1983-05-18

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Roland de Corneille (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Madam Speaker, approximately 4,500 Jews live in Syria. Syria is the only Arab country which, since 1948, has never officially permitted its Jewish citizens to leave. Alone among Arab countries, the Syrian Government continues to hold its Jewish community hostage.
The dashing of all hopes for legal emigration, combined with the deteriorating situation in Syria, has prompted Syrian Jews to turn in desperation to illegal avenues of escape. These illegal attempts to escape have led to arrests, harsh interrogation and long imprisonment of those caught by the authorities or suspected of aiding others to leave. Syria certainly would be especially opposed to the emigration of its Jews to Israel.
Even if they could get out, we must ask the awful question, as in the days before the Holocaust, "Where then could such refugees go?" I suggest that this is a subject of humanitarian and urgent concern to which Canada should direct its attention. There are various things we can look to our Government to do in addition to its present efforts. We should intensify our monitoring and surveillance of the situation. We should try to remind Syria of its obligations under the United Nations Charter of Human Rights to allow freedom of emigration. We should let Syria know that we are ready to open our doors in a special way to receive Syrian Jews in Canada, and we should encourage the many Canadian sponsors who are ready and willing to receive and support them to come forth.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Madam Speaker, it has been well in excess of one year that I have been continuously bringing to the attention of the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) concerns relating to the Edmonton maximum security institution and the security aspects of that institution. Those concerns
were started initially with the escape of Harvey Andre from the Edmonton maximum institution.
My specific concerns relate not only to the prison guards but also to the individuals who live around the institution. The prison guards have consistently asked for an audience with the Solicitor General so that they might relate directly to him their concerns in order that both the security of the prison guards and of the residents will be secured, concerns such as the inadequacy of the electric fence package in place in the maximum institution at Edmonton which cost in excess of $1 million, the lack of arms being granted to those posted at hazardous posts within the institution, and the overcrowding of a number of the bunking facilities whereby two inmates are now housed where there should only be one.
The new duty schedules have not only caused a loss of family time, but have broken up traditional squads that have worked together. Unfortunately these pleas have fallen on deaf ears when they are communicated to the Solicitor General's Department in Ottawa. Local management has been very-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Madam Speaker, last week in Santiago, Chile, and in many other Chilean cities there were mass arrests of people who have been held without trial. Although some of them have been released, Amnesty International still says there are hundreds who are being held under a special provision of the Pinochet Constitution of 1981 which says that for 20 days they may be detained without charge. During this period of time Amnesty is afraid that there will be torture, as has taken place in that country before.
At this time I call upon the Government of Canada to use every possible method that it can to bring pressure on the Chilean Government to give out a complete list of the detainees to make sure that those who are being held will come before competent courts or be released immediately, and that they all be treated humanely while they are in prison. I also ask the Cabinet to reconsider a decision made by the National Energy Board to send 440,000 barrels of oil to Chile. I ask that that sale be seriously looked at again and stopped until the human rights situation in Chile improves.

May 18, 1983


USE OF HEROIN MEDICINALLY
Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval):: Madam Speaker, during my three years as Chairman of the Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, I have received a number of representations, and I would like to draw the attention of my hon. colleagues to a situation in our hospitals, where thousands of chronically ill patients and especially cancer patients, could be helped by alleviating their pain through the controlled administration of heroin. I would like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) to consider the medical use of heroin for a trial period and as part of a specific policy within specialized hospitals, as it is now being used in about thirty countries, including Great Britain. It is a pain killer that has been proved to be effective, the standards for its use could be determined by the authorities of the Department of National Health and Welfare and its use could be recommended within a relatively short time, particularly since this practice already exists in some thirty countries.
* *
*


FISHERIES
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Madam Speaker, I want for a moment to protest the cynical manner in which the Government is playing political games with capital funds allocated under the budget and the recovery program. The budget provided for a special fund of $2.4 billion, and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans received $140 million of it. However, it now appears that the Cabinet has instructed that almost all of that money be spent in constituencies represented by Liberals and Liberals alone. In the case of Nova Scotia this means that fishermen who live in ridings such as the one I have the honour to represent are being discriminated against by public taxpayers' dollars even though their needs are the most acute.
On the behalf of those people, I ask the Government why it refuses to allocate a single dollar of that special fund for desperately needed wharves, breakwaters, and other harbour facilities, in Dartmouth-Halifax East, when a $52 million office building in the Minister's riding of Halifax has been announced? Why did the Government allocate to a region which has only 6 per cent of all fishermen in Canada and also provides only 6 per cent of the fish catch, $96.4 million of that $140 million? I think that the answer is obvious to the people of Canada. The way the Government is playing with people's lives and trying to buy support with public money in a feeble attempt to save its own political life makes a mockery of democracy.


THE FRANCHISE
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, through you I wish to call to the attention of the House a rather unfair provision in the Canada Elections Act that disenfranchises tens of thousands of Canadians. It is my hope that the Government, through the Minister responsible, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard), will call this matter to the attention of the Chief Electoral Officer who would be requested to put in his forthcoming report to Parliament a proposal to provide an absentee balloting process in place of the proxy system that is currently contained in the Elections Act.
The proxy procedure disenfranchises patients in acute care hospitals, loggers, people living outside Canada, miners and fishermen, and in fact it can be demonstrated quite successfully, I think, that the disenfranchisement of many Canadians at election time has in fact altered the outcome a number of elections.
It is noted that the Constitution provides every Canadian the opportunity to vote, and the present provisions of the Elections Act do in fact take that opportunity away from a number of Canadians on a discriminatory basis. It is my hope that the Government, through the responsible Minister, will make this point known to the Chief Electoral Officer so that he will in fact report to us on a proposal for an absentee balloting system in the forthcoming amendments to the Elections Act.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, we all smile at the degree of political license taken from time to time by our Conservative colleagues who are in pursuit of the Tory leadership. However, on occasion their utterings exceed well-intentioned enthusiasm and are more properly characterized as distorted attempts to rewrite history. When this happens we must set the record straight.
Such was the case last weekend when, according to Monday's Toronto Star, my good friend and former colleague from Toronto city politics, the Hon. Member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie), described the Progressive Conservatives as a Party of social justice that brought social programs like medicare to Canadians, and he referred to medicare as the finest program this country has ever seen.
While we on this side of the House welcome the compliment paid to medicare, Madam Speaker, we cannot let the suggestion that the Tories brought Canadians medicare go unchallenged. The facts are that the Medical Care Act was passed in
May 18, 1983

1966 under the leadership of the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson, and the Bill was actually moved by the current Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen). The only opposition in the House to that Bill came from Tory and Social Credit Members. The medicare program has been strengthened during the tenure of the current Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and the Tories did not do anything during their sojourn in office. These are the facts, Madam Speaker, and Tory leadership candidates should be advised that their high flights of fantasy will not go unnoticed and unchallenged.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister perhaps I could put my question to the Minister of National Revenue who, I understand, reports to the House with respect to Canadair. In view of the rather sad saga that continues with respect to Canadair, would the Minister indicate what he can tell the House about the resignation of Mr. Kearns, what severance arrangements have been made concerning Mr. Kearns, and who his replacement will be as chief executive officer of Canadair?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, as far as Mr. Kearns' resignation is concerned, I have no comments. I feel that any comments would be up to Mr. Kearns himself. As far as the conditions regarding his early retirement are concerned, 1 have no details. I shall, in fact, be informed of these conditions at an information session tomorrow. Regarding his replacement, as soon as that information is available, I shall be pleased to give it to the House and to the Hon. Member.


INDEBTEDNESS OF CORPORATION
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, I see the Prime Minister has come into the House so I shall put my supplementary question to him. The Minister of National Revenue has attempted to answer three questions, but the Prime Minister has an over view with respect to Canadair.
In view of the October, 1982, Cabinet document that set out in detail some of the problems that Canadair was living with, including the fact that its indebtedness might reach $2.3 billion, would the Prime Minister indicate to the House why the then president of Canadair, Mr. Kearns, was allowed to come before a Committee of the House in November and not make full disclosure of the plight of Canadair? In particular, why was he allowed to make estimates that have turned out to
Oral Questions
be quite wrong concerning the break-even point for Canadair, the number of sales for Canadair, and the true magnitude of the calamity regarding that company?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I did not, of course, attend that Committee meeting.
I am convinced that Members had complete and total freedom to ask Mr. Kearns' views on a number of things. It appears that some of his views leaned to the optimistic side. I think he would have to answer for his answers. The Government certainly did not give him any instructions to answer the questions of Committee Members with anything but the truth as he saw it.


REASON FOR LOSSES
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Since he has been alerted to the problems of Canadair, he undoubtedly knows that the public and the House have not been furnished with an annual report of Canadair for 16 months. Would the Prime Minister indicate to the House what is the problem? Is it true that the auditors were hesitant about signing an unqualified certificate with regard to the statements?
Second, can he explain to the House why, when an American company, Gulfstream, was able to make $86 million selling a product competitive with that of Canadair, Canadair had to run up millions of dollars in losses in 1982?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member can speculate upon the latter part of his question as well as I can. Most of the aircraft companies in the industrialized world have been losing money at this time. It is possible that the one noted by the Hon. Member has made money. So much the better. If we had been able to make money we would have preferred that, but I do not think the Hon. Member can express astonishment that there has been a serious curtailment of purchases by the market of the type of aircraft that Canadair was producing.


CERTIFICATION OF CORPORATION'S PROFIT
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister as well. The Prime Minister perhaps knows that P. J. Aird, Senior VicePresident of Finance for Canadair, certified to the Finance Committee on November 16 that Canadair had a profit after taxes of $1,435,000. Can he advise this House why it is going to be necessary, probably later today, to receive Supplementary Estimates "A" indicating an advance to Canadair in excess of a $1 billion, if that certification by Mr. Aird was an honest certification? If it was not an honest certification, why is Mr. Aird still employed by Canadair?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I must repeat my answer to the earlier question, that I was not in attendance at that Committee and I do not know

May 18, 1983
Oral Questions
the details of the submissions by the various witnesses. As to the question of the officers who are chosen by the directors to administer Canadair, we have an example of the directors changing one officer. I am sure they would be made acquainted with the suggestion of the Hon. Member regarding other officers.


FINANCIAL FIGURES PRESENTED BY OFFICIALS
Donald Alex Blenkarn: The Prime Minister will know what Thorne Riddell, the accountants for Canadair, certified in the year ending December 31, 1981, that the company made a profit of over $3 million after taxes. This statement, which misled the Government, misled the House of Commons and its committees, was used as the basis to borrow or certify loans for $1,350,000,000, and an advance last year of $200 million to the company. Why was the House of Commons misled by these officers of the company and by the firm of Thorne Riddell, and what action does the Government propose to take against the auditors for misrepresentation, or against the directors for misrepresentation? After all, we are going to be asked to bail out this company to the extent of well over $1 billion because of these misrepresentations.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I would not concede that there was an attempt to misrepresent the facts or to mislead the Members, to use the Hon. Member's words. I am sure that the presentation made then by the Vice-President of Finance, and the certification of the state of their balance sheet, was made by honourable and respectable people. As I answered the Hon. Member's colleagues, it may have been there was a bit more optimism about the prospects of future sales than proved to be justified. That is one of the reasons why we have made the very important decision to transfer over-all review for the operations of Canadair, de Havilland, and other Crown corporations, into the control of the CDIC where there will be much greater attention paid to the business aspects of these corporations.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, my questions are directed to the Prime Minister and concern his meeting with Mr. Gorbachev of the Soviet Union. Yesterday, before a joint House-Senate Committee, Mr. Gorbachev failed to answer questions put to him concerning the destabilizing action taken by the Soviet Union in deploying SS-20 missiles in Europe. Would the Prime Minister tell the House if he raised this important matter in his meeting with Mr. Gorbachev and, if so, what answer did he get?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I do not believe you would permit me, within the rules, to comment on the proceedings before a parliamentary commitee. That is not provided for by the rules. However, I
can state that I discussed armament questions very sensibly with Mr. Gorbachev, and I am prepared to answer questions to the best of my knowledge if they are asked by the Leader of the New Democratic Party.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, 1 assume the Prime Minister simply did not hear the first part of the question. I was not asking him to comment on proceedings which went on before the joint committee. I was asking him explicitly about his conversation with Mr. Gorbachev. I will repeat that question by adding it to my second question.


PRIME MINISTER'S TALKS WITH SOVIET OFFICIAL
John Edward Broadbent: Did the Prime Minister raise with Mr. Gorbachev the destabilizing action taken by the Soviet Union in deploying SS-20 missiles sometime ago in Europe? If so, what answer did he get?
Did he also raise with Mr. Gorbachev the possibility of fusing discussions about tactical and strategic weapons at the Geneva talks, considering that our former Ambassador, Mr. Ignatieff, among others, has said that for serious steps to be taken toward nuclear disarmament the talks have to cover both strategic and tactical weapons?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, on the first question the answer is an emphatic yes, I did raise with Mr. Gorbachev the question of the reason why they introduced the SS-20s. I assume he gave me the same answer as he gave the Committee.


An Hon. Member:: There was no answer.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I understand there was no answer. Well, Madam Speaker, I would not want to interpret Mr. Gorbachev's thinking on this, but in essence the answer he gave me was that they did not consider that the SS-20s were an escalation compared to the SS-4s and SS-5s. That has been an answer that the Soviets have been giving for some time. 1 must add it is not an answer that most European leaders I have talked to find satisfying.
What I also raised with Mr. Gorbachev is the fact that even in the Kvitsinsky-Nitze walk-in-the-woods suggestion for a compromise, the Cruise missile, which is of such concern to the Hon. Member and his Party, was not considered as dangerous or as destabilizing a weapon as the Pershing IIs. As a matter of fact, Madam Speaker, I asked Mr. Gorbachev if it was not true that the Cruise missiles were something that they were not as concerned about as the Pershing IIs, and the fact that in the draft agreement which came out of the walk-in-the-woods there was a recognition, at least tentative and in draft form, by the Soviet negotiator that the Cruise could be deployed but not the Pershing II, and was that not an indication they were not as concerned with the Cruise missile as perhaps the Hon. Member and his Party are.
May 18, 1983


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I just want to say to the Prime Minister that we in this Party, and I think most Canadians, are concerned about the deployment of all kinds of nuclear weapons. We do not make that kind of distinction.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


HARASSMENT OF PEACE GROUP IN SOVIET UNION
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, in taking time to answer that question the Prime Minister did not reply to my second question. I hope he will come back to that.
My third question concerns the right of groups anywhere in the world to act freely in mobilizing public opinion even if it means going against their Government on the important issue of nuclear disarmament. There is, as the Prime Minsiter knows, an important group of this kind in the Soviet Union, a Moscow based group, which has been attempting to establish mutual relationships between the people of the Soviet Union and the United States. My question concerns the harassment this group has been sujbected to by the Government of the Soviet Union.
Did the Prime Minister raise that important question with Mr. Gorbachev when he spoke with him, and specifically did he make an appeal concerning Mr. Batovrin and Professor Medvekov who have been incarcerated in the Soviet Union, to see if they could be freed in order to pursue, independently of their Government, the issue of nuclear disarmament?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Madam Speaker, I regret I did not.


EMPLOYMENT
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Last week the Minister, in a speech to the Canadian Advanced Technology Association, expressed his fears over the possibility or prospect of violence as a result of workers being displaced by high technology, or as a result of jobs being made redundant by the new high technology. He went on to state that there would be violence unless Governments and employers took steps now.
Now that the Minister has identified the problem, a problem which we all foresee and which has been highlighted by others, what leadership is he providing on behalf of the Government of Canada to bring employers and other levels of Government together to try to avert what could in fact be our summer of discontent?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, in terms of the Hon. Member's initial statement, I was not projecting any mass
Oral Questions
sense of disturbance. I am saying that there can be a potential of some real job disruption unless there is real co-operation and partnership between major parts of the economy. If the Hon. Member is asking for a demonstration of that, I would point out to him that just yesterday I signed a contract with a high technology consortium in Ontario to establish a new training institute to help retrain workers in high technology development under the Skills Growth Fund of the National Training Act. The National Training Act has given us the basis for starting those kinds of acts of partnership and cooperation that we are discussing. What we need now is more acts of co-operation on the part of the Opposition.


James Aloysius McGrath: I will tell the Minister that the Opposition is ready to co-operate if the Government will show us some leadership or some indication of leadership in an area in which, according to consensus, there is cause for real concern.


YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT-GOVERNMENT POSITION
James Aloysius McGrath: Can the Minister of Employment and Immigration tell the House what the Government proposes to do about the prospects of long-term youth unemployment? I can refer the Minister to studies which were released last week. I can refer him to studies commissioned by the Government in which fear was expressed that young people without the prospects of jobs will turn to d^ugs and alcohol, and, subsequently, violence, unless something is done. One sociologist said, "Essentially, we are talking about a new lost generation. Collectively, we may see political riots and disturbances from a group which feels left out." The rate of unemploment amongst our young people is 21.5 per cent, with no prospects. They are the left out group.
May I ask the Minister what is the Government doing? Are there any studies by his Department or by his colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, to provide some answers to what we see as being very dangerous signals of a potential social problem of great proportions?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, unlike the Hon. Member, we are not just concerned about undertaking studies. We are concerned about undertaking action. As he is well aware, in the last budget we introduced a number of new initiatives to deal specifically with the problem of young people coming on to the job market.
Under the new Access Program we will work, again in close co-operation with the private sector, to develop a job experience training program so that young people may obtain firsttime jobs. I am now meeting with different business groups across the country, labour groups, to discuss how that program, which is scheduled for implementation in September, can be brought forward with the maximum amount of participation by the private sector so that we can bring tens of thousands of young people into that first time job experience. That is only one example of a number of initiatives we have

May 18, 1983
Oral Questions
undertaken to provide for both training and on the job experience for young people, to meet what we all agree will be a very serious issue.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Madam Speaker, I am very happy to see that the Soviet delegation is here in Ottawa. Maybe they will learn something. They are watching democracy in action.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Ring the bells.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member has been recognized to ask a question.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: That's just his preamble.


Otto John Jelinek: My question, Madam Speaker, is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. As the Minister knows, the task force report on the auto industry will be presented to him tomorrow morning. The recommendations in the report are basically the same ones which I have been making in the House for some two years now, namely, providing incentives for offshore importers to invest in Canada and, second, to establish, perhaps by way of legislation, Canadian content regulations for any auto maker importing over 3,000 units per year into our country.
In short, the report generally recommends that the Canada-U.S. Auto Pact be expanded-


Madam Speaker:: Order. How many times must I tell the Hon. Member that he has been recognized only to ask a question? If he does not proceed to ask his question right now, without the slightest preamble, without one word which is not a question, I will recognize another Hon. Member.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto John Jelinek: Some democracy!


Mr. Blais:: Give him a chance. He hasn't been in the House for three weeks.


Otto John Jelinek: I should say, "Democracy in action". But 1 will say that my question to the Minister is simply this: because the Government has systematically rejected our recommendations,
I am now wondering whether we can take it for granted that the Minister will reject the recommendations by the task force, or whether he will change his mind and take action which will be beneficial to keeping and creating jobs in Canada in this very important sector of our industry.


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, first with respect to the Hon. Member's preamble, if he wanted to see democracy in action, he and his colleagues should have been here yesterday when we were prepared for a full day's debate.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Come to Saskatoon, to my riding, and say that.


Edward C. Lumley: The leaders are alive over there, Madam Speaker.
Second, I have not yet seen the recommendations from the automotive task force. 1 look forward to seeing those recommendations in the task force report on which they worked many dedicated hours. I look forward to their report tomorrow.


EXPIRATION OF CANADA-JAPAN AGREEMENT
Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, since the Minister has-Madam Speaker, you are standing up before I have even said anything.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto John Jelinek: Yesterday was closure, like in the Soviet Union.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto John Jelinek: In view of the Minister's answer which, of course, comes as no surprise, and because the agreement with Japan on voluntary restraints of auto exports expires very shortly, in fact, at the end of June of this year, I want to ask the Minister what action he and his Government will take now-that means immediately-to support the auto industry in Canada and try to keep the jobs in that industry or possibly to create new jobs in that very important sector of our economy. What action will the Government take now?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, my colleague, the Minister of State for International Trade, who is responsible for the negotiations with the Japanese Government regarding quotas, will undoubtedly be very successful in his usual manner. However, I want to remind the Hon. Member and his colleagues that if it was not for my predecessor, the former Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and the action that he convinced the Government to take with respect to the Chrysler Corporation, Chrysler Canada, would not be as successful as it is today, protecting 11,000 jobs right across the country.
May 18, 1983


USE OF HEROIN MEDICINALLY
Marcel-Claude Roy: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Hon. Minister for National Health and Welfare and concerns the controlled medical use of heroin as a pain killer, in order to relieve the pain of thousands of chronically ill patients, particularly in cancer cases, and I see that the former Chairman of the Committee of Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, the Hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle), seems to agree. When I was responsible for chairing the Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, I received many representations-


Madam Speaker:: Order! These details are certainly most interesting, but they are not appropriate in a question.


Marcel-Claude Roy: Yes, Madam Speaker. I received representations and that is the purpose of my question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I would like to ask the Minister whether she intends to consider, within a reasonable length of time, the controlled medical use of heroin, and if so, what are the standards and the general criteria that exist now or would have to be established in order to approve the use of this drug in Canada in specific cases, as is recommended in thirty countries, including Great Britain.


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, Canadian doctors have not had a long experience in the use of heroin as a pain killer. The approach I announced, and which I can confirm, consists in clinical trials, in palliative care units for terminal patients across the country, lasting between twelve and eighteen months and to be carried out according to the same scientific protocol which we are now drafting. I have also asked a committee of experts to prepare a monograph setting out the advantages and drawbacks of all painkillers, which will be printed for the benefit of physicians. As for use on a more general scale, I am not in a position to discuss this at the present time.


ROLE OF COMMITTEE
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I want to join with many Canadians in congratulating the Minister of National Health and Welfare for taking the initiatives she has with respect to this experiment.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: If there is approval by the Chairman of the Committee on Health and Welfare I would join him in that approval. As a matter of fact I have a Private Members' Bill asking that that initiative be taken.
What was intended by the Minister of National Health and Welfare in her statement on this subject on May 16 when she
Oral Questions
said, "Committee members are currently reviewing data on the various aspects of the issue and have invited all interested parties to submit briefs"? I presume that is to the Committee. Is it the intention of the Government thereafter to allow the standing Committee of this House to look at this situation from the point of view of the briefs that have been submitted and the reports that will have been made at that time so that the House, and this Committee in particular, can be used as a forum for many other Canadians such as medical practitioners and others who may not be parties but are interested?


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member can correct me if I am wrong, but I recall that he requested a similar reference to the standing Committee a long time ago. I must say that I did not consider it at this point and I think that the question has a definite very emotional dimension which will not help clarify the debate and we must all form a consensus on that.
If it is acceptable to everyone, I prefer to set up a committee of experts which will receive expert briefs on the various painkillers and find out what is known mainly to Canadians through the scientific literature of other countries on heroin, in order to prepare a monograph for practical use by physicians.
In other words, we took the pragmatic approach. For the time being I think that approach, complemented by the clinical trial results, will help all of us. At a later stage we may reconsider that suggestion which the Hon. Member just made.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Madam Speaker, my questions are directed to the Minister of Transport. The Department of Justice in the United States has recommended that the highest bid of $120 million from Canadian Pacific to buy 770 miles of the Rock Island and Pacific Railway between Minneapolis and Kansas City be approved by the Interstate Commerce Commission.
As well, Canadian National is offering $250 million to buy up 3,100 miles of the bankrupt Milwaukee Road railway lines in the United States.
Could the Minister explain to the House how CN and CP can afford the capital to buy up U.S. railways at a time when they say that grain producers and taxpayers should pay to fix up tracks in Canada because the railways here cannot afford to do it?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, Canada is a neighbour of the United States and the United States is a neighbour of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

May 18, 1983
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: That is a real revelation.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I thought I would have to start at the beginning. There is a tremendous amount of trade between the two. That is the second point. Consequently, it is occasionally judged to be to the advantage of Canada to buy and operate railways in the United States, and CN's interest in the Milwaukee railway follows that premise. It has not been bought yet and, when it is, my hon. friend will hear about it.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: This is a great way to bail out the Reagan administration which has guaranteed the debts of those bankrupt railroads.


SHIPMENT OF CANADIAN GRAIN TO UNITED STATES PORTS
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, would the Minister tell us why he would allow the two railways to go into this kind of expansion in the United States when they say they cannot afford to upgrade in Canada? This expansion will allow Canadian railroads to ship grain and other commodities to U.S. ports and other destinations more cheaply than they can to Canadian ports over Canadian railway lines, and will jeopardize 35,000 jobs in this country. Will he allow the railroads to give priority to investment in the United States over investment in our country?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, if my hon. friend looks at the record of profits that CN has made from the Grand Trunk, for example, he will be quite impressed. Those have been added to the revenues of CN and have contributed to the generally good financial position of CN.
This situation has existed in the past, and Canada has been very active in the field of railway transportation. The United States has been slower in deregulating. Canada has used its know-how in order to operate a number of lines profitably in the United States. This has been beneficial for trade between Canada and the United States. I do not know why my hon. friend would resent Canadian Crown corporations doing well in the United States.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. At present Canada and the United States are trying to resolve diplomatically some very vexing problems such as the Garrison Dam, the Clean Air Act, East Coast fishing rights, and mineral rights within our 200-mile commercial zone, just to name a few.
Does the Prime Minister think it is helpful for him to take a cheap shot at the President of the United States by saying, when speaking of peace demonstrators:
They are demonstrating against what they see as the policy of an American President who has, rightly or wrongly, been perceived as warlike or so hostile against the Soviet Union that he can't be trusted. Unfortunately, President Reagan and some around him have given some justification for those fears.
Could the Prime Minister tell us what he hopes to accomplish by these remarks?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I really cannot agree with the Hon. Member's suggestion that this was a cheap shot. Surely the posture of the United States in the negotiating process is a very important one to Canadians. The reason we are supporting that general approach of NATO is that we are bound by a two-track agreement. One of those two tracks is that our side negotiate very seriously toward disarmament by the United States, in the same way that we expect the Soviet Union to negotiate very seriously.
If the Hon. Member does not accept my explanation for the fact that there has been an increase in protests by the peace movements in Canada in the past couple of years because they are concerned about some of the statements made by the United States administration, I think he will have to find some other explanation.
I do know that there are some 5,000 nuclear missiles which have been deployed in Germany for quite some time. This did not lead to the kind of peace demonstrations that we have been seeing in Germany, Canada, and the United States in the past couple of years. I think it is not unreasonable to suggest, as I suggested to the Americans when I visited them a couple of weeks ago, that their statements about the Soviets being an evil power, and so on, are not conducive to fair and unpassionate negotiations.
I must add that I made the same remark to Secretary Gorbachev when I met him today, that some of the statements by Pravda or some of the Soviet leaders about the Americans are very excessive and not conducive to peaceful negotiations between both sides.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Bruce McKinnon: A cheap shot is one that the recipient is unable, unwilling or unlikely to respond to.


PRIME MINISTER'S VIEWS OF U.S. PRESIDENT
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister's recent behaviour concerning nuclear disarmament has veered all over the place. His answers to questions in the House and elsewhere, as in his letter to editors, have been very supportive of the two-track policy and testing the Cruise.
May 18, 1983

Three weeks ago at the White House he said:
I've been encouraged by the steps that you've taken Mr. President, in the past months when you proposed an interim solution different from the zero option, and when you proposed a series of confidence-building measures.
How can he equate that remark with his interview remarks in The Toronto Star that people are justified in believing the President is so warlike and hostile that he cannot be trusted?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, as to the Hon. Member's definition of a cheap shot being one that the other party is not able to respond to, I repeat what I just said to the Hon. Member and to the House, that I made these remarks in the United States and that if they cared to answer them they could. As a matter of fact, they have answered them. As a matter of fact, in the last months and more we have not seen that type of statement from the United States. That is why, when I was talking in the United Stated in the past couple of weeks, I indicated that I thought their current approach, notably their departure from the zero option to some intermediate stage, was a step in the right direction. But that does not explain why, over the past two years, there has been an increase in the peace movements in the various countries which I mentioned.
I repeat, I gave an explanation which 1 think the Hon. Member would hear from most peace movement leaders if he cared to talk to them. That is much of their motivation. They do not think that the United States people are warlike, but they are concerned that the leaders down there have made some statements which are not conducive to fruitful negotiations. I repeat, I made the same remark in discussions today to the Soviet leader who is visiting Canada.


PRIME MINISTER'S VIEWS OF SOVIET LEADERS
Hon. Erik Nielsen (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, cutting through the words of those answers, the fact remains that the Prime Minister has elaborated for the benefit of The Toronto Star on his distrust of President Reagan's policies and his doubt about the President's competency to deal with the Soviets. Would he give us now his candid opinions about Mr. Andropov and the trustworthiness of the Soviets in international relations? When he is doing that, and assuming that he uses similar language, would he explain how this trustworthiness has been demonstrated in Afghanistan and Poland, in the events leading up to the invasion of one country and the enormous Soviet pressure placed upon the other?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I do not think the question of the Hon. Member is one which I can be expected to justify. I am not an advocate. I do not carry a brief either for the United States or for the Soviet Union. If either side makes mistakes, I think it is the right and perhaps even the duty of the Canadian Government to point out those mistakes as seen from our point of view.
Oral Questions
If the Hon. Member has to make a case against the Soviet Union, or if other Members have a case to make against the United States, they should make it on their own feet without asking me to defend or to attack it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: I was asking the Prime Minister to give us, as Prime Minister, the benefit of his candid opinions. Since he has been so free in expressing those opinions about President Reagan, we expected him to express them similarly about the Soviets.


RUSSIAN SPHERES OF INFLUENCE
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, in one more area, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he feels that the Soviets are more to be trusted in international negotiations than is the United States? With respect to his remarks about spheres of influence, which I believe was the phrase he used in The Toronto Star interview, that the Soviets wish to defend, and apparently the Prime Minister feels Americans ought to recognize, does he include recognition, as far as Canada's support of those policies are concerned, of those spheres of influence including Afghanistan, Poland, the Middle East and Central America, as among the spheres of influence that should be left to the Soviets?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, as regards the first part of the question, I would merely say that the interview which the Hon. Member may have read in The Toronto Star gives a series of statements that appear completely disjoined. I think the reader may have been misled by the fact that none of the questions is asked. The Star chose to reproduce my answers without even indicating that many of those answers were interspaced with convoluted and complicated questions. That may explain part of the impressions the Hon. Member has gained.
In so far as the second part of his question regarding spheres of influence is concerned, I think it is the duty of a country like Canada, which is not a great power and which has certain values it intends to see upheld in the world, to try to approach the actions of either great power in an even-handed way.
I was in the United States when President Reagan made his speech about Central America, which he described as his front yard. I guess that puts the Yukon in the back yard, but that is another matter. He described Central America as the front yard of the United States. I publicly supported that approach. I think the United States does have strategic interests, notably in that part of the hemisphere, that the Soviet Union should recognize and respect. But I say "even-handed" because I think the converse is true. If one can say that about the United States, which is a great power and has areas of strategic interest, I think one has to recognize the same thing about the Soviet Union, that it also has spheres of strategic interest.


Mr. Epp:: In Afghanistan?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In Central America?

May 18, 1983
Oral Questions


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: In Afghanistan?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Hon. Member asks about Afghanistan. I am as distressed about what happened in Afghanistan as I am distressed about some things that have happened in Central America.


An Hon. Member:: What about Poland?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We are not a great power. We have this luxury. If Hon. Members want to support the United States in defining Central America as a sphere of influence for them, or at least an area of strategic interest, they have to do the same thing about the Soviet Union which is also a great power.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF SOVIET PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour of drawing the attention of the House to the distinguished presence in our gallery of a delegation of Soviet parliamentarians, headed by Mr. Mikhail S. Gorbachev, a member of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the Communist Party and Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, it may well be that The Toronto Star article was put together in a disjoined fashion, and it may well be that the Prime Minister may be correct on the misrepresentation of his answers as a result, but does he not believe that the assertion or suggestion that President Reagan's more warlike stance justifies those dealing with his administration in coming to the conclusion that it is deserving of a lack of trust and not in keeping with the kind of even-handed approach he encourages us to believe the Canadian Government should be taking with respect to both these powers? If he uses the expressions, on the one hand, with respect to the Reagan administration, I am wondering whether he would be so rash as to use the same kind of statements with respect to the Soviets.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I can only say that if the Hon. Member and his Party are of the view that there have not been some excessive statements coming from the United States administration-


Erik Nielsen: Warlike.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Madam Speaker, including the demonstration explosion of a Soviet machine, perhaps over the North Sea-


An Hon. Member:: A Soviet machine?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: A Soviet nuclear engine. If they do not think that there have been some excessive statements by some people in authority in the United States that the United States could win a nuclear war, I would say their Party is, as usual, vastly out of sync, not only with every European leader I happen to know, but also with most of the Canadian people.


NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. Yesterday the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 from the bench that the National Parole Board's practice of arbitrarily gating certain prisoners released on mandatory supervision is totally illegal. In light of this expected decision, what action does the Minister intend to take in this House to provide a firm, carefully drafted legislative foundation for gating which, while recognizing the very great difficulty in predicting violence, would set out very clearly defined criteria, and provide for full judicial review on the merits?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member characterizes the decision as one which must have been very easy for the Supreme Court of Canada to reach. I simply remind him that there were conflicting decisions of courts of appeal and of the Federal Court of this country. It was on that basis that the Supreme Court of Canada agreed to hear the case.
As to taking legislative steps to establish gating as a valid power of the National Parole Board, the Hon. Member should look to see what is happening in the other place where, some time ago, I took Bill S-32 which now contains provisions which validate and provide a legislative framework for gating, including along with it procedural safeguards that, in the opinions I have, fully comply with requirements of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.


REQUEST FOR LEGISLATION
Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, it took the Supreme Court about ten minutes to arrive at that decision.
Instead of trying to amend the legislation before the Senate, which has been unanimously condemned by witnesses and may even be rejected by the Senate Committee, will the Minister bring forward a Bill in this House containing the essential elements of precise criteria and full judicial review on the
May 18, 1983

merits, and will the Minister at the same time assure the House that those few potentially violent prisoners denied mandatory supervision will receive extensive rehabilitation so that there will not be an even greater risk to the community after they are simply warehoused for a longer period of time?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I do not know how they can receive extensive rehabilitation if they have been freed. They are in the community under mandatory supervision. That is the point. So far as introducing additional legislation in the House is concerned legislation has been introduced in Parliament which I consider satisfactory. It has the support of this Government. I hope that the Senate will deal quickly with it and send it to this Chamber where, in the Committee, the Hon. Member can make his points about it. If he has some improvements to suggest that provide greater safeguards of the right of the individual, and also adequate protection for the public, I am sure that the members of the Committee will be pleased to hear them.


PETITION
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) on Monday, May 16, 1983, meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, I would like to designate Friday of this week as an Opposition day.


POINT OF ORDER
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding Bill C-155. I was informed last week that, as a Member of Parliament, I could only have ten copies of the Bill. A few minutes before Question Period, I was told I could not have any more. I already have over 50 requests. 1 would like you, Madam Speaker, to look into this matter and ensure that all Hon. Members can get an adequate supply of copies of Bills. Also, would your Honour send immediately to Sandra Hill in Swift Current, Saskatchewan a copy of the Bill, because I do not have any more?


Madam Speaker:: I will certainly look into the matter and see what I can do to accommodate the Hon. Member.
___________________________________________25541
Supplementary Estimates



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates (A) with regard to sums required for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1984 and, pursuant to the provisions of the British North America Act, 1867, recommending those estimates to the House of Commons, was presented by Hon. Herb Gray (President of Treasury Board) and read by Madam Speaker to the House.

Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order
63,1 move:
That the Supplementary Estimates (A), 1983-84, tabled this day, be referred to the several standing committees of the House as follows:
I would like to have the list appended to my motion; it is rather long. I have distributed it to my colleagues on the other side. I would ask that the list be printed in Hansard as if it had been read.


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestion of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard). Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: List referred to above is as follows:]
To the Standing Committee on Agriculture:
Agriculture, Votes la, 5a, 10a, 15a, LI6a and 20a To the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture:
Communications Votes 5a and 20a Secretary of State Vote 25a To the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence:
External Affairs Votes L36a and L37a National Defence Vote 5a
To the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs:
Industry, Trade and Commerce Vote 10a To the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry:
Environment Votes 10a, 15a and 25a Fisheries and Oceans Votes 5a and 10a To the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs:
Social Development Votes 2a and 3a
To the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development:
Indian Affairs and Northern Development Votes 5a, 10a, 15a and 25a To the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration: Employment and Immigration Votes 5a, 10a and 15a To the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates:
Science and Technology Vote 10a Treasury Board Vote 10a To the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works:
Public Works Votes 15a, 20a, 30a, 35a, 50a, 55a, 56a, 57a and 70a To the Standing Committee on Regional Development:
Regional Economic Expansion Votes 10a and 30a To the Standing Committee on Transport:
Transport Votes 5a, 15a, 31a, 32a, 35a, 36a, 50a, 55a, 65a and 80a

May 18, 1983
Order Paper Questions PETITION


MR. TAYLOR-REQUEST FOR PASSAGE OF BILL C-671
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, I am herewith presenting a petition signed by another 461 Canadian citizens asking for the consideration of Bill C-671 and the passing of same in order that Clifford Robert Olson may secure his just due and be executed. When we did have capital punishment in this country, there was provision made for exceptions by a court order not to execute a person. Now that we do not have capital punishment in Canada, there should also be provision made for the execution of persons who have deliberately planned and murdered a number of people, as in the case of Clifford Robert Olson.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT, 1971 (NO. 3) MEASURE TO AMEND
Lloyd Axworthy: for leave to introduce Bill C-156, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (No. 3).


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

Robert Phillip Kaplan: for leave to introduce Bill C-157, an Act to establish the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, to enact an Act respecting enforcement in relation to certain security and related offences and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof or in relation thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4,715, 4,740, 4,766, 4771 and 4,784.


Mrs. Cossitt: 1.	Did Mr. Kenneth Garner of Vancouver, British Columbia try to question the Prime Minister at the University of British Columbia on December 2, 1982
and was he prevented from doing so by plainclothesmen who evicted him from the building?	*
2.	(a) Did the RCMP visit Mr. Garner at his home on January 21, 1983 (b) did they advise him at that time that, if he tried to question the Prime Minister again, he would be arrested for creating a disturbance and, if so, what were all the reasons for the RCMP taking such action?
3.	Did the Solicitor General advise the RCMP officers to take such action and, if not, what were the names and job designations of all those persons who did advise them?
4.	Is it the policy of the Solicitor General to prevent Canadians from exercising their right to freedom of speech and, if so, what are all the reasons for this policy?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as
the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is concerned:
1.	On December 2, 1982, Mr. Kenneth Garner of Vancouver, British Columbia shouted an obscene rhetorical question at the Prime Minister. Mr. Garner was subsequently removed from the building by members of the Security Detail and University staff.
2.	(a) Yes, (b) no. Mr. Garner was advised that his actions on December 2, 1982 may have constituted an offence under the Criminal Code, specifically causing a disturbance by swearing in a public place. It was clearly explained to him that it was his democratic right to question the Prime Minister; however, he would not be permitted to break the law in doing so.
3.	No. At the direction of Sgt. B. Ross the NCO i/c Vancouver VIP Security Section, Corporals Hall and Beyeler visited Mr. Garner to determine whether he was a physical threat to the Prime Minister.
4.	No.


Mr. Stewart: 1.	Did the Department of National Defence produce a green covered booklet entitled "Minister's Statement, Defence Estimates, 1983/84, House of Commons Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence''?
2.	Did the Minister deliver the statement to the Committtee on (a) March 15, 1983, as dated on page 4 of the booklet (b) any other date and, if not, for what reason, if any, was the booklet produced?
3.	How many (a) English (b) French copies of the booklet were printed and to whom are the booklets to be distributed?
4.	What was the total cost of the booklet, including (a) production (b) printing (c) distribution?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) No. (b) The booklet was signed on March 15, 1983 to permit distribution on March 16 to members of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence for review prior to formal presentation by the Minister on March 17. The booklet was produced in response to public interest in
May 18, 1983

and desire for information on Canadian defence policy. It provides a concise but thorough review of Canada's current defence policy.
3.	(a) 16,000, (b) 8,000. The distribution covers Members of Parliament, Senators, the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, parliamentary correspondents, the Canadian news media, libraries, Canadian government departments and agencies, Foreign Service Attaches, Canadian Forces units and Attaches and interested members of the Public.
4.	Costs are as follows:
(a) and (b) Printing and Production	$17,747
(c) Distribution	1,280*


[Stage Direction]
* Part (c) above includes the mailing cost to date.
Mr. Greenaway: 1.	To March 31, 1983, by Province, how many audits of farmers were initiated by the Department of National Revenue in 1983?
2.	To March 31, 1983, by Province, how much money in back taxes has been assessed against farmers by the Department in 1983?
3.	To March 31, 1983, by Province, how many extra personnel have been hired by the Department to aid in the auditing of farms in 1983 and in 1982?


Pierre Bussières: 1
and 2. The data are not available for the period ending March 31, 1983. The table below shows the data for the 11 months ending February 28, 1983.
1. Number of	2. Estimated	3. EstimatedAudits	Additional Tax	person yearsNewfoundland	13	$ 25,127	.2Prince Edward Island	91	369,322	1.9Nova Scotia	257	842,690	4.1New Brunswick	465	465,111	3.3Quebec	838	4,110,251	26.3Ontario	2,326	6,544,855	49.0Manitoba	922	2,382,168	18.1Saskatchewan	2,271	5,047,932	37.3Alberta	1,648	5,791,523	45.1British Columbia	524	1,828,213	8.5All Canada	9,355	$ 27,407,192	193.8
3. No additional employees were hired for these audits specifically since the same employees do audits of small business and professional income. The table shows the estimated consumption of person years.


Mr. Herbert: Is it Government policy to invite Crown corporations and agencies to submit tenders on contracts in competition with the private sector and, if so (a) does the Government insist on or suggest guidelines for such Crown corporation tenders
Motions for Papers
that relate to the calculation and inclusion of overhead costs and profit margins (b) does the Government require that any profits or losses from the execution of contracts by Crown corporations be compiled for public scrutiny?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Government policy permits Crown corporations and agencies to submit bids on contracts in competition with the private sector whenever such Crown corporations have established themselves as competing with private industry in the normal course of business, (a) No. (b) No.


Mr. Howie: 1.	Was an order placed for an X-Ray machine to examine carry-on baggage of passengers for the Fredericton, New Brunswick airport and, if so, on what date was the order first placed?
2.	On what date is it planned to instal such a machine and what is the reason for any significant delay?


Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. Yes, the order was first placed on April 1, 1981.
2. The machine provided in response to the April 1, 1981 order was received at Fredericton in June, 1982, but could not be brought into service because of damage which occurred in transit. On February 17, 1983 another X-Ray machine was installed. This machine is awaiting inspection by the Radiation Protection Branch, Health and Welfare Canada, to ensure that it meets the requirements of Health and Welfare Canada Safety Code 21 before it is brought into service.


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?


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, several times now I have asked the Hon. Member when we might expect an answer to question No. 2,329. Every time I have mentioned this, the Hon. Member has said that he would be very happy to look into it. He is looking very sad today. Could he please look into the matter and table the answers so that he will look a little happier?


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I would be absolutely delighted to look into that matter of behalf of the Hon. Member for Bow River.


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

May 18, 1983
Allotted Days


Madam Speaker:: Shall the notices of motions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS

['Agreed.\nMotion (Mr. Lewis) agreed to.']
Madam Speaker:: Shall all items listed under Private Members' Notices of Motions preceding item No. 74 be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the observance of the proprieties of the House, the maintenance of its authority and the management of its business, require that once an allotted day has been designated by the Government House Leader, and the House has entered upon the notice period preceding the allotted day, the designated allotted day must be proceeded with.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have had discussions with the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith) and also with the House Leader for the New Democratic Party (Mr. Deans). In view of the fact that there were certain other items which occupied us over the last few hours, I believe that it would be in order for me to move:
That the House do now proceed to order No. 62 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Cumberland-Colchester.


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to support that motion. We want to make it clear that we were ready to debate this motion today, but we are always happy to accommodate the Opposition Leader and are prepared to go along with his request.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly not want to break up this love affair.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Chair asks the Hon. Member for Simcoe North to repeat his motion.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I do have it in writing. I move:
That the House do now proceed to Order No. 62 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Cumberland-Colchester.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The House has heard the motion put by the Hon. Member for Simcoe North, seconded by the Hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Jarvis). Is the motion
adopted? The Hon. Member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) on a point of order.


Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, it would help if we knew what we were voting on. I understood it to be Notice of Motion No. 62, which I read as being a motion in the name of the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mr. Cousineau).


David P. Smith: I believe it was No. 262.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I am sorry, No. 262.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: That would be Public Bill No. 62 relating to Bill C-262, The House has heard the motion put by the Hon. Member for Simcoe North. Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Lewis) agreed to.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester) moved: that Bill C-262, an Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (publication of the result of opinion polls), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I have examined this Bill very carefully. It is a very important issue, and I know that the Hon. Member who has had experience in the administration of his Party has had occasion to be concerned by the effects that the publication of public opinion polls can have on elections. I am very well aware of his interest in that regard.
I am not so sure that the way to proceed with this nature is by way of legislation at this time. The form by which the Hon. Member wants to proceed concerns me a bit, so I wanted to put my concerns on the record. I believe that it has an impact on our notion of freedom of information and the right to know in today's society. I am not so sure that I would want to support that kind of a motion. I will listen to the debate very carefully.


Mr. Carlo Rossi (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me
May 18, 1983

to join in the debate on Bill C-262. The purpose of this legislation is identical to that of two other bills that were considered previously, namely, Bill C-208, introduced by the Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) and considered on June 20, 1980, and Bill-555, introduced by the Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) and considered on May 4 of this year. In addition, Mr. Speaker, the Bill now before the House was considered before on November 26, 1981. Even allowing for the fact that some Hon. Members in the Opposition may have a poor memory, I still fail to understand why we should have to discuss the subject again. In any case, for the information of the Hon. Member for Cumberland-Colchester (Mr. Coates) I would like to repeat some comments made on other occasions with respect to similar measures. The amendment he is proposing to the Canada Elections Act is aimed at prohibiting the publication in any manner of the results or alleged results of a poll of the public opinions of the electors. I feel that is entirely unacceptable. It is an insult to the intelligence of Canadian voters and it infringes their right to be informed of the things that concern them.
Mr. Speaker, I find it very distasteful that a member of the Progressive Conservative Party, a Party that has always been a tireless champion of freedom of information, is now proposing to gag the press and deny information to the public. Curiously, this proposal is being made at a time when the Hon. Member's Party is not in power but has a popularity rating of 52 per cent, according to the Gallup Poll. Apparently, it is now in the interests of the country. It is true that the Members of this Party are not known to be particularly consistent.
The Member for Cumberland-Colchester, one of the pillars of his Party, is trying to help his leadership candidate, Mr. Clark, as much as he can, and he is sponsoring Bill C-262, which prohibits the publication of results of public opinion polls throughout the election period. This is perhaps a little drastic, but the real problem is that this Bill does not treat Canadians with much respect. It infers that we are so many sheep that will immediately go off in the direction to which the public opinion polls seem to be pointing.
These fears about the ignorance and the credulousness of Canadian voters during a period of four weeks do not seem to have much of a basis in fact. I am reminded of the famous words of Franklin D. Roosevelt: The only thing we have to fear is fear itself, and he knew what he was talking about. In 1936, a now famous opinion poll was taken during the campaign for the presidency, which showed that Alf Landon would beat Franklin D. Roosevelt by a tremendous margin. Well, Mr. Speaker, what really happened is that Roosevelt beat Landon, by a landslide, but the Literary Digest had only consulted its subscribers. In the midst of the Depression, the only people who could afford to subscribe to the Literary Digest were Republicans. Not long afterwards, the Literary Digest went
Canada Elections Act
bankrupt. In any case, we must look at this problem realistically. Even if the House could agree in principle on the purpose of this Bill, it would have to acknowledge that it would be impossible to prevent the broadcasting or publication of public opinion polls. Adopting this legislation would be like tilting at windmills.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote what was said in April 1976 before the Committee on Privileges and Elections by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-West (Mr. Francis). The Hon. Member had this to say on the subject of opinion polls: If we tried to do so on a national scale, I am sure that it would be a Detroit newspaper that would carry out the poll in Canada and publish it in Detroit.
In the United Kingdom, they tried to enforce this kind of legislation, but there, people could get the results of the polls by listening to Radio Luxembourg. I do not think it is enforceable.
Mr. Speaker, personally, I am not very keen on opinion polls. I realize that we cannot adopt this legislation, but nevertheless, I think we should try to find the right way to achieve the same objective, and I do not think this is the right way.
The point raised in the proceedings of the Committee is a valid one. What would happen if a Detroit radio station decided to broadcast the results of a poll made in Canada? Considering the use of cable and other technology such as dish antennas with which we can receive satellite signals, a television station in Atlanta could broadcast poll results. Are we going to try to prevent it from doing so? That could lead to some very nasty incidents.
Mr. Speaker, I have this picture in my mind of people in Eastern Europe, listening to the radio in almost total darkness. They listen to the Voice of America, in fear of a police raid any minute. I remember many movies about the Second World War in which the Gestapo caught some member of the underground communicating by radio. Shall we do the same? This does not seem very realistic. If we are to gag the press and deny it the right to publish information, where do we draw the line, or rather, where do we begin?
I can understand why the Hon. Member introduced this Bill, but he is on very dangerous ground. In my opinion, such action is the first step towards the infringement of fundamental and valuable rights.
Mr. Speaker, the press in Canada has always been free to make criticisms and comments. We have survived in spite of this throughout the years. What would happen if someone conducted an opinion poll and wanted to do in Canada the same as in Hyde Park? Will the scope of this Bill be extended to prevent anyone from taking an opinion poll and climbing on an improvised platform to announce the results? Where do we stop if we prevent publication of poll results in the last week before an election? This is clearly encroaching on the freedom

May 18, 1983
Canada Elections Act
of speech. These provisions would prevent individuals, journalists, magazines, radio and television to express their views during a crucial seven-days period. For reporters, this would clearly impinge on the public's right to be informed.
If part of the population changed its mind at the last minute, this ban would make it impossible for other people to be informed. It should be noted that this extensive ban would cover all poll results, including those which show a real trend, and not only those which could mislead the population.
Let us look at the results of the last election. Does anyone seriously believe that they were really influenced by the polls? Poll results were indeed widely publicized. Western voters were certainly not much swayed by the poll results showing that the Liberal Party would do extremely well in Eastern Canada. Voters in the Prairies did not rush out to support the Liberal Party. In fact, the effect of those polls was quite the opposite.
The results of all polls were identical, although the figures did vary. Polls conducted by the CTV network, the CBC and Carleton University all pointed to a majority Liberal Government, and that was the outcome indeed.
In a previous debate, the Hon. Member for Athabasca reminded us that a voter can be influenced by the opinions of his fellow citizens. For instance, anyone who is a strong advocate of a majority Government would probably like to know which of the two major parties stands a better chance of coming out on top.
Some voters might lean toward one Party or the other, and yet prefer a minority Government. If they think that the New Democratic Party might possibly end up with the balance of power, they would support that Party only because they would expect it to hold the balance of power. I see nothing wrong with that. Those are useful data which voters are entitled to have, Mr. Speaker. One thing for sure is that the electorate is increasingly conversant with politics, elections and major issues. To my mind, we should not prevent voters from gaining access to information which so far has been available to them, lest they be influenced and likely to change their minds.
Mr. Speaker, that is not the kind of behaviour we should expect to see in a democratic country such as ours. I for one think that we ought to continue to take opinion polls. Any voter in favour of a majority Government and anxious to know which Party will likely hold a majority can conduct his own poll. However, the results of that poll would reflect the trend in his own riding alone, which might be the exact opposite of trends in the rest of the country.
Mr. Speaker, in a land as vast as ours, extending as it does over 5,000 kilometres, people understandably want to know that views are prevailing in other areas. This Party does not want the publication of such information to be prohibited, even though it may influence voters. It is not my view that people generally are a flock of sheep that will simply follow the leader. The results of the last elections, especially west of Winnipeg, do show that if there was a wave in the west, it was not in favour of the Liberal Party but the other way around,
even though people were very well aware of the opinion poll results.
They should also make distinctions between the works of political commentators, syndicate columnists, magazine writers or expert pollsters. Assuming they have identical talent and perception, who would suggest that a political commentator, writing in a number of newspapers, is not in a position to say after speaking to a lot of people that the Liberals or the Progressive Conservatives will win at this or that election? Mr. Speaker, people have consideration for newspapermen. If the Lynches, the Fishers, the Fotheringhams, the Vennats, the Vastels or the Deromes say they took the time to go and check in the field, their word may be taken at face value. On the other hand, admittedly commentators are not always right. But if that is the kind of information people are after, they certainly will believe Mr. Lynch or Mr. Fisher. Generally, the Progressive Conservatives trust Mr. Fisher. Should we prevent newspapermen from writing such news items for weeks on end during election campaigns? Such is not the thrust of the Bill, Mr. Speaker, but anyway! Newspapermen and pollsters create an impression, either personal or scientific. If voters are so easily impressed by observer analyses, instead of looking up the results of GALLUP or CROP polls, they will simply read the columns in the papers. We all know just how authoritative their analyses are. Sometimes, their opinions may differ, just as those of the pollsters do. Opinions do vary, Mr. Speaker, and that is another problem which might occur if such an approach were adopted.
I should like to conclude my remarks by saying that in Quebec, we feel the need to carry out opinion polls during election campaigns, and we think that the current ban on the publication of opinion polls results on the very last day is adequate. We believe enough in freedom of speech, and we rely enough on the judgment of Quebecers to make information available to them up to the very last minute.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, in the time available to me I would like to make a few comments concerning the Bill before us and some of the reasons our Party is not overly enthusiastic about providing support for it. It is our feeling that there are some very high priority items which should be considered by way of amendments to the Canada Elections Act rather than the matter before us today, although it is certainly worthy of consideration and some interesting points have been outlined.
The first point I would like to make, Mr. Speaker, is that this House devoted a considerable amount of time to the Constitution of Canada. In that Constitution we looked at the democratic rights in the electoral process in a very determined way. Just to refresh the memory of Hon. Members since we are considering the Canada Elections Act, I would like to read a very short quote from the Constitution, which says that the Canadian Charter of Rights guarantees:
Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.
May 18, 1983

There is a qualification to that which says:
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, in considering amendments to the Canada Elections Act, that the Canada Elections Act does not allow every citizen the right to vote and, therefore, contravenes the Constitution. I would like to give an example or two in order to illustrate my concerns in this area. The Canada Elections Act does not permit Canadians who happen to be out of their home poll to vote. An absentee voter, a person who has left his poll on legitimate reasons and must be away from the area in which he would normally vote, cannot vote in Canada except under very tight and constrained conditions.
I would point out that the Canada Elections Act does not make provision for people to vote who are in acute care hospitals. As a matter of fact, it is very disconcerting that during the last federal election, all over this country people were trying to get ambulances to take them home in order to vote; some of these people were in very dire circumstances. One of the most disturbing aspects of that polling procedure was that people in the extended care parts of the hospital could vote because that was their residence, their home, yet people in the acute care side had their vote taken away. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that right was removed in defiance of the Constitution.
The second problem is the occupational groups-fishermen, loggers, miners, prospectors, construction workers and any individual who has to travel on a short-term basis. These people are all discriminated against in terms of the current Canada Elections Act. Their right to vote has been removed. The Government of Canada in its wisdom made a provision in order to attempt to redress this problem and provided what is termed in Section 46 of the Canada Elections Act as the proxy system. But that system is not the right to vote. Through very restrictive and discriminatory provisions, it gives someone else the right to vote for you. It is not in any way controlled by the individual; it simply gives someone the right to vote for you. I say that is denying you the right to vote.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but I have been listening intently to his comments from the beginning and it seems to me he has departed somewhat from the object of the Bill now before the House, which relates to the publication of opinion polls. Perhaps the Hon. Member would attempt to explain to the Chair in what way his remarks are related to the motion now before the House.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, on certain occasions there is a need to lay the groundwork for remarks concerning the matter before us. I think that within that general context my remarks would be better understood, so with the indulgence of the Chair I will continue. If the Chair loses the train, then maybe you can call it to my attention again.
Canada Elections Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Well, it is not a matter of the Chair losing the train. The Chair has not got on the train yet because I have not heard any references specifically to the object of the Bill. So I invite the Hon. Member to come to that point rather quickly.


Mr. Crouse:: It is not getting on the train; it is getting on the track.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important that we outline some reasons why we cannot support this Bill, one of which is the matter of omissions. I have raised this on numerous occasions with the Minister responsible. The point I would like to stress concerning any amendment to the Canada Elections Act, particularly the one before us, is that there is a very serious need to redress the problems with the Act which deprive people of the right to vote. If we talk about the problems with the Elections Act, such as the taking and publishing of polls which influence a person's vote, we should be considering those who have been excluded from the opportunity to vote.
Under this proxy system, Mr. Speaker, certain individuals have been given the right to appoint someone to vote for them. The point is that a proxy vote is not the right to vote, it is a denied vote. I think the case has to be made that before the next federal election this House of Commons must invite the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada to include in his report a procedure which allows for absentee voting in Canada in order to guarantee that an individual away from his home riding on election day, whether because of his occupation or otherwise, in fact has the right to vote.
It is interesting to note that the Chief Electoral Officer has not received any expressions of concern on this problem. The people I have talked to in this House who support that kind of amendment and who will be speaking directly to the Chief Electoral Officer about it are the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), the Hon. Member for Dauphin-Swan River (Mr. Lewycky), the Hon. Member for New Westmin-ster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett), the Hon. Member for Broad-view-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald), the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap), the Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Miller), the Hon. Member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker), the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly), the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Sargeant), the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell), the Hon. Member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle), the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong), the Hon. Member for The Batt-lefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish), the Hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen) and myself. That is just a

May 18, 1983
Canada Elections Act
short list of those who will be writing directly to the Chief Electoral Officer and the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) asking that this very severe anomaly by which tens of thousands of Canadians are deprived of their right to vote is remedied very quickly, so that before the next federal election those Canadians who have been disenfranchised will be allowed to vote and select the Government.
It would be my hope other Members in this House, Members of the Conservative Party, would come forward and advocate that this anomaly be corrected, and that Members of the Liberal Party would come forward and insist that the Chief Electoral Officer remove this problem. If that is not done in a fair, open and direct way, then it would appear the matter would have to be taken before the courts. The existing situation runs absolutely contrary to the democratic rights of Canadians. If the Government and Parliament of Canada cannot redress this very serious grievance, then I guess the last resort is the courts.
Many other nations, Mr. Speaker, provide that their citizens can vote no matter where they find themselves. If they can make their way to an embassy, they can vote. If they can make their way to a polling station within their country, they can vote. A strong commitment to democracy implies that we enforce to the extent possible the right of every citizen to vote.
Perhaps I should refrain from further remarks on this matter. The point has been made and I know the tolerance of the Chair has been magnificent, as well as that of my colleagues. But I would hope that at some point, maybe this afternoon, the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith) might find an opportunity to make a few remarks in response to the omissions in this Bill and in the Act, and indicate whether we might see the Government go forward to the Chief Electoral Officer and express some concern over the fact we have not addressed the problem of absentee voting properly, and that in fact tens of thousands of Canadians who could easily vote are not given the opportunity to do so. We need that amendment and possibly the Parliamentary Secretary might find an opportunity this afternoon to comment.


Mr. Jack Burghardt (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I think before resuming debate on this particular motion by the Hon. Member for Cumberland-Colchester (Mr. Coates), and in light of the remarks we have just heard from the Hon. Member of the NDP, perhaps I should, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, read into the record just what Bill C-262 states so that there is no confusion on the part not only of Members in the House but those who will read Hansard and are perhaps watching this afternoon.
The Bill before us is an Act to amend the Canada Elections Act, Bill C-262, and it concerns public opinion polls during an election campaign. It says:
No person, company or corporation shall, after the issue of the writ for an election, and until the polls are closed, publish the result or purported result of a poll of the political opinions of electors in any electoral district in which an election is being held, whether such publication is by radio or television
broadcast, or by newspaper, news-sheet, poster, bill-board, handbill, or in any other manner.
The amendment goes on to state:
Any person, company or corporation that contravenes the provisions of this section and, in the case of a company or a corporation, any person responsible for the contravention thereof, is guilty of an illegal practice and of an offence against this Act.
Bill C-262 is an Act which, if adopted, would amend the Canada Elections Act in order to ban the publication of opinion poll results during a period which would start after the issuing of a writ for an election and last until the polls were closed. If adopted, the Bill would ban the publication of opinion poll results during the entire electoral campaign.
Your Honour knows that this is not the first time this particular subject has been debated before the House. Many other Bills along the same line have been brought before the House. As a matter of fact, a Bill to the same purpose, introduced by the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens), was debated only two weeks ago. Prior to that time, other Hon. Members in the House, especially on the opposite side, had felt the same way as the Hon. Member for Cumberland-Colchester and had presented Bills in order to ban the publication of polls during election campaigns. During the present session alone, Private Members' time has already been used three times for this kind of Bill.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: That shows how important it is.


John O. (Jack) Burghardt: The first time was on June 20, 1980, when the House debated Bill C-208, a Bill introduced by the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields). The second time was on November 26, 1981, when the House debated the Bill now before us for a second time, Bill C-262. The third time, as I mentioned earlier, was only two weeks ago when the House gave consideration to Bill C-555, sponsored by the Hon. Member for York-Peel.
Therefore, the House is asked by the Hon. Member for Cumberland-Colchester to debate such a Bill for the fourth time during the present session. Moreover, it is the seventh time since his election that the Hon. Member for Cumberland-Colchester has asked the House to debate this very topic. One may seriously wonder if all that could be said about this topic has not been exhausted. I suppose it shows that Hon. Members on the opposite side of the House are either unable to see the stupidity of such a proposal or they are simply obsessed by this particular question.


Mr. Lewycky:: They wanted to hear your opinion, Jack.


John O. (Jack) Burghardt: Maybe that is it: a kind of fixation resulting from too many electoral defeats. Perhaps that is the reason. They were rejected at the polls by the electors so they are concerned about what the public opinion polls have to say during election time. They want to muzzle the news media and deny information to the people. Why do they want to do that now? We on this side do not seem to be very high in the
May 18, 1983

opinion polls these days, but nevertheless we do not try to stop the publication of opinion poll results.


Donald W. Munro: Call an election.


John O. (Jack) Burghardt: Why do they still persist? I think that this Bill and the two other Bills sponsored by Tory Members really show that the Progressive Conservative Party is not ready to treat the Canadian people with much respect. It shows that the Tories think that Canadian electors are like lemmings, like sheep or like buffalo on the Prairies, all running in one direction. That direction is whatever way the polls seem to be following. Maybe the Hon. Member believes that this is the reason his Party has 52 per cent of the latest Gallup poll.
Those who support the Bill pretend that the use of polls during an election campaign becomes an impediment in the exercise of free choice of the citizens to vote and exercise his or her franchise. How can this occur? How can it come about that a citizen is impeded in the exercise of his or her free choice in an election campaign?
Some Hon. Members will answer that the use of polls in the election campaign in the current environment becomes an undue influence, unduly influencing voters. It is quite possible that individuals in Canada would take a poll result as being a definite indication of the parties' standings on the day the poll was carried. However, let me refer to the words of the Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker, words which he said on many occasions and which I am sure the Conservative Members will very clearly remember. He said that the only poll that counts is the poll taken on election day.


Donald W. Munro: It tells us something about the polls.


John O. (Jack) Burghardt: If those words are true, why do we then not take the appropriate step to ensure that the only poll which really counts is carried out in such a way that it does not become a source of undue influence on voters? The matter to which I refer is Bill C-113, a Bill which was introduced by the Government in order to have simultaneous voting all across the country. The Bill has been opposed by Members of the New Democratic Party. If its Members are so preoccupied by the alleged undue influence caused by opinion polls on voters, then why do they not support Bill C-113 and readily pass it through the House?


Raymond John Skelly: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


John O. (Jack) Burghardt: Steps should be taken to ban the publication-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. The Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River rises on a point of order.


Raymond John Skelly: We opposed the Bill in order to place on the record that we were discussing the Bill and to indicate that it was the omissions which caused us concern.


John O. (Jack) Burghardt: Mr. Speaker, nevertheless they still opposed Bill C-113, and that is the bottom line. Regardless of any omission of amendments to the Bill, the New Democratic
Canada Elections Act
Party still opposed the Bill which would give us simultaneous election results right across the country. Therefore, if Hon. Members are really concerned about the undue influence of public opinion polls on voters, that is the Bill they should be considering so that all Canadians would receive election results at the same time.
I hope this legislation will not be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections today. The Standing Committee, to my mind at least, does not have to discuss a matter which most of us in the House should oppose in principle. I believe that the Canadian people have the right to know and are mature enough to make decisions based on leadership and programs rather than on percentages. Nevertheless, it does not seem to be the case for the Tories who have no leadership and no program to offer Canadians. Rather than attempting to infringe on the freedom of the news media, I think the Hon. Member for Cumberland-Colchester and his colleagues should put forward some ideas to deal with the real problems of the country. Unfortunately, Hon. Members opposite seem to prefer moving dilatory motions, such as yesterday's motion which destroyed the business of the House for one entire day, or ill-conceived Bills such as this one, rather than getting down to the real issues.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Where were you a week last Monday?


John O. (Jack) Burghardt: A week last Monday I was here. I was on duty and I was here at 11 o'clock-


Gordon Edward Taylor: Your men weren't. They wasted the day, not us.


John O. (Jack) Burghardt: -to answer the Hon. Member of the Conservative Party.
However, returning to Bill C-262, as I said earlier, Canadians will certainly make up their own minds as to which political Party or member in the federal, provincial or municipal realm they will support at election time, regardless of what public opinion polls say. If we are to start banning public opinion polls during election time, then we will have to start banning editorials of newspapers and the writings of well known Canadian columnists in newspapers and preventing broadcasters in radio and television from expressing opinions during an election campaign. Many times editorials have been written with regard to a particular candidate or party. That does not mean to say that the Canadian people will follow that line of thinking. The same holds true for public opinion polls, whether they are published during an election campaign or at any other time of the year. It does not necessarily mean that Canadians will follow those percentage figures.
As I said earlier, Canadians will make up their own minds. They are mature and honest enough to make a selection during any political election campaign. To muzzle the news media as suggested by this Bill and similar Bills which have been brought forward by the Tory Party would certainly be a denial of the freedom of the press. I understood that Opposition Members would adhere to that but they do not.

May 18, 1983
Canada Elections Act
In closing, I suggest that this Bill not be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. As a former member of the news media, it is a Bill that I certainly could not support.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Is the Hon. Member for Cumberland-Colchester (Mr. Coates) rising to contribute to the debate?


Robert Carman Coates: Yes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I must inform the Hon. Member that he has already spoken at this stage of the Bill.


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think that we on this side of the House, not being afraid of information, would be prepared to give consent to allow the mover of the Bill to speak again briefly.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Of course, that could only be done with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to make a few comments. It has been some time since the Bill has been debated and I thought it would be appropriate in concluding the debate today to point out a number of facts.
Several Members from the Liberal Party have apparently presumed that all their Members are opposed to the banning of opinion polls at election time. I suggest they make a closer examination of their own leader's views on this particular matter since he has indicated on a number of occasions recently a real concern about the influence that opinion polls have during an election campaign. He has indicated a belief that it might be in the public interest to pursue this matter further in Parliament in order to determine whether it might be appropriate to take this action.
I was disappointed by the fact that the New Democratic Party Member from B.C. did not speak at least to some degree about how much freedom has been lost in that Province where opinion polls are banned. A pleasing fact about the British Columbia election campaign was that most people did not know what the results would be, including Members of this House. The voters in British Columbia were not being fed a lot of numbers by the press daily with respect to people's opinions. I did not hear any complaints from people in British Columbia that their freedom was infringed upon in any way as a result of no opinion polls being published during the election campaign.
Indeed, one of the best illustrations I can give showing the unfairness associated with the numbers game, which is all that public opinion polls are as far as I am concerned, come from the Ottawa Citizen of last Saturday and Tuesday of this week. In Saturday's Ottawa Citizen there was a section devoted to the seven major candidates in the Progressive Conservative leaderhsip campaign in which they stated their opinions on various issues of concern to Canadians. This was to allow readers to make a judgment on where those candidates stood
and how much emphasis should be given to their particular aspirations to become leader of the Progressive Conservative Party.
On Tuesday, The Citizen released a Southam Global public opinion poll produced by Carleton University. If there has ever been a discredited organization associated with determining public opinion, I would think it would be this Carleton University group, who failed so miserably in predicting the results of our annual general meeting in Winnipeg. What I find interesting about public opinion poll experts is that when the results do not correspond with their polls, they can find as many excuses as the number of points by which they missed.
Another example of inaccurate polls occurred in the United States during the presidential election campaign. All of these brilliant public opinion experts told the world, and particularly the voters in the United States, how closely Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan were running during the final days of the election campaign. Suddenly, what was supposed to be a one or one and a half point spread between Carter and Reagan resulted in almost a totally clean sweep of the United States by Ronald Reagan.
I am concerned that public opinion polls do not portray the facts. Currently, these so-called experts who determine public opinion are discovering that the people upon whom they base their results lie and have fun with those experts. They may be white lies, but they are putting them on. The result is that the public is led to believe anything but the reality of the situation. For that reason I believe these polls are an unfair intrusion into the election process. That includes polls concerning our Party, the Liberal Party, the New Democratic Party or even an internal party matter.
Polling experts today feed off of political parties. I am not opposed to polls being conducted by a soap manufacturer, car manufacturer or others in order to determine public opinion about a certain product. I am not even opposed to political parties conducting their own polls during election campaigns if they wish to spend their money to do that privately. However, I strenuously object to so-called public opinion experts interfering in the electoral process and preventing people from examining the issues of the day as put forward by political parties while the newspapers, television and radio programs feed the public numbers that really mean nothing.
The Hon. Member who just spoke suggested that I have attempted to eliminate the publication of opinion polls during election campaigns on seven occasions. He is correct, I have attempted to do that. The only time that this issue was sent before a parliamentary committee, which was some years ago now, there was a majority decision by that parliamentary committee that such action be taken and that the Canada Elections Act be amended to include the banning of the publication of public opinion polls during election campaigns.
I am aware that polls are used to play politics in the House and that right now the public opinion polls favour the Progressive Conservative Party. But that does not make any difference
May 18, 1983

to me. As the last speaker said, I believe that the only poll that is important is the poll on election day. I always liked what the late Right Hon. Member for Prince Albert used to say about public opinion polls. He said, "Poles are for dogs." That is my feeling as well. 1 do not believe that the banning of public opinion polls during an election campaign will interfere in any way with freedom of information being made available to the general public.
As a matter of fact, what concerns me so much about public opinion polls being conducted presently without any controls or regulations over their production or reliability is that the general public is being fed misinformation. Carleton University polls have proven over and over again that they are experts at misinformation rather than at information about what the general public is thinking, what the delegates to the upcoming Progressive Conservative leaderhsip convention are thinking or what is the reality. It would be healthy for the press of the country-and I mean the entire media-to have to go out and obtain the facts, not live off polls which really do not contain much hard information about the realities of the moment.


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the debate this afternoon. We have debated this issue in the House of Commons before. I think the Hon. Member for Cumberland-Colchester (Mr. Coates) has a basic flaw in his argument, in that he seems to approach the subject with the premise that if Canadians are aware of what other Canadians are thinking, somehow they will be influenced by it. Then he cited a number of examples in which polls have been way off.
I agree with one point he made, the one concerning the Carleton University poll on the Winnipeg convention. It was out by about 8 per cent because of the fact that some Tories were lying to them. There is no doubt about that.
He suggested the reason people in British Columbia did not know who would win the election was that no public opinion polls were published. I suggest the reason they did not know was because it was close. Certainly the Parties were polling. They may not have been releasing the poll results, but certainly Hon. Members of the House are fairly well connected with groups in British Columbia that were in fact polling. For example, I am sure NDP Members knew what the polls were showing. If they were unable to predict the election, 1 suspect that it concerned the fact that the election was a close one.
The basic problem with this Bill is that it interferes with free speech. Once we start doing that, how do we enforce it or where do we draw the line? What happens if the Detroit Free Press or a Detroit television station, because of its great interest in Canada and the following it has here, decides to conduct a poll? Obviously we could not enforce anything against that newspaper or station. Should we put ourselves in the position of some East European communist countries, where people huddle by their radios listening to the news on the "Voice of America" to find out what is going on in the rest
Canada Elections Act
of the world? Will we try to put a blanket of secrecy over polling throughout the country so that people in Windsor cannot listen to Detroit radio stations or buy the Free Press to find out the results of a poll?
There is a large body of evidence to suggest that the fact the public may be aware of opinion polls does not make opinion polls fulfil their own prophecies. I suppose the most famous one was in 1936, the famous Literary Digest poll which predicted that Landon would defeat Roosevelt. Of course, we all know that that poll was so far out that the Literary Digest did not last much longer.
What about the Truman-Dewey election in 1948? All the polls showed that Dewey would win, but did they influence the American people into electing DeweY? No, they did not. They elected Harry S. Truman, as we all know.
It seems to me that there is some sort of fear that Canadians will act like lemmings or sheep. I have greater confidence in the maturity, the wisdom and judgment of Canadians that in fact they will not act like sheep. Let us look at western Canadians, for example. Prior to the 1980 election, the opinion polls showed throughout the campaign that the Liberals would probably win. They did win the campaign. Does that mean that people in Alberta and in other parts of western Canada, such as Edmonton from where my good friend comes, all suddenly jumped on the Liberal bandwagon? Of course not. Why did they not jump on the bandwagon? The reason is that they were not influenced by the polls.
Another matter which must be pointed out is that a law has to be practical. This Bill provides that no person shall publish the results of a poll by any manner. In Toronto we have Allen Garden where people stand up on soapboxes. It is a smaller version of Hyde Park in London. What if someone walked down the streets of Toronto, asked people how they would vote, got up on a soapbox in Allen Gardens and said that he had just conducted a poll?
In British Columbia they have hamburger polls. I think they are at the PNE or something. The Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) may be familiar with them. One buys a hamburger at some place in Vancouver and indicates whether it will be a Bennett burger or a Barrett burger. If this Bill were in place, it would mean that they could not sell Bennett burgers or Barrett burgers. The point I am trying to make is that it is impractical. Once we start interfering with freedom of speech, where do we draw the line?
We on this side of the House are not afraid of the principle of freedom of information. We are not afraid.


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 be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

May 18, 1983
House of Commons Act



HOUSE OF COMMONS ACT


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, November 6, 1981, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lambert that Bill C-273, an Act to amend the House of Commons Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
Mr. D. M. Collenette (York East):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to speak for a few minutes on Bill C-273. I am grateful to the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) for bringing the matter to the attention of the House. I understand that this is the second time around on second reading debate of this Bill in this session. I should advise the Hon. Member for Edmonton West that, as a member of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, I have been active with my other colleagues on that Committee in debating this very question. We have certainly benefited from the speeches of the Hon. Member earlier in second reading and from those of other Hon. Members who contributed to the debate.
In saying that I welcome the matter coming before the House, I believe the solution proposed by the Hon. Member for Edmonton West is not the desired one. I hope he will listen in this debate to suggestions whereby we can improve upon his original concept.
Essentially the Hon. Member argues in Bill C-273 that:
The Governor in Council shall appoint five Members of the House of Commons, who, with the Speaker of the House of Commons, shall be commissioners for the purposes of this Section and Section 17 and 18.
The simple purpose of this Bill is, of course, to increase the number of Internal Economy Commissioners from the present five to six. The explanatory notes in part read:
It allows for the commissioners to be chosen from the House at large rather than solely from the ranks of Privy Councillors.
There is one particular point on which I think the Hon. Member is correct. The administration of the affairs of the House or the final responsibility for the running of the House should not be dominated by the executive branch of Government. It should be remembered that our present practice originates from the earlier British practice. I believe it was an Act some time in 1812 or thereabouts which called for the same kind of administrative body in the United Kingdom House of Commons, whereby members of the executive would be responsible for the day to day administration of the affairs of the House. I draw the Hon. Member's attention to the fact that in 1978 the British House of Commons passed what I think was called the House of Commons Commission Act which updated that procedure.
Rather than being content with solely adding one additional member to the present Internal Economy Commissioners, we should perhaps take a look at the British practice and see how it has worked. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), who is deep in discussion at the moment, has some personal knowledge of this, having travelled to London.
The Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) was there with us in January. Perhaps they would like to contribute to the debate to let those Members of the House who were not in Great Britain know how the present situation is in Westminster and how the administration of the House there has been improved by the House of Commons Commission Act.
The setup there, as I understand it, is that the Speaker presides over the commission. The Leader of the House, whom we call the Government House Leader, is on that committee representing the Crown. A representative of the Leader of the Opposition-not necessarily the Leader of the Opposition but his nominee-is on that commission and a nominee of the third party. In subsequent years, with the continual growth of Parties in the House there, they may have problems.
At the moment we have three Parties in this House and certainly they should all be represented. The way the 1978 Act in Great Britain is phrased, it could be applicable here so that a Member of the New Democratic Party would be nominated. It would not have to be a Privy Councillor.
There are three other nominees from the House at large. These Members are not related to their Party standings. They are Members who are not of Cabinet rank. There could be Privy Councillors or backbenchers on this commission. That seems to be a bit more workable than the present situation, and certainly the situation proposed by the Hon. Member for Edmonton West.
The Hon. Member for Edmonton West in his speech earlier, and I read it this afternoon, took great exception to the fact that the Speaker was involved in the direct administration of the House. I may be misquoting him; if so, I certainly stand to be corrected and will allow him to interrupt and give the right impression. However, he seemed to object to the Speaker being an administrator.
I must draw to his attention that the Speaker's role in administration is well founded in parliamentary practice. I need only refer to Erskine May, Nineteenth Edition, Chapter 13, where it talks about the machinery of Parliament, pages 228 to 230. It is specific in talking not only about the Speaker's right as a presiding officer in the House of Commons, but at page 231 refers to the Speaker's powers over the administration of the House.
We should not shy away from the right of the Speaker as the first among equals in this House to be ultimately responsible for the administration of the House. In the first paragraph under the section "The Officers of the Commons", Erskine May talks in terms of the Speaker as "the representative of the House itself in its powers, proceedings and dignity". All of the Members of the House are represented in the Speaker. Certainly the Speaker should be the final arbiter of all matters affecting the House, not only privilege and procedure, as the Hon. Member for Edmonton West believes, but also administration. As we have seen recently, matters of
May 18, 1983

administration of the House of Commons also bear on the privileges of Members.
There was a case a week or two ago wherein the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Nielsen) objected to certain carvings being removed from the boardroom in the office of the Leader of the Opposition. He rightfully objected. He made the argument that his privileges as a Member were affected in that those carvings were an integral part of the history and the lore of the House of Commons and that there was no authority by the House to have these carvings changed. I believe the Speaker upheld the Leader of the Opposition in his argument. Even in a small administrative matter of that nature, it did have a bearing on the privileges of the Member.
In Britain the commission meets quite frequently. I understand it meets more frequently than the Commission of Internal Economy here who, as I understand it, have a hard time getting together not only over weeks but months. Ministers of the Crown have other important duties. If I were a Minister of the Crown, being a Member of that particular commission would not be my priority. As a Member of that commission, I would not be responsible in the House on a day to day basis for the administration of the House. There is not a "Minister of the Commission of Internal Economy" who is asked questions; it is the Speaker, or questions are raised in another manner.
I understand that there are four Ministers on the Commission of Internal Economy. Every day in the House of Commons they have to answer for the their departments. The administration of the House is not their authority, nor should it be.
Representations were made to the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure that the executive branch of Government is, in a sense, taking over the House itself. It is not only the fact that the Prime Minister's office is in the building, as indeed it should be, but that the Cabinet room is here and other rooms have progressively been taken away from Private Members for Members of the Cabinet when Members of the committee have their own departmental offices.
I am not giving my own view on this because I have not made up my mind, but the argument that came forward in this committee is that this represents encroachment upon the rights of individual backbenchers in that the executive branch is, in a sense, taking over the precincts of the House of Commons. There may be some validity to that, but we could never hope to get that changed unless the administration of the House of Commons did revert to-perhaps that is not the word because it has never been the responsibility of ordinary Members, but perhaps be given to a commission such as in Britain.
The Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) spoke earlier in the debate. I want to quote him because he raised an important matter. He spoke rather eloquently. 1 quote:
One of the subclauses of this Bill suggests that the Speaker have the power to delegate any or all of his or her administrative powers to the commissioners. I have some difficulty with that. I believe we must always retain the Speaker of this House as the guardian, the protector and the ensurer of the rights and privileges of the Members. The Speaker of this House is not above the other Members of this House; the Speaker of this House is the first among us, and in
House of Commons Act
fact in this House no Member should be any other. However, the Speaker must be responsible, in the final analysis, for the administration of the Parliament of Canada and for the protection of the rights and privileges of its Members.
I certainly agree with the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi. I fail to see how this basic principle of parliamentary democracy in the Westminster context that we enjoy in Canada can be observed by the changes proposed by the Hon. Member for Edmonton West.
There is in our House of Commons other problems in terms of administration. We have a Committee on Management and Members' Services. Although I have been around here for a few years, I fail to recognize the true role and powers of this committee and have yet to understand the work of it. The Hon. Member for Edmonton West, who is a member of that Committee, might want to enlighten the House as to what it does.
Perhaps if we adopted the U.K. model and put in our own commission with the Leader of the House, a representative of the Leader of the Opposition, a representative of the third Party and three non-Cabinet members, we may be able to abolish the Management and Members' Services Committee or amalgamate the two functions and have a truly representative body.
One problem exists now, Mr. Speaker, and that is, that in the last two years since Madam Speaker took the Chair, we have seen the emergence of an Administrator of the House of Commons. 1 believe that that Administrator has performed the administrative duties assigned to him exceedingly well. I know that there have been disagreements here or there, but the problem as I understand it is that the Administrator's responsibilities are not mentioned in Standing Orders. There is no real authority for this person who has, in a sense, developed into a person of the same rank as the Clerk of the House and the Sergeant at Arms. I believe that that should be remedied. Perhaps it could be remedied in an all-encompassing Act that could deal with the point raised by the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), and perhaps that with that Act we would see the emergence of a truly representative kind of administration for the House of Commons.
I think that that is about all one can say on the matter. Again I believe that the idea is worthy of discussion, but I believe that the Hon. Member for Edmonton West focused too narrowly on the issue. The administration should be discussed in a wider context. What should be done in this Bill and what is not done is to truly wrestle the administration of the House of Commons away from the executive branch. I am not so sure that the executive branch really wants the responsibility of administration anyway. I have not heard any stout arguments in defence of the executive branch having so much control over the administration of the House of Commons.
Perhaps the Hon. Member would be gracious enough to withdraw the Bill and bring back a Bill later in the session that is more all-pervasive, a Bill that is a bit more thoughtful and that takes note of the true desire, which I am sure that we all
25554

May 18, 1983
House of Commons Act
share, to give the administration of the House of Commons in its totality back to the Members of all Parties.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: A question by the Hon. Member for Edmonton West.


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a point of order?


Mr. Lambert:: Mr. Speaker, bearing in mind that this Bill was tabled in April of 1980, might I ask the Hon. Member whether he thinks that my thinking today, which is comparable to his thinking today, would necessarily be encompassed in this Bill?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Just to set the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith) straight, it is my understanding that if an Hon. Member wishes to accept a question and still has time remaining, it is permissible. This is the situation we find ourselves in now.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to answer the Hon. Member's question, but I really did not follow the logic of it. Perhaps the Hon. Member could rephrase his question so that I, with my limited mind, could understand it.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to try in any way to cast any aspersion regarding the Hon. Member. I was wondering whether he was aware of the fact that this Bill had been tabled in April of 1980, and as such, whether it would necessarily reflect his thinking at the time and my thinking at the time. If I had the right to speak at this time, I would certainly set the Hon. Member straight.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I am not really sure what the Hon. Member is getting at. When I was Parliamentary Secretary to the House Leader, I was aware of this Bill and I saw its limitations then when it was first introduced and first put on the Order Paper. My original reservations about the intent of his Bill have been substantiated by the knowledge that I have gained from the representations made before our committee.


Laverne Lewycky: with the problems that face Members of the House, and I should like to outline some of them.
There has been notification of salary freezes for the staff of Members, for example. A lot of decisions that have been passed down to us have been made without prior notification or consultation with Members at large or with the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services. This is complicated by the fact that the commissioners of Internal Economy meet so infrequently. That is almost a secret group in the Cabinet which makes decisions on the way the House of Commons ought to be administered.
Members have other conerns, and if there were a group that was representative of all Parties, it could probably find more constructive ways to deal with our problems. 1 am aware of some matters that have been raised by certain Members who have participated in the deliberations of Parliamentarians for World Order. The decision on whether this is a parliamentary group has seemingly been made in a vacuum without consultation or adequate explanation to the Members who have worked hard and devoted their time to the discussion of issues they feel to be important.
Many technological and other changes have occurred in the operation of the House of Commons and I think it is important that Members of Parliament have an input into these decisions. There is the Oasis project which is an attempt to bring the House of Commons into the twentieth century. Members will have an opportunity to examine new office procedures, technological and information systems. If Members were freed from their executive responsibilities in order to make the decisions, then I am sure that after complete hearings better decisions could be made on the implementation of such projects and Members would feel better about the way the House of Commons is administered.
Another concern that has been brought to my attention frequently is the matter of a Member's budget. A common complaint in my caucus is that funds can be used either for salaries or for machines. This irritates many Members who feel there should be a separation of these two items in the budget.
These things have been mentioned time and again in the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services, but because of the dichotomy and the differences between the commissioners, who operate without direct communication with the Committee, and members of the Committee, a lot of things are not dealt with adequately. Often, after matters have been dealt with by the committee, communication becomes bottlenecked, either through the Speaker or through whatever procedure is being used, and information is not given to all members of the Commission.
It is because of such bottlenecks that I support the substance of the Bill presented by the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). 1 wish the subject matter could be referred to the Standing Committee on Management and Members Services by an order of the House. The Committee could then
House of Commons Act
report back to the House, which could act upon it. I know that many Members have been working hard and diligently on issues that have been brought before them.
A recent concern is that Rogers Cablevision has discontinued the service it had been providing for Members of Parliament. In constituencies such as mine the cable networks are locally operated. I was able to have tapes of the House sent to the local cablevision company so that people in my constituency who cannot receive the proceedings of the House directly, could see at least some of the debates and hear my comments or those of other Members. That service should be reinstated. Concessions were made to Rogers Cablevision by the House in order that it could present such programming, yet if the service is withdrawn we find that there is no way the problem can be dealt with adequately. Such problems do not funnel through to the commissioners for discussion at their rather infrequent meetings.
Members have other concerns. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) has been troubled by the lights in the House which are far too strong for her. This matter has been raised, but it is not something that can be dealt with expeditiously at the present time. If there was a group of Members which could deal with such matters, the lighting could be changed, as it has been in the Saskatchewan legislature, so that Members would not have to suffer physical discomfort.
Then there is the question of the right of the staff of the House of Commons to have an opportunity to bargain as staff in other Government departments can. Such issues could be dealt with if the ideas in the Bill could be referred to a committee where they could be considered and perhaps changed.
We should examine how matters stand in other jurisdictions. Reference has been made to the United Kingdom model. I like some of the things I have heard about the way the House of Commons is administered there. Perhaps we could incorporate some of its methods. Other jurisdictions have been examined and we could incorporate some of their methods as well.
I should like to close by indicating that we support the general thrust of Bill C-273 although we believe it would require some polishing. We would support the Bill being withdrawn and the subject matter referred to the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services. Perhaps someone from the Conservative Party, in consultation with the author of the Bill, might negotiate such a move with the Government.
Those are the concerns that I wanted to raise because Members who have served on the Committee are interested in finding a more effective way to serve Members of the House. One way in which we can serve Hon. Members is to ensure that the way in which final decisions are made can perhaps be streamlined and that there is more representation by Hon. Members who do not have Cabinet responsibility and who can devote their time to the type of decisions which would have to be made. These Hon. Members would also, perhaps, have a

May 18, 1983
House of Commons Act
better understanding of the problems which regular backbenchers face who do not have a flock of assistants to deal with the various problems but who must deal with constituency and other matters.
I believe that if such changes were made it would be to the benefit of all Canadians and of the constituents whom we serve, regardless of political Party, because, as I mentioned, the Management and Members' Services Committee has been most non-partisan. In fact, even the Chairman has been from the Opposition. This Committee and the Public Accounts Committee are two parliamentary Committees the Chairmen of which are not Government Members. That has certainly improved that Committee's method of operation and the way it has sought to address the issues.
I hope that the Government will take cognizance of some of these matters and introduce speedy changes in that regard.


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to make some specific comments on this Bill. The Hon. Member who is sponsoring this Bill wishes to increase the number of commissioners of Internal Economy from five to six, and to have the membership of the Commission made up of Members of the House of Commons. The Bill further provides for delegation by the Speaker of any or all of his administrative powers under Sections 16 to 18 so that his presence would not necessarily be required for the purpose of carrying out those Sections.
My views on the specifics in the Bill, Mr. Speaker, are simply that I believe that the commissioners of Internal Economy should be made up of a mix of Privy Councillors, members of the Cabinet-because, after all, they are still responsible for the purse strings-and representatives from the House of Commons. I believe that there is a lot of evidence to prove that when an all-Party committee sits down like this to discuss matters, some useful ideas come from it. There is communication at first hand; the Opposition caucus is not coming over and lobbying Privy Councillors; the New Democratic Party is not coming over and lobbying Ministers; and Members within our own Government caucus are not lobbying committees. It is a united lobby. That demonstrates clearly what the Hon. Members of the House of Commons really need.
I do not agree with having the Speaker delegate a lot of authority which she now holds. I believe that if the system, as we have described it up to this point, were working effectively, that would not be necessary. Speakers have said in this House that they are here to serve the Members of the House of Commons. What better way can they serve, and what better way would they have of knowing how to serve, than if Hon. Members from the House of Commons were to sit down with Privy Councillors in managing the affairs and services of this House of Commons?
I do not believe that the Administrator of the House of Commons, who is a servant of this House of Commons, should be the secretary to the commissioners of Internal Economy. I believe that is a mistake. The only people who can really
represent the Hon. Members of this House of Commons on both sides of the House are the Hon. Members themselves. If representations are made from each Party caucus in the House, then it will be the responsibility of each Party caucus to advise its representative on the Internal Economy Commission precisely what his Party's position is.
I believe that whoever is Speaker in future years, as well as the present Speaker, would welcome this arrangement. It would remove a big problem from their shoulders because a consensus has already been reached when they are presented with a request from the House of Commons or with the work of the commissioners of Internal Economy.
I would like to deviate a little from the subject of the remarks I just made and go back to the time when individual Members lobbied Members of the Privy Council in order to get things done, which was a very loose and unsatisfactory arrangement. I remember one day when the Hon. Member for Terrebonne (Mr. Comtois),-who is in the House today-the present Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), myself and one other Member met together. We had just returned from a very busy weekend in our constituencies. I personally had something like 40 phone calls and visits from people to my home on Saturday and about 30 on Sunday, and I had to come back to Ottawa on Monday morning to manage all this. Therefore, our first aim was to bring to the attention of the commissioners of Internal Economy the real need for Hon. Members to have constituency offices. Eventually, that came about. We look upon this as one of our first achievements. Out of this group, in a continued liaison with the other two Parties in the House, came the founding of the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services, which is chaired by the Hon. Member for Cumberland-Colchester (Mr. Coates). I would like to pay him a compliment today. He does a very good job as Chairman of that Committee and he operates in such a way that I sincerely feel he has the confidence of all the members of that Committee. That is very important for a chairman to have.
The founding group has continued. Some of us have been part of the Management and Members' Services Committee from time to time, others on a continuing basis. However, I believe that this Committee serves this House very well, and it will continue to serve this House very well if it is given serious attention. I feel that the time is definitely ripe for a new tone to be set with the commissioners of Internal Economy, that Commission should be reformed that Hon. Members of the House from all Parties should sit on that Commission. I cannot think of anyone who would be more qualified to do so, Mr. Speaker, than a Party representative who comes directly from the membership of the Management and Members' Services Committee. In that Standing Committee the Hon. Members are well aware of everything that is discussed. They are well aware of all the issues which are brought to their attention and they can certainly explain things on a first hand basis to the commissioners of Internal Economy who are sitting around that table.
May 18, 1983

We do not need a bureaucratic set-up in order to get our views across the Cabinet Ministers. That is a direct process. I resent having any individual as a go-between me and any Cabinet Minister to whom I want to make a proposal, and I am sure that all Members of this House feel the same way. We are here to do a job. We face this issue of personal representation and group representation all the time. 1 believe it should be laid clearly on the line, Mr. Speaker, that when we say "Management and Members Services"-although it sounds like a very self-serving phrase and people might get the idea that in this Committee Members of the House are serving themselves, which, of course, is totally inaccurate-we mean that Members are there to try to upgrade the services of Members of the Parliament of Canada, to give them better working conditions and to give them some staff to work with so that they can do their jobs better.
I believe the Hon. Member for Dauphin-Swan River (Mr. Lewycky) was talking about the British parliamentary system and he mentioned some of its superior philosophies and ways of operation. However, I would like to point out that that is certainly not the case when it comes to the British Member of Parliament. I have been in the office of a British Member of Parliament and it is not even as big as the one I occupy here on the Hill, which certainly is not big by ordinary standards. In that office there were four MPs and two secretaries. If there was ever a set-up for a family feud, Mr. Speaker, I imagine that was it. Each Member had to come in the office to see if the chair in the corner was vacant so that he could sit down to do some work with one of the secretaries.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the British Parliament has its time well programmed. When they have a debate, they say how many speakers there will be and how many minutes each will be allowed. In order to conserve space on the floor of the office they have this little television set up in the corner fastened to the ceiling so there would be no square inches lost. From time to time that set would indicate the number of minutes left in the total debate and the number of minutes left to each speaker. In that way they know when the debate is coming to a close. They have many interesting things like this. The Hon. Member for Dauphin-Swan River (Mr. Lewycky) told me that the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Collenette) also had referred to the British Parliamentary system.
Certainly there have been improvements around here since I first came to the House. I mentioned constituency offices. Then there is the matter of equipment in our own offices, and office space. When some of us first came here, if we wanted to have a confidential conversation with a constitutent or a group of constituents, or some Members came in and we had to have a private conversation, the secretary either went down to the cafeteria for a coffee or took a walk down the hall to the washroom or something because we only had one small office in which to operate.
Another difference which I would point out between our system and the British system is that in North America
House of Commons Act
generally, here and in the U.S., we are loaded down with mail and telephone calls to a far greater degree than British Members of Parliament. If we really want to compare the three systems, we have to compare the actual work load. It is important that we as Members of Parliament have good staff and are able to keep them to do the work in our offices. That means half decent working conditions, half decent pay. If we cannot get people of good calibre to handle the issues in our offices and routine things which come up during the day, then we ourselves are going to be tied up in the administrative details of our own offices to such an extent that we will not be able to be legislators. When that happens, there is only one group left to do the legislating, and that is, the executive committee of Government, namely the Cabinet.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I think in all democracies we have to be able to free the representatives of the people so as to enable them to dig into what is being done by way of legislation, to make proposals for legislation and improvements in legislation, and really to be able to discuss it intelligently with their constituents. Surely that is our role. But at the same time we must look after our constituents because that is what we are here for. We can do that if we are good individual administrators as MPs, but we cannot be good administrators if we do not have the staff, equipment and techniques with which to work.
People who come to the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker, are there because in one way or another-indeed in many ways-they have already become leaders in their own communities. They have a lot of respect in their own communities. Therefore, why should we not have executive representation on the internal Economy Commission? We should have good representation from the House of Commons to represent the Members of this House of all Parties who are informed about what is required by all Members of this House and who go there with the same didication with which they go to the Committee on Management and Members' Services.
I am going to leave it at that, Mr. Speaker. This has been a long process, starting with representations on an individual basis, that first little group which met and tried to get constituency offices funded. Along the way a fairly good rapport has developed between members of the Management and Members' Services Committee and the representatives of the Commission on Internal Economy. There was a necessity for direct input on a continuing basis from Members of this House to the commissioners and a reform of the commissioners' operation itself because we have travel arrangements today that we would never have had if we did not have the opportunity to put them forward. I am going to sit down, Mr. Speaker, because I know that another Hon. Member wishes to speak.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I only have a few moments, and I just wanted, first of all to congratulate the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) for proposing this Bill. I have had the privilege of being the Chairman of the Committee on Management and Members' Services for probably eight years now and I think,

May 18, 1983
House of Commons Act
unlike the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Collenette) who does not seem to know what the Committee does, that it has done a great deal to make working conditions for ordinary Members of Parliament a great deal better, both here on Parliament Hill and in serving their constituents wherever they happen to be located. I think as well that the Committee itself has, on a number of occasions, moved motions and sent them to the Commissioners on Internal Economy to have a member of my Committee serve on that Internal Economy Commission, because all too often the proposals of Members, who work very hard and are very diligent-and probably that Committee has the best attendance record of any Committee on Parliament Hill-are in a raw form without any explanation attached to them, and we have no one really to carry the message and to explain whatever nuances the motion might have. As a result, actions are taken which neither put the full proposal into effect nor reject it out of hand. That, almost without exception, is a mistake and it deters the work of individual Members of Parliament to a certain degree.
We must also recognize the fact that there are two different groups of Hon. Members who sit in this institution. Some are backbenchers and others are members of Cabinet. I do not think that, from a day to day point of view, we must worry about members of the Cabinet. They look after themselves pretty well. They have their own staffs, their own offices and their own people to do their thing. Individual Members of Parliament do not have anything similar.
There should be an infusion of information to the commissioners of the Internal Economy Commission as to just what the role of an individual MP might be on any particular issue that is before them and the problems which are associated, for instance, with rejecting a motion which has been discussed for many hours in the Management and Members' Services Committee before a resolution, which is usually a unanimous resolution in the Committee, goes forward to the Speaker.
We are an advisory committee to the Speaker and, as such, when it reaches the top echelon of decision-making, we do not have any part to play in it. I believe that even in an advisory way, a number of the members of the Management and Members' Services Committee should be in attendance at these particular meetings to point out what individual motions are all about and the reasons the Committee has put them forward.
Many things have been achieved, but many things have not. One of our concerns right at this moment in time involves the morale of either our office employees or of our personal employees on the Hill who are totally frustrated with individual Members of Parliament because we have been put in the position where we cannot even give our staff the 5 per cent increase which other civil servants have available to them. We cannot give them 1 per cent. We cannot give them anything. It is only because we have loyal staff that they are staying, if they are staying. I know of examples where they are not
staying and are even going to the administration operated here on Parliament Hill because the pay is better than in individual Members' offices. We must get that straightened out. We must also do something about ensuring that the Speaker, the Chairman and the members of the Internal Economy Commission pay more attention to what is really happening in the Management and Member's Services Committee.


Mr. Gerald Laniel (Beauharnois-Salaberry):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to take part in the debate on Bill C-273 introduced by my colleague opposite, the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), to amend the House of Commons Act with a view to changing the number of Commissioners of Internal Economy and looking into the possibility of delegation of powers by the Speaker.
I quite agree with the over-all objective advocated by the Hon. Member, but then I must say that his Bill, which was introduced in the House a little over two years ago and came up for debate on November 6, 1981, does not solve the whole problem. The Hon. Member himself admitted earlier today in a private discussion that his opinion has been changing all along and that he was prepared to go even further than in the measure under study.
As it happens, Mr. Speaker, I too am drafting a Bill which I thought and still think is more comprehensive than the Hon. Member's. In light of the statements I have heard here this afternoon, I realize that I am still not sure whether he is going far enough.
Still, my opinion is closer to that of the Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins) than to those of other Members, for I believe that some members of the Privy Council ought to be Commissioners of Internal Economy because they do have some financial responsibility toward the House. My bill should satisfy the Hon. Member for Cumber-land-Colchester (Mr. Coates) since it provides for two additional Commissioners, two backbenchers-one from the Government, one from the Opposition-who have no special duties and no allowance. I intend to introduce my bill in the near future.
Earlier, when I was listening to my colleague from Cumber-land-Colchester-I must commend him and the others who sit on the Committee on Management and Members' Services for the heavy workload they carry-I wanted to ask him before he left whether at one time or another someone from that Committee had been invited to appear before the Internal Economy Commission. That is where-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 24(2), it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings. There being no other item on the order of business for today, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5.16 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, May 19, 1983