizens.
I am happy today to be able to act on the representations I received. First of all, the proposed amendments will prevent involuntary deductions from survivor's pensions when benefits are calculated. Many widows and widowers were being treated unfairly under the present legislation, which was clearly not the intention of the legislator.
Second, the amendments proposed in Bill C-172 will also provide greater flexibility in eligibility criteria for workers less than fifty-four years of age, with many years of service, who will now be able to take advantage of their combined years of service in designated sectors. It was pointed out to us, more specifically, that it was unfair that someone who had worked for thirty years in the textile industry could be eligible for benefits while a neighbour with twenty years of experience in the textile industry and twenty years in the clothing industry,

November 25, 1983
Labour Adjustment Benefits Act would not be eligible because he did not have thirty years of employment in the same sector. We are therefore introducing a remedy that will allow workers to combine their years of service in sectors designated for the purposes of this legislation.
Third, the amendments will resolve a problem of interpretation, owing to the different definitions of "lay off" in English and in French, by eliminating the word "involuntary" from the English version.
Fourth, the bill will provide for payment of benefits to qualified workers whose applications for certification to the Labour Adjustment Review Board were delayed for reasons beyond their control. There is always a possibility of administrative delay, and 1 think it would be unfair to blame such delays on the person who is supposed to receive these benefits. Therefore an anormaly in the Act will be corrected in order to deal fairly with potential, qualified recipients.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to remind Hon. Members just how important it is to adopt these amendments without delay. I thank all my colleagues on this side of the House as well as the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party for agreeing to adopt this Bill today because, as many of us know, Quebec's National Assembly amended its pension plan last June, making it possible for workers, among other things, to retire at age 60 with appropriate actuarial adjustments. This amendment will come into force on January 1, 1984. It will have dire consequences for current and future recipients of the Labour Adjustment Benefits Program. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, should the legislation not be amended by that date, Quebec recipients between the ages of 60 and 65 would no longer be eligible for benefits as of January 1, 1984. That is why we have to take immediate action, and the problem stems from the wording of the existing legislation which provides, and I quote:
Benefits are not payable to a recipient, whether or not he has applied for a retirement pension under the Canada Pension Plan or the Quebec Pension Plan.
The legislation will therefore be amended to remedy that situation.
Mr. Speaker, it is easy to understand why I am seeking the support of all Members of the House to ensure quick passage of the amendments to the Labour Adjustments Benefits Act. 1 am convinced that once these amendments are implemented, they will give us more leeway and widen eligibility for benefits provided under the legislation. The purpose of the Bill is to clarify and, in certain cases, strengthen the raison d'etre of the Act which aims at easing the adjustment of older workers who have been laid off in some industries in designated communities.
In conclusion, I would like to thank a group of Quebec colleagues whose advice was a great help in drafting these amendments, particularly the Hon. Members for Saint-Hya-cinthe, Lotbiniere, Richmond, Shefford, Manicouagan, Richelieu, Portneuf, Frontenac and Montmagny-L'islet. I also
want to thank the union representatives who made representations and submitted a well-researched brief to my Department.
It enabled us to draft the amendments which we are introducing today and which will certainly be a definite advantage to Canadian workers eligible for those adjustment benefits.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The ten-minute question and answer period does not apply to a Minister moving a Bill. However, the Hon. Member can certainly seek unanimous consent to put a question if he wishes.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, the question is very brief. I think the Minister knows what is coming. We want something on the record. I ask for unanimous consent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, on page 7 of Bill C-172, Clause 12, there is reference to certain amounts. The last sentence reads:
-shall be paid to him out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
Can the Minister confirm that that does not mean those funds will not turn up in the estimates? Those funds have to be the subject of estimates each year and we are concerned about not getting into a situation where they are not under the control of Parliament.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question. I understand it is indeed important to clarify this situation.
These funds have to be allocated through the estimates of the Department of Labour and they are. There is an item every year which covers these payments. The reason the Bill reads the way it does is to establish that indeed it is the Government of Canada which has paid for it.
One of the problems we are faced with every year is to predict the amount paid, because it depends on the number of workers who are eligible. Therefore we are putting in a general amount subject to debate during the estimates once a year, but this amount could be more or less, depending on the number of workers. This clause allows for payment where the prediction is not correct. Obviously it would be reported in the years following and Members of Parliament would have the chance once a year to discuss this matter and these expenditures during debate on the estimates.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I rise for a brief moment on behalf of the Conservative Party to say to the Minister and all those who brought the recommendations for these amendments to the Minister, as did those of us in the Official Opposition concerned about labour matters, that this is an example of co-operation between the Govern-
November 25, 1983

ment and both Opposition Parties. It is an example of co-operation between the Government, Members of Parliament and those members of the trade union movement who on a constant basis are watching matters as they proceed and are continually bringing to us suggestions for amendments and improvements. I think all Members of Parliament greatly appreciate the work done within the trade union movement to keep us abreast of the required changes, the necessary adjustments in the various laws which are so important to the working people of our country.
Therefore, I say through you, Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that we support this Bill. We thank the Minister for having listened and having brought these amendments forward and trust they will indeed be helpful, as I think they will be. Again, we appreciate very much the work done by those members of the trade union movement who put their briefs together, spoke with us and brought these matters to our attention.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I will be equally brief. The content of the Bill is supportable and welcome. We are particularly pleased that the Government has in fact taken these steps now and not delayed. We recognize the problems confronting many workers across the country, particularly in Quebec, as a result of changing of occupations and their being unable to qualify for the benefit periods.
It is good that if workers were laid-off during this period when the designation order is in effect, they would remain eligible for benefits if and after the designation order is lifted. The question of accumulation of time was causing people a great deal of difficulty.
There are times when people question whether or not we ever get along; I do not mean the Minister and I, but just generally in the House of Commons. I am forever trying to convince people that in fact in the House of Commons there is more done by co-operation and consent than they might realize. All that seems to be put forward in what they might see, hear or read is the conflict. On this occasion it is therefore good to be able to say that we want to support what the Government is doing.

In particular, I am thinking about the amendments for the benefit of Quebec workers through an adjustment to the Canada Pension Plan for survivors. Perhaps Quebec workers are faced with situations due to the changes made to the Quebec Pension Plan. There are numerous possibilities that workers would not get the pensions after a year.

We are pleased to have that occur and to get that adjustment made. It makes a great deal of sense. Without delaying the passage of the Bill, it has our complete and full support.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Blaker in the chair.
Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act
Clauses 1 to 4 inclusive agreed to.
On Clause 5-
Mr. Lachance:: Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. I have a few comments to make so as to reassure myself and some of my constituents who have been through those difficulties. Clause 5 provides for a new qualification rule, that is an aggregate of 30 years, plus 50 years of age. 1 would like the Minister to reassure me and tell me whether this provision will be retroactive for all applicants who were turned down in the past and who would now be eligible under the new provision, whenever the appropriate company has been designated as being eligible.


André Ouellet: Mr. Chairman, I can confirm to the Hon. Member that indeed the clause concerning the 80 rule provides that applicants who could have been eligible when the legislation was adopted, and if the 80 rule had been in force, will be covered, and now that the Act is in force, they will henceforth eligible for benefits.


Claude-André Lachance: Mr. Chairman, will they have to submit a new application?


André Ouellet: Mr. Chairman, I think they would be well advised to do so, unless their application is pending, but to avoid any problem I would suggest to those workers that they submit an application as soon as possible.
Clause 5 agreed to.


Roderick Blaker: Shall Clause 6 carry?
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 13 inclusive agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice) moved: that Bill C-171, an Act to amend the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


Yvon Pinard: We require the same consent as I required for the previous Bill, Mr. Speaker.

November 25, 1983
Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the House to proceed to all stages today in Committee of the Whole?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That is the arrangement entered into and it is agreed by our Party.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion will be as follows: Mr. MacGuigan, seconded by Mr. Pinard, moves:
That Bill C-171, an Act to amend the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act, be now read a second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to a Committee of the Whole.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, His Excellency the Governor General has been informed of the purport of this Bill and has given his consent, as far as Her Majesty's prerogatives are affected, to the consideration by Parliament of the Bill, that Parliament may do therein as it thinks fit.
Most Hon. Members, Mr. Speaker, will be aware of the controversy which has arisen over whether or not the wording of the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act includes Members of Parliament as well as the staff of the House of Commons, the Senate and the Library of Parliament.

Last September, the Seventh Small Claims Court of Ottawa-Carleton considered a case involving a member of the staff of the House of Commons. In its decision rendered in mid-October, the Court stated that the Act in question applies to the staff of the House of Commons. The amount due was determined last Monday and the employee concerned has appealed the decision of the Small Claims Court.

While I am satisfied that the appellate courts would uphold the lower court decision, the appeal process would likely be a lengthy one. Such a delay would not, in my view, be fair to spouses seeking to enforce family support orders, not to other types of creditors. For this reason I am proposing amendments which make it abundantly clear that Members of Parliament, from both the upper and lower Houses, and the staff of the House of Commons, the Senate and the Library of Parliament, are subject to garnishment under the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act. This will be achieved by creating a separate division to apply to the House of Commons, the Senate and the Library of Parliament.
Once the Act has passed, the necessary regulations will go forward to the Governor in Council as soon as the Speakers of the House of Commons and the Senate have indicated their approval of the regulations to me. This will clear the way for the regulations for the pension diversion portions of the Act which have been delayed pending clarification of Part I. It will clear the way for them to proceed and be proclaimed into force early in January, 1984.
I would just say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that this is not, as is quite evident from the consent here this morning, a partisan matter. It is equally important, I think, to all of us in the House of Commons that we be seen not to be obstructing in any way legislation which was passed last year and in which we believed we had already yielded this ancient privilege. As a result of the delays which have occurred, litigants are in danger of being put to great expense in achieving what we thought had already been guaranteed by the law.
This is, therefore, a clarificatory piece of legislation. It may not be strictly necessary in terms of law. In fact, I do not believe it is; but certainly it is necessary in terms of fact so that Parliament will not be seen to be holding on in an unseemly way to privileges which it has already assured the public it has abandoned.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak very briefly to this Bill. I just wanted to say a couple of things with respect to the amendments which Members of our Party will, of course, support. As the Minister himself pointed out in September of this year, it has been an unedifying spectacle that the very important Parts II, III and IV of the Bill have not as yet been proclaimed.
The intention was at the time the Bill originally came before the House that the matter be put into effect immediately. Indeed, Members of our Party have been calling for this legislation for some considerable period of time. I recall in 1980 a former colleague from Leeds-Grenville, Mr. Tom Cossitt, was very active in asking for this legislation to be brought forward. It continued to be the case on the part of my colleague from Victoria (Mr. McKinnon), who in fact raised this matter with the Minister in September of this year. He should be given some credit for really bringing this matter to the point where the Minister has, to his credit, brought forward the amending legislation. I am sure there will be no question as to the right to effect garnishee and other action of attachment with respect to Members and staff of the House of Commons, the Senate, and the Library of Parliament.
I will pose a specific question now and ask the Ministr during Committee of the Whole to comment on this aspect of the Bill. There is a unique provision, as I pointed out to the Minister earlier, on which he may wish to comment. Under clause 16(2) it is specifically provided that there shall be no execution against the House of Commons and the Senate in respect of a garnishment served on a Member of the House of Commons, a staff member of whomever, or the Senate. I would appreciate hearing the legal rationale for that particular provision.
The effect, as I would understand it, would be that if the House of Commons, for example, did not obey the garnishment order, it would not be possible for litigants to proceed to execution against the House of Commons and to receive the money that they would be entitled to under the judgment. I am sure the Minister has had an opportunity to obtain a legal opinion or advice with respect to that provision. I would be
November 25, 1983

obliged, accordingly, if he would answer that point during the course of the Committee of the Whole.
In conclusion, all I can say is that we are in support of these amendments. We are very anxious that the rights apply, particularly in cases of those maintenance orders and orders for single parents that are very often difficult to enforce for a variety of reasons in our federal state. When these orders are extant and in fact involve public employees, or indeed Members of the House of Commons or the Senate, our Party believes that the same rights apply in the enforcement of such debts against all citizens of Canada. Hence, we have no difficulty with the relinquishment of what have been traditional rights or exemption from garnishment.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak to this Bill on behalf of the New Democratic Party. As I understand Bill C-171, it is essentially a housekeeping measure. The amendments are proposed to tighten up the poor drafting of the original Bill, Bill C-38, which was passed on June 18, 1982. Although it has taken a year and a half to correct the vagueness of Bill C-38, we must commend the Government for recognizing this and acting upon it. We will support Bill C-171.
As the Minister said, some of the ambiguities in the present Bill were revealed in a recent court case. For the record, the case was Texaco Canada Limited versus Dagenais. It was a decision of the Small Claims Court in Ontario on October 12, 1983. This subsequent scrutiny of the Bill indicated that there was some doubt as to whether MPs and Senators would have been included in the original Bill as well as Parliament Hill employees. Clearly, the principle is that we should all be equal under the law. That is the motto of the Supreme Court of the United States and I believe it applies equally in Canada. Therefore, the lawmakers and employees on the Hill should not be above the law either.
There are three principles in the original Bill C-38 on which I would like to comment. The first principle is that Bill C-38 eliminated a form of privilege which is that the wages of the employees of the Crown were exempt from garnishment based on the historic concept of royal prerogative, which holds that since a court cannot move binding orders against the moneys and properties of Her Majesty, a garnishment order cannot be made against money paid by the Crown to an employee of the Crown. There was no just reason for these categories of people to be afforded special treatment. Personally, I had a case with one of my constituents in Vancouver who was trying to collect money from her former husband on a maintenance order. She could not garnishee his wages because he was an employee of the Crown. This was cleared up in the old Bill.
I suggest that we should acknowledge the support of the Public Service Alliance of Canada of Bill C-38. They acknowledged that federal employees should not be able to hide behind their debts.
I think we should also give credit to Parliament Hill employees who appreciate the clarifying aspects of Bill C-171. While they recognize that they should not have special status,
Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act I want to point out to the Minister that, on the other hand, they should not be subject to special handicaps or exemptions. While we do not want to give them the special privileges which are eliminated in this Bill, they do not have the equal privilege of collective bargaining and organizing. In other words, we do not treat the employees of Parliament Hill equally. If we are to apply the principle of having their wages subject to garnishment like the rest of the population, the principle equally applies that they should be allowed to collectively organize, receive decent salaries and be able to bargain for their working conditions. Let us be fair and apply the principles right across the board. I am sure the Minister would agree that the same principle of equality must apply.
The second principle in the original Bill corrected the unfairness to creditors. People should not be able to abdicate their financial responsibilities simply because they are Crown employees. I believe we all agree with that.
Third, the original Bill allowed the Government to divert pension benefits to comply with financial support orders. This provision is contained in Part II of Bill C-38 and has yet to come into effect. We urge the Government to fix a date of proclamation for the remaining elements of Bill C-38, Parts II to IV. 1 believe the Conservative Party spokesman, the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn), made reference to this. What is the Minister waiting for? Why does he not proclaim those particular sections?
We in the NDP are in full agreement with the exemption of Old Age Security and veteran war disability pensions from those diversion provisions as covered by Bill C-38.
In summary, we are glad to see the original legislation improved upon and the intent clarified before the end of the session. On a personal note, I just lost a rather large legal case which I have fought for three years all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. It took eight days in the trial division in British Columbia. I do not know whether the Minister will garnish my wages to collect his legal costs. Perhaps I might in fact be one of the first people to which this Bill applies. Perhaps I will have to appeal it, win against him in the appeal court and then garnishee his wages!
In conclusion, we on this side of the House support the speedy passage of this legislation. However, I remind the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) that if he is going to rely on the principle of equality, not only must Parliament Hill employees suffer the consequences of having their wages garnisheed and so on like anyone else, but they should be equally treated to some of the benefits of the general population, to wit, the right to collectively bargain.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Blaker in the Chair.
Roderick Blaker: Order. House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-171, an Act to amend the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act.

November 25, 1983
Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act
On Clause I Minister


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Chairman, 1 have another point which 1 omitted to include in my concise remarks on second reading. The Minister will recall that I made reference to the proclamation of Parts II, III and IV of the original legislation. The Minister has had correspondence with the Hon. Member for Victoria, and with his permission I would like to read into the record the Minister's response, which in part reads as follows:
Parts II-IV of the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act have not been proclaimed because of the difficulty in designating "Ministers" to be responsible for pension or retiring allowances for Members of Parliament. This difficulty stemmed from the dispute over whether or not Part I of the Act applied to the Staff and Members of Parliament. With passage of the amendments to Part I, the appropriate "Ministers", acceptable to the House of Commons and the Senate, could then be designated for Parts II-IV.
As the regulations, designation of Ministers and coming-into-force order must be approved by the Governor-in- Council, then registered in the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and gazetted, the process may take some six weeks, without taking into account the Christmas holiday period. I have instructed my officials to aim for January 1, 1984 as a proclamation date, which would then be the effective date for the amendments and Parts II-IV together.
I would appreciate having the confirmation of the Minister that it is his intention and the Government's intention to move with the proclamation on the remaining parts of the original Bill as soon as possible, conceivably on January 1, 1984.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Chairman, indeed I can confirm what I stated in that letter to the Hon. Member's colleague. We want to proceed as rapidly as possible with this implementing legislation. We will proclaim all the parts at the same time. If we can manage the January 1 date, we will do that; certainly it will be as soon as possible after that time.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 10 inclusive agreed to.


Roderick Blaker: Shall the title carry?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Chairman, we slipped by Clause 5 when I think both the Hon. Member and I were trying to find out to which clause his earlier question pertained.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Yes, it pertains to Clause 5.


Mark R. MacGuigan: If we could revert to Clause 5, I would be pleased to answer his question.


Roderick Blaker: Is there unanimous consent to revert to Clause 5?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
On Clause 5-


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Member raised a question about why there was provision that execution should not issue on a judgment given against the Senate, the House of Commons or Library of Parliament in garnishment proceedings permitted by this Act. As Hon. Members will appreciate, the debts which are owing here to members that might be attached are being paid by one of those bodies, either the House of Commons, the Senate or the Library of Parliament. I
think it would involve us all in a great deal of difficulty if the House of Commons, because of some bureaucratic delay, were a day late in sending out the required payment under the garnishment order.
For example, if someone had a sheriffs order to start seizing the buses on which Hon. Members travel or something of that kind because of a private litigant's dispute, we can be assured that in this form the legislation will be taken at face value and implemented bona fides, in good faith, by all the elements of Parliament. It will not be necessary for execution to issue in order to make sure that that happens. This clause was also contained in the original Bill which we passed.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Chairman, that is a point on which I was not clear. In his last sentence the Minister said that this was contained in the previous provisions of the Bill. It may have escaped my notice, but my impression, on looking at the legislation before, was that this provision was unique and that the same provision did not apply with respect to other departments of Government or other employees of Government. If I am not mistaken-and I stand to be corrected because I am anxious to be co-operative today-the provision only extends to the House of Commons and the Senate. I know the dangers of having buses seized; it would cause serious problems for some Hon. Members! I walk to my office, so it would not bother me. There should be some better explanation. If there is some reason at law, some technical reason or tradition as to why the House of Commons should be exempt, I would be interested in that information. If he could point out what clause in the original Bill contained a similar provision, at least there would be unanimity with respect to dealing with all Government departments. He may have that information in his possession at the moment.


Mark R. MacGuigan: I can tell the Hon. Member that it is Section 18 of the legislation we passed last year which contains the same provision.
Clause 5 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, there was an agreement among House Leaders that if we were to reach the stage of adopting the two Bills we have just adopted through all stages, we would call it five o'clock. However, I understand that my hon. colleague, who is unusually co-operative today, would like that to be done without prejudice to the right of the Official Opposition to give notice of the motion to be debated on Monday before it is really five o'clock. Certainly we do not object to that. Also we understand that it is without prejudice to their right to give notice of any objection to any item in the Supplementary Estimates before it is really five o clock.
November 25, 1983

I do not know whether I have covered all the concerns of the Hon. Member but certainly, Mr. Speaker, if you call it five o'clock now, we will agree without prejudice to what I have just said.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Member for
Saskatoon West.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, 1 am the Hon. Member from co-operative Saskatoon West, as usual.


John Leslie Evans: At least we know the riding is co-operative.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, 1 did not want some technicality to prevent us from filing notices of objections with respect to the Estimates which will be voted on next week. Accordingly, I appreciate that clarification. I understand that there may be a reasonable number of objections which are now in the process of scrutiny and preparation, and that we will retain the ability to file not only the content of our Opposition
Business of the House
motion but, indeed, the notices of objections before five o'clock Eastern Standard Time, Canada.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: On behalf of the New Democratic Party, Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to co-operate in calling it five o'clock for many reasons. One, of course, is that we do have many Members from British Columbia who are busily preparing for the impending B.C. Lions victory by two touchdowns over the Toronto Argonauts!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Subject to the conditions mentioned by the Hon. Member, the President of the Privy Council and the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West, is it the pleasure of the House that I call it five o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Accordingly, I extend best wishes for a pleasant weekend. It being five o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until eleven o'clock Monday morning.
At 1.01 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, November 28, 1983