1983-05-04

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Pierre Gimaiel (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Madam Speaker, this morning I heard the news on the radio that Pope John Paul II will be visiting Canada in September 1984. The Pope will be in Canada for ten days, and will be staying three days in my own province, the Province of Quebec. I would like to point out how important this visit is, considering the fact that over 25 per cent of the people of this great country of ours are Catholic, and I also wish to say how pleased I am, as a Member of this House, with the news of this visit. I think it is a great honour that is being bestowed on the Catholics of this country by the leader of 500 million Catholics throughout the world.
I hope that on this occasion, the Government of Canada will offer the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops any help they may require in preparing for this important trip which will be the first time the Pope, who is well loved throughout the world, sets foot on Canadian soil.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, in the budget papers the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) filed detail of an Indexed Security Investment Plan, including a detailed ways and means motion, draft amendments to the Income Tax Act, and a full explanation of how the system will work. The Indexed Security Investment Plan is a method whereby those persons who invest in listed securities of public companies can escape paying capital gains tax on the investment where the gain is referrable to inflation.
The scheme proposed is highly bureaucratic and favours only stockbrokers and investors investing in listed securities. It
is small and medium sized businesses that create the new jobs required in the country. This scheme does absolutely nothing for those who invest in small and medium sized businesses to protect them from the unfair gains tax caused by inflation.
The House should form today a special committee to investigate the scheme proposed by the Minister. That committee should determine how it would be possible to provide for small and medium sized businesses the same protection as the Minister proposes to give the big boys in this Indexed Security Investment Plan. Surely if we are to allow those who invest in big businesses to escape tax on inflationary gains, then in the name of all that is fair and all that is decent the same privilege should be extended to those who invest in small and medium sized businesses, businesses that by their very nature cannot be listed on the stock exchange-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


DISARMAMENT
Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Madam Speaker, yesterday the Catholic Bishops of the United States in a special meeting in Chicago produced a new pastoral letter directed specifically toward world disarmament. It is basically a pastoral statement, it is called "The Challenge of Peace- God's Promise and Our Response". In the statement the Bishops condemned all use of nuclear weapons, they questioned the morality of their possession in any country, and they endorsed the concept of a nuclear freeze in the whole world. Basically the Bishops have clearly said "no". Their statement is definitive and precise. It is based upon the fact that the planet which has been given to us to be used by all peoples is in danger of being totally destroyed.
In their statement they have changed one four letter word to another four letter word. The first such word was "curb" arms build-up. It is now "halt" arms build-up. In that light, I remind the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that in the month of December, 1982, the leaders of the six major denominations in Canada gave him almost the same approach and material. I want the Government of Canada to rethink seriously its position on testing the Cruise missile in light of the new moral position proposed by the American Bishops.

May 4, 1983
25128___________________________________


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Maurice Bossy (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Madam Speaker, on behalf of many concerned constituents of Kent, I want to join Hon. Members on both sides of the House who have indicated their support for an amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act to extend maternity leave benefits to adoptive parents.
This amendment was proposed by the recent Task Force on Unemployment Insurance in the 1980s and is currently receiving intensive evaluation by the federal Government. Unemployment insurance maternity leave benefits are presently extended to employed women during and immediately after their pregnancy not only to allow these individuals the time required to recover and adapt to the physical element of childbirth, but also to give the new parents an opportunity to become acquainted with their new child during his or her first weeks of life.
The requirements are not so different when a child is adopted. All three partners in this new relationship require time and financial assistance to establish a firm base from which the entire family can grow. This assistance and time are unavailable to many working families who have adopted a child, under the current provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act. A move by the federal Government to change this situation would be of great service to the social fabric of the Canadian community. Therefore I urge the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) and his officials to continue their valuable discussions with an eye toward presenting a workable proposal in this regard in the near future.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Mr. John Thomson (Calgary South):: Madam Speaker, the oil and gas industry in western Canada is on its knees. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien), the Deputy Minister of Energy, and most senior officials of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources all know that the National Energy Program is an unmitigated disaster. But does the Government do anything to remedy the situation? No. It will not make the changes it knows should be made because that would be an admission of error. The Government does not have the guts to admit a mistake.
If the Government truly wants the oil and gas industry to contribute to economic recovery it should create an environment which will encourage the industry. Tinkering will never restore confidence. Investors will not play as long as politicians and bureaucrats want to fine tune.
The changes that must be made to the National Energy Program are straightforward. First, prices for all domestic production should be allowed to move to world levels, whether they be up or down. Second, it should eliminate the grant system. Petroleum incentive payments are costly and discriminatory. We are the only country in the world where the Government pays cash for drilling a dry hole. Replace the grant system with an incentive system that is equitable and non-discriminatory. Third, with the savings from the petroleum incentives program, reduce the front-end tax load and negotiate with the provincial Governments-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Madam Speaker, the Department of National Health and Welfare is proposing to decentralize its income security branch now located in Toronto, Ottawa, and Halifax. The Minister has said that the transfer of some 505 jobs from the present locations would create a similar number of jobs in areas of high unemployment. The Department also estimates it will cost approximately $34 million to create 505 more unemployed in Toronto, Ottawa, and Halifax in order to reduce unemployment elsewhere.
The Public Service Alliance of Canada has made a number of proposals and made concrete suggestions on how this $34 million could be used to create 772 full-time jobs if this decentralization program were cancelled. It also points out that if the $34 million were used for short-term job-creation, fully 2,000 person years of employment could be created.
The PSAC also questions the accuracy of the Department's cost estimates of this move and suggests it will be closer to $100 million rather than $34 million. Given the preaching we have been subjected to from the Minister about fiscal restraint, and the attacks the Government has waged on pension incomes, family allowances, and public service salaries, under its six and five program, the Minister should cancel this proposed decentralization-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


CANADIAN WILDLIFE FEDERATION
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, an article appeared in The Globe and Mail of last Saturday which dealt with the fund-raising practices of the Canadian
May 4, 1983

Wildlife Federation, the largest non-profit charitable organization in the country in the field of conservation. This article quoted Mr. Kenneth Brynaert, executive director of the CWF, as saying that the foundation had collected some $343,228 from the public for the purpose of conducting an anti-acid rain campaign in the United States, while at the same time accepting an $80,000 contract from the federal Department of the Environment for the same purpose. In any event, the sum it spent on the project was less than the contract figure, leaving the foundation more than $350,000 in pocket after a public appeal for funds that were not spent for the purpose for which they were solicited.
This is a situation that reflects badly on other groups in the conservation field and, further, leaves the Government open to the accusation that it is allowing charitable status, with all that that implies from a tax standpoint, to an organization whose of that status is questionable.
As a person vitally concerned with the problem of acid rain, these revelations leave me most upset. Surely the Government owes some answers to this House and the public, who have contributed to the CWF fund drives and who have supported this and other foundations in the acid rain battle and on other conservation issues.


AIR CANADA
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Madam
Speaker, I would like to comment on the report in this morning's Gazette that secret bonuses of around 4 per cent have been paid to Air Canada executives earning over $45,000 a year. I have three comments only: first, why help only those earning over $45,000? Do other Quebec employees not pay Quebec taxes as well? What is the rationale or principle here?
Second, why pay any bonus when the airline lost $32.6 million last year? Is not the idea of a bonus that it will only be paid in good years?
Third, recently Air Canada laid off 585 ground service workers. I understand they did not get a bonus. They did not get the golden handshake that was given to 600 white collar workers who took early retirement.
At the same time that our airline had a large loss last year, it is arbitrarily selecting a few employees to pay secret bonuses to, selecting other groups to buy into fancy pension plans, and selecting another group to lay off without any such benefit at all.
What sort of management is this? How can such capricious behaviour demand respect anywhere among Canadians? It is as though management feels that the end is nigh and that the privileged classes have to be taken care of before everything goes down the tube.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Gordon Gilchrist (Scarborough East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. In light of the budget provision which claims to put another $700 million behind research and development in Canada over the next two years, bringing the total Canadian commitment to about 1.4 per cent of the Gross National Product at best, which will leave us just as far behind in the future as we have been in the past 15 years, I would like to ask the Minister if he can explain to the House how that clearly inadequate amount of funding will create jobs needed by Canadians in the future, and how it will even prevent the loss of jobs to those nations whose Governments have looked after their responsibilities in the high technology and the modest technology fields.


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Minister of State for Economic Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Madam Speaker, I am disappointed that the Hon. Member, who is the Official Opposition's critic for Science and Technology, was not in the House yesterday to exchange questions and answers at the end of my speech. I would have thought that he would have shown delight at the commitment that the Government has made, not only for funding in the area of technology, not only for research and development, but for human resource development as well. But instead, he rises to criticize. I am glad to see that he is prepared to push for an ever greater involvement in the area of research and development.
It is not only the federal Government that is an active player. Industry, the university sector, and the Provinces are also playing an active part. We hope that the lead we have taken will be followed by them. In fact, because of the goal of 1.5 per cent of GNP to be devoted to research and development by 1985, the Hon. Member, from his own figures, will now recognize that we are very much on track. To my recollection, he did not go that way the last time he spoke in the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


GOVERNMENT POLICY-UNEMPLOYMENT PROJECTION
James Gordon Gilchrist: Madam Speaker, I thank the Minister for his invitation to follow him. We will not only follow him, we will greatly surpass his commitment in the next Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

May 4, 1983
Oral Questions


James Gordon Gilchrist: I would like to quote from the Minister's speech of May 3, the speech of which he said I am unaware.
Canada has been quick to respond to this challenge and over the past few months we have been examining how a technology policy can best work for us.
Is the Minister now asking us to believe that in the past few months the Government has discovered the value of research and technology, after 15 years of serious neglect? How can he explain the glowing speech he made yesterday when in fact he has had on his desk for those same few months, from his own Department, a report which predicts that there will be as many as two million Canadians lacking jobs by the end of this very decade?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, it is difficult to take that question seriously given the commitment the Government has shown in the area of research and development for many years. It is pointed out in the budget documents, and I reiterated in my speech yesterday, that Canada's fiscal regime for research and development is second only to Singapore in terms of the richness of incentives for the private sector. That is something for which the Hon. Member has been pushing. The Minister of Finance, as you know, has tabled a white paper for discussion on that subject.
There should be no misrepresentations made with respect to the two million jobs lost. There will be two million people looking for work. There may be jobs lost. There always have been jobs lost through technology and technological innovation. The farming sector is a good example. There is now 4 per cent of our work force in the farming sector. Some 25 per cent of our work force was in the farming sector in 1946. What has happened to those workers? Would you call those jobs lost? Those people have been integrated into other areas such as, the manufacturing sector and the service sector. That is what we are witnessing today. Instead of wringing our hands, we are identifying these problems, discussing them, and bringing them to the attention of the public.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[DOT] (M20)


REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDING
James Gordon Gilchrist: Madam Speaker, it was not my report that showed there would be two million jobs too few by the end of the decade; it was the Minister's own report.
Does the Minister realize that the population of Canada comprises something less than .5 per cent of the world's population? There are billions of people out there who are ready, willing and able to buy products which Canadians can produce if the Government ever gets its act together and gets the technology development that the country needs.
I should like to know when the Government and the Minister are going to deal honestly with the problem of Canadian job loss and give research and development the urgent priority
it requires to match the 1979 Conservative Government's objective of 2.5 per cent of Gross National Product for job-creation research goals. The Minister will realize that, as the National Research Council says, the extra 1 per cent could virtually cut unemployment in the country in half.


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I note that the Conservative Government of 1979 had many worthy objectives, one of which was to remain in office for four years.
Numbers mean nothing. The question is whether we are on track, and whether we have set realistic objectives. I think we have. I have pointed out to the Hon. Member, and I will point it out again, that we look at this as a period of opportunity, identifying the new jobs that are emerging and identifying the opportunities that will become available to Canadians. More important, we are making Canadians aware of those opportunities so that in the basic educational system they will be equipped to take on new responsibilities, and higher paying jobs. That is what has happened in the past. Admittedly this technology revolution is moving very quickly.That is why we have made such an effort in this budget and will continue to make such an effort to equip Canadians to meet those challenges.
The Minister of Finance pointed out in his budget that $ 1.2 billion has been dedicated in this period to human-resource development. He supplemented it, by raising it to that amount with an additional $155 million in the budget itself.
I really do not think the Hon. Member has much to complain about unless he simply believes more money should be thrown at problems, which is normally the position of our friends in the NDP. I wish he would read the technology paper, analyze it, and put forward some constructive criticism. We would be very happy to listen to him.


SPECIAL RECOVERY PROGRAM
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Will he confirm that of the $2.4 billion assigned to the Special Recovery Program $400 million has been assigned to British Columbia? In that context, the Government has failed to anticipate the future as indicated by the report to the Minister of State for Economic Development. We now find that, according to that report, there could be 15 per cent unemployment by 1991. Youth in particular are going to be in anguish over this since they cannot plan their futures.
Will the Minister commit himself to allocating funds to colleges like Kwantlen and BCIT, and other colleges, that are concentrating on training programs for hi-tech industries so that the young people who are facing a frustrating future can
May 4, 1983

plan for that future and not suffer the social dislocation that the Government has not anticipated?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and
Immigration): Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member has asked a question which I think goes to the heart of the matter about the kinds of changes we are facing, and that is that the degree to which the country deals with a problem is how we manage it. The recommendations he has just made, we have already undertaken. If he had been aware he would know that we announced, two weeks ago in British Columbia, major grants to BCIT for the establishment of a robotics CAD/CAM training centre. That was preceded by announcements three or four weeks earlier in some seven different community colleges throughout British Columbia, as they have been throughout the country, that we are substantially modernizing and reequipping community colleges to train people for that new technology so that we can offset the kinds of projections that are being made.


Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, the major industry the Government is interested in is recycling, because those funds have been recycled several times already.
I would still like to have a statement from the Minister of Finance on whether the report is true that $400 million has been assigned to the Province of British Columbia.


FORESTRY
Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of State for Economic Development. The Government has again been taken by surprise by the impending calamity in the forestry industry in that a report by the National Research Council indicates that in 15 years the forest industry could be decimated in Canada. That means that in British Columbia the major source of jobs and the major source of income by export market, is going to be lost.
What specific programs is the Minister planning for the forest industry, and specifically for British Columbia, in relation to the silviculture and pest control in the forest industry, and projects like that, in order to save those jobs for the future?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of the Environment who would be very able to provide specifics from the vast array of programs in the natural forestry policy, I would certainly say to the Hon. Member that we all recognize on this side of the House, and I hope on the other side of the
Oral Questions
House, that the forestry industry is one of the underpinnings of the Canadian economy. You can be sure that the issues which are raised are being addressed. The whole area of silviculture is one of priority, not only in British Columbia but in other regions of the country as well. The Government has pursued, and will continue actively to pursue techniques, research and development, other procedures and other programs to ensure that it remains one of our strengths.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. James):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Economic Development. Yesterday he painted a pretty rosy picture with regard to technological change and employment. He was talking about moving from boring, tedious jobs, to exciting, well paid jobs. Canadians this morning were shocked to find out that the Minister had on his desk a report which projected the loss of some two million jobs for the Canadian economy. What we need to know today, Madam Speaker, is whether the Minister has taken off his rosy coloured glasses and whether he is ready to engage Canadians in a full and open debate on technological change. Will he table that secret report, and will he refer it to the committee on employment?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, when one is involved in economic development it is difficult not to have "rosy glasses" about the future of this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald James Johnston: When we talk about issues of job dislocation through technology, we are indeed engaging in a debate which is one of the most important and one of the most topical, not only here in Canada, but in the United States, West Germany, France, and Britain; every industrialized country. There is no choice but to embark with new technologies. That is what we are doing through our technology policy. That was discussed yesterday and I was here in this House. I am sorry that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James was not here to take part in the lively debate on the subject.
The fact of the matter is, Madam Speaker, that certainly there will be jobs lost, but there will be new jobs created. We created in Canada three million jobs from 1971 to 1981, during one of the most difficult economic climates in terms of inflation and energy costs which this country has ever faced. There is no reason to believe that we will not be able to do the same thing, given the opportunities which are arising from these new technologies. That is what we have to look forward to. We have opportunities, not liabilities, ahead.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

May 4, 1983
25132_____________________________
Oral Questions REQUEST FOR COMMITMENT TO PROVIDE JOBS


Cyril Keeper: Madam Speaker, I did not say that we should turn a blind eye to technological change. I said we should examine it in all its hues, not just the rosy hues. We should look at the workers who are going to be black and blue from the employment policies of the Government.
This study yesterday indicated that alcoholism, family breakup and vandalism would be the result of the very high levels of unemployment. What we need to know is if the Government is willing to go beyond redefining full employment upwards, which is clearly unacceptable to Canadians, and is it willing to renew a commitment to "A job for every Canadian"?
Let me remind the Minister that he still has not answered my question about whether he will table this report and whether he will refer it to the committee on employment.


Donald James Johnston: First of all, Madam Speaker, I am not aware of a study, per se. I am aware of background documents.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald James Johnston: Would the Hon. Member be happier if he thought that the Government was not involved in an active consideration of what the impacts of the new technology might be, what the impact might be on our competitiveness internationally, and so on? Of course we are looking at these issues. In fact the budget specifically addresses these issues, not only by strengthening the technology centre, but also by proposing a national centre which will be subject to negotiations with labour and with industry, led by my colleague, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and the Minister of Labour, with a view to addressing these very issues.
I do not know what the Hon. Member is essentially complaining about. Is he saying we should not back away from the new technologies? We are addressing the problems. We are putting programs into effect to provide for human resource development. Perhaps the Hon. Member could be more specific as to what he thinks we should do, besides tabling a report, and I am not even sure what report it is.


NEED FOR PUBLIC SECTOR INDUSTRIAL STRATEGY
Cyril Keeper: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same Minister. The Government has been preaching for some time an almost exclusive reliance on the private sector. Given this background document which shows the devastating impact that technological change is going to have on employment, is this Minister now willing to recognize the need for the lead to be taken by the public sector in order to develop an industrial strategy which has, as its first priority, employment for all Canadians?
Does he not realize that Canadians are not right-wing ideologues and slaves to the scribblings of Adam Smith, and that we want jobs not just for ourselves but for our neighbours as well?


Donald James Johnston: I would certainly agree, Madam Speaker, that Canadians are not right-wing ideologues. But they certainly are not leftwing ideologues either. That seems to be the point the Hon. Member is making. I gather he would like the Government to embark upon a public employment program to ensure that the Public Service expands and absorbs all the unemployment out there. That is not the thrust of the budget. The thrust of the budget is to support the private sector which has created the jobs in the past, three million jobs from 1971 to 1981, and to ensure that this scenario repeats itself in the 1980s and 1990s.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Since the Government has made no response whatsoever concerning the status of the RCMP investigation into the Air Canada matter, has the Prime Minister discussed with his friend, Rene Amyot, whom he appointed as a chairman of Air Canada, the propriety of a leave of absence pending completion of the investigation?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: No, Madam Speaker.


INQUIRY RESPECTING REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, separate and apart from any criminal investigation, is it the policy of the Government that Prime Ministerial appointees to public office-


Mr. Lalonde:: They are cabinet appointments.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: -can use public facilities for personal gain and promotion? Specifically, has he discussed with Mr. Amyot the use of Air Canada property in meetings with fugitives from Canadian justice, and others, in promoting personal real estate deals both here and abroad?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The answer to both questions is again no, Madam Speaker. I would just add that on this side of the House we also have respect for the rule of law, which the Hon. Member does not.
May 4, 1983


HOUSING
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works responsible for housing. I am disturbed about the number of calls I am getting from people who have applied for a $3,000 grant under the Canadian Home Ownership Stimulation Program. The offices of CMHC are telling these people that they do not have any money and they do not know whether they will be able to meet the applicants' requests. Can the Minister assure the House that all applications made up until May 31 will be met and the Government will have sufficient funds for all the applicants?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, I will ask your patience for a moment because I have had many questions from Members on this issue. I would remind the House that the Minister of Finance, when he announced an extra $30 million for this program, made it very clear that this was a program which was administered to budget, and that it would come to an end when the allocation was used up. If it was before the end of May, Minister's statement was to finish the program after the extra $30 million had been allotted. The Hon. Member is one of those who raised the issue which made me go to the Minister of Finance to try to help Northern areas and isolated regions where people could not easily build during the winter months, including April. This we did. In fact, Madam Speaker, the success of the program is such that the flood of applications which came in during the last couple of weeks has probably committed the full amount except for a reserve we have kept for northern areas and isolated communities. We will be examining these cases as they come in.
What my officers are saying to people who come into the offices is that it is doubtful that we will have enough funds to meet all the demands. But they are taking the applications in order, and maintaining that list of priorities established for those who have applied. I might say, Madam Speaker, that the Registered Home Ownership Savings Plan will go a long way to meet the same type of grant advantage that we are talking about in the Canadian Home Ownership Program.


TREATMENT OF NORTHERN APPLICANTS
Stanley James Korchinski: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that the Government is about to embark on another borrowing proposal which it will be putting before the House of Commons for approval, does the Minister not consider that this might be an appropriate time for him to request additional funds so that all these people who live in Northern Canada and cannot qualify during the winter months may also qualify in the same manner as people living in southern Canada, and that people will not be treated on a first come first serve basis but that all, absolutely all applicants who have made application up until May 31, will receive this grant?
Oral Questions


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I will check the language I used but I certainly intended to say that we have put aside a reserve in order to protect those from northern and isolated areas. These are mainly single or very small builder applications. We have put aside some money to accommodate them. I very much hope that this will go all the way to protecting those communities, in whose name in fact I asked the Minister of Finance to grant some extra money.


REQUEST THAT TRADE OFFICES BE ESTABLISHED IN TAIWAN
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Because of the record number of unemployed Canadians I am sure that the Prime Minister is aware of statistics which conclude that, for every $1 billion of international trade, 25,000 new jobs are created in Canada. Unfortunately we have been missing out on numerous trade opportunities, for example in Taiwan, where most other non-Communist nations have established nondiplomatic trade offices in order to take advantage of the tremendous growth and trade potential in that country without-and I emphasize without-jeopardizing relations with mainland China.
Is the Government now prepared to take initiatives to promote realistic trade and travel arrangements in Taiwan and join the rest of the modern world in international trade and commerce for the benefit of all Canadians?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member may be making a suggestion which is different in degree from the Government's policy, but we do encourage trade with Taiwan. There is a fair amount of it between the private sectors of Canada and the Taiwanese people. I know that Members of Parliament have gone repeatedly to Taiwan, and if the Hon. Member wants to suggest that I take a trip to Taiwan I will entertain the suggestion.


Mr. Nielsen:: Why don't you go to Timbuktu?


POSSIBLE SALE OF CANDU NUCLEAR REACTOR TO TAIWAN
Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister of course did not answer the question of whether he would join the rest of the industrialized world in establishing trade offices in Taiwan.
Specifically, if the Prime Minister could guarantee export permits to Atomic Energy of Canada for the sale of Candus to Taiwan in return for safety and other control regulations similar to those on the Candu sales to South Korea, I can assure the Prime Minister and the House today that the immediate sale of at least one $1 billion Candu reactor to Taiwan can be made, thereby creating at least 25,000 new jobs

May 4, 1983
Oral Questions
in Canada today. Is the Prime Minister willing to give us the assurance that he will give the export permits to the AECL?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is assuring us of a $1 billion sale. If it is as simple as that, why should we have trade offices? I will do business with the Hon. Member.


Mr. Stewart:: Good idea. You would learn something.


BANKS AND BANKING
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday The New York Times carried a report that Nu-West Group Limited of Calgary, a real estate developer, announced a large loss of 1982, and said that it and its lenders, the banks, have agreed that Nu-West would stop making interest and principal payments on $562 million in loans. The Company has been unable to pay either principal or interest since last fall.
There is an increasing number of small business concerns and farmers who have been pushed into bankruptcy, and their assets, including machinery, livestock and homes, are being taken over by the banks because they cannot meet their loan payments. Would the Minister not agree that the banks are treating their large corporate customers in an entirely different way than they are treating their other customers, including small-businessmen and farmers? Would the Minister consider what steps are necessary or possible to ensure that the banks treat all Canadians in an equally fair and equitable manner?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I would hope that the banks would pay even more attention to their small borrowers, the small-business men and farmers to whom the Hon. Member has referred. I have made representations myself in that regard. The Prime Minister has done the same. We have certainly had evidence of hundreds of cases where good Members of Parliament, at least on this side of the House, have done their job on behalf of many of their constituents by approaching the institutions concerned and persuading them to help those concerned. I have had numerous reports from Liberal Members of Parliament who have done their job in that regard. I would hope that Members of the NDP would do the same.


REQUEST FOR LEGISLATION TO PROTECT INDIVIDUAL BORROWERS
David Orlikow: Hon. Members from all Parties have been in touch with the Minister, as I have, concerning home owners who have not been able to make their mortgage payments and have lost their homes, and farmers in every Province who have been pushed into bankruptcy. What I
am saying to the Minister is that the people of Canada who are in difficulty do not just need kind words from the Minister of Finance or the Prime Minister. They need some action which would ensure that the banks would treat the ordinary people who are in difficulty in the same way they have treated Nu-West and dozens of other large corporations which now owe $4 billion or more in loans, on which they are paying neither the principal nor the interest. I am asking the Minister whether, instead of just kind words, we will see some legislation which will give protection to ordinary people in this country.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I have already stated that I know of hundreds of cases where, indeed, the financial institutions have taken exceptional steps to accommodate some of their smaller clients who are in difficulty. I suggest to my hon. friend that, indeed, if he wants to check, he will find that to be the case.
I am always suspicious of questions coming from the NDP, because the other day when the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap, in a question in the House, said that there had not been any instances in his riding when steps had been taken to help his constituents. I checked this matter with one particular bank, and found that there had been support and help amounting to millions of dollars in the riding of Kamloops-Shuswap, where the Hon. Member said nothing was taking place.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He doesn't know what's going on.


Marc Lalonde: I can only conclude that Hon. Members of the NDP are not following very carefully what is happening in their ridings.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Yesterday Mr. Andropov of the Soviet Union offered to count warheads as well as missiles at the intermediate range nuclear force talks. This is quite a change from his previous negotiating stance. As the Prime Minister likes to take credit for the policies of the President of the United States when he agrees with them, would he tell the House whether he will be asking the United States to accept this offer as a new bargaining base, or will he suggest that the United States reject it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I was told that the suggestion by Mr. Andropov is a very positive one. I would hope that it would not be rejected, that it would, on the contrary, be examined with great interest and a positive outlook. Thus far, my information is that the United States have not rejected it, but that they want to examine it. Therefore, we are very happy for any movement by either side toward a halt, an eventual reduction in nuclear
May 4, 1983

arms of the INF variety or of the strategic variety. We think it is a step in the right direction.


POSSIBLE RELOCATION OF SOVIET MISSILES
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Prime Minister. Mr. Andropov seems to have avoided mentioning what he intends to do with the SS-20s which would be withdrawn from Europe if his offer is accepted. If these weapons are not dismantled but are merely relocated, the site of the relocation is a very important factor. If they are to be relocated just beyond the Urals, they will still be within range of all their present targets in Europe, although technically the missiles would have been withdrawn from Europe.
As reported at page 24114 of Hansard, the Prime Minister said:
-our judgment of how the other track was proceeding would influence us in deciding whether we would go with the Cruise or not.
Does the Prime Minister consider that Mr. Andropov's statement fulfils the requirement?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I believe I answered that by saying that we thought it was a positive gesture. Of course there are difficulties such as that mentioned by the Hon. Member, that if they are withdrawn into the Asian part of the Soviet Union it is still conceivable that they could be targeted on western Europe. Indeed, if they are moved far east in the Soviet Union, they could be targeted on parts of North America. These are obviously questions which must be examined. That is why it is impossible to give an absolute approval or disapproval now, but we think that the proposal is positive in the sense that it suggests a reduction in the number of nuclear warheads.
To those who oppose the possibility in Canada of testing of the Cruise or, indeed, of the possibility of having Euromissiles on the NATO side, I would point out that it is unlikely that Secretary Andropov would have made his December offer for reducing SS-20s, or yesterday's offer for reducing SS-20s, just out of the goodness of his heart. If the Soviets are suggesting a reduction in missiles, it is probably because they are afraid that we will deploy ours. That should therefore be an argument not to lose our cool too soon and not to decide that we will not deploy ours at any cost. On the contrary, there should be a bargaining going on.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


U.S. AND U.S.S.R. OFFERS TO REDUCE NUCLEAR ARSENALS
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton South):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Prime Minister. Could the Prime Minister indicate to the House the nature of the study which he is making concerning the proposals for nuclear reductions made by both President Reagan and Soviet Leader Andropov related to the exact amount of nuclear weaponry which both sides possess? Will the Canadian Government be prepared to make recommendations to both sides so that true
Oral Questions
progress can be made at the Geneva negotiations on nuclear arms reduction?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member refers to a study. I do not know of any particular piece of work being done. I know that there is a whole series of studies going on and examinations by the Department of National Defence and by the Department of External Affairs, those two Departments in particular. They are not only being kept informed by the United States but as well, as the Hon. Member knows, the Secretary of State for External Affairs went to Geneva and personally met with the Soviet negotiators. We are obviously in contact all the time with the Soviet ambassador here, and we try to get the Soviets' side of the story in negotiations.
It is with the objective in mind of making a balanced assessment of progress and a will to progress by both sides that we are conducting our policy. Therefore, I cannot refer, once again, to a particular study, but I can assure the Hon. Member that the Secretary of State for External Affairs, in particular, has been in contact with both sides to ensure that both sides negotiate seriously and make progress.


Douglas Roche: The purpose of my question was to indicate that the Canadian Government ought to be making recommendations for the Geneva negotiations, based on an informed study.


PROPOSAL TO HOLD SUMMIT MEETING
Douglas Roche: Madam Speaker, I now want to ask the Prime Minister whether he has taken note of the recent proposal of Chancellor Kohl of West Germany that a Summit meeting be held between President Reagan and Soviet Leader Andropov for the purpose of giving a new impetus to the nuclear arms negotiations in Geneva. Can the Prime Minister confirm whether he raised the subject of a Summit during his recent meeting with President Reagan? Will he now support this proposal in the name of the people all over the world who want, in an even-handed approach, both the Soviet Union and the United States to stop the nuclear arms race?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Madam Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member and the House that I did raise the subject of a Summit with President Reagan. I enjoined him-indeed, I pleaded with him-to work toward such a Summit. I think the timing must be left to the United States in terms of not having a Summit in which progress would be negative or counter-productive.
I pointed out to the President of the United States that in our view time was running out, not only politically for him, and perhaps others, but it is running out in terms of the future of humanity so that both sides who are holders of these terrible weapons of destruction be urged on by every group and every member of NATO, at least on our side, to make progress

May 4, 1983
Oral Questions
which at some point might be better made at a Summit than elsewhere. But once again we are monitoring the discussions in Geneva. I repeat the Secretary of State for External Affairs was there. Short of going to Moscow myself, I am not sure what else I could do at this time.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: You have been there. We remember.


SPECIAL RECOVERY PROGRAM
Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Economic Development. Can he indicate to the House what portion of the $2.4 billion announced in the budget for public works projects will be allocated to the Province of Alberta?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I said at the time we announced the national program that the individual projects would be announced by the responsible Ministers during the forthcoming weeks, in fact, in the very near term. I am afraid the Hon. Member will simply have to wait until the announcements are made.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Supply and Services. Would the Minister tell us what the Government's policy is with regard to Government contracts which come up for tender? Given the recent budget announcements that Canadian businesses will be steered out of the recession with a helping hand from the Government, will the Minister tell us whether Canadian firms are given priority when tenders are called for contracts involving the Government? Put simply, is it the Government's policy to buy Canadian whenever possible when it comes to contracts with Government Departments?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased the hon. gentleman has asked that question. I know he is very favourable toward my ministry's policy of attempting to obtain a larger portion of our procurement from Canadian sources with a high Canadian value added.
In terms of fast tracking and in terms of the projects that we have identified within the budget, the Hon. Member will recognize that roughly 49 per cent of them will be administered through my Department, the Department of Supply and Services. Indeed, the projects have been selected as a result of
their high Canadian content and our ability to source the requirements from Canadian firms.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Madam Speaker, I am supportive of efforts to ensure Canadian content, but I am also critical of cases where this does not happen.


AWARDING OF CONTRACT TO FLORIDA FIRM
Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister about a specific case. Since 1981 an American firm from Florida, called Lifeskil Corporation, has been given contracts totalling more than $340,000 for drug and alcohol prevention and treatment programs at Canadian Forces Bases across Canada. It is currently in line for another soon to be awarded contract of some $150,000 while Canadian firms that bid on these contracts are passed over. Is the Minister aware of some special reason why this American firm should receive these contracts while Canadian firms and workers are left out in the cold?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, the hon. gentleman is dealing with one contract. I would have thought that he had had enough experience with my Department by now to know the large number of daily contracts that we let amount to over $ 10 million and also that the Hon. Member would have given me notice of his particular question. Had he done that, I would have been able to provide him with the details he requests. I will take his question as notice, review the details, and provide him with a reply as soon as practical.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources arising out of the answers which he and other Ministers supplied to the House yesterday concerning the $17,000 contract between Veba Oel and the Government of Canada concerning the liquefaction of Cape Breton coal. First, representatives of the company itself told Canadian Press that the work they were to carry out had to do with the project in question. Second, they also told Canadian Press that they were first approached to do such work in Canada by Mr. R. H. Shannon, an agent for Mr. Gillespie. Third, Mr. James Kelly of the Minister's own Department, identifies the contract as one dealing with the Cape Breton Synfuels Project.
Also, since page 1 of Appendix A of the contract, in assuming that positive test results on Nova Scotia coal occur, asks that information be provided in relation to a "commercial sized plant", of which there is only one on the drawing boards anywhere in Canada using Nova Scotia coal, will the Minister not now come clean and admit to the House that the contract in question was a contract between the Government of Canada
May 4, 1983

relating specifically to the Nova Scotia Synfuels Project at Cape Breton?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I have to repeat exactly what I said yesterday. It was a contract between my Department and Veba to test Nova Scotia coal for the benefit of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. It was a contract between a corporation and the Department and it was provided in the contract that the information has to be kept in the Department and not transmitted to anybody else outside of the Government.


TERMS OF CONTRACT-MINISTER'S STATEMENT-REQUEST THAT CONTRACT BE TABLED
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Supply and Services because the Minister of Energy now has made the same statement that the Minister of Supply and Services made yesterday, as reported at page 29,095 of Hansard, as follows:
-one of the terms of the contract was that it remain confidential.
I have a copy of that contract here which in no way is classified, and which I have studied. In no way is there any condition in it which stipulates that the contract is in any way confidential.
Having regard to that fact, Madam Speaker, will the Minister admit that he misled the House yesterday in making that statement, and will the Minister deny the statement of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources when he himself just now said that the contract is confidential? There is not a confidential provision in that contract. Will the Minister table it so that we can all see it?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, the hon. gentleman will recall my reply yesterday. Indeed I have reviewed the contract. There is a document that accompanied the contract which made the information and the exchange of information between the parties confidential.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Blais:: I have reviewed the contract itself, and I have asked my legal officers to review it in terms of whether I could table it and whether I could, indeed, table any correspondence, as requested by the Hon. Member for Perth yesterday. I am receiving the opinion of my officers momentarily and I will also be communicating with the contractor in Germany to secure his permission to table the document.


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL EXPLANATION
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, surely the Minister should have checked with his legal advisers before he made the flat, bald statement yesterday that one of the provisions of the contract required that it remain confidential, which is not a fact. I have all of the
Oral Questions
attachments, all three of them, to this contract, and nowhere is there any reference to any confidentiality as a contractual provision of the contract or any of its appendices. I suggest that the Minister owes this House an explanation as to why he deliberately misled the House. I am prepared to accept any reasonable explanation, as we all are, but he owes that to the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Leader of the Opposition might want to rephrase that. He knows that he cannot say that any other Member has deliberately misled the House.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I am afraid that you might have misheard. What I am saying to the Minister is-The Speaker shakes her head, but there is a possibility that she may have misheard.


Some Hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Don't horse around.


Erik Nielsen: I am not going to withdraw. I will repeat what I said to the Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: If you will listen, I will repeat what I said to the Minister. I am and other Members of this House are prepared to accept his explanation, if there is one, that would deny the conclusion that he was deliberately misleading the House yesterday when he made that statement.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: If the Hon. Member will now tell the House that is rephrasing what he said previously, which was that the Minister had deliberately misled the House, I would accept that.
The Hon. Member has to follow the rules of the House. It is not permissible to say that a Member has deliberately misled the House. The second formulation was quite different from his first question, but I cannot accept that the Hon. Member will not withdraw that first part.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I have not accused the Minister directly of misleading the House. I have not made that accusation. What I have done is ask him for an explanation which will allow us to come to a conclusion other than that he was deliberately misleading the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
25138

May 4, 1983
Point of Order-Mr. Johnston


Madam Speaker:: Order. Would the Hon. Member tell me on his second try whether he was reformulating his question?


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, the record is clear. I am asking the Minister for an explanation which would allow the Members of this House to come to a conclusion other than that he was deliberately misleading the House yesterday.


Madam Speaker:: I take it that that is the Hon. Member's reformulation of his question.
[ Translation]


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, the answer I gave yesterday contained information I was given by my officials. Actually, as I pointed out in replying to the Member for Vegreville, I became aware of the existence of the contract yesterday morning, and I have not had an opportunity to review all the documentation. After question period yesterday, I asked my officials to review the contracts and to give me an opinion on whether or not 1 could table the contract with all the documents exchanged by my department, as the contracting party for the Government of Canada, and the German company. As I indicated earlier, I am waiting to receive an opinion from my officials, and Madam Speaker, I am also waiting for permission from the German contracting company to table the documents in question.


ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT
Madam Speaker:: It is my duty pursuant to Section 19 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, Chapter E-2, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, to lay upon the table a certified copy of the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Nova Scotia, 1983. Pursuant to Standing Order 46(4), this report is deemed to be permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


POINTS OF ORDER
Madam Speaker:: Is the Hon. Minister of State for Economic Development (Mr. Johnston) seeking the floor on a point of order or on a question of privilege?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I believe I am rising on a question of privilege. I would not want to be accused of misleading the House in my response to a question by the Hon. Member for
Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Keeper). The House may recall that he asked that a report be tabled, presumably a report or a study referred to in The Globe and Mail article by Thomas Walkom of May 4.
The fact is that I am not aware of any such study, but perhaps I would be misleading the House if I left the impression that I was not aware of the existence of such a document. I do not know what version the journalist in question had, but I think I may have left the impression that I was not aware of the existence of such a document. I am, but I do not know what specific version or edition he looked at. I do not want to be accused of misleading the House by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James.


Madam Speaker:: That was a point of order.


MR. TOBIN-REFERENCE TO MINISTER BY MR. NIELSEN
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Bar be):: Madam Speaker, I have a serious question as to whether or not my privileges as a Member of the House have been trampled on today. I heard Madam Speaker indicate to the Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Nielsen) that he had used an unparliamentary phrase, "deliberately misled the House", referring to a Minister. I heard the Hon. Leader of the Opposition refuse to withdraw-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Brian Vincent Tobin: I believe that my privileges and those of all Hon. Members of the House have been-


Madam Speaker:: Order. That question has been resolved to the satisfaction of the Speaker.


Brian Vincent Tobin: On a point of privilege, Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: Order.


Brian Vincent Tobin: On a point of privilege-


Madam Speaker:: I have told the Hon. Member that the matter has been resolved to the satisfaction of the Speaker.


Brian Vincent Tobin: But, Madam Speaker, I feel that my privileges-


Madam Speaker:: No-

-and as we say in French, on ne repete pas la messe pour les sourds! I said it once, and I won't say it again.
May 4, 1983



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, it is a great honour for me today to present a petition in the House of Commons on behalf of the Saskatchewan Senior Citizens "Action Now" Association. I have had a chance to examine the petition. It contains nearly 5,000 names of people mostly from the Province of Saskatchewan, some of whom 1 recognize. These are senior citizens who are in financial difficulty at this time.
The rules do not allow me to read the entire petition, but I want to point out that it calls for the establishment of a Department of Senior Citizens Affairs, for a substantial increase in pensions, for the means test to be eliminated and also for a pension which is equal to some 70 per cent to 75 per cent of the average industrial wage index in Canada.
I ask my fellow Members of Parliament to examine the petition very carefully and to act upon it because these are the people who built this country of Canada. They deserve better from us who sit in the House of Commons today than they have been given recently.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4,736 and 4,746.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Were tenders received for the construction of a Canadian Embassy in Saudi Arabia and, if so (a) on what date (b) what were the names and addresses of the companies that submitted tenders and what were their prices?
2.	What was the budget figure for the project?
3.	Was a percentage Canadian content a requirement in the tender call and, if so, did the bidders conform to the Canadian content requirement?
4.	Were the tenders subject to a ninety day acceptance clause and, if so, on what date did that period expire?
5.	Is it still intended to build a Canadian Embassy in Saudi Arabia?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. (a) After prequalification, invited tenders for the construction of a New Canadian Embassy Complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia were received on Dec. 14, 1982.
(b) The list of names and addresses as well as the tender prices of the five prequalified general contractors who submit-
Order Paper Questions
ted prices is attached. This list was approved by Treasury Board on Oct. 15, 1982.
2.	The budget for the overall project, as approved by Treasury Board on July 22, 1982 is $32,762,000 which includes provision for design fees, furniture, and as well, the cost of construction.
3.	Canadian products were specified in the tender documents wherever it was reasonable and practical to do so for the construction context of Saudi Arabia. Bidders did conform to the Canadian material content requirement.
4.	The tenders were subject to a ninety day acceptance period which expired on Mar. 14, 1982.
5.	Although the main construction contract has not yet been awarded, it is still intended to eventually build a new Canadian Embassy in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
New Canadian Embassy Complex Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
List of Prequalified General Contractors
1.	Bell Canada International 1 Nicholas St., 8th Floor Ottawa, Ontario, Canada KIG 3J4 Telex No. 053-4849 Attention: R. E. Bays Phone (613) 563-1811
2.	Foundation/Skanska Joint Venture c/o Foundation Co. of Canada 1 Younge St.,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5E 1E8 Telex No. 065-24213 Attention: J. A. Whyte Phone(416) 361-4666
3.	Laing Wimpey Alireza c/o John Laing Construction of
Canada Ltd.
Suite 505, 170 University Ave.
Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5H 3B3 Attention: Doug Orgill Phone (416) 593-5971
4.	Pomerleau/Nesma A! Fadl Joint Venture SR 55,191,782
c/o Herve Pomerleau Inc.	(approx. CDN$ 19,869,042)
521 6e ave-nord, St. Georges
Beauce-Sud, Quebec, Canada G5Y 5C1
Telex 05-833520
Attention: Herve Pomerleau
Phone (418) 228-6688
5.	Walsh & Brais/Sainrapt & Brice	SR 78,364,000
Joint Venture	(approx. CDN$ 28,211,040)
c/o Walsh & Brais Inc.
7690 boulevard Marie Victorin
Ville de Brossard, Quebec, Canada J4W 1B2
Telex 055-61379
Attention: Marcel Malo
Phone (514) 671-5944


Mr. Epp: From 1970 to 1981, how many persons were prosecuted by the Government in violation of Section 31 of the Income Tax Act?
Tender Price Submitted on December 14, 1982


[Stage Direction]
(approx. CDN$ 26,091,774)
SR 72,767,000 (approx. CDN$ 26,196,120)
[Stage Direction]
(approx. CDNS 19,666,677)
[Stage Direction]
May 4, 1983
Criminal Code
Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: None.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Madam Speaker:: Shall all notices of motions for the production of papers stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS

['Order, please. It being 6.10 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).\nAt 6.10 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.', 'Thursday, May 5, 1983']
Madam Speaker:: Shall all items listed under Private Members' Public Bills preceding No. 388 be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills) moved: that Bill C-588, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (gun control), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, once a gain it is Wednesday afternoon when we are permitted to put forth Private Members' Bills. In my mind this is the most important part of the entire parliamentary process because it is an opportunity for ordinary Canadians to have their views, expectations and aspirations brought forth for consideration by all of us as Parliamentarians.
Therefore I rise to move second reading of Bill C-588 and its reference to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs so that the Standing Committee can give it detailed study and interested goups of people can present their views on the whole question of gun control.
The Bill specifically relates to the 1978 amendments that have had such a dramatic effect in the minds of many people, particularly those who care about freedom. This is a good opportunity for the public in 1983 to have somne input on a law that was passed in 1978. I hope Members opposite will agree that this is a worthy Bill, will give it second reading and send it to committee. I commend the law officers of the Crown for the excellent assistance they have given me to put this Bill into the proper legal form.
The purpose of the Bill, as I said earlier, is to respond to the honest and legitimate concerns, both practical and philosophical, of ordinary law-abiding Canadians who were and are opposed to the 1978 amendments on gun control. The second purpose is to remove the expensive administrative costs of registering long guns.
Whatever reference is made to guns, certain people think that all guns should be taken away. Others believe we have the right to own a gun, including a hand gun. This Bill in no way affects the existing law as it relates to hand guns.
For many years in this country there has been a system of registration and a rather restricted use of guns. This Bill is not designed to affect that general law. It is designed to respond to those in the west and in the north, because in those rural areas long guns, shotguns and rifles are an everyday part of their lives. Members from downtown Montreal or Toronto have no feeling for this Bill. They have never been in places where a grizzly bear in the backyard is a reality. This is the case for people in my riding and throughout the northern country. This Bill should be given serious consideration. It simplifies the procedure dramatically. For that reason it should be worthy of merit at this time when we have a $30 billion deficit and are trying to find ways to cut down costs.
This Bill will repeal the 1978 amendment which brought in firearms acquisition certificates and the associated registration of guns. It substitutes a requirement anticipated in the 1978 amendments which was never proclaimed. It would have only one condition: before any citizen over 18 can purchase a gun, he or she would need a certificate of proficiency. They would need to know how to care for guns, know the safety aspects as well as the statistics as to how dangerous they can be. As gun owners point out, it is not the gun that causes the problem but the guy who pulls the trigger.
Section 104(2)(c) of the existing law, which was not proclaimed, had a requirement whereby you had to take a course before purchasing a gun. My point is that we do not need all of those other sections in terms of firearms' acquisition certificates, firearms officers across the country and investigations into our individual lives.
May 4, 1983

When you go to buy a gun, a firearms officer inquires into your life. He can tap all sources in Government to find out whether there is something in your background which would make it undesirable for you to own a gun. That is an invasion of privacy to an amazing degree. This Bill states that before you can purchase a gun, you need a certificate from a recognized gun club or wildlife association, that you know about guns and can handle them safely.
This Bill anticipates that such a certificate would be given by a wildlife association or gun club recognized by the provincial Attorney General. The advantage is that it takes the control out of Ottawa and puts it in the hands of provincial Governments which are more responsive in their particular regions. An Attorney General in Alberta or the Yukon would have a set of requirements and would approve recognized clubs in that Province as bona fide clubs. There would be a similar situation in Ontario and Quebec.
As a result of this Bill, I have received many letters from Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario. I have not received one letter of criticism. Many state that this is the first common-sense approach to the whole question of gun control in a long time and they hope it will pass.
I would like to speak briefly about the practical objections of the original Bill C-51; they are well-known to many Members. The first is related to the cost of the firearms officers, the investigations, the applications and the red tape involved in purchasing a gun. There is also red tape in the police administration-for example, the paper work. There is no doubt that gun store owners are greatly hampered. This red tape has increased the cost of their business dramatically. As a result, there is less revenue going into the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Certainly citizens have been inconvenienced, there is no doubt about that.
The irony is that the existing law did not stop the criminal element. In 1977 there were 13,432 offences and in 1981 17,706, an increase of 32 per cent. In 1977 there were 7,500 robberies with firearms. In 1981 there were 9,040. All the evidence shows that ordinary law-abiding citizens have been dramatically inconvenienced. If you, Mr. Speaker, and I go into the field to shoot ducks, you do not have a firearms acquisition certificate and I lend you my gun, you and I are both criminals under this law. However, the real criminals, those who obtain their guns in the underworld or smuggle them across the border, still continue to use their guns to kill our citizens at an ever-increasing rate.
Beyond the practical is the more difficult philsophical question affecting those who have been born and raised in this country. I speak to many people who come from Eastern European countries such as Poland and the Ukraine on an almost daily basis. Poland, for example, has a long history of great power. They are a highly sophisticated people. There are musicians, artists, in fact the whole gamut of what we call civilization. However, after World War II the first thing the Government did was to take away their guns. That was the start of the loss of their freedom.
Criminal Code
They tell me that if individuals cannot have guns, in 10, 20 or 30 years from now the Government will be able to take over. If the ordinary citizen cannot have a gun to protect his home, family and community, it could be that the military would have control. It is hard for native-born Canadians to understand that. We think we are too civilized for that to happen here, but it has happened before. We would be foolish to believe that could not happen in Canada.
These citizens, Mr. Speaker, primarily Canadians from other countries, also point out that the registration of guns has a very large downside in the long run. When we purchase a gun, it must be registered so that any Government knows that you, Mr. Speaker, have 14 guns, I have six guns and our fellow colleagues have so many guns. The Government can come to you at some point in the future and say: "Mr. Speaker, you have 14 guns and we want them. We want your guns or your life." You see, it is an invasion of your privacy.
We do not need that invasion of privacy in this country because surely the objective of gun control is the safe handling of guns. The way to achieve that objective is to make sure that people know how to handle guns rather than have them go through an inquisition to obtain a firearms acquisition certificate and then be able to purchase any number of guns as long as they are registered. Why should the issue not be approached from this other perspective?
People have the right to own guns just as they have the right to own cars. But they have to know how to drive those cars because public safety is at stake; therefore they must take a course to learn how to drive a car properly. I would say that is the route to follow, Mr. Speaker, in gun control.
In conclusion, I want to say that we need this Bill. I am hoping that other Members will let it go through because it will save money, It will meet the legitimate philosophical and practical needs of our fellow citizens, and I think it will be for the good of the country in the long run. Let us have the Bill go to committee so that our fellow Canadians may testify as to what they believe we should do, and then, for a change, let us act on it.


Mr. Gilles Marceau (Jonquiere):: I am very pleased with this opportunity to take part in the debate and to comment on the suggestion put forward by my hon. colleague.
I am sure Hon. Members will remember-I know I do, because I was a Member of the House at the time-all the controversy about Bill C-51. It was not surprising, if we consider that gun control is a subject on which public opinion is very clearly divided and which gives rise to heated debate.
This is understandable, because the subject is one that is literally a matter of life and death and concerns the very essence of our individual freedoms as Canadian citizens. We have all heard the arguments on gun control before. Positions

May 4, 1983
Criminal Code
go from one extreme to another, from outlawing guns altogether to removing all controls. A gun control system reconciling these extreme positions would necessarily be complex and in itself highly controversial.
The gun control measures tabled in Parliament as part of Bill C-51 and passed by Parliament as part of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1977, have brought about basic changes in Canadian gun control legislation. The Government has introduced a control system which I myself, and I think most of us, will recognize as being effective, and which is based on the principle that guns have a legitimate, sometimes essential and often enviable place in the lives of many Canadians.
Guns have played an important role in Canada's history, from the times of the explorers and frontier days till the present time. Throughout this period, Canada has maintained a tradition of responsibility in the use of firearms, and that is what has led us to avoid extreme solutions, such as registering all firearms or setting up depots for firearms that are not in use. The Government has not changed its position, and this philosophy is reflected in the legislation.
Since the introduction on January 1, 1979 of the Firearms Acquisition Certificate system, it is now clear, I hope, that the system was designed to ensure that there would be as little inconvenience as possible to the responsible person who wishes to own and use guns.
Increasingly, it is being recognized that the measures adopted by the Government have been very helpful to police forces in controlling the irresponsible and criminal use of firearms and thereby reducing the number of homicides, accidents and suicides that occur in Canada every year. The proposals being made by my hon. friend deal directly with this matter, and although the procedures he is suggesting are not those I myself would favour, I think his approach is positive and that it has the same objective we all have, which is to use firearms as they ought to be used and not as a means of violence and destruction.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the fact that the Firearms Acquisition Certificate system was introduced unobstrusively and without any real problems, that it was very well accepted by Canadians and that since it became effective, the system, as shown by studies made by independent groups, has helped to contribute, together with other gun control measures, towards reducing the number of homicides, accidents and suicides caused by the use of firearms.
I am sure that on the other side, my Opposition colleague is just as anxious as we are to stop the violence that is so often present in our society. I think his suggestions may be useful.
However, I must say I deeply regret the fact that the Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) is now sponsoring Bill C-588, which would replace our present efficient system with new, untested measures that are less strict and that might destroy the progress we have made in the last four years. I listened carefully to the Hon. Member's
speech, and although the measures he is proposing would not, according to him, have that effect, I am not so sure he is right. He has good ideas, and I realize that if his proposals were to destroy the gains we have made, that is certainly not my hon. colleague's intention.
By substituting for the Fireams Acquisition Certificate system the measures proposed in Bill C-588, we would seriously compromise the effectiveness of Canadian gun control legislation. I am convinced that all Hon. Members will reach the same conclusion after looking at the purpose of the Firearms Acquisition Certificate system and at the very extensive screening measures provided by the system which would no longer be applied once Bill C-588 is passed, as proposed by my colleague in the Official Opposition.
For the information of the House, I shall now review briefly the objectives of our gun control legislation and the specific means provided to attain those objectives.
Mr. Speaker, I shall, if I may, give the three general objectives of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. They are first of all, to prevent the irresponsible use of firearms, second, to promote and safeguard the sensible possession and use of firearms, and third, to punish and discourage the criminal use of firearms.
I am sure that my colleague opposite will agree that these objectives are valid ones and should be followed. However, 1 submit that the means he is suggesting are not necessarily one we would be willing to support at this point. The firearms acquisition certificate system helps to meet the first two objectives through specific control mechanisms. The provisions concerning this system came into effect on January 1, 1979. Since then, anyone aged at least 16 who wants to acquire a firearm by whatever means must obtain a firearms acquisition certificate. This certificate is valid for five years and allows the individual to acquire an unspecified number of unrestricted long-barrelled guns, such as shotguns and rifles. The certificate is usually issued by the firearms officer of the local police force and provides for extensive screening mechanisms. All this might seem somewhat elementary, but since a few years have now elapsed, I feel it is important to go over the objectives and contents of this legislation which has played a significant role, as my Hon. friend reminded us today in making his suggestions.
A certificate will not be issued if the officer is aware of any fact that could make it desirable in the interests of the safety of others or of the applicant that he not be authorized to acquire firearms. Moreover, the certificate will not be issued if, within five years immediately preceding the date of the application, the applicant has been treated for a mental disorder, whether in a hospital, mental institute or psychiatric clinic or otherwise, and whether or not he was confined to such an institution when his disorder was associated with violence.
May 4, 1983

How can we determine whether the applicant comes under one of these provisions? First of all, in his application, he must indicate whether any one of them applies to him and a penalty is provided for anyone who makes a false statement. Second, all applications are examined by the centralized records service. In addition, all applications are referred to the local police division of the region where the applicant resides. My friend and colleague said earlier that there is a lot of red tape involved and that many provisions seem to delay application of the law, but I believe that those I have just described are essential and that it would be difficult to replace them by other provisions which may expedite matters, but would not meet the objectives of the law. Several important provisions to which I have just referred would be removed with Bill C-588. Under the present system, firearms acquisition certificate is issued by a firearms officer and it is an important provision since it guarantees an effective screening to prevent irresponsible individuals from acquiring firearms. The police has access to some information which is unavailable to others and this enables them to eliminate applicants who could eventually imperil their own lives and those of other people.
Applying for and obtaining a certificate may appear to be a complex exercise at first glance, as my colleague pointed out, but few Canadians are taking exception to the screening process and to what is considered to be troublesome paperwork for law-abiding citizens. However, it has been clearly established that Canadians are quite ready to abide by the law. This does not mean that I do not agree with my colleague that we should try to avoid some procedures which may perhaps seem cumbersome but to the extent that wherever the purpose of the legislation remains valid, we should not, under the pretence of speeding up the system, be prevented from pursuing our priorities which warranted the legislation which came into force in 1979.
We should not forget that in the first year of implementation of that system, well over 250,000 Canadians were granted firearms acquisition certificates, which means somewhow that the problems met by some individuals did not deter a considerable number of Canadians from obtaining it.
More than 629,000 applications were processed in the first three years. Most Canadians have shown willingness to abide by these provisions and, in light of my own experience and of official reports I can say that, considering the number of applications received, there were few problems and criticisms indeed. I presume that my colleague might point to certain instances in his area where the law may have been difficult to apply, I quite agree. Still, I would suggest that the significant aspect is whether the implementation of the law generally has proved useful, reasonable and acceptable. Given the information I have to date, it does seem that the over-all legislation is quite acceptable, even though certain sections might be better amended.
And what about the selection process? Figures show that in the first three years the numbers of rejected applications were
Criminal Code
997, 1,107 and 1,006 respectively. In each of those three years, the rejection rate has been well below 1 per cent of the total number of applications. During that period, appeals were made in 6 to 7 per cent of rejections and, before 1981, 57 per cent of those appeals were submitted by institutions.
Mr. Speaker, it would seem that, generally speaking, the purposes of the legislation have been achieved and, although some applications may have resulted in delays and injustices for people who normally would have been issued those certificates more rapidly, I must conclude that the over-all situation is promising indeed. Again I say that my colleague of the Official Opposition has raised a very challenging and valid issue. I have tried to take a positive approach today and my intention was not to play down the purpose of the Bill which my colleague proposed and perhaps to express a different opinion concerning the various objectives we may share.
I respectfully submit to the House that at this stage it would be premature to consider such major and controversial amendments as those advocated by the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills. Before considering any radical change to our legislation on firearms control, we would be well advised to give the public and the numerous groups of people concerned an opportunity to study the final conclusions of the assessment review and express their opinions and suggestions on appropriate amendments. Again I thank my colleague for this opportunity to air my views on this subject. In the course of the debate, perhaps we will be able to find even more effective formulas to reach the goal we share, namely help Canadians achieve positive rather than negative results with firearms.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The rules and procedures do not permit questions and answers at this time.


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak against this Private Member's Bill. I do not believe it is well thought out. I feel some of the provisions in it could actually be quite harmful.
The Bill is intended to substitute a proficiency test for the existing requirements in the Criminal Code for the acquisition of a firearms certificate. What the Hon. Member neglects to do in discussing the matter is to specify what the different conditions are which his new Bill would omit from the controls on possession of a gun. Let me summarize them: "A person who has been convicted within five years immediately preceding the date of his application of an indictable offence; an offence in the commission of which violence is used against another person, threatened or attempted; within five years immediately preceding the date of the application has been treated for a mental disorder in various places; where the disorder for which he was so treated was associated with violence, threatened or attempted; has a history of behaviour occurring within five years immediately preceding the date of

May 4, 1983
Criminal Code
his application which included violence or threatened or attempted violence on the part of the applicant".
These are all rather serious matters. As for the Hon. Member's suggestion that everyone has a right to own a gun even if he has attempted, threatened or used violence in the last five years, well, I suggest that such a person has forfeited the right to possession of a gun. Merely to undergo a proficiency test which shows that the person knows how to use a gun is hardly a substitute for showing responsible behaviour and being a person who can be trusted with a weapon which can be and has been used to kill people.
The Hon. Member also neglected to look carefully into the statistics. He was rather glib in talking about crime increasing. He suggests that the current provisions only cause a nuisance to law-abiding citizens and have not had any effect on crime. This is not so. The Solicitor General's Department commissioned a study to look into the effects of gun control legislation after it was passed in 1977. There is also an independent study by Professor Martin Friedland of the University of Toronto, Faculty of Law. These studies show there has been an impact on violent crime. There has been a reduction in the rate of homicides since introduction of gun control legislation. There has also been a reduction in the number of hunting accidents and in the number of suicides using firearms since the introdu-tion, showing that the legislation has actually been fairly successful.
It is always difficult to pinpoint precisely what caused the reduction in homicides, accidents and suicides because the Provinces have been taking steps in the meantime to improve gun control by virtue of requiring hunting licences. All of the Provinces have gun safety programs. Indeed, six Provinces, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia, have compulsory proficiency tests. New Brunswick is planning to institute these shortly and Newfoundland has a test for one kind of hunting only. So that the Provinces are taking steps and that, combined with better gun control legislation at the federal level, has seen reductions, which of course is what we want. It is actually fortunate that in Canada we do not have a tradition of violence. We have a long tradition of gun control legislation. I suggest these are very healthy signs we want to keep the good traditions we have.
In 1979 less than 60 homicides were committed with hand guns in Canada, only four in Toronto, a City of two million. In comparison, in the City of New York there were 900 hand gun killings. Hand gun homicides were 20 times higher per capita in the United States, and hand gun acquisitions are ten times higher in the U.S. So, the legislation and traditions we have have been extremely healthy and we certainly want to keep them; we do not want to go in the opposite direction. In fact, a Gallup poll indicated that Canadians would be happier to have tighter gun control legislation, and this includes the West where the Hon. Member suggests that people see this as such a great right. Canadians do not recognize this so-called right,
and they are very concerned to keep violence down to the lowest level possible.
Another point I would like to raise, Mr. Speaker, is the provision in the current legislation for proficiency tests which the Hon. Member would make the only requirement for the acquisition of a firearm. There is an existing provision for the Provinces to make a proficiency test compulsory in order to get an acquisition certificate. Thus we can add requirements under the existing legislation which would not be the case under the proposed Bill. No Province so far has instituted this compulsory proficiency test for the acquisition of a firearm, but they are working in that direction. There have been discussions and the Provinces do want to go that way. Certainly they have been going that way with regard to hunting legislation. It would seem to me the best course is to let the current legislation continue to work, that consultation between the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) and the Provinces be pursued on the best way to handle proficiency tests which will probably be proclaimed when the Provinces are ready for it. We have effective legislation right now, the problems are not terribly great, but neither should we introduce new problems by slackening legislation which has actually been successful.


Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I am indeed pleased to have the opportunity of speaking on this Bill. The subject matter has been before this House previously and I note in particular that it was the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) who first presented a similar Bill in Bill C-451.


Mr. Huntington:: Similar? There is something wrong here; you have not read the Bill.


William Kenneth Robinson: The purpose of that Bill was to extend the present law relating to firearms acquisition certificates to the ownership, possession and use of firearms and to change the name "firearm acquisition certificate" to "firearm possession certificate". The Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) who presented this Bill today has substantially the same kind of Bill except he changes the term from "firearms possession certificate" as outlined in Bill C-451 to "firearms proficiency certificate". I am suggesting that basically the two Bills are on all fours.


Blaine Allen Thacker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would not want anyone reading Hansard to have even the faintest impression that there is a similarity between Bill C-451 and my Bill, C-588. There is absolutely no similarity at all.


William Kenneth Robinson: Well, Mr. Speaker, in spite of what the Hon. Member says, it appears to me that the difference between the two Bills is basically terminology, as I have outlined. I suggest that is really the basic change.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this raises in my mind some very serious concerns not only for this House but for the well-being of the Canadian public. First of all, there is a provision in the present legislation, as yet unproclaimed, calling for the applicant for a firearms acquisition certificate to have successfully completed
May 4, 1983

a course or test relating to the safe handling and use of firearms prior to the certificate being issued by the local police. This provision can be implemented upon provincial request. It is necessary to work out the administrative mechanisms to proclaim this provision and we are attempting to do just that with the Provinces at the present time. The House will recall that the whole firearms acquisition certificate system was delayed so we could have extensive consultations with the Provinces on the smooth implementation of this system.
What worries me most is that this Bill requires only that the individual be able to handle a firearm proficiently. The Hon. Member has done away with all the screening procedures presently required. I suggest to him that it is absolutely essential that there be some kind of screening procedure to make sure that people who are habitual criminals or inclined to violence will not have the opportunity of owning a hand gun, or even a rifle for that matter. An individual would be able to obtain a firearm simply by fulfilling the proficiency provision. Obviously in our prisons today there are many people who are proficient at handling firearms and there are many people who would not be using a firearm anyway unless they were proficient in the handling of it. But I suggest there are other criteria to be considered.
Even those not in favour of all aspects of our present legislation do not want those with criminal records involving violence, perhaps a history of violence with firearms, to obtain further weapons. This is what the Hon. Member's Bill proposes to allow. The applicant will not have to complete an application form on which he is questioned about indictable criminal convictions, or treatment for mental disorder for that matter. There will be no requirement for a police check on any individual as long as he can produce a proficiency certificate, regardless of where it was obtained. This, in my view, is not gun control. This is not keeping firearms out of the hands of dangerous persons. This is simply ensuring that the individual knows how to use the firearm. Although this is a very important item in itself, it is certainly not the only one with which we are concerned.
Our jails are filled with people who know how to use firearms, have used them well in the past and would most likely use them well in future if they had the opportunity to do so. The Bill, in fact, means that one of these people can leave jail one day, successfully take his course in handling a firearm the next day, and right after that he can buy a gun. With the possession of the gun he is able to commit crimes if he wishes to do so. Does the House really want to support this kind of legislation? I suggest that it does not?
How does the Hon. Member intend to establish these proficiency courses or test? Are the tests to be uniform in all Provinces or will it be left to each Province to establish its own test, thus making it easier in one Province to obtain a proficiency certificate than in another? There should at least be some standardization, some uniformity in the kind of test
Criminal Code
which would be required before a proficiency licence would be issued to the individual requesting same.
Another question is, what association does the Hon. Member have in mind to issue proficiency certificates? There are just too many questions left unanswered, I suggest, with regard to the proposal of the Hon. Member.
In terms of the present firearms program and its provision for a course or test in the safe handling of firearms, I can tell the House that the federal Government is working with the Provinces and, in particular, the hunter safety co-ordinators to develop a uniform set of guidelines to be used across Canada for courses in the safe handling of firearms when their requirements is proclaimed.
Besides that, the federal Government has begun several other initiatives to promote gun safety. We have produced a series of educational film strips on firearms, use and safety, for northern and remote students in Canada. I note that this is one of the areas with which the Hon. Member was basically concerned, I believe, with regard to the people in the north and those who might also be considered our native people who require long guns. I suggest to the Hon. Member that there is definitely a distinction between the use of long guns and the use of hand guns. Perhaps the Hon. Member's real concern with the legislation totally involves long guns rather than hand guns. If this is so, I think that that kind of distinction should have properly been made; but I did not hear it in his remarks today.
I am pleased to tell the House that the response and reaction to this kit has been most positive and that its use is being expanded by the Provinces in all areas of the country, including urban centres.
In order to bring the gun safety message to those who use firearms but do not necessarily belong to organized groups, we have developed a display card and pamphlets containing the so-called ten commandments on gun safety and information as to where individuals may obtain their firearm safety courses.
This is an important subject and I congratulate the Hon. Member for bringing it forward because it is of continuing interest and concern. However, I do not feel that I can support the legislation proposed by the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills in its present form. With the proposals, the universal principle of keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals is completely destroyed. I would, however, commend to all and sundry that the pamphlet on the so-called ten commandments on gun safety should be widely distributed to everyone. I commend it to the Hon. Member as well. I note that it pertains to safety in all of its aspects. At the beginning it states:
The safe use of your firearm can provide enjoyable sport and recreation. Misuse can injure or kill.
It is the whole intent and purpose of the present Government legislation to see to it that the individual does understand safety and the use of weapons and does, in fact, have proficiency in using a weapon before being licensed in any way, shape

May 4, 1983
Criminal Code
or form. This, of course, is to ensure that accidents are prevented in the use of firearms, to ensure that those who are using the firearms are properly instructed in how to use them and to ensure that they are used for no unlawful or illegal purpose.
I want to commend the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) as well for the point she made with regard to the studies which have taken place in the Department of the Solicitor General concerning the effects of gun control. The statistics do show that the present legislation has, in effect, been successful and has provided a great boon to safety in the country.
Therefore, to the Hon. Member I say I appreciate that he has brought this matter of continuing concern before the House today, and I support his suggestion in part, if it refers only to long guns and not short guns. Unfortunately, the way the Bill is phrased today, I cannot support the legislation.


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, no one in his right mind would argue against a proficiency course or training on how to use guns, when to use guns and so on. That is not the point which is being raised here. The present gun laws are not working satisfactorily. The Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) and one of the Liberal Members have been indicating that the present gun laws are reducing casualties and robberies, which is not so. The police of our country know more about this subject than anyone else. They are the ones who must deal with it.
Let us consider what the police told five judges of the appellate court in Edmonton. The Edmonton Journal of November 30, 1982, states:
The five judges of the appellate court were told that city police statistics show there were 562 armed robberies in Edmonton in 1981 of which 242 involved knives, 169 firearms and 151 other weapons.
The figure is taken as though all of these deaths were caused by guns. Guns are really instruments used by individuals who want to kill, to harm, to hurt. The present gun law is bothering innocent people who obey the law. The laws are not keeping guns out of the hands of the criminals. The Canadian people certainly want guns taken out of the hands of the criminals, but they do not want them taken out of every home, out of the hands of every individual; not at all.
In Edmonton only 70 per cent of these armed robberies were committed without using guns. Baseball bats, knives, swords, axes and hatchets are all instruments which can kill. If I were to be killed, I would much rather be killed by a gun than by a hatchet or a baseball bat. However, I do not want to get killed in either manner and we do not want anyone else to get killed in either manner.
We are discussing safety. We are trying to improve the gun laws of this country because the present gun laws are not working. The first paragraph in an article in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of February 10, 1983, states:
The police are still not happy with Ottawa's gun control legislation because it is not proving to be sufficiently effective in controlling the criminal use of firearms.
That should be the purpose of gun control rather than control over everyone, which the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood wants. 1 do not want control over everyone. We live in a free society. I do not want the Government telling me that I cannot have a shotgun or a rifle. I have a lot of fun with a shotgun or a rifle and I do not hurt anyone. I give the birds a chance. I never shoot at a duck when it is sitting on the water. I wait until it starts to fly and then if it is a better flyer than I am a shooter, it lives. If it is not, it comes home in my pocket for dinner.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gordon Edward Taylor: I have seen hunters shoot ducks sitting on the water by crawling up to the water and then shooting them. They also crawl up on a deer. Sometimes it is possible to kill one, if one is really good at that type of thing. However, I believe in giving an animal a chance, and all hunters do to. Hunters are probably the best people in the world for ensuring that guns are used properly and in the proper sense. However, the control of the criminal element is why we want gun control and our present laws are not effecting that control.
Let me go on with the article in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald:
Spokesmen from the police forces in Halifax and Dartmouth have indicated that criminal use of firearms has increased-
The Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood is not here but she should be listening. The article continues:
-in the past 10 years. Even with the gun-control legislation, it is not difficult to obtain a firearm and, of course, there are illegal channels through which purchases may be made.
Further on in the article we find this:
It is a responsibility of government to protect the people of this country from criminal activity.
It is not the Government's responsibility to control the use of guns in anybody's home and in anybody's hands. As a matter of fact, there is a good effect to having a gun in your home. Robbers who want to kill and want to rob who know there is a gun in my home are going to think twice about coming in. Then we need also to give some common sense to some of these laws.
With regard to short hand guns, the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) did not mention or refer to them at all. Today you can get permission to own a hand gun but the regulations are so ridiculous that if I want to move my hand gun from my home to my farm where I use it and practice with it-and I do not want to leave it there all the time because someone might steal it and then I am responsible for it-I have to go to the police to get permission. I cannot take it from my home to my farm which is two miles away without permission from the police. What kind of regulations are we trying to impose on the people of Canada? Can we not be given a little credit for some maturity?
With regard to the firearms acquisition certificate, I know a case where the police simply walked in and took two shotguns
May 4, 1983

from a home and the person had to prove that he was not irresponsible. He had to prove that he had the right to use those guns. He was guilty before he was even tried. He had to go to a magistrate and prove that he was a responsible citizen. Such rules are not the kind we want in this country. If the police think I am irresponsible, let them go to a Justice of the Peace or a magistrate and let them prove I am irresponsible before they say I am guilty and before they come into my home and take my guns.
Yes, there are a lot of regulations that need to be improved with regard to this present gun legislation. It is not working. It is controlling the peaceful citizens and those who obey the law. It is not controlling the criminals. Members on the other side of the House and Members of the New Democratic Party had better wake up before something really serious happens in this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Jean-Guy Dubois (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, when I hear my colleague opposite say, in connection with Bill C-588, that something must be done to prevent people from being killed or wounded, I do not think anything will be achieved by adopting this bill, just because it happens to be called an Act to amend the Criminal Code (Gun Control). This kind of bill is not going to change the situation for criminals in Canada or prevent anyone from attacking someone else with a firearm, and in fact I think the present version of the Act is far more adequate than what my colleague opposite has been proposing this afternoon with a great deal of emphasis and rhetoric. The Bill explains, and I quote:
Since January 1, 1978, the acquisition of firearms has been subject to the issuance of a firearms acquisition certificate. The purpose of this Bill is to replace such a requirement by an obligation to produce a firearms proficiency certificate.
A number of serious questions arise if we consider the difference between the Firearms Acquisition Certificate and the Firearms Proficiency Certificate, and if we look at various provisions, especially the present Section 95 of the Criminal Code which provides all the information regarding Firearms Acquisition Certificates. I think we are much better off with the provisions of Section 104 which provides what must be done when a person receives an application for a Firearms Acquisition Certificate-that person must be satisfied that the information provided is relevant, and if the applicant has some kind of record, the application may be denied. The point I am trying to make is that if someone does not have the first certificate but does have a Proficiency Certificate, criminals and people liable to commit criminal acts will meet other people and commit armed robbery or something else, and obviously, they are far more proficient than some of my colleagues here in the House of Commons. These will most probably be people who either have not yet come before the courts or have been convicted and are now on parole or have
Criminal Code
returned to society to be rehabilitated and who then apply for a Proficiency Certificate in order to be able to use a firearm. It is clear that this kind of situation would open up the field considerably, and contrary to what my hon. colleague just said, it would be even worse than the serious situation he himself was predicting. What is important and what I wish to emphasize is the present wording of Section 104 which deals with firearms acquisition certificates. If I may, I would like to read a few paragraphs of this Section which I find quite relevant. It reads as follows:
"104. (1) Where a firearms officer to whom an application for a firearms acquisition certificate is made, after considering the information contained in the application, any further information that is submitted to him pursuant to a requirement made under subsection (8) and such other information as may reasonably be regarded as relevant to the application, does not have notice of any matter that may render it desirable in the interests of the safety of the applicant or any other person that the applicant should not acquire a firearm, he shall, subject to subsection (2) and on receipt by him of the appropriate fee, if any, issue a firearms acquisition certificate to the applicant.
The next part sets out prohibitions and even penalties. It reads as follows:
(2) No firearms acquisition certificate may be issued to a person who
(a)	is under the age of sixteen years;
(b)	is prohibited by an order made pursuant to section 98 or 101 or by a condition of a probation order referred to in paragraph 663(2)(d) from having a firearm in his possession; or
(c)	fails to produce evidence in conjunction with his application for a firearms acquisition certificate that he has
(i)	completed-
-and I believe this is very important-
-a course in the safe handling and use of firearms, or
(ii)	successfully completed a test relating to the safe handling and use of
firearms
I would like to point out another very important aspect of the firearms acquisition certificate, namely the fact that the certificate will not be issued if the applicant, and I quote:
(a)	has been convicted within five years immediately preceding the date of his application, in proceedings on indictment, of
(i)	an offence in the commission of which violence against another person
was used, threatened or attempted, or
(ii)	an offence under this Part,
Or if the applicant:
(b)	within five years immediately preceding the date of his application, has been treated for a mental disorder, whether in a hospital, mental institute or psychiatric clinic or otherwise and whether or not he was, during that period, confined to such a hospital, institute or clinic, where the disorder for which he was so treated was associated with violence or threatened or attempted violence on the part of the applicant against himself or any other person;
The fact is that all this is now provided in the case of firearms acquisition certificate applications. Obviously, no system can be perfect either in this area or anywhere else, whether in the Quebec Civil Code or the common law of English-speaking provinces. Nothing is perfect, but there is quite a difference between admitting this and suggesting proficiency tests, and that is why I do not support this bill.

May 4, 1983
The Constitution


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 24(2), it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings.
Shall all items listed under Private Members' Public Bills preceding No. 283 be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


THE CONSTITUTION
Ronald Alexander Stewart: that Bill C-483, an Act to amend the Constitution of Canada (duration of House of Commons), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to speak on Bill C-483, an Act to amend the Constitution of Canada, in particular its provisions relating to the duration of the House of Commons. The purpose of this Bill is to provide an element of predictability in the calling of federal general elections.
At present there is almost total discretion in the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to choose a time that is convenient to the Government. Under this Bill elections would be held regularly at four-year intervals, except where a term was cut short by the defeat of a Government on a matter of confidence. In the latter event the newly-elected Government would start a fresh four-year mandate. Nothing in this Bill would prevent the Governor General, where a Government lost the confidence of the House of Commons, from calling upon the Opposition to form a new Government in circumstances where the Governor General already has such power.
Through this Bill I would therefore propose that the Constitution of Canada be amended under appropriate procedures in the following manner:
That the term of Parliament be so structured as to allow the House of Commons to continue until dissolved by the Governor General, which shall be not sooner than four years less 40 days, nor later than four years plus 40 days, from the day that the last preceding Parliament was dissolved.
I further propose notwithstanding this set term that:
The Governor General may dissolve a House of Commons at any time if the Government is defeated on a motion for the approval of its budgetary policy, a motion to concur in interim supply or Main Estimates, or a motion expressing loss of confidence in the Government by the House.
This setting of a specific four-year term for Parliament would as a result require a change to the Canada Elections Act. Through this Bill I propose an amendment to the Canada Elections Act, such amendment to enshrine in statute law the constitutional convention that writs for an election are to be issued immediately upon dissolution of Parliament. I propose that writs of election for a general election shall be issued on the day that Parliament is dissolved, and further:
That the Governor in Council shall fix the day on which the poll shall be held at an election which shall not be later than 80 days after the day that the writ of election was issued, and that day shall be named in the writ of election.
I feel this would ensure that general elections and byelections are always held within a reasonable time from the day the writs are issued. I do not have to point out that this is not the case today and refer to the inequities which have occurred. At present, as Hon. Members are well aware, the maximum period for the duration of Parliament is five years.
In our history there has been one exception. During the First World War the Parliament which was assembled in 1911 was extended to 1917 by a special amendment to the British North America Act because of the exceptional circumstances of that war. As there was a section in the British North America Act, there is also a Section in the Canada Act which also allows for the continuation of Parliament. We are all very familiar with the following well-known phrase:
-in time of real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection, if such continuation is not opposed by the votes of more than one-third of the House, or the legislative assembly, as the case may be.
This statement has been very controversial in the past. On three occasions Parliament has run its full five-year limit. In 1896 and in 1935 the Governments of the day were each defeated during the following general elections. On the third occasion, in 1945, the Government just barely managed reelection, which is indicative of my point and of this Bill.
The shortest Canadian Parliament, in 1957-58, was technically less than six months, while the Parliament of 1925-26 was slightly more than six months.
Despite the frequency of elections during the decade following 1957, Parliament usually lasts about four years. Our five-year limit for the duration of Parliament is based upon the British model. I am a strong supporter of the British parliamentary system but I believe that a four-year term is an improvement which can be made, much as I dislike criticizing the system of Government because I think we enjoy the best in the world.
In Britain, prior to 1715 there was no limit to the duration of Parliament. In that year the term was set at seven years. With the proclamation of the British Parliament Act in 1911, the duration of Parliament was reduced to five years. Only twice since then has the limit been extended and both times, similar to Canada, because of world wars. The Parliament which began in January, 1911 was extended to eight years; and the Parliament which began in November, 1935 was extended to ten years. Thank heavens for Winston Churchill. The duration of Parliament in Britain, like that in Canada, rarely lasts the specified five years; the British average is between three and four years.
I have provided this information as background to illustrate to the House why I feel the five-year limit to the duration of the Canadian Parliament must be changed. As I have shown, the limit is rarely adhered to and is therefore somewhat meaningless. By practical tradition five years has only been a "not beyond" date and not a fixed and practical limit to the
May 4, 1983

life of a Parliament. The extending of the duration of Parliament in very exceptional circumstances may indeed be acceptable, but on those three occasions when Parliament lasted the full five years it did so for political expediency only. This, I submit, is not a sound or democratic practice. By having what is in essence a "not beyond" but "anything before" date, the democratic process is in the hands of a small group or in many instances in the hands of one man. From what I have seen of this Government in action, that one man frightens me like no one since Adolf Hitler.
As long as there is an alternative time for an election, the Prime Minister is able to pick and choose the time most favourable to him. His own interests become paramount, not those of the nation. This right to select a most appropriate time is of tremendous advantage to a Government-and let there be no mistake-and particularly to its leader. If the situation in the country is not encouraging, to put it mildly, the Government can cling to power, hoping to wait out the storm like right now, unmindful of the harm it continues to inflict upon the nation. What such a Government must realize is that a Government which puts off calling an election until the last possible moment is sure to be criticized during the election campaign for not having the courage to face the voters sooner. Such was the case, as I so well remember, in 1979.
In the situation of a maximum five-year duration it is also very relevant to draw attention to the right of a Government to call an election any time after Parliament convenes. This, too, is a travesty which must not be allowed to continue. Again the Government of the day is permitted to pick and choose issues and circumstances most favourable to itself. There is always the temptation for a Prime Minister to use his power to retain power or to promote Party ends, even though such ends might not be in the public good.
A Prime Minister and a Government, knowing privately when an election will be called, can set about lavishly spending taxpayers' dollars on a host of projects. Have we not seen that? They are known as election goodies for the simple purpose of purchasing goodwill for themselves prior to the election. I am sure we all recall the ringing phrases and the claims of "the just society" and repeatedly being told that "the land is strong". Just as easily we can remember being assured that there would be no wage and price controls.
If specific four-year terms were set for Parliament, the public would realize instantly what was being done at the time it was being done and respond accordingly at the polls when they put that crucial X on their ballots.
The ability to call snap elections, especially in times when the Government's popularity is negligible, is also a powerful tool in the hands of the Prime Minister. When the electorate clearly indicates, primarily through public opinion polls, that it sees the Government as the source of its problems, the Prime Minister can use the threat of an election to keep his Party under control. I think we have seen that displayed dramatically across the way.
Backbenchers on the Government side would be very reluctant to vote against the Party line in the House of Commons or to voice disagreement with Cabinet policy-or
The Constitution
perfidy-if threatened with an election. This is a situation very familiar these days to Members across the way. Many of the 74 Quebec-bloc Members are shuddering right now. How many Government Members feel secure right now? How many would like the election to be called in February next, which would be the case if the four-year term were in place? I am sure they would be shivering in their boots.
A committed 52 per cent of Canadians would like to see a Progressive Conservative Government in office right now. We would welcome an election tomorrow. This Government, knowing just how unpopular it is, is doing everything in its power to try and convince Canadians that it is really doing a bang-up, marvellous job.
The Government is spending the money of Canadians to try and get this false message across. This all bears relevance to a four-year term. The largest advertiser in Canada is not a giant multinational corporation. It is the federal Government telling Canadians how proud they should be of it, and it has to advertise to do it.
It has been estimated that the Government spends about $70 million on advertising a year, and the figure is growing. This is three times the amount spent by the second largest advertiser, can you imagine, General Foods. British parliamentarians have recognized the problems inherent in the system, including the undue advantage given the Government, and there have been many proposals to that Parliament for fixed terms like those of the United States Congress. To my knowledge, this Bill represents the first time a proposal of this nature has been presented to this House.
The system in the United States is a little different from that of Canada and Great Britain in that the nation's leader, the President, is elected by an independent popular vote and does not achieve office by virtue of being the head of the party obtaining the majority of seats in Congress. I do not agree with the system but I do agree with the fixed term.
Those in Congress, in the House of Representatives and in the Senate, as we are all aware, are elected for specific terms. Every two years the entire House of Representatives faces a general election. Senators are elected for six-year terms, but the system is such that only one-third of the terms expire every two years. I am not going to get into Senate reform and an elected Senate, which is long overdue.
Elections for both are held on the first Tuesday following the first Monday in November of even-numbered years. Their term of office begins at noon on January 3 in the year following the election. It is simple, predictable and it works.
The President of the United States is elected for a four-year term, so he is held accountable for his actions at the end of that time. We in Canada would do well seriously to consider placing the same onus of accountability on our Prime Minister in this year of parliamentary reform. We perhaps should consider limiting the term of office of the Canadian Prime Minister to two four-year terms. I hope to introduce a subsequent Bill in this House in the near future to address this issue.

May 4, 1983
The Constitution
The need to place a firm and fixed limit on the duration of Parliament has many other advantages besides limiting those of Government. In keeping with our efforts at parliamentary reform, the specific time limit would provide for a more orderly and practical resolution of the business of Government. It would enable potential and declared candidates from all political parties and those running as independents to plan their election or re-election campaigns in a less costly and more practical manner.
In my own case, I was nominated in March, 1978. At that time it was generally thought the election call was imminent. All the signs pointed to it. However, the election was not called until May of the following year, a period of 14 months; a maiden-in-waiting, if you will!
I am sure such a move would also be welcomed by the Chief Electoral Officer whose duty it is to conduct the general election process. Sometimes the materials are received way ahead of an election, and sometimes not. I understand that some have already been received in my riding. Eliminated would be the chaotic, last minute scramble to implement the gigantic task of enumeration and the vote itself. I am positive the majority of Canadians would support such a cyclical system of Government.
If we wish to restore the public's esteem of Parliament and its respect for the institution, we must think seriously of presenting ourselves to the public on a regular basis for approval or disapproval and not spring emotional surprises on them.
We are the representatives of the public and those we represent must have the opportunity to express their judgment of us at specifically designated intervals. We must not have the right to pick and choose when we will allow Canadians to sit in judgment, particularly if the times chosen are for political purposes and not for the public good.
I am presenting this Bill to the House at this time and by doing so I feel I am giving my clear support to this desirable system of accountability, accountability sadly lacking at this juncture in our history. A four-year term in this Parliament would give the Canadian people some hope after the classic mismanagement of the economy by the present Prime Minister, a Prime Minister supported by a horde of docile, spineless followers who, regardless of the issue or of thoughts for their constituents, rush blindly in his wake saying "Me too".
No matter what the duration of this Parliament, which is the longest in Canadian history with 504 sitting days, I have great faith that the Canadian people will remember the waffling on the budget, the Canadian people being absolutely subjugated. They will remember the pay-offs, the pork-barrelling, the subterfuge, the chicanery, the lack of intestinal fortitude, the deceit and the duplicity of the present regime.
Most Canadians, thank God, have awakened to the fact that the Prime Minister is a man who believes he has the right to rule instead of govern. That sort of thing went out with the divine right of kings. A four-year term would do much to alleviate this sort of action. The character of the left-wing, demagogic Prime Minister is most aptly described by the
statement of Lord Acton when he said "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely".
When thinking of a four-year term, I am sure the Canadian people would like to see it in place right now so that in February they could throw these rascals out. This time, regardless of when the election is held, no amount of bluff will help our chameleon Prime Minister. The people will not be fooled by a budget purporting to support free enterprise, by the last minute wooing of President Reagan or by a supposed stand that we saw in the House of Commons today against the U.S.S.R. in the Cruise missile situation. The socialist policies of the Prime Minister are now well known and documented. The lack of honour will be remembered. Voters will remember the fact that there were no resignations from discredited Ministers Lalonde, Chretien and MacEachen over the Gillespie affair or budget leaks. I am sorry, I should not mention names, Mr. Speaker; I apologize.
The "Kings Row" across the way is in reality "Skid Row". It is occupied by a group of derelicts who have forged signatures, approached judges, lobbied for contracts, provided free Air Canada passes, refused to prosecute known enemy agents, allowing our allies to do it for us, elevated cronies to the Senate, been involved in the uranium cartel and then imposed an official silence on the issue. The list is as shameful as it is endless. It is condoned by the leader of this country. Their greed, incompetence and indifference will not be countenanced for much longer.
With the assistance of a public now fed up with the actions of this Government, I am more than confident that our Party as the only alternative will form the next Government. If this Bill passes into law, our Government will be the one charged with the responsibility of putting this four-year time limit into effect. I can assure this House and Canadians in general that we will not be afraid to face them after four years in office.


Mr. D. M. Collenette (York East):: Mr. Speaker, I came here this afternoon to participate in Private Members' hour, being a great supporter of the right of the Private Member to bring forward ideas into the House of Commons. I looked at the Bill of the Hon. Member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart), C-483. I thought it was a serious proposal and I prepared some remarks in a serious vein. I will make those serious remarks. In listening to the arguments the Hon. Member put forward this afternoon, we can see that he is not particularly serious in trying to get the House to accept this proposal.
As one of those which the Hon. Member calls a spineless, docile Government supporter, I am pleased to stand here and respond to the argument of someone I would consider an intellectual dwarf. The Hon. Member has recited the most superfluous, trite criticisms of the present Government that really reflect the opinions of the lowest common denominator in society, all in support of an argument that I thought at least merited debate. So let us deal with the serious aspects first and the trite and ridiculous later. Mr. Speaker, I hate to respond to someone such as the Hon. Member for Simcoe South (Mr. May 4, 1983

Stewart) but, quite frankly, if I do not, someone else must. We must talk this measure out.
I am a member of the Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Procedural reform, and I respect the rights of Hon. Members to bring matters to the House of Commons for serious debate. However, upon hearing the kind of argument put forward this afternoon by the Hon. Member for Simcoe South in support of his Bill, one sometimes wonders whether or not it is worthwhile to give private Members an entire Wednesday afternoon or to enhance Private Members' Hour at all because of the kind of arguments that have been presented.
Let us take the Hon. Member's proposal at face value and deal with it seriously. Then I will respond to the ridiculous things that were said earlier. First, the Bill would provide a situation where every four years on could expect an election. Now, to say that an election would fall on every anniversary date four years hence would, I think, cause some logistical problems. For example, the most recent election was held in February of 1980. This Bill would therefore commit us for a long period of time to having elections during the winter. Now, I suppose the Hon. Member for Simcoe South would propose to allow the Government 40 days, either before or after the anniversary date, in which to call an election, giving the Government three months' leeway. Clause 3 of the Bill would fix a maximum length for any federal election of 80 days.
This Bill would lead to what I would consider to be radical changes in the operation of Canada's current political system. I wonder to what extent short Private Member's Bill should be the avenue for radically changing the parliamentary system. The Hon. Member has said that he is a great student of British parliamentary democracy. One would have to question that statement given the arguments that he has marshalled this afternoon.
Let us look at the specific content of this piece of legislation. The first Clause would repeal Section 50 of the Constitution Act, 1867, by substituting the following:
50. (1) A House of Commons shall continue until dissolved by the Governor General, which shall be not sooner than four years less forty days, nor later than four years plus forty days, from the day that the last preceding Parliament was dissolved.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), the Governor General may dissolve a House of Commons at any time if the Government is defeated on a motion for the approval of its budgetary policy, a motion to concur in interim supply or main estimates, or a motion expressing loss of confidence in the Government by the House.
This amendment to the Constitution Act, 1867, would create a great deal of confusion since it could be interpreted as being in conflict with Section 4 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which reads:
4. (1) No House of Commons and no legislative assembly shall continue for longer than five years from the date fixed for the return of the writs at a general election of its members.
(2) In time of real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection, a House of Commons may be continued by Parliament and a legislative assembly may be continued by the legislature beyond five years if such continuation is not opposed
The Constitution
by the votes of more than one-third of the members of the House of Commons or the legislative assembly, as the case may be.
What will be the limit? Will it be four years, five years? Will the Government be authorized to carry on in time of war or invasion? The Hon. Member does not address that particular concern. He pointed out three examples of Parliament going to its full limit, and I take him at his word as I have not researched it. He said it happened in 1896, 1935, and 1945. He dismisses this by saying that Parliament went to its full limit for political reasons. Well, he did not elaborate on those political reasons. Perhaps I can help him. First, in 1896, the incumbent Conservative Government was fearful of going to the polls and decided to wait for the full five years. In fact, I think it went a little beyond the five years, but it did not do anything wrong. To my understanding, that was not made an issue in the election. There were no charges brought against that particular Government of doing something anti-democratic.
Similarly, it was Mr. Bennett, another Conservative Prime Minister, who went the full limit in 1935. That was not the issue in the election campaign. People did not accuse him of subverting the democratic process.
In 1945, under the Government of Mackenzie King, there was a legitimate reason. The country was still at war and it would have been absolutely irresponsible to have an election take place during the war. There was an election in 1940, just after the war had started, but that was before Canada had fully mobilized and before the attitude of the Canadian society had fully changed to accommodating the war effort. Those are the three examples that he has given.
The Hon. Member goes on to state that he wants to amend Clause 3 of the Bill which, if adopted, would modify Subsection 22.(1) of the Canada Elections Act in such a way that a maximum length for any electoral campaign would be created. Thus we would have in the Canada Elections Act two series of provisions. One would concern the minimum length of a campaign, being Subsection 6(3.1) of the Canada Elections Act which reads:
6.(3.1) Notwithstanding subsection (2) and (3), in no case shall a writ of election be dated or issued on a day that is later than the fiftieth day before polling day.
Another provision would concern the maximum length of a campaign, the proposed Subsection 22(1) which would read:
22.(1) The Governor in Council shall fix the day on which the poll shall be held at any election, which shall be not later than eighty days after the day that the writ of election was issued, and that day shall be named in the writ of election.
Therefore, the combined effect of these two provisions would be that once the writ had been issued, the election should be held no earlier than 50 days and no later than 80 days from the day that the writ was issued.
The global result of these proposed amendments and of the existing provisions of the Canada Elections Act is that a Government would be in a position to call an election any time in four years less forty days from the last election, which election could be held 50 days later, that is, four years plus ten

May 4, 1983
The Constitution
days from the previous election; and four years plus forty days, which election could be held 90 days later, that is, four years plus 130 days from the previous election. This means that the Government would have a real leeway of over four months, leaving a certain amount of discretion with the Prime Minister, something that the Hon. Member for Simcoe South has decried in his speech this afternoon.
Mr. Speaker, let us get down to the real issue. It is really necessary to have set dates for elections? Would that improve our electoral system? There are three countries where elections are held at fixed dates. I am not sure whether the Hon. Member mentioned all three countries, but he did mention the United States. Let us look at France, West Germany and the United States.
In the case of France, the constitution of that country fixes the normal length of a legislative mandate to four years, and elections are held within 60 days of the end of the incumbent's mandate. But the President also has the power to dissolve the National Assembly on special occasion, and he often uses this prerogative. As a matter of fact, only half the number of French legislative elections were called at the end of a four-year mandate.
In the case of West Germany, the Government of that country has found a way to get around the constitution provisions by provoking its own defeat in the Bundestag. We saw this occur last fall. Such a thing would be possible here too since the Prime Minister could arrange to lose a non-confidence motion when he saw fit, or any time within the four-year period.
In the case of the United States to which the Hon. Member referred, the President is, after only two years in office, already back on the campaign trail. We are seeing this happen right now. President Reagan as the incumbent President is supposedly above politics, but he is campaigning day in and day out for his re-election bid later next year. This forces the office of the President to be more responsive to organized lobbies and, in my view, handicaps seriously his margin of manoeuvre. This is one of the main problems with fixed elections. It handicaps the power of the Government and often places the Government at the mercy of organized sectorial interests from inside or outside the country. If federal elections in Canada were held at fixed dates, to be sure some provincial Governments would take advantage of that. We have seen what kind of political games the Provinces have played in the last ten years.
I also have a concern about byelections, one which I do not particularly want to go into at this time.
The Hon. Member is a great admirer of the British parliamentary system, yet from my reading, I do not recall any demand on the part of the Opposition or of the Government in Great Britain to change the system. It is a well established rule in the British parliamentary system that five years is the normal term except where there are extreme circumstances as occured in Great Britain between 1935 and 1945 and as occurred here in Canada from 1911 to 1917 in the case of the war. As I mentioned earlier, it was unnecessary to invoke that
special provision in 1945 because the Government still had its mandate intact, but the ending of the war more or less coincided with the ending of the mandate of Mackenzie King's Government. If we look to the mother of Parliaments, I do not believe that that issue has ever been raised. I do not say categorically, but I do not remember from my reading that this matter is of great concern to the people of Great Britain.
The real reason why the Hon. Member has brought this bill before the House this afternoon has been given by him. His Party has been somewhat frustrated by its inability to gain the favour of the electorate in this country. The Conservatives seeing themselves positioned rather well in the opinion polls, want to change the whole nature of the British and Canadian parliamentary system simply to accommodate their somewhat distasteful lust for power. That is really what it is all about, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the Hon. Member, is this the official position of the Conservative Party? He has stated unequivocally that, should a Conservative Government ever be elected again, this would be the Party policy.


Ronald Alexander Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is Private Members' Hour. It is not the opinion of our Party, unless I interpret the rules of the House incorrectly. I ask the Hon. Member to read the date on the Bill.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is perhaps in a bit of a fog. He is the one who stated that if the present polls continue, and if his Party comes to power-


Ronald Alexander Stewart: If, if.


David Michael Collenette: Yes, those are great "ifs", and the Hon. Members have great reason to say "if' because it is by no means assured. I believe the action today by the Premier of Ontario, William Davis, has pointed to the fact that there is a very big "if' about those opinion polls. If it was so assured, I am sure he would have entered the race. However, Mr. Speaker, I did not want to digress too much into partisan politics. The point is, though, the Hon. Member for Simcoe South has said, whether or not he knows what his Party's position is, that if the Conservative Party forms the next Government or a subsequent Government, then that Party would change the rules and have a fixed term. I have not heard any of the Leaders of the Opposition, the Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) or the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), or any of the leadership candidates state a position on this particular policy.
The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, there is no desire for this kind of change in Great Britain because there is alternation between the major Parties. I believe the longest period of time one Party has dominated in the British House of Commons in this century has been the 13 years of Conservative rule between 1951 and 1964. The remainder of the time there has been alternation. Of course, in Canada, we have seen the dominance of the Liberal Party in this century nearly 60 years out of the 80.
May 4, 1983


Mr. Cullen:: For good reason.


David Michael Collenette: My colleague, the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen), says, for good reason. It is because the Liberal Party has answered the needs of the Canadian public, and I am sure we will do so in the next election and be triumphant, notwithstanding what the ups and downs of the opinion polls might reflect. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, this Bill really reflects the frustration of the Conservative Party at not being able to organize itself and so present itself to the country as the Party that can form the Government with some regularity.
I believe one only has to look at the debate which took place on Saturday in Toronto between the leadership candidates to realize the Conservative Party is still not ready to assume national office. It still cannot debate the major national concerns of the day, and it certainly cannot be trusted in terms of forming a new Government. That is why the Hon. Member is frustrated. To be charitable, Mr. Speaker, I can understand his frustration. He has not been here very long so I believe he is a bit impatient, but some of his colleagues have been around for a quarter of a century or more and I believe perhaps they have the right to be frustrated. The answer is not in changing the constitutional system in this country, the parliamentary system, and our constitutional heritage. That is not the answer. The answer is for the Conservative Party to try to get its own act together so that it can curry the favour of the voters and form the next Government.
I have talked just about long enough. I could be accused of killing time, and no Hon. Member likes to be accused of that. I do admit, however, that this afternoon I have tried to kill time simply because this measure, as it is written in Bill form, is a legitimate intellectual proposal which has come before the House. However, the arguments which have been martialed behind it by the Hon. Member for Simcoe South have shown that this Bill deserves to be talked out.
I hope other Hon. Members of the House will not let this Bill see the light of day because if it ever did get to committee it would do so for the wrong reasons. It would get to committee for reasons of narrow partisanship, answering a weakness of the Conservative Party and a frustration. I do not believe Private Members' Hour should be taken up with the frustrations of the Conservative Party, and certainly no committee should deal with this further, given the fact that that is the real reason the Hon. Member has brought forward this Bill today.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not wish to speak this Bill out. I would like to express some concerns with regards to the proposed legislation. I would like to support some of the concepts which are in it. I found that much of the earlier debate on both sides of the House really deviated from the merits and the disadvantages inherent in the legislation. I feel that is unfortunate. The previous speaker was right in one respect, that is that Private Members' Hour- Private Members' day as it is now becoming-is the only opportunity which private Members have to talk about legislation and concerns which should be dealt with in a legislative
The Constitution
manner. That is a right which is in some ways abused in this House, in that almost every piece of Private Members' legislation is talked out. It is not allowed to go to committee for further action. I find that unfortunate. There is no monopoly on brains and good ideas, and we should have a system in the House of Commons which allows reasonable pieces of private Members' legislation to be studied by appropriate committees of the House, and if there is a consensus within that committee, that it be referred back to the House of Commons for further resolution.
I believe we in the Opposition do ourselves harm when, in the interest of promoting our Bill, we sometimes use all the wrong rhetoric. I can agree with some of the sentiments in that rhetoric, but I feel that to bring it in at this particular time is probably inappropriate and probably did hurt the valuable suggestions in the legislation which the Hon. Member proposed. I believe one of the remarks of the last Liberal speaker points out why I can support this particular Bill. He said, and I will paraphrase, "It maybe inconvenient for the Government in terms of its dealings with lobbying groups and others if it had a fixed date for an election." I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the full concept of when an election should be called is no longer a matter which should just affect the Government and its ability to survive. We in this House should all agree that elections are really the property of the people. Certainly, if various lobbyist groups wanted to speak out on disarmament, on the issue of abortion or on the issue of wage and price controls, they have that right. We may condemn some of the procedures which lobbyist groups use, and from time to time I am sure all of us do that. However, they have the right to speak out during an election, before an election and, of course, after an election. I do not feel, therefore, that is a valid argument on behalf of the Liberal Government.
In terms of an election itself, Canadians should know when the next election is going to be held. They should be in a situation, as well as the Government, to be able to plan for a certain time period for that election. I believe that is reasonable and has much value for Canadian society as a whole. I also believe it has a great advantage for people who would like to run for public office. Many people who would like to seek election are not in a position to run campaigns which may last from 18 months to two years, depending on when the election is finally called. Many people simply cannot afford it. Many people, by the nature of where they work and what they do cannot afford a long-drawn-out period of time prior to an election being called. I am sure that the fact the 1979 election was not called much earlier created economic hardship on some candidates. I certainly remember hearing about candidates who withdrew after nomination. I think there would be great democratic value in knowing exactly when an election was going to take place, not only regarding where you work but because of the cost involved which many people cannot afford. If they have to wait around, as I said, a year or two years for an election to be finally called, that effectively takes

May 4, 1983
The Constitution
away from the rights of many Canadians to actually take part in an election.
Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, there is another democratic value to a fixed term of the House of Commons. Under the present laws of this land federal Government workers must resign their employment as soon as they indicate they are going to run for nomination. In this country, over 300,000 Canadians are prevented from seeking election unless they resign their jobs.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Leave of absence. There is a difference.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Leave of absence, I am sorry. The Hon. Conservative Member says there is a difference, certainly technically there is, but being unemployed for two years is an economic harship for people and that is my concern with the present arrangement. We have had situations where people who say they wish to run for a Party nomination are immediately told they must take that leave of absence. The nomination may not take place for five or six months, and the election may not take place for another year or year and a half. So they may be in a position where for two full years they cannot take part in their regular employment. Most Government workers cannot afford that. So I think there is a lot to be gained for the individual.
I think some of the concerns expressed by the Government Member are also legitimate. So I favour this legislation going forward to committee for study. I think many Members on all sides would take part in that study and, if it was possible, come back to the House of Commons with proposals which I think almost all of us, certainly most Canadians, could accept. It would enhance the democratic right of Canadians not only to change the Government when that is their desire, but also to run in elections when that is their desire.
Let me say in closing, Mr. Speaker, that in light of the events which have taken place over the last few days in this House, it is interesting to note that this Private Members' Bill, which changes the Constitution, asks for committee study but does not put a deadline on it and does not insist that the House of Commons pass it after a one-day debate. If you remember the discussions and games-playing to which we have been subjected in the last few days in the House on the important issue of property rights, people want to speed it through the process and they want deadlines for each step of the process. I suggest that sending this Bill to committee for study for whatever length of time is necessary and allowing the House of Commons to debate it for whatever length of time is necessary before we actually pass or fail to pass the legislation, is probably closer to the proper process that we should use for a constitutional amendment. I hope that once we get past the games-playing on the issue of property rights we in this House will sit down and look at a way of dealing with all the proposed amendments which will be made to the Canadian Constitution.
We know that there is an effort to have property rights put into the Constitution. We know that there is still the unresolved issue of what special rights the Province of Quebec should have with regard to the amending formula and other items in the Constitution. We know that we will be asked in the next little while to deal with the issue of aboriginal rights in some proposals which came out of the First Ministers' Conference. Yet we in this House really do not have a process or understanding of how we wish to deal with constitutional amendments. I might add that as a result of some court decisions which are likely to occur over the next few years we can expect to find things in the present Constitution we did not realize we put there, and that the House of Commons may wish to make some corrections. If we decide to make those corrections we should not make them as a result of political expediency or public outcries by one group in society but because we want to make constitutional changes-and we are not talking about changing the whole things as we did two years ago, but rather, of making one or two amendments at a time-and we should think of how we want to do it. This Bill has given me a chance to speak on that, and I think it is something all Members of the House are concerned about and would like to see resolved.


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be afforded the opportunity to speak on this subject. I commend the Hon. Member for his attempt to change the Constitution. There are some aspects of this particular Bill which I find interesting and perhaps could support. There are some aspects that I cannot support and I would like to deal with both of them.
I think the obvious weakness in the Bill, of course, is that although the Hon. Member wants a fixed term, he gives all kinds of reasons why the term should not be fixed. Of course one of them would be that a Government decided it would like to go to the people at a certain time because it was to its advantage and it was before the four-year period was up. I submit that the reason the Hon. Member is sitting on the opposite side is precisely that the Government, which came in in May of 1979, let itself be defeated in December of 1979. There was no reason in the world for that Government to have been defeated had it wanted to stay on. Certainly on this side we gave the Government the one opportunity they had to go on, and that was, to defer discussion of that budget to a later date.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. McRae) could explain why a longstanding tradition of this House was broken on that particular occasion when the Secretary of State-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. If the Hon. Member wishes to ask a question he should follow the procedure and ask if the Hon. Member would accept a question at this time.


Donald W. Munro: 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Would the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan accept a question at this time?


Paul Edmund McRae: I accept a short question, Mr. Speaker.


Donald W. Munro: Thank you for the correction, Mr. Speaker. Can the Hon. Member explain why the Government broke a tradition of long standing in this House, offending all the traditions of this House, by having the spokesman on foreign affairs stand up in this House and vote when he knew perfectly well that the then Secretary of State for External Affairs was away on Government business? Never before had it happened, and may it never happen again.


Paul Edmund McRae: I find this quite incredible. I have sat in this House and it seems to me that we do not have any rules in this House that if there is a vote on any subject, a vote of confidence, and if the Minister is away, the critic would not vote.


Donald W. Munro: Just check your traditions.


Paul Edmund McRae: It certainly has not been the case so far as I can recall. The point is that had that vote been held two weeks later and, as expected, we had continued to sit through the Christmas break, I am sure that a good many Hon. Members on this side would not have been here. The fact is that it was the decision of that Government, as far as I am concerned, that it could do well by going to the polls at that particular time. When there is this sort of clause which says that there are all kinds of reasons the Government can be defeated, such as by votes of confidence, the real basis of the first section is really removed, because an election can be held at any given time.
I am basically not opposed to a fixed term, but what bothers me about this particular statement is that it still leaves in this whole business of votes of confidence. I have been in this place for many years, and the longer I am here the more I believe that the really serious breakdown in the House concerns its adversarial nature. One of the advantages of a fixed term is that people would not necessarily be bound or forced into elections if we voted against something or if groups teamed up and did different things. It is the adversarial concern which would lead me to believe that perhaps a fixed term would be good. However, if we are to have a fixed term, we should get rid of the notion of motions of confidence, and so forth.
The Canadian public, especially now, after years of watching Question Period on television, are appalled at the adversarial nature of our system. They must believe that when we get outside the door we have fistfights because the way we act in the House would certainly lead them to believe that we would "have it out" once outside the door. Of course, such is not the case. However, no matter what the Government brings in, and I suppose that if we were in Opposition we would do the same, the Opposition must almost inevitably oppose it. That is the nature of the game. There must be opposition.
The Constitution


Mr. Siddon:: Constructively.


Paul Edmund McRae: We bring in a good budget, one which the business community says is a good budget, and the Opposition opposes it because there is nothing in it for business. I do not blame Hon. Members opposite for doing that because it is part of the game. However, the problem is the process under which we work. We are constantly in an adversarial position. If I want to say a certain thing concerning a Government Bill, and I am on this side, I will speak to the Government. However, if the Opposition wants the same change, I will not speak to the Opposition and we will have a fight over it. It is this kind of thing which is the most bothersome.
There is something to be said for a fixed term, if it is a fixed term. The Hon. Member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart) spoke of the U.S. fixed term system, but he did not speak of a term in which the Government is defeated and an election is held in a short period of time. It is a fixed term. We speak of that Monday in November every two years. There is no way that Mr. Reagan or the Democrats can be defeated in the House. There are some advantages and disadvantages. However, we must start to consider how we can work things out together.
If any of us were Congressmen or Senators in the United States Government, we would be provided with many more employees than we have in our offices here. However, in such an office, everyone, from the receptionist at the front desk to the Congressman or Senator, would be constantly lobbying. I might lobby someone. The Hon. Member for Simcoe South is a good example. I respect his views. In fact, he is very articulate. I intensely disagree with what he says, but there might be a time when he and I would have to say, "Look, we both want the same thing because it will be good for our constituencies in Thunder Bay-Atikokan and Simcoe South". We might not sit down and sign an agreement, but we would make a deal. That is the way we would work, even though we had quite divergent political philosophies. As I see it, that is impossible to do in this House at this particular time.
A few of us from all sides of the House have been working on the issue of disarmament. We have certain views on it. I know the Hon. Member for Simcoe South does not agree with those views because I have heard him speaking differently in committee. The point is that it is very difficult for a handful of us to work together in an effective way, simply because of our adversarial system. We must vote pretty consistently in accordance with our Party's views. Once in a while Liberals can vote against the Government or an Hon. Member opposite may vote against a Party view, but it does not work very often or very well. It is a system which is different.
I always have some difficulty when someone says to me, "I believe in the British system". I have accepted the British system. Much of its value has been passed through to our parliamentary system. However, since we are on the North American continent, we are always being buffeted by what

May 4, 1983
The Constitution
happens in the United States. We in Canada are influenced by both sides. Sometimes we have the worst of both worlds, and maybe this is one of them. For instance, concerning the trade union movement, 1 think we have the worst of both sides because the American trade union movement is not nearly as adversarial and works together.
However, in the House we should be working, not toward taking over the American system but, rather, toward adjusting ourselves to an idea which is part British, part American-sort of North American. From the American example we should come to realize that we are not elected by the people of this country to fight against each other. However, that is what happens. Question Period is a show, almost a three-ringed circus. It is always adversarial. A Liberal may ask a question which is either favourable to the Government or to the Opposition, but it does not seem to matter. It does not make sense. It is entirely ridiculous, and I am sure that the Canadian people, seeing this constantly, feel the same way.
Therefore, I believe we can borrow from the United States to some extent. Mind you, when we start borrowing, we must be careful. One of the problems in the American system is that because there is so much lobbying, people believe that politicians always have their fingers in the till. This is rather reinforced by American television programs.
It is very seldom that I have a chance to make a deal with someone from the other side. It simply does not happen. We are labelled as politicians because people feel that we are somewhat like American politicians, but we are not. We do not sit down frequently and decide that the two of us will push something. That type of thing does not go on between Parties in this country, and maybe it is good. We must be very careful that when we borrow, we borrow only the best and that we do it in such a way as to avoid becoming involved in the kind of lobbying which is very bad in the United States.
I would be inclined to study the first Clause, but I would not like to speak about the Clause which says that we-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 24(2), it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings.
Shall all items listed under Private Members' Public Bills preceding item No. 355 be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
All Items preceding No. 355 allowed to stand by unanimous
consent.


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel) moved: that Bill C-555, to amend the Canada Elections Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
He said: If I may, first I would like to inform Hon. Members of the main thrust of Bill C-555. As I have indicated, Mr. Speaker, it is a Bill designed to amend the Canada Elections Act, so that if it carried, no opinion polls would be published between the twenty-eighth day prior to polling day and the day on which the polls are closed. By publishing we refer to publishing by radio, television, newspaper, news sheet, poster, billboard, hand bill or in any other manner.


David P. Smith: Word of mouth.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In answer to the Hon. Member, who will undoubtedly have an opportunity to speak on this Bill, we are not prohibiting private polls and we are not prohibiting whatever organizations political Parties feel they need to sense whether a Party is doing well or poorly. What we are saying is that surely, if we want to maintain a responsible democracy, we must as least consider whether it is right to have people, in some cases people who may be well qualified and in other cases people who may not be very professional in their approach, coming out with public opinion polls with a view to publishing them and possibly influencing the election dramatically.
Let me give an example of what happened in the last election. I have here a copy of the Saturday Star, for February 16, 1980, which you will notice, Mr. Speaker, has a well chosen picture of the then Prime Minister of Canada, I would say a picture deliberately included in that edition of the Saturday Star to put the Prime Minister of the nation in the worst possible light. Offsetting that picture is the headline "Liberals lead Gallup by 20 points." The article is written by Peter Regenstreif, copyright, incidentally, by the Toronto Star, 1980. The article commences with:
A solid 20-point lead in the Gallup Poll for the Liberals over the Conservatives points to a probable Liberal majority government after Monday's election.
The truth is that that poll was totally inaccurate. The pollster goes on to say that their records show that 48 per cent of decided voters would be voting Liberal in the ensuing election, 28 per cent would be voting Conservative, and 23 per cent would be voting NDP. In short, the thrust of the poll and the way the article was written was that the Liberals had an unbeatable 20-point lead over the Conservatives, which meant a majority Government.
The fact was that the result in the election showed that the Liberals did not have 48 per cent but 44 per cent of the results and the Conservatives did not have 28 per cent but 33 per cent. While the pollsters portrayed the image of a 20-point gap between the then Government of Canada and the Opposition,
May 4, 1983

on election day the gap in points turned out to be about half of that.
The reason I introduced this Bill, Mr. Speaker, which incidentally was introduced on May 2, three years ago, was that, having lived with the consequence of what the pollsters did in that 1980 election, I felt the time had come when we needed some type of constraint on those that publish polls prior to elections. If you check the repercussions of this type of thing, you will find that most people in this House will tell you that during the 1980 campaign, when meeting people on the doorstep or at public meetings, rather than hearing them say, "Tell us more about the issues or tell us about your leader as opposed to other leaders", the almost inevitable statement was, "It looks like you are going to lose". People told us that they were reading in the paper of a 20-point gap and because of that they would say to us, "Somehow, you cannot make it." The issue became not who should govern this country but who a pollster said was going to win on election day.
Naturally, there are two ways to look at that, both of them wrong. You could say the bandwagon approach is going to favour a person or the Party that looks to be in the lead. That, I suggest, is wrong. Or you could argue exactly the reverse and say that perhaps it will garner a lot of support for the underdog. Taking that scenario, if it is going to be one or the other, I would much sooner be on the bandwagon side than be worrying about getting support for the underdog.


David P. Smith: That is why you are with Mulroney.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The Parliamentary Secretary can catcall and treat this lightly, but to me the people of Canada are concerned about this issue. While the Grits may laugh, the tragedy that has beset this nation for the last few years is partly a result of those election results which, in turn, were partly triggered by unfair polling right up to election day. It is something which that Member should not be laughing about any longer.


David P. Smith: You don't believe that!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: What are the disadvantages of publishing polls right up to election day, as it can be done now? Let me put it succinctly. Think of the effect if it were seriously suggested that a newspaper could take a group of polls-if this could be done-and have the people vote in those polls in some kind of a preliminary election. Let us take the advance polls. What if we published the results of the advance polls prior to election day? Surely there is not a person in this House who would say that that should be done. Why should it not be done? In their heart they would know somehow or other that that is counter to democracy.
How people vote at five advance polls or 100 advance polls should be kept secret to the day the election results are actually tabulated. It would be grossly unfair to have certain advance polls published prior to an election. I do not think there is any doubt about that. If, under the proper scrutiny of the electoral process, we agree that an advance poll should not be published, what on earth is the justification for having people, for a fee or
Canada Elections Act
otherwise, poll 1,000 people or 2,000 people? First of all, it is an invasion of their right to keep how they vote secret by asking them how they are going to vote. Second, what is the justification for taking the totals of, let us say, 2,000 people who have been contacted and issuing the results as if they were indicative of what would happen in the ensuing election?
If we agree that the publishing of an advance poll is wrong-which, after all, would be properly supervised-why should we say that an amateur poll or a professional poll of a random sampling of people is somehow or other okay, is part of freedom of speech or God only knows what, and should not be restrained? We must add to that the fact that any pollster will tell us he can influence the results of a poll by the method he uses in gaining whatever data he needs and how he frames the question. If he wants to be completely fraudulent, he only has to make sure to call the right people who will give the right answers. If all these things are true, I would say the time has come for Parliament at least to consider whether there should be some restriction on this complete, carte blanche publishing of polls literally right up to the day when Canadians are asked to vote.
How often have we heard how people in western Canada resent watching television on election night and seeing the results from eastern Canada being reported? They realize that virtually whatever they have done in the form of voting is almost immaterial. If voters in western Canada feel that way, surely we must ask ourselves why. The reason is that they sense a certain futility. If they feel that way, why is it right to let some amateur or professional group of pollsters tell them in effect the same thing one or two days before?
Some Grits must feel warm all over as they remember the 1980 election and how the polling published in The Toronto Star helped them in the Toronto area. If they want to rise in the House today and defend it, let them also tell us why it was necessary in the Canada Elections Act to prohibit the publication of results in Newfoundland in another time zone in Canada, prior to the polls being closed in that time zone. Obviously it was included because it was felt that if people in British Coumbia knew how the vote had gone in Newfoundland, it would have some influence before the polls closed in British Columbia. If they think that such results should be blacked out on election day and not openly disseminated in British Columbia, why is it all right to have an amateur or professional pollster in effect doing the same thing right up to voting day for whatever devious or other reasons he wants to do it?
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, you might ask, "Yes, but what other country has ever been so bold as to prevent this type of publication?" First, I point out that the Province of British Columbia has a ban on public opinion polls during elections. We have Hon. Members from British Columbia here. Perhaps they could correct me if I am wrong, but I

May 4, 1983
Canada Elections Act
understand that the ban has been in place for almost 30 years. For example, a radio station in Nelson was actually prosecuted in the last election in British Columbia on the basis that its poll contravened the regulations. In France, no polls may be made public during the last week of an election campaign. Australia has a ban, but I am not sure how extensive it is. The Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert)-who said that he would like Hon. Members to know that if he were in the House he would certainly support my Bill-pointed out that this has become quite an issue in that part of the democratic world. Australia feels that a ban on this type of polling is necessary.
We could argue that the publishing of polls is something that may either hurt a Party in one election or help it in the next, but that is not what we are talking about today. We are talking about how we can ensure that our elections are as open, fair and democratic as possible. This entails no preliminary glimpses of how people will vote, because that type of thing becomes self-fulfilling. Those who have the wherewithal to commission polls can commission them as they see fit. They can ask whatever questions they see fit and publish the results as they see fit. I do not think anyone in Canada should have such a right if we want to respect our free democratic system.
Let me point out the types of things a pollster generally will not tell a person making inquiries. I went to see certain officials of the Gallup poll organization and questioned them about the 1980 results. I asked them whether they would reveal who exactly was surveyed, when they were surveyed and where. Other than being given general data, such as between dates and that type of thing, they say that that information is private, and they will not disclose it. If we ask who commissioned the poll or who actually paid them for it, of course we are told that that is private. If we ask whether the interviews that resulted in the data they felt was necessary were conducted by telephone or in person, we may or may not obtain an answer.
I think all these things should be open. If people are to be allowed to continue to publish polls and to show them to whatever advantage or disadvantage they feel will result, surely we should have the right to know who exactly they surveyed, who commissioned it, who paid for the poll and whether the interviews were conducted by telephone or in person.
Professional pollsters have told me that there is a tremendous difference in responses. For example, if they telephone persons, they obtain much more guarded answers than if a professional interviewer sat down with the person, led him up to the question and finally got the answer out of him. The tactics are another matter which I will get into at another time, but we are never furnished with the knowledge of what exactly was the breakdown in terms of number of males polled, number of females polled or the language, how heavily it was oriented to the French, to the English or to any other ethnic group. It was never related, and of course it could not be related, to such things as the total population. Most pollsters will say that they can never be entirely sure of turnout. In complete good faith they may come up with a poll showing
that there will be a vote similar to the one I indicated and if, because of weather or other reasons, a disproportionate number of voters do not turn up, their poll will be automatically inaccurate. They acknowledge the fact that some elections have heavy turnouts and others have comparatively light turnouts. This is something a pollster cannot judge.
The point I am making is that poll results are written up, as they were in The Toronto Star to which I referred, as if they were Gospel on which people can count, but the pollsters tell us that they are accurate, within 4 per cent either way, 95 per cent of the time.
If we cherish our free democratic system, is it right that we allow people to publish polls that can be and literally are admitted to be often inaccurate? That is what we are talking about today.
I would hope that Hon. Members who choose to either talk out this Bill or possibly even speak against it will hesitate to do so. If they believe in democracy in Canada, let them show it by saying that they do not feel there should be this unfair polling of the public leading up to general elections such as happened in 1980.


Mrs. Celine Hervieux-Payette (Montreal-Mercier):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in the debate on Bill C-555. I begin my remarks by saying to my colleague who has spoken in favour of this Bill that I have too much respect for the intelligent electors of Canada to think they might be swayed by public opinion polls during electoral campaigns. I would remind him that we Quebecers have lived through much more trying times during the referendum campaign when many opinion polls gave contradictory results, yet that did not prevent men and women in Quebec from choosing Canada.

The purpose of Bill C-555 is identical to that in two Bills which have already been debated during the present session. The first one, Bill C-208, was introduced by the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) and debated on June 20, 1980. The second one. Bill C-262, was sponsored by the Hon. Member for Cumberland-Colchester (Mr. Coates) and was debated on November 26, 1981.
One may wonder if all that could be said about this topic has been exhausted. Maybe the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) was absent when the two Bills I mentioned were debated. In any case, for his benefit I would like to repeat some of the comments previously made about this kind of Bill.
The purpose of his proposed amendment to the Canada Elections Act is to prohibit the publication in any manner during the 28 clear days preceding the time that polls are closed in an electoral district in which an election is being held of the result or purported result of a poll of the political opinions of the electors in relation to the election. That is totally unacceptable to me. It is an insult to the intelligence of
May 4, 1983

the Canadian electorate and is a denial of their right to information about themselves.
At first glance it seems rather shocking to have such a proposal to muzzle the press and to deny information to people coming from a Member of the Conservative Party, a Party which has been an energetic champion of the cause of freedom of information. It is interesting that this comes at a time when that Party is out of office and is running 52 per cent in the Gallup poll. It is apparently now in the best interests of this country. However, Members of that Party have not been known for their consistency.
The Hon. Member for Cumberland-Colchester, who is a guiding light in his Party and is trying to assist his Leader in many ways, sponsored Bill C-262 which would prohibit the publication of the results of opinion polls for the entire election period. This may be a little sterner stuff, but I think the real problem of what we are talking about here is that such a Bill really does not treat the Canadian people with much respect. I think it more or less implies that they are like lemmings, that they are like sheep, or like buffalo on the prairies stampeding in one direction, and that direction is whichever way the polls seem to be following.
These fears for the ignorance and gullibility of the electorate for only four weeks do not make much sense to me. I am reminded of the phrase of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Fear nothing but fear itself, and he should have known. In 1936 there was a very famous poll conducted during the U.S. presidential election which showed that Alf Landon would thump Franklin Roosevelt. What in fact happened was that Roosevelt thumped Landon, but the Literary Digest only consulted people who subscribed to the magazine. In the middle of the Depression, the only people who could afford magazine subscriptions were Republicans. Not too long after that, the Literary Digest went out of business.
One can only hope that this House will give this Bill the treatment it so richly deserves, that which was meted out to similar Bills sponsored by the Hon. Member for Cumberland-Colchester and the Hon. Member for Athabasca. Both Bills, Bill C-208 and Bill C-262 respectively, would have prohibited the publication of the results of opinion polls during an election, as is proposed by the Hon. Member for York-Peel at this time; three times in two years.
I might note that a very distinguished Member of this House, no less a distinguished a Member than yourself, Mr. Speaker, said, and I will quote from the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for Tuesday, April 13, 1976, as follows:


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I did a little research on this. I believe it was the Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis), not the present incumbent of the Chair.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: In any case, Hon. Members should avoid attempting to draw the Speaker into the debate, please.
Canada Elections Act


Céline Hervieux-Payette: That is correct, Mr. Speaker. It is the Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis). I apologize for the error. The Hon. Member for Ottawa West said this about the poll, and I quote:
Well, if you were to try to do it on a national basis, you would have the kind of thing where the Detroit paper would do a poll on Canada and publish it in Detroit. The United Kingdom tried to do this and they had it from radio Luxembourg, beamed at the United Kingdom, back and forth. I just do not think it is enforceable. And, while I do not like opinion polls, and while I understand why someone presented the bill, and I wish I could think of a good, ultimate, valid reason why I could achieve the same result, I have to say, deep in my heart,
I think it is wrong.
The point raised in that Committee is a good point. What would happen if a Detroit radio station decided to make public the results of a poll done in Canada? With the cable network and with the techniques we have now, such as the satellite discs, you could have an Atlanta television station broadcast the results of a poll. Are we going to try to stop this? It raises rather horrendous scenes.
You can picture people in eastern Europe huddled beside their radio with the lights out or turned down very low, listening to the "Voice of America" waiting for the police to break down the door. I can think of many movies of the Second World War where the Gestapo would storm in and find somebody with the earphones on. Is that the sort of thing we are going to do? It does not seem very realistic. Once we start muzzling the press and denying the press the right to publish information, where do we stop and, I should say, where do we start?
I understand the motivation behind the Bill presented by the Hon. Member, but it is a very slippery slope. Once you start that sort of process, I do not think there is any guarantee that it will not creep away from us and eat into very fundamental and precious rights. We have always had a free press in this country. A person such as myself on the Liberal side can say that we have enjoyed criticism and all sorts of remarks. We have survived over the years. What would happen if someone would take a poll and then we had a version of a Hyde Park corner in this country? Are you going to extend the Bill to preclude somebody from taking a poll and then standing up on a soapbox to announce it?
Where do you draw the line? The final week ban on publication of poll results involves a clear and obvious abridgement of freedom of expressions. It would restrict individuals, the press, magazines, radio and television for a crucial seven-day period. In the language of journalistic ethics, it would flagrantly and without any question abridge the right of the public to know.
If a late change in public sentiment were under way, this rule would require that knowledge of the change be witheld from the general population. The Bill's sweeping demand, it should be noted, would withold all polls, those accurately reflecting the trend as well as those that might in one way or another be seriously misleading.

May 4, 1983
Canada Elections Act

I should like to make a brief comment on that, Mr. Speaker. Being from Quebec where I was with the Department of Social Affairs, I know that very often a good many of our departmental policies stemmed from documents drafted after and based on a poll. In my opinion, it is a scientific tool and that is a fact with which well informed people agree today. As to whether all polls are reliable, that is for the client to decide and, in this instance, they are usually sponsored by newspapers during an electoral campaign. I would suggest that the reputation of polling firms has been established, and those which do have some credibility would not jeopardize their future by playing with figures or publishing misleading results. I think that the future of those firms weighs more heavily than the outcome of any election.

Look at the results of the last election. Does anyone think that the results were seriously affected by the polls? Certainly the polls were broadcast far and wide. The voters in western Canada were not very much influenced by them if they believed the polls which indicated that the Liberal Party would do well in eastern Canada. It did not cause a stampede toward the Liberals on the Prairies. Perhaps if anything, it did cause some weakening of our support.
Look at the polls. They did not all say the same thing. The CTV poll, the CBC poll, the Carleton University poll and the Toronto Star poll did not give the same figures, but they all indicated the same trend, and the trend was that the Liberals would win. In fact, the Liberals did win.
What would happen, for example, if we were to ban polls during only the last four weeks of an election campaign? The Ken Taylor Iran incident caused the Tories to think that this might be their salvation, that it might turn things around. Anyone working for the campaign in Toronto during that election who talked to a Conservative worker knows that this incident gave them a real shot in the arm, a real flow of adrenalin. They could hardly wait for the next poll to come out. They felt that somehow a twist or a change in their fortunes would be indicated as a result of the Iranian incident. I must say, however, that they were not responsible for the incident.
Are we to deny the Conservatives the hype or the adrenalin or the good morale that would result from an incident occuring toward the end of an election campaign? Are we to say that if something great happens during the first part of a campaign, the poll will reflect it and the effect may be felt by the electorate and they may go in that direction like lemmings, but that this must not happen in the last four weeks? If that were the case, the Conservatives probably would have asked Ken Taylor to get out of Iran two or three weeks earlier so that there would be time for the polls to reflect that upsurge in their fortunes. This is the ridiculous sort of thing this legislation could trigger.
A point raised by the Hon. Member for Athabasca was the way in which knowledge of the mood of the country would affect the decision of a voter. Somebody who may feel strongly
about a majority Government might like to know if one of the two major Parties had a better chance to form a majority Government than the other. A voter may prefer one of the two major Parties, but actually feel strongly about minority Governments. If he thought the NDP had a chance of holding the balance of power, he would vote for that Party, but only if it would hold the balance of power. I do not see anything wrong with that. That is valid information that should not be denied the electorate.
If anything, in terms of knowledge of politics, elections and the issues, voters are becoming increasingly more sophisticated. I do not think we need to stuff up their ears so they cannot hear information they had a right to hear in the past in case somehow their minds would be tainted and they would go off and do something they would not otherwise do. Mr. Speaker, I believe that in a democratic country such as ours, that is not the kind of thing we must anticipate. As far as I am concerned, the polls can continue.
If a voter was very concerned about having a majority Government and wanted to know which Party had the best chance of forming a majority Government, he could do his own poll. However, the results would only be relevant in his own riding, and the trend in his riding might be going in the opposite direction from that in the rest of the country. In a country that is so spread out, almost 5,000 kilometers long, it is valid for a person in one part of the country to want to know how people in other parts of the country feel.
Our Party will take its chances on the impact that such information will have on the electorate. I do not think that there is a possibility that very many people will place their vote based on the mood of the rest of the country, causing everyone to react in the same way.

Mr. Speaker, the people of Quebec often say that they will not behave like a bunch of sheep. I think that if the leader comes down from the mountain, there is no need for everybody to jump in the water.

The results of the last election, particularly from the area of the country west of Winnipeg, will indicate that. If there was a buffalo stampede in the West, it was not in the direction of the Liberals. It was in the opposite direction, notwithstanding the fact that the direction of the polls was well known.
Another interesting question that arises is the difference between the work of a political commentator, of a syndicated columnist, of a magazine writer and of a pollster. Let us assume a rough equivalence in terms of talent and sensitivity on the part of the three. Are we to say that a political commentator whose columns are carried in newspapers across the country cannot say that he has been talking to many people and finds it pretty clear that the mood of the country is that the Liberals will win this election or the Conservatives will win that election? People respect a columnist's judgment. People believe that if Lynch, Fisher or Fotheringham say something
May 4, 1983

and they have gone up on the mountain and got it in tablets of stone, it must be true. However, one knows that what columnists say is not always true, but if that is the information the people are looking for, they will certainly believe Mr. Lynch or Mr. Fisher. The Conservatives usually believe Mr. Fisher. Are we to say to columnists that they cannot write columns like that in the last four weeks of an election campaign? The Bill does not purport to do that, but what is the difference? Both the columnists and the pollsters give an impression, albeit one is a personal reflection and the other is a scientific impression.
If people are so easily influenced by what authoritative people may say about the mood of the country, rather than read polls by Martin Goldfarb or Peter Regenstreif, they will simply read columns by Charles Lynch or Doug Fisher. We all know how authoritative they are. Their opinions may differ from time to time, but so do the opinions of the pollsters. Opinions are not always identical. That is another problem that can occur if you follow this route.
Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my remarks by saying that in Quebec we believe in taking polls during the election campaign, and that the safeguard provided for the last day only is enough. We believe enough in the freedom of expression and in the judgment of the people of Quebec to allow them to hear the truth right up until the last minute.

The rules of the game and the way polls are taken lead us to believe quite simply that our fellow Canadians can make up their own minds on these issues. As a Member, Mr. Speaker, I very often consult reference books. Recently, in the course of my duties as a Member, I had an opportunity to read a document published by Jean-Pierre Hogue and entitled "L'heritage de Jacques Cartier". Mr. Hogue uses that book to know the values of-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Hon. Member for York-Peel rises on a point of order.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if the Hon. Member would accept a short question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Would the Hon. Member for Montreal-Mercier (Mrs. Hervieux-Payette) entertain a question?


Céline Hervieux-Payette: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member. She mentioned that it is good to have the people know the truth right up to election day. How can she tell that they are getting the truth when the poll that I referred to was obviously not the truth?
Canada Elections Act


Céline Hervieux-Payette: Mr. Speaker, I think that the Hon. Member's question is of a philosophical nature because, in the context of scientific methodology-and that is what I wanted to tell my colleague when I mentioned the work of Mr. Hogue-truth in the end can always be subjective or objective. I am thinking of someone who takes an honest poll and makes the results public. There may be flaws in the way the people polled were selected, in the way the figures were collated, or the system may be distorted. I think that the value, the quality, the accuracy and the reliability of polls depend mainly on the reputation of the firms which take them, as well as on the qualities of the pollsters themselves. I consult the work of Mr. Hogue because I want to know how reliable the samples can be and which scientific methodology can be used. As a Member- generally speaking, for many years and even before my election to the House-I must say that not only polls are useful and important, but in my opinion they are essential to Canadians and people deserve to know the truth.


Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be able to put a few words on the record with regard to this Bill which has been proposed by the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens). I believe, in view of the great number of people in the House, that Hon. Members opposite might be agreeable to allowing this debate to continue past its normal time until 6.10. Could I have the unanimous consent of the House to that so I will not be accused of talking out this Bill?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Hon. Member for Dauphin (Mr. Lewycky) is seeking unanimous consent to proceed beyond the ordinary time of adjournment, which is six o'clock, so as to complete the full hour or 60 minutes provided under the rules of debate. Is it agreed?


David Michael Collenette: If I understand, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member just wants to extend the period of time to the full hour, not beyond, is that right?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: That is the general understanding, in which case the Chair should indicate the debate would end at ten minutes past six o'clock. Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Laverne Lewycky: Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for its indulgence. I do want to put a few words on record and still allow at least a few minutes to anyone who might want to comment on this particular Bill.
I believe this Bill raises a crucial issue in terms of the whole election and/or referendum procedure because it seeks to divide public opinion on the matter of public property or private property. I listened very carefully to the arguments presented by the Hon. Member for York-Peel. I know there are two sides to the coin, and he has very adequately presented

May 4, 1983
Canada Elections Act
the one side. I would like to perhaps reiterate some of those aspects. In addition, I will illustrate some of the concerns which we in this Party have with regard to the other side of the coin.
One side of the coin follows the premise that a publication of a public opinion poll pertaining to a particular election would subsequently sway opinion. I believe the Hon. Member for York-Peel referred to it as the "bandwagon" effect. As a result, this would have some impact on the election outcome. The second premise which logically flows from this way of thinking is that such swaying of public opinion is manipulative and, of course, this manipulation is bad. Therefore, we have the conclusion drawn by the Hon. Member that there should be a ban on all public opinion polls of electors during an election, and he suggests for a period of 30 days.
On this particular side of the coin, I am prepared to concede that it can probably be ascertained from various studies that opinion polls do affect public opinion, political or otherwise.
I would like to look at the other side of the coin for a moment. What would happen if this Bill were implemented? This, of course, would not prohibit the use of private polling. That would mean that certain political Parties which have x number of dollars would still be able to commission private polls. They would be able to use the information during the 30-day period to their own advantage.
Much reference has been made to the Toronto area. Let me illustrate one scenario. Under this particular Bill, a poll might be conducted by the Conservative Party which might find out that perhaps the Liberal Party had made a few gains in the Toronto area. Therefore, based on its own private poll, it could innundate the Toronto area with good, solid, Conservative advertising. But would the public be any wiser?
If it were a public poll and all of a sudden we found that the Liberal Party had gained by a certain number of points in the Gallup poll and the Conservatives then innundated the Toronto area with their-I was going to say "propaganda", but let us say advertising, if it were public the discerning person in Toronto could say that is to be expected. This is what the Gallup poll says. And here we have an innundation of the Conservative advertising. So at least this public opinion, the opinion which had been solicited by the public, is at least at a present time still available for the public in general.
I believe that in this day and age more and more people are becoming aware of and alert to the parameters of public opinion polls and how they are conducted. They are, perhaps, a bit more aware of the shortcomings in the way in which these polls are conducted.
It has been mentioned that there is a ban in British Columbia and in certain other parts of the world. I suppose I should ask the question, what is the result of the ban which exists in British Columbia and in other parts of the world? The major political Parties still conduct their own private polls. In accordance with the law, the results are not published. The question I ask is, is the public any wiser in terms of their decisions and in terms of what might still be termed as manipulation on the part of the people who are involved?
In addition to that, I do have some questions about the charter of Rights and the whole question of freedom of the press and freedom of opinion, as mentioned by the previous speaker. Let me just mention some of these concerns. I would be a lot happier if the Liberals would agree, along with the Conservatives, to at least refer this subject matter to committee, because in this short time I cannot underline all of our concerns. If this subject matter were referred to committee we could perhaps bring in some evidence from British Columbia, take a look at the experience in Australia and consider other experience. We could take a look at both sides of the coin. In a short period of time such as we now have available that is certainly not possible.
The Hon. Member indicated the importance of having public information with regard to who does the polling, what are the parameters and what are the statistical methods being used. I noticed he referred to the whole question of random sampling. I am sure the Hon. Member is aware that when we talk about random sampling, it is a statistical technique and method which has been scientifically derived. It is not as the English word would suggest, a "random picking". Those are some of the things which I certainly would like to have taken into consideration. If the Hon. Member had included that type of concern in his Bill, that there be public information available, then this, of course, would be something we could support.
I find it a bit humorous, that the Hon. Member, who speaks so frankly about private enterprise, should today be speaking against these private entrepreneurs who consider all this information private property. All he is really underlining for me is the fact that the whole discussion we have been having, even on the question of property rights, is a little bit broader than what we may have been led to believe.
As to the results of public polls and whether they actually influence an election, the previous speaker referred to the previous election, and that because the people knew there might be a Liberal majority, that did not affect the vote in the west. She underlined a very good point that we should take into consideration, that even the knowledge that the east had gone Liberal did not have an impact on the west. We are fairly independent thinkers out there.
I did want to underline some other concerns, Mr. Speaker. I wish there could have been unanimous consent to have this referred to committee because I would love to see this studied a bit further. I would like to see the Hon. Member come before the committee as a witness to expound a little bit more on this issue. I hope he will not let the issue die.
I know the Commissioner of Official Languages will be bringing forward some recommendations with regard to the Official Languages Act. I hope the Hon. Member, knowing as he does that this Bill will be talked out by the Government, will at least make it a point to send off a representative to the commissioner expressing his concerns. In that way it would be on the public record as something the Commissioner of Official Languages will have to consider, and something which
May 4, 1983

could be brought in for discussion in committee, perhaps as a result of a report and recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer. I trust the Hon. Member for York-Peel will take my advice and write to the Commissioner so that this is on the public record. Perhaps in that way it might get the airing it deserves in the days ahead.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to share some of these concerns.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make two or three comments on this particular Bill. It is one of a series brought down by thoughtful Members. You will notice the date on it, May 2, 1980.
There were a number of measures which occurred to me and other thoughtful Members following the election, amendments we felt ought to be made to election procedures. I brought one forward last week in relation to mobile ballot boxes, and I have a number of others. Polling is the matter facing us today.
Permanent electoral polls might have been mentioned. These matters should be brought forward while we are all deeply conscious of the things which come to mind during an election. We cannot discount this subtle influence on voters' minds. The Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) mentioned the ban on the publication of results from the east prior to the closing of polls in the west. That matter is being considered by the committee concerned. There is the very obvious reason for that, because of the influence of the results from the east in the west. Such results can influence favourably or negatively, or they can suggest to people that there is no damn use going out to the polls anyway, so they might as well stay home. That is not good. People should not be influenced in that way. They should be free to express themselves on the candidates and the issues. There is sometimes a desire to get on the bandwagon or defy the bandwagon or, as I say, stay home.
Those people who have spoken so far, particularly on the other side, forget certain things because they live in the centre of this country. They forget that there is a four and one half hour time difference from one side of the country to the other. The results in Newfoundland are known one and one half hours before they are known here. The results in the great metropolitan areas of Ontario and Quebec are known three hours before we close our ballots out on the West Coast.
For the same reason that there should be a ban on the publication of those results, and there is except that they come through via the United States, there should be a ban on influencing voters by means of polls during those last few days. I am not sure whether it should be for 28 days, but on the day an election is called there should be no polls. Individual parties can poll for their own purposes, and that is fine, but they should keep the results to themselves. They know where their soft spots are and what are their issues. They should use the results for their own purposes, not for public purposes.
I fully agree that the Bill should at least go to committee and be considered there.
Canada Elections Act


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I do welcome this opportunity to participate in the debate. I tell Hon. Members quite frankly that I would have been prepared to see the subject matter referred to a committee-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Let's do it.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: -if we had been speaking of Gallup Polls, because I think there is a good deal of unsettled feeling on both sides of the House about the manner in which polls are conducted.
The Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) specifically referred to the manner in which a poll is conducted and the people who are contacted. He mentioned that if there is a heavy vote turnout, that may throw the poll totally out of whack. The fact is that people who do the polling have a whole series of escape valves available to them. They print it, write about it and discuss it as though it were written or holy rote. In effect they have about eight, nine or ten opportunities to say that if there had been the expected turnout the votes would have gone such and such a way. They might say that no one could have anticipated that there would be such a heavy swell against the leader, or for a leader or whatever the situation might be.
The Hon. Member for York-Peel highlighted some of the great deficiencies in the conducting of polls. He mention professional as opposed to amateurs. I sometimes feel that the amateurs probably do as good a job, if not better, than the professionals because they have a sincere interest in finding answers. One sometimes wonder, when seeing the questions asked in some of these polls across the country from time to time, if the pollster had not already made up his or her mind as to what he or she wanted people to say. By phrasing the question in a particular way, giving it a certain nuance, it is very easy to-


Donald W. Munro: Okay, let's go to committee, then.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: -receive an overwhelming result one way or the other. On the subject of poll-taking, perhaps there should be more professionalism or disclosure, as to how the results are interpreted.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: However, I do not see the banning-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Hon. Member for York-Peel is rising on a point of order.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the Hon. Member has no doubt in his mind. I am perfectly prepared to have the present Bill withdrawn. Let us refer the subject matter to the appropriate committee.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: It is the typical position taken by the experienced Hon. Member of the House of Commons, to rise at the very last minute and throw something else in for consideration. I thought he sincerely, genuinely wanted to have a

May 4, 1983
Canada Elections Act
ban on the publication of the results of polls prior to an election. Now we have a complete reversal of his position-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: No.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: -a complete abandoning of his position, and he will try something else.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: All you're doing is talking it out.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Is that what we have been debating here? I am opposed to the banning of polls.


Donald W. Munro: Let us take it to committee and we will vote on it.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: It connotes a lack of respect for the intelligence of the Canadian citizen who votes at election time, so I could not support the Bill on that particular basis.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Let's refer it to a committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. It being 6.10 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6.10 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, May 5, 1983