1983-06-23

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, the restaurant and food service industry has become a large and dynamic sector of the Canadian economy with sales of $15 billion, or 4.5 per cent of Canada's GNP, and 600,000 employees, or 5.7 per cent of the national labour force. In addition, it earned $1 billion in foreign exchange last year from visiting tourists.
In 1982, a recession year, employment in the food service industry actually increased by 2,000 jobs. When one considers the unemployment situation in Canada, surely the service industries are part of the solution, and the largest sector, the food service industry, deserves encouragement for job creation and business growth.
At present the industry lacks the schools and standards necessary to educate the skilled technicians who make this industry grow. Our colleges graduate good cooks but not world-class chefs.
This shortage of skilled trades is becoming a major bottleneck in the expansion of this industry, and it is an area where the Government can help by upgrading training facilities and by designating some of the food service trades as national occupations under the National Training Act.
In addition, consideration must also be given to revising the tax system to stimulate these labour intensive industries.



Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, there is no shortage of work to be done in Canada. As well, there is no shortage of willing labour. All that is required is the funding and organization. 1 believe these are some of the reasons we have a Department of Employment and Immigration. I would like to suggest to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) that plans exist for many long term projects involving conservation and improvement of transportation facilities which would keep many people employed for a long time.
In my constituency of Erie two such projects have been on the drawing board for many, many months. These are very worth-while endeavours involving flood control in the City of Port Colborne, and modifications to the old Welland Canal to accommodate mooring of ships. The total cost of these two projects is roughly $9 million.
If the current administration were willing to sponsor either or both of these projects, which would cost but a small fraction of the $1.5 billion bailout of Canadair, the benefits to the environment and the local economy would be tremendous. Federal funding would be put to good use in assisting with these projects, especially in light of the fact that over $5 million was granted in the neighbouring constituency for creating parks and doing landscaping.


WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Madam Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his Government 1,500 letters individually signed by residents of the Prince Albert area, who ask for Crow rate retention. These letters, which are addressed to the Prime Minister, were gathered by the Prince Albert Chamber of Commerce and reflect broad based public opinion which continues to support retention of the Crow rate.
These 1,500 letters, together with 3,400 petition signatures and 2,100 signed endorsements of the New Democratic Party's Crow retention policy, add up to an extremely significant statement of public opinion. I will send these letters across to the Prime Minister and I ask him to answer my written question involving public representation of the Crow retention.
A similar question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) produced 38,713 signatures favouring Crow retention, and only 69 for Crow change. That is a 99.8 per cent vote in favour of Crow retention. This kind of public response clearly demonstrates why New Democrats continue to oppose Bill C-155 and propose an alternative policy which will upgrade the railways and keep the Crow rate for western farmers. We want to ensure that western voices are heard by the committee on transport, and we urge that the committee travel throughout the West in its examination of Bill C-155. I have those letters here in my hand, Madam Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

June 23, 1983


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland):: Madam Speaker, some two weeks ago I made representation to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) with regard to the possibility of having a partial or complete ban on smoking in all aircraft whose flights originate in Canada. My colleagues will be interested to know that since that time I have received over 150 letters. Just this morning I received support for that proposal from one group which spoke for 34,000 Canadians.
1 realized that my colleague, the Member of Parliament for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail), asked a question yesterday. I believe the Hon. Member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Scott) also brought this to our attention. The purpose of my statement is to encourage Hon. Members, and to say that if they are also getting this kind of response for a ban such as this, perhaps we should be moving to institute such a ban, in view of the fact that it is for the safety of Canadians in the first instance, while also adding to the comfort of people who are travelling. 1 encourage those who hear me to write to me, to my colleague from Restigouche, or to the Hon. Member for Hamilton-Wentworth. Together we will try to determine if we can get this instituted into law on flights originating in Canada, on behalf of all the people of Canada.


DISCOVERY DAY IN NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, according to our rules the House does not sit tomorrow as we celebrate St. Jean Baptiste day to honour one of the two founding peoples of Canada.
I wish to bring to the attention of the House the fact that tomorrow is also an important holiday for Newfoundland. June 24 is Discovery Day in Newfoundland, and it is especially significant this year as Newfoundland celebrates its four hundredth anniversary.
On August 5, 1583, Sir Humphrey Gilbert read a proclamation in St. John's, which was then a settled community, formally claiming sovereignty in the name of Queen Elizabeth I, and thereby establishing Britain's first colony. Today, her direct descendant, Prince Charles, and the Princess of Wales, are in St. John's to inaugurate the four hundredth anniversary celebrations officially.
1 am pleased to bring this national historic event to the attention of the House in the absence of my colleagues from St. John's East and St. John's West who are in St. John's to participate in the official ceremonies. I am sure all Hon. Members will want to join me in saluting the proud people of Newfoundland on the occasion of their four hundredth anniversary.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


BROADCASTING
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, recently a commentator on CKVU-TV in Vancouver topped his own reputation for promoting poisonous prejudice by stating, "It is my hope that Media Watch and its army of snoops will be found in the front lines where they can be raped by the Russians." I am sure that all Hon. Members of Parliament abhor such an obscene statement from a professional broadcaster on a station which is licensed by the CRTC.
Media Watch is dedicated to informing the public on issues surrounding the portrayal of women in the media and the detrimental effects of sex role stereotyping and pornography. This incident shows the need for such a service.
CKVU-TV, by refusing to apologize or demand a retraction from its commentator, has condoned hatred and violence against women generally. Media Watch appropriately refused an opportunity to rebut on CKVU because "the question of whether or not women should be raped by an invading army is not debatable."
As in the case of First Choice Pay TV, the CKVU incident makes a mockery of the unenforceable human rights policy of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters. Since the broadcasting industry is not policing itself, legislative action is imperative. I urge the Government and the House to give priority to the Private Members' Bill proposed by the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald), which would amend the Broadcasting Act to prohibit such abusive comments.


Madam Speaker:: Order.


BLOCK PARENT PROGRAM
Mr. Jack Burghardt (London West):: Madam Speaker, almost all Members of the House will be aware of the important work of the Block Parent Program. From its humble beginnings in London, Ontario, in the Fall of 1968, the Block Parent Program has grown to the point where it now encompasses 800 plus communities of all sizes. There are Block Parent communities in all ten Provinces and in both Territories. All of the 800 plus Block Parent communities in the national Block Parent Program use the same national symbol and house sign, thus enabling children to move from one coast of Canada to the other and still find their sign of safety, the national Block Parent house sign, in windows of houses in their new communities.
The Block Parent Program has provided a service of untold value to lost or frigthened children and their families throughout Canada. However, there is some concern that national Block Parent communication needs to be strengthened through a national advisory committee and the opportunity for Block
June 23, 1983

Parent organizations from the various regions of Canada to meet face to face in personal dialogue. Toward that end a national Block Parent advisory committee meeting has been proposed for October of this year. The cost of such a meeting would be $7,000, a small price for a meeting of such an important national organization, but one which its voluntary members will find difficult to raise. In the interest of preserving the national Block Parent Program and its important work, I would hope that the federal Government, perhaps through the Solicitor General's Department, can provide some financial assistance to bring a national meeting to fruition.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, yesterday the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Justice held a joint press conference at which they announced the dawn of a new day for openness of government. I would like to give the President of the Treasury Board the opportunity to demonstrate his seriousness when he talks about access to information. Will the President of the Treasury Board undertake to table in Parliament a copy of the Anderson Report on Consolidated Computers, which chronicled how that Minister presided over the $125 million loss on Consolidated Computers?


Hon. Herb Gray (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, 1 will have to check into the status of the document and see whether it is a cabinet document-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I will be delighted to get back to my hon. friend on this.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, if the Minister has a hard time finding it, I will give him my copy.


THE PRESS
Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Minister of State for Multiculturalism who, last week, in response to a question I put on the legality of his proposals for the newspaper industry, replied, "As to constitutionality, the advice of the Department
Oral Questions
of Justice ... ", which I take is the Minister, " ... is that our proposal will be quite within the constitutional parameters." In keeping with the spirit of freedom of information, will the Minister table all materials he has received from the Department of Justice, or other Departments, with respect to the constitutionality of his proposals?


Hon. Jim Fleming (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Madam Speaker, I expect when this legislation does come forward, is tabled in the House and reaches debate, that that discussion can be held in committee. Surely that is the more proper procedure.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Sydney Clark Fleming: I do not understand how that is hiding anything, if we are prepared to follow the proper course in public debate and discussion. I do not know why, ahead of the event, Hon. Members would imply that. I am not trying to conceal anything. I feel that is why we have these officials, to give us advice. Their advice is that it is legal.


ACCESS TO INFORMATION
Mrs. Jennifer Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In keeping with the spirit of the new Access to Information Act, will the Government now be providing answers to the 412 unanswered questions placed on the Order Paper since the beginning of the Thirty-Second Parliament by the former Hon. Member for Leeds-Grenville?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jennifer Cossitt: Or is the Government still afraid to expose itself to the complete public scrutiny for which the Act provides?


Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, since this session commenced we have answered 4,151 questions on the Order Paper, which represents 82.9 per cent. I can assure the Hon. Member that the former Hon. Member for Leeds-Grenville was, in fact, the person who had more questions answered than anyone else. We are continuing to answer those questions standing in his name as I am provided with the answers by the various Ministers.


Jennifer Cossitt: The questions are being answered very slowly, Madam Speaker. It is obvious that the Government only intends to pay lip service to the new freedom of information act.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

June 23, 1983
26714_______________________________________
Oral Questions


HOLDERS OF AIR CANADA PASSES
Jennifer Cossitt: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Question No. 30, which has been on the Order Paper for over seven years, asks for the names of all those individuals who hold free Air Canada passes. This question still remains unanswered. Is the Minister now prepared to give us a specific date when he will provide the information requested? Or does the Minister not intend to answer that question?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I will try to do better in the future than I have in the past.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. I would like to congratulate him for being so elegantly dressed today in his blue conservative jacket. His recovery is obviously well under way.
A group of Members of Parliament met recently with some Canadian and American Congressmen and Senators. We were told that the Americans were not going to get their deficit down and that all the Congressmen had other priorities, the Democrats with social programs, the Republicans with defence programs, and that there would be no compromise. Therefore the American deficit would continue and we would have upcoming high interest rates. This is a very serious matter for the Canadian economy. Would the Minister tell the House what steps he recommended to Cabinet, or he is prepared to take, to prepare against this eventuality, that is, to make our interest rates independent of American ones? Is he now prepared to bring down Canadian interest rates so that we will have some real sustained recovery as we all want?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I will not pass any comment on the blue shirt worn by my colleague, but I will address the more serious aspect of his question.
I should like to remind him that today interest rates on Treasury bills and on Government bonds extending up to seven years are lower than American rates. My hon. friend remembers that over the last two years there were times when Canadian rates were up to 5 per cent and 6 per cent above American rates. We have pursued a very appropriate monetary and fiscal policy. We are seeing the very beneficial effects of that policy at the present time in terms of lower inflation, a high rate of growth, and interest rates that are now even lower
than the American ones. All of this is taking place while we enjoy a stable dollar.
I think the policies the Government has followed in the last year and a half have certainly been appropriate for the situation I hope that for the rest of this year and also in 1984 the Canadian people will reap the benefits of all the sacrifices which all of us have been asked to carry in the last year.


MINISTER'S POLICIES
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, as a supplementary question let me ask the Minister about the benefits people are reaping. Supposedly we have a recovery, about which the Minister has been crowing in the House of Commons. Would he agree that we have high rates of unemployment, that he has been going around the country attacking consumers because his budget will put a lot of taxes on them later, and that he has been attacking labour, because he is now speaking of wage controls?
I would like to know what are the Minister's policies. Will we face another six and five, say a four and three program? What does the Minister mean when he attacks labour, and wage increases? What will he do to lower the rate of unemployment? We cannot have a recovery if we still have so many unemployed people in the country. This is a profits recovery, not a people recovery.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague has some very strange information sources. I would remind him that not only were we successful in bringing down inflation to 5.4 per cent this May, compared to last year, but since 1982, we have also managed to create about 330,000 new or additional jobs in Canada. Employment has been rising regularly and consistently during the last six months, and during the last two, we were able to bring the unemployment rate down from 12.8 percent to 12.4 per cent. The unemployment rate is still very high, too high, and we must keep on trying to bring unemployment down. In any case, we shall be successful in doing so if we bring down inflation, which will keep our interest rates at a fairly low level, and our prices competitive on world markets. When I criticized certain wage settlements, one in particular, I was not criticizing the workers or union leaders specifically. I merely said that employers and workers, or rather their union leaders, has not acted responsibly.
I am happy to see that at the present time, collective bargaining agreements are being negotiated in a very responsible manner, since the average wage settlement amounts to about 6.5 per cent in the private sector, if we exclude the construction industry. However, we shall have to try and avoid situations in the construction industry that would touch off another inflationary spiral, which would affect the workers themselves first of all.


Madam Speaker:: Order, order!
June 23, 1983


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. James):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration I will direct my question to the Minister of Finance because it involves priority in the allocation of funds to employment programs.
The Government has a program called PED for the employable disadvantaged people. Fundamentally it is a wage subsidy program to subsidize the wages of people who would be otherwise on welfare, or prisoners coming out of prison as they get jobs in the private sector. The Program works providing employment-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. 1 wonder if the Hon. Member is conscious that he is describing a Program which all Members know. He should go directly to his question. We do not need that.


Cyril Keeper: I am glad that all Members are aware of the Program. I will get straight to the question. Why is the Government putting this Program in the deep freeze for the summer? The funds are exhausted. Summer is the high point for this Program. Why not put additional funds into it, as this Program is working for the disadvantaged, rather than leaving them out to dry with no money to keep the Program working?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for the promotion which he is giving to that Program and, I hope, other Government programs in the area of employment as well. I am glad to see the NDP supporting all of our efforts in the area of employment creation.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: Some Members are not supporting our efforts at creating jobs, but at least one NDP Member is reasonable and has the proper appreciation of what is taking place. I want to indicate to the Hon. Member that I appreciate his support for that Program. 1 will examine, with my colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, whether it is true that the funds are exhausted and whether the Program will be able to expand during the course of the summer. I am sure the Minister will want to examine this situation very carefully.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. It arises out of recent events with respect to Cast, the possible loss of 400 or 500 jobs, and the possibility of the creation of 7,000,
Oral Questions
8,000 or 9,000 new jobs in Canada. Has the Minister been briefed by Dr. Maurice LeClair, the President of Canadian National Railways, any of their officials, or any of his officials, with respect to the winding down of the operations of EuroCanadian Shipholding Limited? If so, with respect to those briefings, has he contemplated any further action?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I had the same briefing the Hon. Member received in camera in committee. The gist of it is that there are still disagreements between members of Cast and CN. A number of these were listed to the Hon. Member in committee. My present position is to leave the Order in Council on the table for a short while, until we find out what is going to happen. It may be that the difficulties can be resolved in the future. Some are hopeful, some are not, but I have decided to let the situation develop for a little while.


INQUIRY RESPECTING MINISTER'S ACTIONS
J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Speaker, I hope I do not have to ask a third supplementary. I wish to ask the Minister a very specific question. As a result of any initiative that the Minister or any of his officials may have taken, or as a result of any initiative taken by either the Royal Bank or the Bank of Montreal, did the Minister have meetings today, or will he have meetings later today or tomorrow with that group, with respect to this issue? May I ask a third supplementary, because I realize the afternoon is waning. As a result of any briefings which the Minister may or may not have had, has he had any reason to consult with any of his colleagues in Government with respect to any further investigative action?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the answer is no to the two parts of the question. I have not had a recent report from the President of the CNR and I have not had any discussion with my colleagues on this subject since the Order in Council was passed.


ACCESS TO INFORMATION
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, returning to the subject of freedom of information, in view of the Government's commitment yesterday to abide by the spirit of the Access to Information Act, will the Prime Minister promise to provide answers to Order Paper Questions Nos. 2,158, 2,159 and 2,160, standing in the name of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Okanagan North, since February 24, 1981? These important questions deal with Mr. Joel Bell's contractual relationship with Petro-Canada, his participation in the preparation of the National Energy

June 23, 1983
Oral Questions
Program with Energy, Mines and Resources officials, and possible serious conflicts of interest on the part of Joel Bell, Mr. Bill Hopper, Senator Jack Austin and other senior Government officials. Will the Prime Minister now give the Canadian people access to the truth of this matter?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, if that is all that the Hon. Member can think of, I will be happy to take notice of the question.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, I presume that means that the Prime Minister is prepared to answer these important questions.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, further to the Government's new informative spirit, will the Prime Minister give his undertaking to release all public opinion surveys conducted at taxpayer's expense since 1980 on such important subjects as the Constitution, the energy policy, and economic issues? Will the results of these costly polls be released on a timely basis, meaning as soon as possible, to Members of Parliament and to all the people of Canada, who paid for them?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Act is coming into effect incessantly and I would think that the Hon. Member would want to use the provisions of the Act.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Incessantly?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would ask the Hon. Member to look up the word "incessantly" in the dictionary.


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Madam Speaker, 1 would like to commend the Prime Minister for bringing this important legislation, the Access to Information Act, forward at this time. In the spirit of this Act would the Prime Minister now permit his Departments to release the 1981 and 1982 task force report on Canadair prepared by government officials, so that the standing committee can intelligently deal with the future of the Challenger aircraft?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the last two questions have referred to the spirit of the Act. The legislation is there. It says what it says. Why does the Opposition not use the Act to get the documents it is asking for?


Thomas Scott Fennell: Madam Speaker, that speaks well for access to information.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Madam Speaker, I will direct a supplementary question to the President of the Treasury
Board. In view of the provisions of the Access to Information Act, will the President of the Treasury Board table in the House the salaries of all executives and the remuneration paid to all directors of Crown corporations that are responsible to the Government of Canada?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, that information is in the hands of the responsible Ministers. That is the type of question which, if placed on the Order Paper, generally elicits a complete and fair response. If my hon. friend is so serious about the spirit of the Act, perhaps he could also respect the spirit of the rules of Parliament in that regard.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. In the past week I have learned of an ugly incident that arose in Montreal when a downtown cocktail lounge, known as Le Club Calgary, refused entry to several black citizens and the owner stated that he would close his doors before admitting any black faces. While the Government has agreed to set up a special committee to deal with racism, can the Secretary of State say whether any immediate action can be taken to deal with this issue to assure just treatment for the black community of Montreal?
Hon. Serge Joyal (Secretary of State):: Madam Speaker, I was appalled when I read in the news the report that the Hon. Member has just mentioned. In a free and civilized society anyone should be able to enter any commercial establishment and not be barred on mere grounds of race, colour, or any other forms of discrimination. It is my strong intention to ensure that the agenda of the next federal-provincial conference on human rights, that is to take place on September 8 and 9 of this year, will include an item on implementation of a human rights act, either provincial or federal, and that that be a topic of discussion and action for all the Ministers who have accepted the invitation to attend the conference.



CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton South):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs who will note that the most intensive independent
June 23, 1983

investigation ever undertaken of Canada's foreign aid program has just been completed by the North-South Institute which today published two reports dealing with Bangladesh and Tanzania. The over-centralization and excessively complex approval procedures of CIDA have been criticized, along with the lack of direction toward clear and practical goals.
Given that the new president of CIDA, Mrs. Margeret Catley-Carlson, has just been appointed, will the Government produce what has been seriously lacking, a comprehensive development strategy for the eighties, so that Canadians can be assured that our aid will proceed in the smoothest way possible to help the poorest people in the least developed countries?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, that very question is under consideration by myself at the present time.


Douglas Roche: Madam Speaker, it certainly has been under consideration by the Secretary of State for External Affairs because the question has been brought up by myself in committee several times. I wonder if the reason for the lack of strategy is that the strategy for 1975 to 1980 was rated by the North-South Institute as a failure on 15 out of 21 points.



INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE

Douglas Roche: Madam Speaker, I direct my supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs as well. The two reports in question today put only part of the blame for underdevelopment in Bangladesh and Tanzania on the respective Governments of those two countries for not giving a high enough priority to ensuring that their own people become more productive. How does the Government intend to re-gear Canada's aid program so that it will reduce aid dependency and increase self-reliance in those countries. Since aid is only a small part of the development process, will the Canadian Government now support the calling of an international financial conference to enlarge the facilities of the international financial institutions, which would resolve the debt crisis that is impairing the least developed countries today?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I agree with the Hon. Member when he says that international development is a much broader subject than is the question of aid. It applies to many other aspects including the question of debt.
The Hon. Member asked specifically about an international monetary conference. He will have noticed that in the Williamsburg Declaration there is an intention subscribed to, that the Ministers of Finance, in co-operation with the International Monetary Fund, will examine the circumstances under which the holding of an international monetary conference might be feasible. I believe that a very important recognition
Oral Questions
was made by the Summit leaders that the monetary situation requires constant monitoring.



FISHERIES


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and is in regard to the Amax mining operation at Alice Arm in British Columbia. I am sure that by now, the Minister is in possession of the study made by EVS Consultants of British Columbia, which has determined that 57 per cent of the species and 51 per cent of the individual organisms within five and one half kilometres of the mine's outfall are dead. Since groups representing an absolute majority of Canadians support a full public inquiry into the mining operation, and since the mine is close, will the Minister indicate whether or not he will call a full public inquiry into the subject? Will he comment in the House on the fact that, after dumping less than 5 per cent of the allowed tonnage, over one half of the marine life is gone within five and one half kilometres of the mine's outfall in one of the best fishing grounds in Canada?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, a scientific committee has studied the question and I do not think that the assertions made by the Hon. Member reflect all of the facts.



LAND DISPOSAL OF MINE TAILINGS

James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Mines. I am sure the Minister must be aware of the fact that a federal Government study has determined that safe on land tailings could be constructed at the Amax Kitsault operation for about a 2 per cent difference on return on investment to Amax Corporation. Since there are still workers at the closed mine site, would the Minister undertake to make use of Section 38 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, as she has for other closed mine sites, and any other measures that Cabinet might propose at this time, to ensure that safe on land tailing ponds are constructed during this period while the mine is closed? Studies that have been provided to the Government indicate that over half of the life in the first five kilometres of the inlet is dead.


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of State (Mines)):: Madam Speaker, I should like to inform the Hon. Member that we are looking at job-creation proposals from Amax using Section 38. The 2 per cent which the Hon. Member referred to, however, translates to $23 million. Given the current situation and the cash flow problems of the company, $23 million is a fair amount of money. In addition, I should like to point out that all environmental studies indicate that the procedure being used now is a safe procedure.

June 23, 1983
Oral Questions



THE ECONOMY


Mrs. Eva Cote (Rimouski-Temiscouata):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Hon. Minister of Finance, and with your permission, I would like to get back to the economic situation in Canada. According to the statistics, the present inflation rate is 5.4 per cent, the lowest in 10 years, and unemployment is dropping as well. It would therefore seem that the Hon. Minister of Finance made the right decision at the right time, and he is to be congratulated. However, I would like to know whether the Minister believes the economic situation will continue to improve and if so, what does he recommend Canadians should do to achieve this?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the results achieved by the Canadian economy in recent months are due to joint action taken by all levels of government in Canada and all citizens who supported the 6 and 5 program. To answer the Hon. Member's question very briefly, I think it is extremely important that we should continue to act in the same spirit of solidarity and self-discipline with respect to the demands we make on the economy, both in terms of prices and wages. I am convinced that after the experience of this past year, all Canadians will be in favour of strongly supporting the policy that has been the Government's during that time.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Madam Speaker, 1 have but one question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and he has had previous notice of it. It concerns Newmac Manufacturing Incorporated which has plants in Nova Scotia and Ontario. The company has a dire need for an immediate loan guarantee. I am sure that Minister is aware of the viability of the company. In the last seven years of operation it has had six years of profit, and has forecast sales for this year of over $8 million, $2 million of which are for export. At the moment $1.5 million worth of orders are waiting to be fabricated and sold by the end of July.
Could the Minister indicate if he is prepared to assist this company with a loan guarantee? If he cannot give immediate approval, would his officials be willing to meet with company officials in Ottawa in the immediate future?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, my officials have already met with officials of the company this week. As the Hon. Member knows, the
Government of Canada through the FBDB already has substantial financial exposure with the company to date. It is highly unlikely that we will be able to give financial assistance in the short time frame that the Hon. Member requests.



CRIMINAL CODE


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. At three o'clock this afternoon the Minister will table what are called the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code relating to obscenity, and soliciting for the purposes of prostitution. The mayors of various cities and municipalities across the country have been calling for a considerable period of time for some firm action to overcome the "pressing and persistent" requirement imposed by the Supreme Court of Canada on the provision that covers soliciting for the purposes of prostitution.
Will the proposed amendments that the Minister will table be sufficient to deal with the complaints that have been received by citizens across the country, particularly those represented by the mayors and municipalities?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: Madam Speaker, it is a little difficult to discuss this in advance of the tabling of the document to which the Hon. Member refers and of which I have given him advance notice. I think I can say that it is because I am not satisfied that the amendments I will propose in either of the areas of pornography or prostitution are in themselves sufficient, that I will also announce an additional step later this afternoon. I will certainly keep the Hon. Member informed of that.



DELAY IN ENACTING AMENDMENTS

Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, the matter of soliciting for the purposes of prostitution has been before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for 18 months. That Committee issued a report with very specific recommendations about amendments to the Criminal Code designed to deal with the problem presented to the Government by the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada.
Why is the Minister delaying further any action with respect to the Criminal Code, having regard to the fact that through the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs the House has spoken very clearly and has made specific recommendations which should be taken to heart by the Minister, since they were supported by Members of his own Party?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, again it is very difficult to debate this before the documents are presented. The Hon. Member quite correctly refers to the report of the Standing Committee on Justice and
June 23, 1983

Legal Affairs. It was not unanimous support, however, Madam Speaker; three of the four women on the Committee dissented from that report. I think that is an indication of the lack of consensus that exists in Parliament and in the country on this issue. I would be very happy to discuss this more fully after the documents are in the public domain.



ACCESS TO INFORMATION


Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board which becomes relevant because of the proclamation on July 1 of the Bill with respect to information and privacy. For some time there has been concern in the House about which Committee the Bill would be directed to. I have made suggestions, as has the Hon. Member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe, that the Government might consider the Joint Standing Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments as the appropriate Committee through which the Bill would report to Parliament. I know that the Minister has been consulting with the Minister of Justice on the matter. Has a decision been made with respect to this?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I have been consulting with my colleague, the Government House Leader. There has not been a decision as yet. 1 note the suggestion made by my hon. friend, but another possibility is the Justice Committee. 1 will endeavour to have a decision available and communicated to my hon. friend as soon as possible.



STAFFING OF COMMISSIONERS' OFFICES

Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I have one other question with respect to the Act. So that Parliament may know the depth of the commitment of the Government in terms of man years and other assets that are important to the two Commissioners, would the President of the Treasury Board table a list of the particular public servants who are to be employed specifically in the offices of the two Commissioners who are reporting under that Act, as soon as possible. Could it include the man years that are to be allowed for the two Commissioners and whether those man years will be increased as time goes on? Could it contain, particularly, the initial man years so that Parliament may know the commitment of the Government to the two new Commissioners.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, 1 can go beyond what my hon. friend is requesting and provide the information right now. We will be proposing to Parliament, in a supplementary estimate to be presented in the fall, an interim level of 46 person years and a budget of $2.8 million for these offices. We are willing to consider proposing to Parliament higher resource levels for
Oral Questions
future years when there has been some experience with the work load. We hope the House will support the supplementary estimates to cover these resources which we are asking for on an interim basis.



FINANCE


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Is the Minister now prepared to change the plan announced last November to tax certain northern benefits which had not been previously taxed?


Marc Lalonde: No, Madam Speaker.



STATEMENT MADE BY MEMBER FOR NUNATSIAQ

['1 have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on June 1983, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.\nTabling of Documents\nThe petition presented by the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight) does not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.']
Dave Nickerson: That being the case, Madam Speaker, may I ask if the Hon. Member for Nunat-siaq was in error on April 13 when he said that the Minister of Finance promised to deal with the taxation issue once the budget debate was concluded?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member for Nunatsiaq has been very active on this issue. He has done an excellent job and has been very devoted to the interests of his voters. In meetings that I had with him and some of his constituents I indicated that I would be ready to review the situation. As I indicated in my previous answer to the Hon. Member when he asked me if I was ready to announce anything, the answer is no.



Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. As he is no doubt aware, Chile is on the eve of a general strike led by copper workers, bus drivers and taxi drivers, who are heading up a wide, disciplined, non-violent coalition of Chileans demanding restoration of the democracy that Chile maintained for several decades before Pinochet's coup in 1973. Pinochet's dictatorship has responded with increased government violence, beatings, killings, kidnappings and jailing of union leaders.
In light of this grave unrest, fueled by 21 per cent inflation, almost 30 per cent unemployment, and the bankruptcy of several banks and mutual credit funds, will the Minister explain to this House why Canada recently chose to assist in
26720

June 23, 1983
Oral Questions
the sale of oil to the Pinochet regime, and why Canada chose to renew the Export Development Corporation's line of credit to a Government apparently collapsing because of its brutality to its own people?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, 1 gather the Hon. Member is raising in a general way the relationship we should draw between forms of economic assistance and collaboration with countries which have a record of less than full respect for human rights. The Hon. Member knows this is a rather complex question but it was fully addressed with respect to Central America by the subcommittee of the Standing Committee on External Affairs. I found their conclusions reasonably acceptable, namely, that in all cases it would be wrong to deny economic collaboration or assistance to a country because of human rights violations. Certainly where the violations are so gross that it is impossible to implement appropriate programs to assist people, then that ought to be a conclusive factor.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. When RCMP divisional headquarters was moved from Victoria last year the Minister said the negative impact would be minimal since employees would be given top priority for other federal jobs in the Victoria area. But top priority has not helped many of these employees, especially in the CR-4 and CR-5 categories. Other Departments have sloughed them off as being unsuitable or untrainable. They face permanent unemployment because Government Departments refuse to recognize the priority system.
Is the Minister aware that the system of priority placements is not working for these employees? Will he personally look into the Victoria situation and make representations to the Public Service Commission to ensure that other Government Departments give proper priority to former RCMP employees?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, first of all I would like to assure the Hon. Member, and through him the people of British Columbia, that the move of the regional headquarters from Victoria to Vancouver has been an excellent one from the point of view of effective law enforcement, which has been considerably enhanced in British Columbia by the rationalization involved in that move. As I indicated at the time, those members who wanted to remain in Victoria, and civilian staff who did not want to move to Vancouver, would be given priority for alternate federal employment in the Victoria region. I will certainly look into the allegations of the Hon. Member and try to ensure that priority is being respected by other Government Departments.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. The battle of Dieppe in 1942 undoubtedly saved countless lives in the D-Day invasion two years later. Six thousand soldiers and eight RCAF squadrons participated at Dieppe. Given the fact that there were more than 3,000 casualties, including 907 Canadians killed and 1,946 taken as prisoners of war, I am wondering when the Government of Canada is going to strike a medal, or at least a ribbon, for these courageous Canadians.


Hon. W. Bennett Campbell (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Madam Speaker, traditionally medals are struck to commemorate participation in campaigns, not usually for participation in specific battles. It is for this reason a medal was not struck for Dieppe.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Hon. Minister of Transport. Since the freight assistance program is considered to be essential to the maintenance and development of the regional economy in Atlantic Canada, and the removal of the present subsidy could result in rate increases of as much as 50 per cent, what steps does the Minister plan to take to preserve Atlantic Canada's industrial capability?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I have answered this question a number of times. The first point I made was that we are having a study done now. Similar studies were done in the past of the 1927 Maritime Freight Rate Assistance Program. The decision is not made; we just want to know what purpose these subsidies accomplish now. In knowledge there must be some value.
The second point is that I have read articles from the Maritimes, some of them by prestigious organizations, to the effect that these subsidies do not play the role they possibly used to play in the past in the Maritimes. Third, in recent years I have developed what I call the Maritime envelope under which, when the federal Government makes savings in the Maritimes on subsidies, we put them in that envelope and use them for other transportation purposes. I think that makes sense, does it not?


REQUEST THAT PROGRAM BE RETAINED
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: income, and reduced employment opportunities. Therefore, will the Minister encourage the retention of the freight assistance program which all Governments in Atlantic Canada have indicated is essential to the maintenance and development of Atlantic Canada's regional economy?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend is a very experienced politician. Would he not be surprised if the provincial politicians in the Maritimes did not endorse a federal subsidy in the Maritimes? Would he not be surprised? I would be very surprised.
We have a federal-provincial memorandum of understanding, under which both they and we are committed to the kind of study we are making now. It seems to me all of that makes sense. Anyway, the decision will not be taken in camera, it will be an open one following discussions with the interested parties. At the moment the consultant is consulting with some of them, and federal and provincial officials will be in communication with different groups, too. So, the decision will be a public one, not secretive.


HEALTH CARE
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Can she share with the House any plans she has for the new Canada Health Act which would affect the issue of comprehensiveness? Specifically, in the new Canada Health Act will there be an expansion of services to include groups such as nurses, physiotherapists, psychologists and so on?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, in May of last year, at the annual meeting, certain proposals were made to the provincial Ministers regarding the entrenchment in the new Canada Health Act of basic health services that now exist in all ten provinces, so that once and for all, all Canadians will know that they are entitled to certain essential services throughout the country. As far as I know, there have not yet been any positive reactions. Some provinces are wondering whether or not it would be risky to do so, and all this will be discussed again when 1 show them the new Bill as soon as it is ready.


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: 1 have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on June 1983, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
Tabling of Documents
The petition presented by the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight) does not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT


Madam Speaker:: It is my duty to inform the House that an objection signed by the Hon. Members for Verdun-Saint-Paul (Mr. Savard), Shefford (Mr. Lapierre), Laval (Mr. Roy), Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart), LaSalle (Mr. Campbell), Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault), Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston), Louis-Hebert (Mr. Dawson) and Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) has been filed with me pursuant to Section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, Chapter E-2, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, to the Report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Quebec.
If the House agrees, 1 would suggest we follow past practice and print the text of the objection as an appendix to this day's Votes and Proceedings. Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 46(2), I wish to table, in both official languages, two copies of the Report on the Status of Branches of Foreign Banks.


WAYS AND MEANS
Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 64(1), 1 wish to table, in both official languages, a Notice of Ways and Means Motion with respect to the interpretation of Canada's international conventions relating to income tax and the Acts implementing such conventions.

June 23, 1983
Tabling of Documents CRIMINAL CODE


TABLING OF DRAFT BILL RESPECTING OBSCENITY AND SOLICITATION
Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table a draft Bill to amend the Criminal Code concerning the subjects of obscenity and solicitation. I will be making a further statement later outside the House, Madam Speaker, on these subjects.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Point of order!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Point of order!


Madam Speaker:: I recognize the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West on a point of order.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to this most unusual, unprecedented practice on the part of the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan), by which he stands in his place and tables a document which is not legislative in nature but, rather, a paper which is referred to as being a proposed Bill to amend the Criminal Code. This impinges upon the rights and privileges of Members of the House of Commons inasmuch as the Minister is tabling a document on which we have no opportunity to comment or question but, rather, he runs across the street to the Press club theatre to make a statement, outside of the House of Commons.
My point of order is simply this. When the Minister stands up and abuses the privileges as a Minister by tabling a document which is not parliamentary, not legislative, and prevents us from making any comment or observations in the House of Commons, I say that my privileges and those of all my colleagues are thereby diminished. I say that this document should not be allowed to be tabled unless it is legislative in nature or unless he makes a statement on motions, a statement with respect to the document tabled, so that we may have an opportunity to question him with respect to his intention in Parliament.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is absolutely ridiculous. We have tabled many draft bills in the past. This is one other example. We did it with the Income Tax Act and we did it with the energy legislation. We are now doing it again. We are informing Parliament with courtesy. The Hon. Member is complaining. He is totally ridiculous and should go back to the small claims court.


Madam Speaker:: On this particular point of order, the Hon. Member knows, of course, that the Chair has no means at her disposal to force a Minister to make a statement in the House. Ministers of the Crown may choose the manner in which to inform the population or Members of Parliament of their different moods. I am afraid that I cannot recognize this as being a point of order.


PETITIONS
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, I wish to present a petition signed by 179 residents of the City of Owen Sound and surrounding areas of the riding of Grey-Simcoe in the Province of Ontario who support the goal of general disarmament and urge the federal Government to negotiate and implement with other Governments all steps that would lead to bilateral agreement to halt the testing, production and development of all nuclear weapons systems.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, I take great pleasure in presenting a petition on behalf of another 432 residents of Canada asking for early consideration of Bill C-671 and the early execution of Clifford Robert Olson. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour and privilege of presenting a petition signed by a number of residents of the Province of Manitoba and one person from the Province of British Columbia who are concerned about the proliferation of so-called adult programming on pay television and of pornography in various media. They call upon this Parliament to demonstrate its opposition to the denigration of women by enacting an Act to amend the Broadcasting Act, as introduced by the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) on March 8, 1983.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour and duty to submit two petitions containing some 66 names of residents of Saskatchewan from places like Mankota, McCord, Fir Mountain, Glentworth, Meyronne and Lafleche, in which they petition Parliament assembled to maintain that western farmers will pay one times the Crow rate, since the amount that grain producers now pay to ship grain is their fair share of the cost.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory grain Crow rate.


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition. The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, who now exercise their right to present a grievance, humbly sheweth that the salary budget for staff of Members of Parliament is frozen until August 3, 1984, under the six and five program, that M.P.s were not informed of the freeze until well into the first year of
June 23, 1983

the program and that, as a result, the staffs of most M.P.s will not receive any salary increases during 1983 and most of 1984.
Wherefore the undersigned, your present petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to increase salaries of the staffs of Members of Parliament so that these employees are able to meet the financial arrangements they entered into based on salary increases M.P.s and staff were led to expect. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.



PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS


Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, 1 am not entirely sure whether to raise this matter or to seek your good advice, but as the House of Commons is totally under your jurisdiction, let me say that I have received a number of visitors to the House of Commons in the past two weeks and these people, who have been from western Canada, have expressed disappointment that the Diefenbaker Bill of Rights in both official languages is not displayed for view in the Hall of Honour. Would Madam Speaker perhaps consider having some attention given to this oversight?


Madam Speaker:: The matter of the display in the Hall of Honour is not entirely under my jurisdiction. 1 simply agreed to allow the displays to be made. I believe it is the responsibility of the Secretary of State (Mr. Joyal) or another Minister of the Cabinet, but it is not my responsibility.



CANADA LABOUR CODE


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-688, an Act to Amend the Canada Labour Code (collective agreements).
He said: Madam Speaker, the explanatory note of the Bill states that this amendment to the Canada Labour Code would ensure that the administration of a collective agreement would not have a discriminatory or detrimental effect on the employees covered by that agreement in comparison to other employees not covered by the agreement.
The main reason for the Bill is that Crown corporations have a double standard in negotiating early retirement benefits. They are giving handsome settlements to some groups, but not to others.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4,722, 4,806, 4,878 and 4,900.

CNR-NAKINA, ONTARIO TERMINAL Question No. A,122-Mr. Penner:
What are the total itemized savings and/or costs to be incurred by the Canadian National Railways, should it cease to use the Nakina, Ontario terminal for crew changes?


Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The management of Canadian National Railways
advises as follows:
An estimated annual savings of $1.2 million to CN should be realized through the avoidance of terminal time and terminal overlap time at Nakina, held-away payments at Nakina, non-operating employees costs, administration costs, such as those related to medical and uniform code of operating rule examinations, brake-shoe and wheel wear, fuel consumption, equipment delays, and building operation and maintenance.
The costs to be incurred by CN will not be known until the employee benefit and relocation agreement has been negotiated with the unions involved.


Mr. Murta: Is the Canadian National Railways undertaking a rehabilitation program for the summer months in western Canada in 1983 and, if so (a) how many persons will be hired from each Province (b) will the majority of employees hired be residents of western Canada?


Jesse Philip Flis: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows:
Yes. (a) and (b) Based on initial hiring, personnel to be employed on Canadian National's Grain Line Rehabilitation Program in 1983 will originate from the various Provinces as follows:
Alberta	20
Saskatchewan	220
Manitoba	94
Ontario	9
Quebec	12
Nova Scotia	1
This represents initial employees hired as of May 16 and does not account for possible replacements to be taken on later in the year.

June 23, 1983
Order Paper Questions
All hirings are seasonal for approximately a six month period, except for 20 full-time positions which are included in the above totals; 19 of the employees holding these positions originate from Saskatchewan and one originates from Manitoba.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Is there a Canada/Manitoba Drought Studies Advisory Committee and, if so (a) who are the members (b) what is the (i) background or expertise (ii) term of appointment of each member (c) what remuneration, such as salary or travel expenses, do the members receive and, for the length of each appointment to date, what amount did each member receive (d) what other funding, if any, is provided by the Government?
2.	(a) What are the terms of reference of the Committee (b) what matters did it consider in the fiscal year 1982-83 (c) how often did it meet and how often is it required to meet (d) what reports and/or recommendations did the Committee publish in the fiscal year 1982-83?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. Yes, a Drought Proofing Studies Advisory Committee has been established under Program 1 of the Canada-Manitoba Interim Subsidiary Agreement on Water Development for Regional Economic Expansion and Drought Proofing.
(a)	and (b) (i) The members are:
Dr. J. C. Gilson, Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg.
Dr. R. McGinnis, Dean, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg.
Dr. G. Laliberte, Head, Department of Agricultural Engineering, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg.
Professor C. Booy, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg.
Dr. H. Schellenberg, at time of appointment, Resource Economist, Manitoba Department of Natural Resources; presently, Agricultural Resource Economist, Manitoba Department of Agriculture, Winnipeg.
Mr. E. Somers, at time of appointment, Development Officer, Canada Department of Regional Economic Expansion; presently, Manager, Program Implementation, Canada Department of Agriculture, Winnipeg.
Mr. J. Wiens, Acting Director of Agriculture and Food Development, Canada Department of Agriculture, Winnipeg.
Mr. D. Davis, Director, Inland Waters Directorate, Environment Canada, Regina.
Mr. D. J. Berry, Chief, Planning Services, PFRA, Regina.
Mr. M. Wallace, Senior Development Officer, Manitoba Department of Economic Development and Tourism, Winnipeg.
Mr. E. Bossenmaier, Director, Resource Allocation, Manitoba Department of Natural Resources, Winnipeg.
Mr. G. C. Jenkins, Chief, Land and Water Section, Manitoba Department of Agriculture, Winnipeg; replaced Mr. R. Filteau, who retired in 1981.
Mr. D. N. Potter, Financial Analyst, Manitoba Department of Finance, Winnipeg.
Mr. E. A. Poyser, at time of appointment, Manager, Development and Analysis, Canada Department of Regional Economic Expansion; presently, Project Co-ordinator for the Drought Proofing Studies, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg.
Mr. N. Mudry, Agreement Provincial Co-Manager, Chief of Water Management, Manitoba Department of Natural Resources, Winnipeg.
Mr. G. H. MacKay, Agreement Federal Co-Manager, Director, Manitoba Affairs, PFRA, Winnipeg.
(b)	(ii) The Committee members have all been appointed for the duration of the Program 1 studies.
(c)	The Committee members do not receive any remuneration for serving on the Advisory Committee. Where applicable, travel expenses for government employees have been provided by various departments. Non-government Committee members have not incurred travel expenses because all meetings to date have been held at the University of Manitoba.
(d)	Other than employee time and travel costs (when applicable) there are no governmental expenditures (federal or provincial) being made for the Drought Proofing Studies Advisory Committee per se.
2.	(a) The Drought Proofing Studies Advisory Committee is responsible for: ensuring that issues of concern of those knowledgeable of drought and its effects are presented to the Contractor (Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Manitoba)* and the Management Group;** advising the contractor on the consistency of his analysis with actual experience; suggesting how the results can be presented in a way that provides the greatest amount of useable information to potential users; and advising the Management Group on technical aspects of the study.
(b), (c) and (d) There is no fixed schedule for Advisory Committee meetings. These may be requested at any time by either the Contractor or the Management Group.
During the fiscal year 1982-83, the Advisory Committee met twice. Its activities focused primarily on formulating a number of development and drought mitigating scenarios which the econometric models should be capable of analysing. These scenarios were forwarded to the Management Group and were accepted. The Advisory Committee also reviewed the Contractor's progress and found it acceptable. This was reported to the Management Group by the Agreement CoManagers. Other than the above noted listing of scenarios and their components, the Advisory Committee did not publish any material in 1982-83.
* The Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Manitoba, has been retained under the Canada-Manitoba Agreement to develop and test a series of econometric models which will be used to analyse the impact of drought on
Manitoba's economy under existing conditions, and, under various development and drought mitigating scenarios.
June 23, 1983

** A Management Group composed of senior federal and provincial officials has been charged with overseeing the implementation of the Agreement. The Federal Co-Chairman is Dr. H. M. Hill, Director General, PFRA, and the Provincial Co-Chairman is Mr. T. E. Weber, Director, Manitoba Water Resources Branch, Manitoba Department of Natural Resources.


Mr. Heap: Does South Korea prohibit the importation of footwear or clothing from Canada?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of State (International Trade)):: Imports of footwear and clothing into Korea from all countries, including Canada, are not absolutely prohibited. In the case of footwear, imports are not restricted, i.e. import licences are automatically approved, but the general tariff is 50 per cent. One exception is women's dress shoes, which, though granted automatic import licence approval, are under surveillance. However, it is likely that this item will receive full automatic approval status this year.
In the case of clothing, of a total 217 tariff items, 142 items are restricted under the Annual Trade Plan and a further 34 under other Special Laws. The remaining 41 items or 18.9 per cent are automatically issued import licences. In addition, the general tariff rate on all clothing is 50 per cent.


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


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam Speaker, 1 would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary about two questions that I have had on the Order Paper for quite some time. One question goes back to November 18, 1981. 1 have raised this point about six or seven times in the House. 1 have asked the Parliamentary Secretary to obtain some kind of answer from the Minister of Transport as to why he will not answer my question asking if the Minister of Supply and Services, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development took a JetStar flight to Winnipeg for the official opening of the General Aluminum Forgings Incorporated on October 30, 1981, and, if so, in each case, other than the Minister and the aircraft crew, who was on the flight.
It is my understanding that they were transporting Grit workers to Manitoba to work in the provincial election there. In view of all this grand ballyhoo we have heard today about freedom of information, I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to inform me what kind of an answer he has received from the Minister of Transport.
Order Paper Questions
I also have an inquiry about question No. 4,175 which I have had on the Order Paper since March 24, 1982. This is an extremely important question. The Government and a number of Government departments have hiring teams going into universities in Ontario and Quebec to hire one nationality for jobs in the Government. I would like to know if these hiring teams are going into any other Provinces. I am particularly interested in my own Province. Are they going into universities there to hire people for jobs in the Government? I understand that some of the departments have provided the information to whomever is responsible for giving answers here in the House.
I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to explain why he cannot provide this information to me and the Canadian people about this discriminatory policy of the Government.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I can advise the Hon. Member that when I receive a reply from a Minister I then table it. I believe it is safe for him to assume that if I have not tabled an answer to either of those two questions it is because I have not yet received replies from the respective Ministers.
I would also like to assure him and other Hon. Members that each time a Member rises in the House, as he has just done, to ask me to make inquiries as to the progress of the preparation of an answer to a question on the Order Paper, I do in fact make those inquiries. He can assume that I have made further inquiries but I have not to date received an answer.
One course of action that is, of course, open to him is the one that the Hon. Member for Leeds-Grenville took today. If he wishes to put a question to the Minister of Transport directly in the House during Question Period, that option is open to him.
All I can do is convey his concerns and the concerns of other Hon. Members to the Ministers and once I receive the reply from them I table it. He can safely assume that if I have not tabled a reply it is because I have not received it.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, I would like to invite you and the Parliamentary Secretary to join me in celebrating the second birthday of question No. 2,672 which was put on the Order Paper on June 23, 1981. The question is a simple one which asks about the Government's public opinion surveying since the 1980 election. The Parliamentary Secretary said that in any instance when a Member of Parliament asks why his question has not been answered he makes inquiries. I have raised this matter on at least two separate occasions.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us why his track record is so poor in getting decent responses to these inquiries that he is making? What is the point of putting questions on the Order Paper in the first place if they are not answered? What is the point of our raising them with him if his inquiries go nowhere?


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I have answered 82.9 per cent of all the questions placed on the Order Paper in this session. I do not think anyone is batting over .350 in the American or

June 23, 1983
Motions for Papers
National Leagues. If he wants to talk about batting averages 82.9 per cent is not bad.
The answer which I gave to the Hon. Member for Win-nipeg-Assiniboine is the one that applies here. When a question is raised with me in the House, I raise it with the Minister. I cannot put that Minister on the rack and extract an answer from him.


Some Hon. Members:: Why not?


David P. Smith: Because I have no authority to do that. I do convey the concerns of Hon. Members and I do relay the answers once I have received them. Of course, I will be delighted and honoured to convey once again the concerns of the Hon. Member to the Minister in question with regard to this matter.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Henry Perrin Beatty: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, according to my Order Paper for today, dated Thursday, June 23, 1983, the next item of business after Questions on the Order Paper is Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers. I noticed that they were not called. I wonder if you will be calling that item because I have another point to raise with regard to Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I have been advised by one of the Table officers that apparently the Notice of Motion for Production of Papers to which the Hon. Member refers was called yesterday.


Henry Perrin Beatty: It is on the Order Paper for today.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Obviously I am not informed on the subject. I am relying on the information that is being given to me at the moment.


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, you are quite correct. Notice of Motions for the Production of Papers was in fact called yesterday. There may be some legitimate confusion as a result of the fact that we switched the normal business for Wednesday to Thursday.
In the event that it were to be called, I would have been asking that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, today's Order Paper does list it, and while we are on the subject, could the Parliamentary
Secretary tell the House why yesterday or today he has not responded to Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No. 73, standing in my name since December 2, 1981, asking that an order of this House do issue for a copy of the results of each public opinion survey commissioned by the Government since the 1980 general election? If he cannot get answers from the Ministers with regard to questions on the Order Paper, how is he doing with Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers? When will I get an answer to that?


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, the same principle applies. If I can be of assistance to the Hon. Member, in the event that he is unhappy about the fact that the Minister concerned may not be forthcoming, he can request that the matter be transferred for debate. He could then have the matter debated. In fact, I think there is a shortage of matters on the list for debate under Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers. That is one course of action that is available to him.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Transfer for debate.

OPINION SURVEYS COMMISSIONED BY GOVERNMENT SINCE 1980 Motion No. 73-Mr. Beatty:
That an Order of this House do issue for a copy of the results of each public opinion survey commissioned by the Government since the 1980 general election.
Transferred for debate.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS

["Order, please! As it is now 6 p.m., pursuant to the order adopted on Thursday, June 16, 1983, and the provisions of Standing Order 2(2), the House stands adjourned until Monday morning at eleven o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).\nAt 6 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.", 'Monday, June 27, 1983']
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Shall all orders listed under Private Members' Public Bills preceding Order No. 463 be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



Mr. D. M. Collenette (York East) moved: that Bill C-663, to amend the Old Age Security Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am indeed pleased to be able to proceed this afternoon with my Private Members' Bill. It is a rather simple Bill and I hope the House will give it expeditious approval.
In summary, Bill C-663 seeks to amend the Old Age Security Act and to change the title of that Act to read the "Senior
June 23, 1983

Citizens Benefit Act". The reason I am proposing this elimination of the words "old age" is that they do imply that at age 65 a person is no longer capable of leading a productive life or making a valuable contribution to society.
The reason I bring this matter before the House today stems from the fact that the constituency which I represent in Metropolitan Toronto has, I believe, the highest number of senior citizens of any constituency in that area, and has probably one of the highest numbers in the country. I am sure, along with places such as Victoria, the area of York East, comprising the Borough of East York and the "old town" of Don Mills, as we call it, has one of the highest numbers of senior citizens in the country.
Tomorrow on my birthday I will become a certain age. I do not believe that the passage of time has diminished my effectiveness just because I turned a certain age. And I am sure that just because someone reaches the age of 65, their ability or effectiveness is not diminished. In my constituency, Mr. Speaker, we have a large number of senior citizen groups who perform a range of community activities and tasks. This group meets almost incessantly, whether for a legitimate community activity such as the raising of funds for worthy projects, to work on handicrafts, or for lawn bowling, to play euchre or bridge and participate in other forms of recreation. Indeed, up until recently many members of the Borough of East York Council were people approaching or over the age of 65, although that has changed somewhat in the last few years. In my constituency, however, senior citizens continue to take a leading role through church and community organizations.
As we know, Mr. Speaker, the population of senior citizens is rapidly increasing due to a number of factors, not the least of which is that married couples today are choosing to have fewer children. With medical advances, we have noted that the life expectancy for Canadians has increased dramatically over the last few years. I do not have the actual figures but I believe the life expectancy for a man in this country is about 70 years and for a women it is about 75 years. As we come out of the current recession and embark on a new era of economic growth based on high technology industries in which Canada has a leading edge, it is my submission, Mr. Speaker, that, notwithstanding all the gloomy forecasts which one reads in the press, there will indeed be a labour shortage as the years go by.
One way, of course, to deal with that, as Canada has dealt with it traditionally, is through immigration. However, there is a debate as to whether or not Canada should be taking skilled people from the underdeveloped countries. Perhaps these people should be staying in their own countries to develop the economies there. Of course, we can take large numbers of unskilled workers, and we have done that I am happy to say over the years. However, it seems to me that with new opportunities for growth and labour shortage demands, especially in skilled trades, it would be worth while if we encouraged the
Old Age Security Act
private sector, certainly the Public Service, to keep people on the job past the age of 65.
If the medical advances which I have cited are correct, then it stands to reason that people are just as agile at the age of 69 as they were at the age of 65. I note, for example, our colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who has toiled many years in the House, is over the age of 65. He has made and continues to make a very effective contribution to the House of Commons. He has certainly set an example for those of us who are many years his junior.
The former Member for Spadina in the 1940s and 1950s, now in the Senate, Senator David Croll, is one of those life senators who at the age of 83 still comes to the caucus every Wednesday. In fact, as my colleague, the Hon. Member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail), will testify, Senator Croll made a very lucid intervention this week at our national Liberal caucus. He is a gentleman who undertakes speaking engagements at the age of 83 and chaired an all-party Senate committee a few years ago at which time he issued a very laudable and worth-while report entitled "Retirement Without Tears". If one opens that report one finds a quotation from Psalms 71:9, and I quote:
Cast me not off in the time of old age; forsake me not when my strength faileth.
One of the recommendations in his report is that the mandatory retirement age be abolished. It has been contended by a number of people-and I would lean towards this interpretation myself-that with the recent enactment and entrenchment of the Charter of Rights, a mandatory retirement age provision of 65 may be proven to be unconstitutional.
I have been rather active in the last year or so in fighting the post office on behalf of one of its employees. I have many constituents in my riding who work at the central postal facility. This gentleman, who was doing a manual job and performing it very well, had no performance problems and a good work record, had to retire at the age of 65 when he was clearly capable of carrying on his particular tasks. We fought that case through the Canadian Human Rights Commission and we received a "stay of execution" for this particular gentleman. However, he was forced to retire this year at the age of 66. Post office officials admit that there was no appreciable difference in his performance at the age of 66 from what it was the day before his sixty-fifth birthday.
Obviously, we cannot make a carte blanche statement that all persons over the age of 65 are of sound mind and body and that they can perform the tasks of younger people. Equally, however, we cannot say that people who have reached the age of 60 years can do the same kind of work. In my submission, a retirement age of 65 is completely and utterly arbitrary and should be changed. In fact, one of the recommendations of Senator Croll's committee was, of course, to abolish this mandatory age for retirement. One of the arguments which was used is quoted on page 51 of the report:
Finally, the increasing burden of the older dependent population should be reduced by the elimination of mandatory retirement at age 65. The new environment which is envisaged for the mid-1980s on-with demand for labour

June 23, 1983
Old Age Security Act
high and age discrimination abolished-should result in the increased participation of older workers in the labour force. As a result of this increased participation, more goods and services will be produced to support those of the older population who are not working.
The report then goes on to state its conclusions. Put quite simply, Mr. Speaker-and this is as a result of representations 1 have received from a number of my constituents-it is felt that the words "old age" are somewhat derogatory. Really, when one thinks of old age, one thinks in Keynesian terms. I feel that when one uses the term "old age this" and "old age that", it really conjures un memories of the workhouses, the alms houses, and of another era which is long gone. Today, as we see in our own House of Commons, in the Senate and through our society, because of medical advances and improved social conditions, people are living longer, making more productive use of their lives and their skills, and certainly should be utilized by society.
This change, if enacted, will not cost the Government anything; it can be done simply by a stroke of the pen. I have been led to believe that the Government has some reservations about making this change on the argument that the whole pension system is being studied by a committee of this House. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that the enactment of this change, as 1 have proposed, will in no way undermine that particular study now being conducted by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith).
In conclusion, I take great pleasure in bringing this Bill forward. I am sure by the rapt attention I have received from Hon. Members that they are of one mind and will allow the Bill to go to committee. Hence we will have rapid passage and end this blatant discrimination, in a sense semantic discrimination, in one of our statutes. Henceforth when someone receives one's pension at the appropriate time in the month, one will not be receiving an old age pension; one will be receiving a senior citizen's benefit.


Hon. Bud Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised that this particular issue was raised by the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Collenette) because of his well known concern not just for senior citizens but for people. This has been very evident throughout his career as a Member of Parliament. I am sure that when he went through the legislation and saw something which struck a negative cord in his mind about the meaning or the semantic implication of words such as "old age", it was only a short time thereafter that he saw fit to draft a Bill and fortunately got it on the list for discussion today.
When we are considering this kind of Bill in Private Members' Hour, we are provided with an opportunity to be reminded of the need for additional help to senior citizens. All too often there is a tendency to think that we have done about all we could possibly do and that there is no crying need out there for anything other than possibly more money. Innovative governments have indicated areas where senior citizens have fallen short financially either because pensions were not in existence during the 1930s and 1940s or because their pensions were so small or not indexed that inflation has eaten away at
them to the point where they must go out and seek employment, despite the fact that they cannot draw unemployment insurance and are not protected under provincial workmen's compensation plans. Out of sheer necessity such senior citizens have had to go out to work.
Governments of various political stripes have seen fit to get together and provide benefits, such as senior citizens not having to pay OHIP premiums. In other areas assistance is given in the form of cheaper hair cuts, free bus rides and things of that nature. At the federal Government level low rental housing units have been provided for senior citizens. It is hard to imagine that prior to 1968 some initiative had not been taken in this particular way because it has been such a successful program and has met a particular need of senior citizens.
A Bill such as this one reminds us of the fact that we must constantly look for the opportunity to come up with ways and means for Canadian taxpayers to help the people who made the country what it is today, the people who gave of their time, their effort and their skills to see to it that Canada became one of the great nations of the world. I would remind people who have a tendency to knock this country that when I held a portfolio in Immigration, in those particular days and even now somewhere between 700,000 and 900,000 people per year applied to come to Canada because they saw it as a great and wonderful place in which to live and, more important, where they would receive decent treatment. We have often heard that a country is judged by the way it treats its senior citizens or people in need. Senior citizens are the people who gave the image and character that we know as Canada today.
I was a little surprised when I heard a stage whisper across the way that this was only a frill, that it just changed the name. I suggest with respect that it is more than that. It is an indication that we are trying to remove, as we do with women's issues, any chauvinistic implication of legislation. It is appropriate that the Hon. Member for York East is trying to do what he can to give a better impact to a Bill of this nature, particularly by the name change.
It is not unusual that this kind of thing takes place in Private Members' Hour. If we want to recommend anything in this particular place, it costs money. We must do it in the form of a motion, whereas in Private Members' Hour we are pretty well confined. We have to be innovative and find ways and means for Private Members to right what is perceived as a wrong or to correct something which gives the wrong indication. For example, Canada Mortgage and Housing was once known as Central Mortgage and Housing. The idea of "Canada" being in the name rather than "Central" points to the impact of the symbolism of using the name Canada.
I believe it was the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) when he was a Private Member who brought in a Bill to change the name of TransCanada Airlines to Air Canada. We have seen things such as the Dominion Bureau of Statistics being changed to Statistics Canada because it has a more solid and better image of what that Department is all about. We had a recent indication of how a
June 23, 1983

Private Member could significantly change the country's history when the name Dominion Day was changed to Canada Day, much to the pleasure of the majority of Canadians, although they might not have like the method of accomplishing it. When we have tried 347 other ways of getting this done and finally come up with a solution on a Friday afternoon, I think it is one of the better things we have done here in Private Members' Hour.
Also I remember that when Father Sean O'Sullivan was here he was checking around and discovered that there was nothing to indicate that the beaver was the Canadian symbol. Through a Private Member's Bill action was taken. It may seem a frill or it may seem unimportant, but it is one more indication of the thoughtfulness of people who want to move in this particular way to make such a change.
When I began my remarks I said that we were being given an opportunity to talk about our senior citizens. All too often we talk about two million people over the age of 65 and have a tendency to get lost in the numbers rather than deal with individual needs. There are many senior citizens, single pensioners or others, who for one reason or another-quite often through no fault of their own-miss out on the Canada Pension Plan or on an old age pension.
Because we are talking about senior citizens and the proposed name changes, I want to highlight the story of a Royal Canadian Air Force veteran who was 27 years of age when he enlisted. He won his wings at Summerside, Prince Edward Island. He rose to the rank of Warrant Officer First-Class. He was given a Spitfire and he wheeled it over Great Britain and France, as Rod Goodman indicated in his article which appeared in the Sunday Star on June 19. He pointed out that this man's war service for Canada ended when his right leg was crushed. He spent a year in British Hospitals undergoing bone transplants to save the leg; his kneecap was removed. His Spitfire was shot down by a cannon from a German fighter just off the English coast in 1943.
As Mr. Goodman indicated, this grateful country welcomed him home. He returned to his job in a meat packing plant but it was no good because his leg would not function in the cold. He decided to start his own business. While his wife worked in an insurance compensation department, he helped found the Metro Cab Company. The climate continued to torture him. The significant part of the story is that finally a doctor from the Department of Veterans Affairs-he was not one of Mr. Wright's own physicians whom he could have set up to do this-told him that he could expect pain to be his constant companion unless he moved to a warmer climate. In the spring of 1952, just before turning the age of 38, Mr. Wright and his wife moved to California. They did what they could there, working in various ways to maintain their income. They returned each year to visit his aging mother until her death four years ago.
The Wrights now live in Escondido, California. Mr. Wright thought that he should at least be entitled to a partial old age pension. He had been paying into the United States social security system and was receiving a small pension that did not
Old Age Security Act
help ends meet. This spring, at age 69, he applied for a partial Canadian Government old age pension; he was turned down.
What are the criteria? The regional director of pensions in Toronto says that an applicant outside Canada may qualify for a partial monthly pension provided he or she was a Canadian citizen or a legal resident of Canada on the day preceding the day he or she ceased to reside in Canada. Mr. Wright qualified on that score, but he was defeated by the second stipulation that he or she reside in Canada at least 20 full years after attaining the age of 18.
We know why that specific requirement was put into the Act. However, this war veteran who was shot down, who endeavoured to do what he could to maintain himself in Canada, who was told by a Veterans Affairs doctor that he had to move to a southern climate, is not applying for a full pension but asking for a partial old age pension.
Here is the tragic part of the whole matter. Mr. Wright qualified on the ground that he had been a Canadian citizen when he left the country, but he was defeated by the second stipulation that he or she reside in Canada 20 full years. Because a war injury forced him to a southern climate when it did, Mr. Wright fell 60 days short of help from the Canadian Government.
Mr. Goodman asks, was it fair? I do not think it was fair. I have already brought this to the attention of the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Campbell). I asked for his help in endeavouring to convince the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) that there must be some way to find a discretionary way of giving this former Royal Canadian Air Force officer, this veteran, some help with his pension when he so desperately needs it.
This is the kind of matter we can highlight in the Bill such as this. It indicates that people like Mr. Wright are part of the two million who seem to fall between the chairs of the legislation. I do not think anyone in Canada really feels that Mr. Wright is not entitled to some form of pension. It is typical of Mr. Wright that he did not ask for the full pension but for a partial pension, because he had paid into social security in the United States. I will keep pressing this issue, as other Members press issues involving senior citizens.
There are two concerns. The Hon. Member for York East indicated that the Government was not very keen on this move because pensions, and all that sort of thing, are being discussed at the present time. I do not know what the Government is thinking or whether it would contemplate raising that argument in this debate.
There are two matters that concern me. The first is whether the demand for the name change is as widespread as is indicated here, given the fact that money will have to be spent in order to make that change. I wonder if those who are looking for help at this time could see us spending money on the name change-and it would be a significant amount of money-or whether they would feel those dollars and cents might be better spent on pensioners, money they would like to see on

June 23, 1983
Old Age Security Act
their cheque, no matter what the name is at the top of the cheque.
1 think that given the choice, most pensioners would prefer to see the significant funds associated with implementing a program name change directed instead to the pockets of their less fortunate peers. Do pensioners really want us spending taxpayers' dollars on devising and publicizing a new name and seeing its implementation through? 1 do not know that that is really what they anticipate or are looking for when they look to Government.
What I would like to see as our first social priority is to raise the level of the guaranteed income supplement payable to single pensioners. This was stated in the federal Government's green paper on pension reform, "Better Pensions for Canadians". The necessary funds are not available as yet. I like the "as yet" because it gives the impression that that issue as raised in the green paper is something that will be implemented by the Government. The money is not available as yet. Lest people think there is a niggardly amount of money being spent in this area, we should point out that the taxpayers of Canada contribute $8 billion annually for assistance, cheques and moneys of one kind or another for our senior citizens.
1 heard a stage whisper earlier that this might be considered a frill rather than something significant that we should be doing. I do not consider it that way. I feel it is a good move by a Member who has a real concern about the impact of the negative response that one gets from the idea of old age. Old age connotes to all of us individuals passionately and desperately in need of help, unable to look after themselves and requiring assistance of one kind or another. I think the suggestion of using the term "senior citizens" is more appropriate. I hope that one day the Act will be changed in that way, if this Bill does not go to committee as a result of this debate.
We have a tendency when using the words "old age" to think, unhappily, in a negative way. Those who have taken the time, and that is probably true of all Members of Parliament, have been very much impressed with the many organizations that pensioners and older Canadians have formed in recent years, in part to present their views to Governments on various issues affecting them. I do not know whether they have made a representation with respect to this name. If not, I am sure it will be added to their list, as it should be.
These groups have a long list of accomplishments. Right now many are involved in preparing submissions and presentations to the parliamentary task force on pension reform, referred to by the Hon. Member for York East. Two such organizations have already had the opportunity to appear before the task force, the Council on Pension Reform for Singles and the National Pensioners and Senior Citizens Federation. The focus of their presentations was how to improve our pension system to provide better benefits for older Canadians, both now and in the future.
Among the recommendations of the Council on Pension Reform for Singles was a suggestion that the income guarantee to single pensioners be raised at least to the poverty line and then additionally increased to compensate those singles born too soon to participate in the Canada Pension Plan. The
Council also suggested that a death benefit similar to that payable to a Canada Pension Plan contributor's estate be made available under the Old Age Security Program on behalf of these same single pensioners. Other recommendations concern the provision of larger tax exemptions for single pensioners and payment of Old Age Security at age 60 to single pensioners looking after aged parents or those forced to retire due to disability or poor health.
What is significant about all these studies is that when people join these organizations and bring forth these studies, they have a tendency to focus on the areas where they know the need to be rather than what you or I, Mr. Speaker, perceive the need to be.
The National Pensioners and Senior Citizens Federation propose, among other things, continued payment of OAS-GIS for six months to the surviving spouse of a deceased pensioner, quarterly indexation of Canada Pension Plan benefits, payment of OAS-GIS at age 55 to widows of disabled pensioners and a gradual lowering of the eligibility age for pension benefits to age 60.
If this is any indication of what the task force can expect to hear from other organizations representing pensioners, and I expect that it is, financial security for pensioners is their main concern, and I underline "main". If we lived in an unreal world where money was no object, these pensioner organizations might have suggested to the parliamentary task force that the Government consider a new name for the Old Age Security Program. However, pensioners are practical people. They know only too well what the real problems are of getting by from day to day.
I do not want to speak any longer on this Bill other than to say that I would endorse the change. If it does not come about as a result of this debate or a vote on this Bill, I expect it will be one of the changes that will come about in the not too distant future.


Mr. Kilgour:: Mr. Speaker, I did not realize that the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) wished to speak, but if there appears to be no speakers other than him, I suggest we might go on to the next matter of business, provided that this matter remains on the Order Paper.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In view of the fact that the Hon. Member for Regina West wishes to speak, the Chair should recognize him. Perhaps I can put the proposal or suggestion of the Hon. Member for Edmonton Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) after the House has heard the Hon. Member for Regina West.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It shocks me somewhat that a Member from the Official Opposition would rise in his place and propose that this debate be, in effect, adjourned without hearing anyone from his Party discuss the subject. Does his Party not care about senior citizens?
June 23, 1983


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the reason it was proposed I be heard and the Bill be put over on the Order Paper. In any event, I will not take up more than a few minutes because I do not want to assist in talking out the Hon. Member's Bill.
I should say to my friend, the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Collenette), that he should have talked to the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) about helping to talk out his Bill. That is something that one does not do to a colleague. If the Government does not want the Bill, it should be left for the Treasury benches or the Parliamentary Secretaries to talk out.
I would like to say that we support the Bill. We would be quite agreeable to seeing it passed today at second reading and referred to the appropriate standing committee. The Bill does not call for the expenditure of money or anything like that. It is perfectly in order.
I would also like to say that there have been numerous occasions when Private Members have had their Private Members' Bills accepted by the House, or at least there has been agreement that the subject matter of the Bill be referred to the appropriate standing committee. I would prefer to see this Bill adopted at second reading and go to the committee as is or, at the very least, the subject matter be referred. I am sure the Bill could be dealt with very expeditiously in the committee.
The test of the decency and civilization of any society is how well it treats its old and sick and disadvantaged. What we need, of course, is a Government Bill-because I know that the Hon. Member could not have proposed such a thing in his Bill as it would call for the expenditure of money-to provide that all of these people, the old, the sick and the disadvantaged, receive benefits to ensure that their incomes fall significantly above the poverty line. We need a Bill to ensure that any other benefits they might receive outside of Government programs would be taken into consideration, because there are literally hundreds of thousands of the old, disabled or disadvantaged in the nation who are at or below the poverty line.
Any nation that can afford to spend $8 billion on a fighter plane that I do not believe is needed or is of any use to us-


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Not $8 billion.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Yes, that is what it will end up costing. However many billions of dollars it will cost, if the money for that can be found, the money for something that is much more important to the people I have mentioned can surely be found.
I hope that the House will agree to let this Bill go to the committee. If the Government does not want the Bill, it can always stop it at report stage or at third reading if it wishes. I think the least we could do, as a courtesy to the Hon. Member for York East and because it has been requested by senior citizens right across the country, is let the Bill go through second reading and see what happens after that.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Collenette) has succeeded. Certainly he is not correct when he suggests that we on this side of the House are not interested in senior citizens. I dare say that most senior citizens of the country vote for this Party.
Old Age Security Act
I assure the Hon. Member that, to my knowledge every Member on this side of the House is or should be vitally concerned with the interests of all people who will be affected by the Hon. Member's Bill.
The wording of the Hon. Member's Bill, to which obviously we, or at least I, can only agree, would remove the concept of "old age" from senior citizens' benefits. I am sorry to say that I did not hear the Member's speech, but I hope that he pointed out that there are, I believe, approximately 500,000 single women in Canada who are over the age of 65 and have incomes under $5,000 a year. I hope he mentioned that people like this of both sexes are always the last to complain and the last to be heard and, it seems to me, the last to be paid any attention to.
I would think, Mr. Speaker, that these people would look askance at things like the $200,000 that taxpayers are coughing up in order to send Mr. Ed Clark and his family to Paris for an 18-month study leave courtesy of the Canadian taxpayer. In the same vein, what about the 104 people who sit in the other place of which, I am told, only about 15 or 20 do any real work? They receive an income of perhaps $55,000 or $60,000 a year and expenses until the age of 75, or for life if appointed prior to 1974. What about the $1.4 billion that may have been thrown away on Canadair? I am sure that senior citizens wonder where our priorities are when we put money into selling-what is the total now?-75 luxury executive Challenger jets. Whatever the total, it is pathetic.
I am reminded of my wife's two aunts who taught school in northern Alberta for 35 years. During the Depression they received $300 a year. One $300 cheque arrived a year, and at that time everyone in the neighbourhood descended upon them to seek a loan.
There are hundreds of thousands of senior citizens who are suffering economically because of a Government-created inflation, Mr. Speaker, because the monetary and fiscal policies which those opposite, including the Member for York East, know as surely as they know the sun will rise tomorrow would diminish the purchasing power of all Canadians and, most particularly, senior citizens who generally have the fewest dollars to spend.
It cannot be said often enough that the policy of running up a deficit which this year is $30 billion and then having the Bank of Canada finance a good chunk of that, whether it be $10 billion or $12 billion, by printing newly minted $10 or $20 or $100 bills, is one of the prime causes of inflation. This is a deliberate policy. It is a policy that has been in place in Canada for many years now. In my view, it is the reason our inflation rate has been has high as it has. It is something that 1 believe the senior citizens of Canada will never forgive the Government for. It is a cold-blooded policy of weakening the position of senior citizens in Canada.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that if everyone in Canada had taken a course in economics and monetary or fiscal policy, there would not be a Liberal MP left anywhere in the country. But

June 23, 1983
Old Age Security Act
Liberal Members, Mr. Speaker, know that most people do not understand how inflation is created by federal Government policy. I suspect Liberal Members know that most senior citizens do not believe that anyone could be so cynical as to inflate the currency in order to try to pay for deficits. The tragedy is that the Government has done this for too long, and in my view that is why most senior citizens will vote against the Government. Increasing numbers of them are aware of what is happening to their purchasing power.
Two out of three people in the country over the age of 65 are at or near the poverty line. I believe that figure is correct. I could go on, but I believe that everyone in the Chamber today knows about the lamentable situation of pensioners. Surely everyone here today would favour passage of the Bill. I do not know which Hon. Member on the Government side has been given the dirty task of talking the Bill out but I gather that will take another 15 or 20 minutes. I assume that whichever Hon. Member opposite gets up to speak when I finish is the one who has been asked to talk the Bill out while smothering it to death with kind sentiments.


John O. (Jack) Burghardt: Mr. Speaker, regardless of the remarks we just heard from the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strath-cona (Mr. Kilgour), I am very pleased to address a few remarks to Bill C-663, introduced by my colleague, the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Collenette). For the record, Mr. Speaker, I should like to state that I have not been assigned any "dirty task" in talking the Bill out. I am sure that many Members in the Chamber would welcome the opportunity to give their views on the Bill.
I think it is rather interesting that the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona was embarrassed into making remarks on behalf of the Loyal Opposition. Just a few minutes ago he stood to ask that we move to the next item of business. Obviously at that time he had no care or concern about matters relating to senior citizens. When the Hon. Member for York East rose on a point of order, then the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona felt his neck and had to say a few words regarding the plight of senior citizens and recipients of the old age pension. In a very partisan way he attacked the concerns that all of us have regarding Parliament and the Government of the day. I think we must take his remarks lightly as obviously he has very little concern and care for this particular Bill.
This Bill proposes to change the name of the Old Age Security Act to the "Senior Citizens Benefits Act". The basis given for this proposal is the contention that the words "old age" imply that at age 65 a person is no longer capable of leading a productive life or making a valuable contribution to society. Certainly the name "Old Age Security Program" was never intended to carry such a negative connotation.
The current Old Age Security pension-one of three benefits provided under the Old Age Security Act-is paid to
everyone at age 65 who meets the necessary residence requirements in Canada. Eligibility for this pension is not dependent on labour force participation. You neither have to participate in the paid labour force prior to age 65, nor do you have to leave the labour force after age 65.
Persons 65 years of age and older are definitely not considered incapable of leading a productive life or making a valuable contribution to society. However, it is felt that these persons, in recognition of the number of years they have spent making Canada a better place in which to live, should have the right, if they so choose, to take life more easily, retire from the labour force, or pursue other interests and hobbies. To do this they must have an assured source of basic income and that is exactly what the Old Age Security Program is designed for.
Therefore, since the intent of the Old Age Security Program is to reward older individuals for past services to Canada and not to pay off individuals at age 65 because we do not believe they are capable of being valuable members of our society, I am sure Hon. Members will agree that the program title should not be viewed in a negative way.
If it is decided to change the name of the Old Age Security Program, however, surely it is important to choose a name that improves the current title. Care must be taken to ensure that any new name has none of the negative connotations this Private Member's Bill attributes to the phrase "old age". At the same time there are some very positive aspects of the current title that must be maintained.
In Canada, the phrase "old age" has been part of the title of income support programs for older Canadians for more than 55 years, since the introduction of the Old Age Pensions Act in 1927. The almost perfect take-up rate for the Old Age Security pension signifies that people readily identify with this federal program; they know what the program is, what it provides, and where to apply.
It is important that any new program name be acceptable to pensioners and that it identify the program as well as the current name. Clearly this is a difficult task since "old age pension" is a term with widely understood meaning. In fact, these terms have become an integral part of Canadians' pension vocabulary. Regardless of any new names we might want to attach to it, I venture to guess that most people would continue to think of it simply as their old age pension. As well, it is possible that a change in the Old Age Seucrity Program name might cause confusion among pensioners who have grown accustomed to receiving the monthly Old Age Security pension. We would have to ensure that every effort be made to make the transition as easy and as understandable as possible.
While it is not essential that any new title give more than a general understanding of the nature of the program, it is assumed that a title which gives a more accurate description of the program objectives, source of the benefits, limitations, et cetera, would be more effective than a more neutral title. As well, words or phrases which could mislead the public about the nature of the program should, as much as possible, be avoided.
June 23, 1983

The title proposed in this Bill is Senior Citizens Benefits Act. While the phrase "senior citizen" has come to be widely used when referring to older individuals, it is often used to denote those persons who are retired. Since eligibility for the Old Age Security pension is not limited to retired persons over the age of 65, "senior citizen", with respect, could be misleading. As well, the number of years of residence in Canada are used to determine who over age 65 is eligible for the pension. The word "citizen" might tend to give the false impression that an individual has to be a Canadian citizen and not just have been resident in Canada. I also want to point out that there are individuals who have stated that they consider the term "senior citizen" to be as objectionable as the term "old age".
Thus, while it may be considered desirable to change the name of the Old Age Security Program, I do not believe that Senior Citizens Benefits Act would be an appropriate choice.
What, then, would be an acceptable title? How would we find out what individuals want? When should this change take place? Of those questions, I consider the "when" to be the most important. I know that with the necessary consultation and research, an appropriate new title could be found for the Old Age Security Act. Nevertheless, we must face the fact that changing the name of the Old Age Security Program is not going to be an inexpensive procedure. There is, of course, the cost associated with finding a new name, whether it be through a general survey of our current pensioners or through some other vehicle such as the Gallup poll. However, the greatest proportion of the expense would come after the fact. An extensive advertising campaign would be required in order to minimize the confusion and concern that a name change could be expected to cause. In addition, new application forms, program information booklets, ID cards, stationery and building signage would be required.
Is our current economic situation conducive to such a change? The current economic restraint program has, as with all Canadians, had its effect on our pensioner population. This session of Parliament has seen the adoption of Bill C-131(2), which amended the Old Age Security Act. Through passage of this piece of legislation we asked all Old Age Security pensioners who could afford to do so to accept limits on the amount of indexation they would receive on their basic Old Age Security pension in 1983 and 1984. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that they accepted that challenge with a great deal of grace and have worked along those lines. While inflation has been substantially reduced and the effects of the limited indexation are minimal thus far, the program will stay in effect until the end of December, 1984.
In addition, the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) in his remarks mentioned the green paper on pension reform. As stated in that green paper, improving the financial situation of low-income, single pensioners is an urgent and pressing necessity. This vulnerable group of Canadians is not yet guaranteed an adequate income with which to make ends
Business of the House
meet, and must be assisted as soon as financial resources permit.
Therefore, even if we all agree that changing the name of the Old Age Security Program is a desirable step, I think we must carefully consider where it lies in our list of social priorities. I firmly believe, Mr. Speaker, that the people of this country understand and recognize the difficult situation facing many of their compatriots, whether it be the young, the unemployed or older, retired members of our society. 1 feel certain they would want us to expend our efforts and resources to ensure these groups receive the financial assistance they require.
While I congratulate the Hon. Member for York East on bringing this matter to our attention-it has given him the opportunity, of course, to express his views and concerns for our senior citizens and retired people-I think that at this particular time we should not consider undertaking expensive initiatives such as those suggested in this Bill.


Mr. Jim Schroder (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to speak in debate on Bill C-663 put forth by my colleague, the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Collenette). This Bill seeks to change the name of the Old Age Security Act to the Senior Citizens' Benefit Act. In principle, I have no quarrel with the consideration of a new name for the Old Age Security Act if in fact it could be demonstrated that most pensioners find it offensive. I cannot agree, however, with the implied rationale that somehow the name "Old Age Security" means that people over the age of 65 are no longer capable of leading productive lives and making valuable contributions to society. In fact, Mr. Speaker, many Hon. Members in this House are living proof that people over age 65 can and do make valuable contributions to society. Their constituents clearly agree and history abounds with tremendous achievements by people well past the age of 65.
I do not need to remind Hon. Members that Sir Winston Churchill did not come to full-


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the Hon. Member for interrupting him but I wish to ask a question concerning the business of the House which will give us an opportunity to put the notice out to all the offices.
Can the Government House Leader give us some idea as to the business for next week?


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the Hon. Member for the interruption. We usually deal with this kind of matter at three o'clock on Thursday, but because of ongoing negotiations today we had to delay for a little while. But I think it

June 23, 1983
Business of the House
important that we put on the record to try and be as clear as possible the order of business for next week.
First, I would like to deal with an order that we have agreed upon related to the motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) relating to some amendments of the Constitution concerning aboriginal rights. Therefore I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That the Government Notice of Motion standing in the name of the Minister of Justice be now transferred for consideration under Government Orders at the next sitting of the House;
That the said motion shall be the first item to be considered under Government Orders on Monday, June 27, 1983;
That at 1 p.m. on Monday, June 27, 1983 the debate shall be suspended and the motion shall be deemed to have been referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development;
That at 4 p.m. on Wednesday, June 29, 1983, the committee shall be deemed to have reported the motion and consideration of the motion shall be resumed; and
That no later than 5.45 p.m. on Wednesday, June 29, 1983, the Speaker shall interrupt any proceedings then before the House and shall put forthwith and successively any question or questions necessary for the disposal of the said motion.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[ Translation]
Yvon Pinard: Yes, of course, Mr. Speaker. To determine the order of business for next week, perhaps we should know what is going to happen to the motion standing in the name of the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan). Now that we do know, I would like to confirm, first of all, that Monday morning, from 11 to 1 o'clock, in accordance with the order that has just been agreed to, we shall debate the motion on native rights to amend the Canadian Constitution. Monday afternoon, at 3 o'clock or as soon as we get to the orders of the day, after oral question period, the first item will be Bill C-165 on regional industrial development. I can confirm that the House Leaders have agreed to have one speaker per party, and that after second reading, without a recorded vote, the Bill is to be referred to committee, for study. Subsequently, we shall resume debate on the report stage of Bill C-95 on sports pools. If we complete the report stage and do not obtain the consent of the House for adopting the Bill on third reading, and there is still time on Monday, we shall resume debate on Bill C-152 on Government reorganization. Tuesday, from 11 until 1 o'clock, we shall proceed with consideration of Bill C-163, an Act to establish the Canadian Aviation Safety Board. Here again, we have an agreement at the House Leaders level to have the Bill referred to committee by 1 o'clock on Tuesday, after second reading. At 3 o'clock or after oral question period on Tuesday, we shall resume debate, if necessary, on Bill C-95 relating to sports pools, followed by Bill C-152 on Government
reorganization and Bill C-159, the judges bill. I can inform the House that there has been some discussion, and that Bill C-159 may be split so that we shall be considering two Bills instead of one Bill C-159. That is a possibility, and more details will be given later, as appropriate. However, for the purposes of announcing the business of the House, I am referring to Bill C-159, because this particular Bill is well known and one of its purposes is to increase the number of judges in Canada.
Wednesday, from 11 to 1 o'clock, and from 3 to 4 o'clock, we shall first consider the report stage and third reading of Bill C-163 on aviation safety, which will have been referred to committee the day before. Subsequently, we shall consider the report stage and third reading of Bill C-165, on regional industrial development.
At 4 o'clock, we shall have an order to complete debate on the motion on native rights, and at 4:45, as soon as the motion has been disposed of, we shall resume debate, if necessary, on Bill C-95, the sports pools; Bill C-152, Government reorganization; and Bill C-159, Bill S-24 and Bill C-l 19, in that order. Basically, this is our schedule, and as I said earlier, agreements have been reached on some points by the House Leaders. As far as other aspects are concerned, we shall have to see how the debate evolves to find out whether it will be necessary to change the order of business. We shall be monitoring this process daily in fact, almost hourly starting Monday afternoon.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address two items, if I may. I am sure that one just involves a translation problem. On the translation system, it was mentioned as being Bill C-75; I am sure the Government House Leader said Bill C-95.


Yvon Pinard: Right.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Fine. The other matter would be that we have agreed to split what is referred to as Bill C-159, the judges' Bill. I am not exactly sure how this is done, but if we were able to have that split, physically, on Monday, it would facilitate the debate on Wednesday or whenever it does come up for debate; I guess it is Tuesday. If it were to be split during Routine Proceedings on Tuesday or on Monday, it would certainly facilitate debate and my discussions with my people on Tuesday.


Mr. Deans:: Mr. Speaker, I would like some clarification, just in case it is misunderstood later. The reference was that we would deal with Bill C-163 on Tuesday morning and that it would be referred by 1 p.m.?


Yvon Pinard: Yes.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Yes.
June 23, 1983


Ian Deans: I just want to be clear that that is subject, of course, to there being at least one speaker for each Party.


Yvon Pinard: Sure.


Ian Deans: I do not want to get into a hassle later if it turned out that we were not recognized.


Yvon Pinard: Agreed.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Yes, no problem.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Elouse has heard the proposals made by the Hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard).

in addition to the comments which appeared to be additional considerations by the Hon. Member for Simcoe North-and it is not possible for the Chair to repeat all the details-I simply bring before the House the question as to whether there is unanimous consent for the proposals made by the President of the Privy Council-


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: No, no.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: -and the Hon. Member for Simcoe North for the purpose of doing business next week.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. I was not seeking unanimous consent for the order of business for next week. I just indicated that we had understandings. I am pretty sure that my colleagues will live, as usual, by their commitments on certain points. On others, there is no firm commitment and we will see how the situation evolves. The only firm order has been dealt with earlier today.
Since I am on my feet, my 1 remind my colleagues that next Thursday we will be dealing, as usual, following a House order last week, with Private Member's Business.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I understand. 1 apologize to the House. I had become confused because some of the propositions involved certain unspecific hours, and I thought that unanimous consent was perhaps required.
The House will now revert to Private Members' Business. With the permission of the Hon. Member for Guelph (Mr. Schroder), who had the floor, I will recognize instead the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


OLD AGE SECURITY ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Collenette that Bill C-663, to amend the Old Age Security Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Heath, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Old Age Security Act
Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say a few words on this Bill this afternoon. I am prepared to confess my agreement to a number of suggestions that have been made, but there is one complaint about which I feel very strongly, and I dare to hope the change is being made. If I could be told that it is being made, that would be fine; but let me indicate my complaint in any case.
I refer to the fact that as the law now stands, a woman between ages 60 and 65 can receive a pension payment provided she is married to someone who is 65 and over who is receipt of the pension. That also applies to a person who may have been married for part of that time between ages 60 and 65 and the husband has died. However, in the case of persons who are single and between the ages of 60 and 65, there is no such provision.
I think it is one of the most unfair situations which has existed for some time now, for single women in particular. One could say that it applies both ways, to single men and single women, but there are so many more single women than single men that one can see that it is really women who are affected.
My hope is that the changes which are now being proposed in the pension legislation will cover the situation. If not, I urge that any further change to the Old Age Security Act should make that provision so that a single person between ages 60 and 65 should receive the consideration to which he or she is entitled, whether single or married. That other unfairness was wrong; I hope it is being corrected.


Ian Deans: Well said.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I think that with the consent of the House, I would indicate that this Private Member's Hour has now been completed. Pursuant to Standing Order 24(2), I would interrupt the proceedings. Unless, of course, there is an Hon. Member who particularly wants to address the issue; I believe there are perhaps two or three minutes remaining.
Accordingly the Chair will recognize the Hon. Member for Restigouche.


Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, it will just take the one or two minutes remaining to make a point that 1 had made a few years ago concerning adequate protection for seniors. Of course, I want to joint other Hon. Members in congratulating the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Collenette) for bringing forward this important subject today.
Some years ago I introduced a proposal to give some relief to our seniors and those who have no other visible means of support or ability to earn income in excess of $15,000 per year, or a round figure of $ 12,000 per year. I suggested that they not be forced or called upon to pay income tax; nor should they

June 23, 1983
Canada Evidence Act
have to bear the burden of filing income tax returns. Therefore, when we are speaking of pensions and our concern for seniors in Canada, I feel it is undue and unnecessary for men and women who have attained their retirement years to carry this extra burden of filing income tax forms.
Through this opportunity to intervene this afternoon, I hope 1 can focus the Government's attention once again on my proposal made a few years ago that there be a system to identify these men and women who have attained the age of retirement so that they are not forced or called upon to file these forms. For some of them, it would be a burden to pay the cost of assistance in completing these forms when, indeed, their incomes are fixed at, say, $12,000 per year or $1,000 per month. They are obviously not in the position to carry the burden of these extra costs, and it is a hardship. The Government should consider that in a civilized society this is an assistance that we could very well provide to these people in a true liberal sense.
I do thank the Hon. Member for York East for showing his concern for seniors and his understanding of what a civilized society should do in protecting our elderly, our seniors. I feel that the content of the Bill is very worth while. I do hope that by once again focusing on the matter this afternoon, the appropriate Ministers, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Bussieres), will consider my proposal to find some ways and means of eliminating, for the benefit of men and women who are in this stage of retirement in life, the unnecessary burden of filing income tax forms.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Pursuant to Standing Order 24, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings. Shall all items under Private Members' Notices of Motions preceding Item No. 94 be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


PRIVATE MEMBERS NOTICES OF MOTIONS
[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Rosemont) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of amending the Canada Evidence Act to implement the recommendations of the McDonald Commission concerning the admissibility of illegally-obtained evidence, specifically that:
(1)	Evidence shall be excluded if it was obtained under such circumstances that its use in the proceedings would tend to bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
(2)	In determining whether evidence should be excluded under this previous section, all the circumstances surrounding the proceedings and the manner in which the evidence was obtained shall be considered, including:
(a)	the extent to which human dignity and social values were breached in obtaining the evidence;
(b)	whether any harm was inflicted on the accused or others;
(c)	whether any improper or illegal act under (a) or (6) was done wilfully or in a manner that demonstrated an inexcusable ignorance of the law;
(d)	the seriousness of any breach of the law in obtaining the evidence as compared with the seriousness of the offence with which the accused is charged;
(e)	whether there were circumstances justifying the action, such as a situation of urgency requiring action to prevent the destruction or loss of evidence.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the House for this opportunity to discuss my motion this afternoon.
In Canada, the manner in which evidence is obtained has no effect on its admissibility. This simple fact has been the subject of endless comment, debate and controversy, and this afternoon, I shall try to convince my colleagues of the advisability of amending the Canada Evidence Act to include a discretionary clause that will allow judges, in specific circumstances, to exclude evidence obtained in an improper manner.
According to the traditional concept of Common Law, evidence plays a strictly utilitarian role. Since the purpose of a criminal trial is basically to dispense justice, any evidence that is relevant, and not otherwise excluded by the rules of court proceedings, must be considered admissible by the judge, who is not concerned with the manner in which the evidence was obtained, since Common Law provides for recourse before the courts against any impropriety committed in obtaining the evidence. This is due to the fact that in criminal proceedings, the courts are obliged to provide certain procedural guarantees, while the actual investigation is not subject to the same guarantees, since the purpose of the investigation is to identify a suspect, and the purpose of court proceedings is to judge whether the suspect is or is not guilty under the law.
Yet, it cannot be denied that the proceedings and the investigation converge when the evidence is submitted. That is why some people claim either that the proceedings have priority over the investigation, which can eventually result in an exclusionary rule such as exists in the United States when the police force disregards the constitutional rights of the suspect during the investigation, or that legal ethics go beyond the proceedings to include every aspect of criminal proceedings, particularly the investigation.
That is why there are three models for the admissibility of evidence obtained by illegal means: 1) admissibility regardless of the manner in which the evidence was obtained, which is the case in Canada following the ruling in the Wray case in 1970, as well as in England, with some amendments, with regard to the law of admissions; 2) the exclusionary rule, which replaces
June 23, 1983

the truth as the pre-eminent purpose of the proceedings by another concept, namely the protection of the constitutional rights of the accused, because of which evidence obtained by illegal means must be excluded; and 3) a discretionary system which allows the judge in certain cases to reject that evidence when admitting it would be either unfair to the accused, when it is of such a nature as to bring the administration of justice into disrepute, or because of some other reason which may be recognized occasionally under various jurisdictions.
The common law of Scotland, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand follows the discretionary model. In Canada, the situation is quite complex. First, the general rule, which I mentioned earlier, stating that evidence obtained by illegal means is admissible was set by the Supreme Court in 1970 and the law has since remained unchanged, but this concept is certainly not unanimously accepted since, in the Ontario Appeals Court, Mr. Justice Aylesworth suggested a formula which has gained widespread acceptance, namely that the inherent discretion of a judge to ensure the accused of a fair trial extended to the exclusion of evidence, even though relevant, obtained by illegal means when its use would tend to bring the administration of justice into disrepute. This is an entirely new concept to be found nowhere else, at least under this form, in judicial precedents. While this concept was rejected by the Supreme Court, as I mentioned earlier, it was accepted by Mr. Justice Spence, who even went further when he said that such discretion should go against the Crown. Since then, various commissions have recommended that the Canadian Evidence Act include the concept of discretion to exclude evidence obtained by illegal means, and excepting the recommendations of the Ouimet Commission in 1968 which predate the Wray ruling, these recommendations include those of the Law Reform Commission, the Ontario Law Reform Commission, and finally, the Commission of Inquiry concerning certain activities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, better known as the McDonald Commission, which are found in the motion now under consideration. I was saying that the situation was rather complex in Canada and this is because, irrespective of that general rule, Canadian law provides for a certain number of exceptions. First there is an exception proceeding from the Common Law concerning the admissibility of confessions made by the accused out of court. This House is aware of the general rule under which a non-voluntary statement made by the accused to an authorized official will not be accepted as evidence at the trial because the court has no means to guarantee the truthfulness of such statement. Indeed, another legal principle is that the accused cannot be coerced during the trial. Since the accused cannot be compelled to appear, the court cannot legally check the consistency between the non-voluntary previous statement and the testimony given at the trial.
A dissent that attracted considerable attention in the Rothman judgment, that of Justice Lamer who indicated that
Canada Evidence Act
beyond the voluntary aspect, he recognized an additional discretion of the judge sitting on the case to dismiss a confession even when made voluntarily when the conditions under which such a confession is made to an authorized person is tantamount to non-compliance with the principle that an accused cannot be coerced and, consequently, the administration of justice is brought into disrepute. In short, Justice Lamer was going back to the administration of justice and to the obligation for a judge to see that the whole judiciary process, not only during the proceedings but also during the investigation, operates in accordance with the minimum standards of good conduct and he extended the concept initially introduced by Justice Aylesworth to the law on confessions. That is not truly a dissent because in his charge he does not agree with the legislation now in effect but he gets the same results as the judges of the majority. However the model that he proposes is surely not part of our law. Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that the same formula recurs periodically.
Section 178.16 (2) as passed by the House in 1977 goes back to the same formula by allowing the juge sitting on the case to rule out the evidence originating from an illegal interception of private communications. In other words, where there has been illegal electronic eavesdropping and the derived evidence has been adduced, the trial judge may decide to exclude such evidence if he is satisfied that its use would tend to bring the administration of justice into disrepute. This is the same formula that is found in our statutes, in the Criminal Code. Unfortunately, there is no higher jurisprudence by which we could define the exact scope of that exception to the general rule as to the acceptability of improperly obtained evidence, which brings us to Section 24(2) of the Charter of Rights. Section 24(2) also allows a trial judge to exclude evidence obtained against or in spite of the rights recognized in the Charter and therefore enshrined, where its use would tend to bring the administration of justice into disrepute. Therefore, parallel with the general rule under which evidence may be used however obtained, here are two statutes, one of which is part of our Constitution, which introduce a quite different concept, and I am reluctant to refer to an "exception" where a concept is constitutionally enshrined. It is somewhat odd that one should suggest that this is an exception to the general rule, where the discretionary ideal takes its place and becomes part of our law.
The exclusion of evidence is justified for various considerations. First, deterrence, as this is the main reason that is generally put forward, deterrence of repugnant police practices. Under that principle, there is a specific or general standard of conduct that is either left to or imposed upon the trial judge so that he may decide where applicable to penalize

June 23, 1983
Canada Evidence Act
any abuse committed during the inquest, and through this procedural rule, namely the exclusion of evidence that could otherwise be acceptable.
This is the principle behind the American exclusion rule, known in English as the rule of the Fruit of the poisonous tree.. On the other hand, it is through an extension of the principle of the fair trial that other authorities justify the discretion to exclude improperly obtained evidence. Indeed, it is the judge's responsibility to make sure that the accused is given a fair trial. In Common Law, this was expressed by a rigid interpretation of procedural trial guarantees, although there was no intention to extend those guarantees to the inquest. For others, such as the Privy Council or more specifically the Judiciary Committee of the Privy Council, in the Sang Order of 1980, the fair trial principle was extended to documentary evidence obtained from the accused against his will, before the trial.
That is indeed an extension of justice in British trials which we Canadians do not enjoy yet. Although we might pass legislation, I do not believe we would be well advised to do so. If I may, I should like to urge Canadian judges, particularly in light of the Charter, to be more liberal in their interpretation of our principles concerning the right to confess so as to enshrine that additional element of justice which the judiciary committee of the Privy Council has acknowledged in the Sang decision.
Finally, and this relates directly to the text of the motion, an ethical conception of the role of the court in the judiciary process enables me to draw a parallel between the judiciary integrity on one hand-which does not leave any doubt-and the integrity of justice on the other-which is indeed more extensive than judiciary integrity per se.
If one endorses the principle that judiciary integrity cannot exist without the integrity of justice and the standards of behaviour which law enforcement agents must respect, one has to admit as well that a trial judge cannot be party to unacceptable investigation practices by disregarding altogether the manner in which the otherwise relevant evidence before him has been obtained. That is why the wording used in section 178.16(2) concerning wiretapping-a reprehensible activity which is strictly regulated by the Parliament of Canada and punishable by extremely severe penal and civil sanctions-and section 24(2) of the Charter of Rights, which provides for redress in cases of violations against constitutionally acknowledged or constitutionnally enshrined rights, are, in my opinion, the best answer to the double dilemma of the acceptance of a rule of admissibility so strict that it does not allow sanctioning or rather disassociating oneself from unacceptable investigation practices, on one hand, and, on the other, a rule of exclusion which is unduly restrictive, as a magistrate said in the United States: The constable blunders, the criminal goes free. And this is a delicate balancing act between opposing facets of public interest, the need to administer justice on the one hand, and the need for law enforcement agencies to use reasonable
and democratically acceptable means. It is only through discretionary powers that we can achieve this.
But there is a problem, Mr. Speaker. Neither Section 178.16(2) nor Section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provide a discretionary code defining the various considerations which a presiding judge should assess while carrying out his or her duties. Such a judge is instructed to dismiss all illegally-obtained evidence which might otherwise bring the administration of justice into disrepute, but he or she has no indication as to how, when, and on the basis of what criteria these discretionary powers are to be used. That is why I move that the Canada Evidence Act be amended to include a discretionary code.
I drafted my bill in line with the recommendations of the McDonald Commission. I could have drafted it in line with those of the Law Reform Commission of Canada. I could have proposed the discretionary code adopted by the Common Law of Scotland, or the one adopted by the Australian Common Law. That is not the problem.
The problem is that judges, who by now have given an interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom, do not possess the means required in order to exercise this discretion according to well defined parameters and reference marks.
I suggest it would be appropriate for us to assist the judges in carrying out this responsibility they have of eventually rejecting, in some cases, the evidence improperly obtained, and I believe that to this end, we should adopt a discretionary code which would provide these reference marks. I refer my colleagues to the text of the motion enumerating some of these considerations. Unfortunately, I do not have the time to elaborate at length on each of these points today.
I would simply like to stress one thing, Mr. Speaker. This debate is far from over. Even after Section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has recognized this judicial discretionary power to reject evidence improperly obtained, the proposals contained in Bill S-33, presently before the Senate, take up once again the criteria formulated in the Wray decision. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, and I will conclude my remarks with this, the Wray decision recognizes a certain amount of discretionary power to reject relevant evidence, when the effect is unduly detrimental to the accused because of its extenuated probative value. Clause 24(2) of Bill S-33 takes up textually the concept enunciated in the Wray decision. Thus, we have looped the loop. First, there is the Wray case; then 178.16(2) recognizes the discretion; Section 24(2) recognizes the discretion; and then, in Bill S-33, the new evidence code presently before Parliament, such discretion is not recognized any more.
I submit to my colleagues that it is high time we resolve this dilemma. We must recognize once and for all the judiciary discretion to reject evidence improperly obtained, when its admission would bring into disrepute the administration of
June 23, 1983

justice. And we must give the judges a discretionary code in order to give them guidance in this role.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I salute the Hon. Member for Rosemont (Mr. Lachance) for his most thoughtful address. In fairness 1 could add that he has done his thesis on the subject. He was kind enough to show me a copy of it. It has 60 pages of footnotes and many more pages of text. I indicate this in self-defence because he had many months in which to prepare and I have had less than an hour in which to prepare myself. It is not his fault; it is just that in the workings of things there has been little time to do an adequate job on a very serious subject.
The motion of the Hon. Member referred to the McDonald Commission and indicated in part:
Evidence shall be excluded if it was obtained under such circumstances that its use in the proceedings would tend to bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
He went on to indicate that in determining whether evidence should be excluded, the manner in which it was obtained should be considered, for example, including:
(a) The extent to which human dignity and social values were breached in obtaining the evidence;
Since we already have Section 24(2) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, why do we need to go further and further rigidify what is already there? In part Section 24(2) reads:
Where ... a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
I think my concern is shared by the Hon. Member for Rosemont. Hopefully, all of us in the House agree that we do not want a situation where any evidence, no matter how heinously obtained, should be admitted into evidence. I do not think anyone wants a situation where any evidence, no matter how small the indiscretion used to obtain it, should not be admissible in evidence.
Those Members of the House who voted for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms wanted a middle ground. We did not want the absolute ban which exists in the United States. I will deal with that in a minute because it is the cause of many of the serious crime problems in the United States. Conversely, we did not want the current Canadian situation where basically if the only evidence obtainable is illegally or improperly obtained, it is admissible in the search for truth. My hon. friend referred to the Regina v. Wray case, but there have been many others.
I would like to give an example by referring to a case in the United States which will show how the other system can cause many problems. I am informed that in a drug trafficking case in New York city a warrant specified that the customs officers could look in someone's suitcase, but it did not specify that they could look for heroin. It specified other things but not
Canada Evidence Act
heroin. They opened the suitcase and found a large quantity of heroin and charged the person with importing that drug. When the case got to trial, the judge looked at the warrant and said that it did not specify heroin, and the case was dismissed. Whereas, in our system, at least up until the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that person would have been convicted on the basis that although the evidence may have been improperly obtained, ours is a search for truth. There are remedies to go after the customs officers, but we would not see someone walking away from a charge of murder or trafficking in heroin because of the manner in which evidence was obtained. The accused can charge the police or customs officers. They should be disciplined or whatever, but the matter should stand.
Some very eloquent statements on the issue have been made by different people. I would like to quote one or two statements which appeared in the Ottawa Law Review under the article entitled, "The Admissibility of Evidence Obtained Illegally: A Comparative Analysis". The first one was by Mr. Justice Holmes, perhaps the most famous jurist of all, who said:
We have to choose, and for my part I think it a less evil that some criminals should escape than that the Government should play an ignoble part.
I think the Hon. Member for Rosemont referred to the other side of the issue in Britain, the other extreme, by indicating that "It matters not how you get the evidence; if you steal it even, it would be admissible". Another interesting quotation would be the one of Chief Justice Warren Burger of the United States Supreme Court who said in a recent case:
We can well ponder whether any community is entitled to call itself an "organized society" if it can find no way to solve the problem except by suppression of truth in the search for truth.
That was put pretty well in an article. Chief Justice Burger talked about the "reign of terror in American cities". This was about seven years ago. He asked, "Is a society redeemed if it provides massive safeguards for accused persons yet fails to provide elementary protection for decent law-abiding citizens?"
United States Appeal Court Judge Henry Friendly asked whether "guilt is not relevant". The late Justice Robert Jackson of the United States Supreme Court reminded us "that the Constitution was not intended to be a suicide pact". The same article points out that, according to a recent poll in the United States, one in three households reported to a crime survey that they exprienced some sort of crime during 1980.
Some say that the crime rate is less in Canada than in the United States. Many people believe that to be the case. I am not sure whether that is true any longer. A Gallup poll in 1982 indicated that one in four Canadians had been a victim of crime in the previous 12 months. According to the most recent crime survey by Statistics Canada, 2.8 million Criminal Code offences were reported in Canada during the calendar year 1981. Members are aware that many crimes are not reported. No one would dispute that the figure was probably much higher for 1981.

June 23, 1983
Canada Evidence Act
What does all this amount to? What I am trying to say is that there are two very real social interests: one is fighting crime, and the other is having the police act within the law. 1 have spent a number of years in court. I believe that nobody should be above the law, including the police and the Prime Minister. The law has to apply to everybody. One must ask oneself, and I am thinking primarily in the area of drugs because this is where most crime seems to occur, what can be done.
In a recent speech in Victoria by Superintendent Thomas Gardiner of the RCMP, he was quoted as saying that a cocaine charge against an accused was dropped after an officer was unable to prove reasonable cause for a search, even though the drug was found in the search.
How far do we want to go with these rights? What do we have to do to protect the rest of us who are law abiding? That is the issue. Hardened professional career criminals know that the law is there for their protection. They know that if the warrant does not say there was heroin in the suitcase of Mr. X, he will get off scot-free. If that is the case, the crime rate in Canada will very quickly become higher than in the United States.
It is not written into the United States Constitution that improperly obtained evidence should be excluded. In the case of the people v. Mapp it was held during the mid-sixties that the right against the use of illegally secured evidence was so fundamental as to be included in the due process required by the fourteenth amendment, and thus to be binding upon the state. That is what all this leads to, and I hope the Hon. Member for Rosemont agrees. I am afraid that the Supreme Court of Canada will take Section 24 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and resolutions such as this, if they are passed- and I have knowledge of some members of that court-and will say that next year, the year after or three years from now all improperly obtained evidence will be excluded. In other words, for reasons in which they believe, they will go beyond what the Hon. Member for Rosemont is asking and go to the rule that any illegally obtained evidence is inadmissible in any court in the land. That is how their counterparts operate under a charter of rights in the United States. I am afraid that we will be in the same position as is the neighbouring republic where criminals have a field day. I do not know whether you, Mr. Speaker, have ever attended a criminal case in the United States. I have, and I suspect the Hon. Member for Rosemont has as well. The system has reached the point where one wonders whether guilt or innocence is even relevant. You wonder whether safety of the public or reasonable protection of people's rights to liberty, life and protection from being mugged or raped is important.
One question seriously being asked in the United States is whether joggers-I am a jogger-should carry money. If a mugger mugs a jogger, he becomes angry if the jogger has no money. Therefore, in some parts of the United States joggers carry money.
One may laugh and say that that will never happen in Canada. I think it is fair to say that many people in the United States believe that the exclusionary rule is one of the causes of the state of affairs whereby crime has become rampant. They
have all of the rights such as liberty and pursuit of happiness, but they cannot go out at night on the streets of Detroit or many other cities. Everybody here thinks we live in a country where those rights are protected.
I believe we can go too far. The pendulum can only swing so far before your wife, my daughter and the niece of the Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday) cannot go out on the streets at night. People say, "By George, we have our constitutional rights in this country" and, therefore, you cannot convict Mr. Wray of murder because the weapon was found in a way that some may consider improper or illegal. Are we further ahead if we swing that far with the pendulum?
The Hon. Member for Rosemont probably thinks I am exaggerating, that this will not happen and the courts will not go that far, that they will maintain the middle ground that we have in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I remind him that the absolute ban on illegally obtained evidence was enacted by judicial legislation in the United States. Unfortunately the Hon. Member will not have time to reply later and tell us whether he disagrees, but I am afraid that that will happen under this provision in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If it does, the dope addicts and drug pushers will be happy.
Before the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was tested, over $8 billion was spent on illegal drugs in Canada in 1981. This includes $2.2 billion on heroin by 2,000 users. These figures are from the RCMP. There was $475 million spent on cocaine by 225,000 users, $5 billion on marijuana hashish and liquid hashish by three million users, one-third of them teenagers.
I should stress that most of the problems arise in the area of drug pushers, professional drug traffickers. What it comes down to is that my hon. friend and I agree that there should be discretion in the courts to exclude or include improperly obtained evidence, depending on the circumstances. We might disagree on particular cases and his criteria would, I think, attempt to maintain a balance, but I am concerned'that before many years have gone by, his proposals will be gone, the clearly stated wording in Section 24(2) will be gone, and we will find ourselves in a situation where all improperly obtained evidence is inadmissible in any court in Canada.
As crime prevention spokesman for the Official Opposition, while I am speaking as an individual, I am profoundly concerned that if that day ever comes, it will cause the crime rate to go up even higher than it already is. I am sure you are aware, Mr. Speaker, that the crime rate in Canada is already very high and getting higher with the passage of each year.


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support resolution No. 94. I think that it is a very sensible, well worked out resolution. It is certainly in line with what was proposed by the Law Reform Commission. Indeed, it uses the actual wording of the recommendations of the MacDonald Commission. It is a very reasonable statement and is
June 23, 1983

an attempt to repair by legislation the very serious situation brought about by decisions made by our courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada. It follows logically from the provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and, indeed, we might see it as fleshing out those proposals. Let me read from Section 24(2) of the Charter:
(2) Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
This is a very sensible Canadian middle of the road solution to a problem. Its idea is not to go whole hog as in the United States where there is an exclusionary rule that everything would automatically be excluded if there was even the merest technical infraction. Incidentally, the position taken in the United States has been greatly exaggerated in debate by suggesting that many criminals go scot-free on the basis of technicalities. It has been estimated that getting rid of the exclusionary rule would increase the rate of conviction by less than 1 per cent.
The dramatic remarks made by the previous speaker about crime on the streets requiring joggers to carry money to buy off criminals are absolutely preposterous. Of course, what is in mind here is not even an exclusionary rule but, rather, exclusionary discretion, a rule which would not even go as far as does the rule in the United States.
This resolution is in line with, and indeed is better than, the Law Reform Commission's recommendations of 1974, for the Law Reform Commission argued the matter in a backward way. It would continue the admission of illegally obtained evidence if the evidence were otherwise relevant and credible, but would give the judge discretion to depart from this, the discretion to admit "evidence obtained through a serious violation of a substantive law or fundamental right if, considering the circumstances and the gravity of the charge against the accused, the violation is the result of a deliberate voluntary act committed in bad faith, its admission would constitute a serious injustice to the accused or bring the administration of justice into disrepute."
That is a rather heavy-handed approach on the part of the Law Reform Commission, but we all know that the Law Reform Commission is desperately afraid to be on the side of reform. What we have in the resolution is the word "shall"; that if the administration of justice would be brought into disrepute, the evidence shall be disregarded. Specific guidelines are given as to what is to be weighed in the balance. The judge is directed to weigh the pros and cons, the seriousness of the offence, the seriousness of the violation of the rights of the accused, and determine accordingly.
This position is very similar to the position taken in Scotland, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand and other countries. I can do not better than to quote from a famous Scottish case, Lawrie versus Muir, a decision of Lord Cooper. "The law must strive to reconcile two highly important interests which are
Canada Evidence Act
liable to come into conflict: (a) the interest of the citizen to be protected from illegal or irregular invasions of his liberties by the authorities, and (b) the interest of the state to secure that evidence bearing upon the commission of a crime and necessary to enable justice to be done shall not be withheld from courts of law on any mere formal or technical ground. Neither of these objects can be insisted upon to the uttermost. The protection for the citizen is primarily protection for the innocent citizen against unwarranted, wrongful, and perhaps high-handed interference, and the common sanction is an action for damages .... On the other hand, the interest of the state cannot be magnified to the point of causing all the safeguards for the protection of the citizen to vanish, and of offering a positive inducement to the authorities to proceed by irregular methods."
It is not an absolute rule but a question of circumstance, and the factors to be taken into account include the following: Did the irregularity occur deliberately or accidentally? How serious is it? Is it a mere technical breach or something involving a threat to personal liberty? Was there an emergency involved in obtaining the evidence? Were those responsible for the illegal conduct police officers? How serious is the case against the accused? In fact, Scottish courts have admitted illegally obtained evidence where there is reason to believe the suspect would destroy the evidence, a rather practical approach to the problem.
The proposals of resolution No. 94 are very similar to proposals advocated by my colleague, the Attorney General for Manitoba, the Hon. Roland Penner, then acting in the capacity of a professor of law at the University of Manitoba. Professor Penner argued that it is a matter of legal and social policy that there be exclusionary discretion. Judicial integrity in the role of the courts as guardians of civil liberties is at issue, and of course it is difficult for judges to do this because of the Wray case and the Hogan case, so legislation is necessary.
Judicial discretion is already widely accepted in other matters of evidence, as we all know, so the concern over so-called unfettered discrimination, that there would be too great an element of uncertainty, can be countered by guidelines. That is precisely what the resolution before us does.
The sad fact is that violations of citizens' rights are commit-ed in the collection of evidence, and the courts have not played a role in stopping this. There have been some very bad decisions made on the part of the Supreme Court of Canada. Some of the decisions made are as bad as those made in women's equality cases, but like in women's equality cases, there have also been some dissenting opinions. I would like to read one from Mr. Justice Laskin, 1974, in Hogan. It reads:
The choice of policy here, i.e. the majority decision to accept the evidence, is to favour the social interest in the repression of crime despite the unlawful invasion of individual interests and despite the fact that the invasion is by public officers charged with law enforcement. Short of legislative direction, it might have been expected that the common law would seek to balance the competing interests by weighing the social interests in the particular case against the gravity or character of the invasion, leaving it to the discretion of the trial judge whether

June 23, 1983
Canada Evidence Act
the balance should be struck in favour of reception or exclusion of the particular evidence.
Where constitutional guarantees are concerned, the more pertinent consideration is whether those guarantees, as fundamentals of the particular society, should be at the mercy of law enforcement officers and a blind eye turned to their invasion because it is more important to secure a conviction. The contention that it is the duty of the courts to get at the truth has in it too much of the philosophy of the end justifying the means. It would equally challenge the present law as to confessions.
In effect, the argument here is for exclusionary discretion. The McDonald Commission advocated an exclusionary discretion as well on the basis of the Law Reform Commission's proposals, and certainly the McDonald Commission was very aware of the problems of illegally obtained evidence. That commission noted particularly the very bad effect of the current practice in Canada of there being no exclusion on police conduct. The fact that the courts have not thrown out illegally obtained evidence has been interpreted by the RCMP at all levels to mean that illegal evidence is acceptable.
Until now, the debate has been of a rather theoretical nature, and writers and commentators have perforce guessed at the effect of the law on police investigative attitudes and conduct. It can now be said, at least in this country and in regard to the RCMP, that the attitude of members of that force, as expounded by its most senior officers, is to regard the absence of critical comment by the judiciary as tacit approval of forms of conduct that might be unlawful .... It is in this sense that one may say that the present law has encouraged the police, quite erroneously, to infer that judicial silence implies approval of the investigative method that has been described in court.
I should like to support the resolution, Mr. Speaker, and I hope the Government will not talk it out. After all, it is a proposal, a statement of principle; it is not an Act. If parliamentary reform means anything, I think it should be possible for the House to pass matters of this sort even if they have not been introduced by a Minister.


Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to deal with the first part of the motion which reads as follows:
Evidence shall be excluded if it was obtained under such circumstances that its use in the proceedings would tend to bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
In 1975 the Law Reform Commission of Canada proposed an evidence code in its first report to Parliament. In that report the Commission advocated that a judge should have a power to exclude evidence in certain circumstances. Two provisions of that code are important to us in our consideration of the motion today. Section 15 of the proposed evidence code is identical to the recommendation contained in the report of the MacDonald Commission and in the motion brought before the House today. Accordingly, I need not read it now.
in Section 16 of its proposed evidence code, the Law Reform Commission recommended a specific provision concerning the admissibility of statements, and that provision reads as follows:
A statement made by the accused to a person in authority is inadmissible if tendered by the prosecution in a criminal proceeding, unless the judge is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the statement was not made under circumstances (including the presence of threats or promises) that were likely to render the statement unreliable, or unless the accused personally or through his counsel agrees to its admission.
Nothing in this section affects the admissibility of evidence other than a statement of the accused, including evidence of any fact discovered as a result of such statement or that such facts were discovered as a result of the statement.
The legal profession in Canada did not greet the report prepared by the Law Reform Commission of Canada with much enthusiasm. As a result, the Law Reform Commission of Ontario turned its attention to the law of evidence, and subsequently published a report in 1976. In that report the Ontario Commission also recommended that a judge should have the discretion to exclude evidence is it was obtained illegally and its admission would be unfair to the opposing party, or if evidence was obtained by methods that are repugnant to the fair administration of justice. The latter part of this recommendation was expressly designed to combat what the Law Reform Commission of Ontario perceived as bad policy in the decision given by the Supreme Court of Canada in Regina v. Wray. I think this case has been referred to by all Hon. Members who have spoken on this matter.
Then in 1981, the MacDonald Commission, as it was popularly known, recommended that a legislative provision be enacted in terms identical to those proposed in Section 15 of the evidence code of the Law Reform Commission of Canada. In its report, the MacDonald Commission made a brief survey of law as it stands in Canada and in other jurisdictions, as well as a summary of arguments for and against the discretion to exclude illegally obtained evidence. The Commission expressed its support for a discretion to exclude in Clause 64 which reads as follows:
In our view, the law of Canada should, like that of Scotland and Australia, give the trial judge a discretion to exclude illegally and unfairly obtained evidence. It will be noted that we do not propose the adoption of the American rule requiring the absolute exclusion of all illegally obtained evidence. The Canadian rule should be discretionary rather than absolute, because:
(A)	The state's commitment to due process would be seriously diluted if the court in the most serious of crimes were to exclude evidence that was obtained as a result of the most trivial breaches of the laws of search. Rather than demonstrating the commitment of the law to principle, such a result would confirm in the minds of many members of the public the commitment of the law to technicality and in their minds would bring the law into disrepute. Therefore, the protection of judicial integrity and encouraging confidence in the judicial system require a discretionary rather than an absolute rule.
(B)	The rationale of deterrence ought logically to apply only to intentional breaches of the law. Generally, an absolute rule of exclusion fails to distinguish between wilful and flagrant conduct on the part of the police on the one hand, and conscientious and careful police conduct undertaken in a difficult situation, on the other. An absolute rule fails to distinguish between errors of judgment that cause no harm and those that seriously violate fundamental values. An absolute rule fails to distinguish between a minor case such as shoplifting, and a grave case such as murder. Any rule that fails to discriminate between those different factual circumstances is too blunt an instrument to achieve any of its objectives, such as the preservation of judicial integrity and the deterrence of improper or illegal police conduct.
June 23, 1983

In the six years between 1975, when the Law Reform Commission of Canada published its evidence code, and 1981, with the publication of the report of the MacDonald Commission, three law reform bodies recommended that a judge should have the power to exclude illegally obtained evidence in certain circumstances and according to certain conditions. The argument in favour of such a power found some favour with law makers at both the provincial and federal levels because the next crucial development in this area of the law came in 1982 with the proclamation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 24 of the Charter provides as follows:
24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.
(2) Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
Under Subsection 24(2), therefore, a court can exclude evidence obtained by virtue of a constitutional violation if in the court's assessment of all the circumstances, the admission of the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. This power is, of course, predicated upon a violation of constitutionally protected rights. Thus the Charter gives some broad recognition to the exclusion of illegally obtained evidence. However, Subsection 24(2) of the Charter is not the only provision of Canadian law that would allow the exclusion of evidence on the basis that its admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. In 1976 Parliament enacted a specific provision that would permit the exclusion of wiretap evidence if its admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. Subsection 178.16(2) of the Criminal Code reads as follows:
Notwithstanding Subsection (1), the judge or magistrate presiding at any proceedings may refuse to admit evidence obtained directly or indirectly as a result of information acquired by interception of a private communication that is itself inadmissible as evidence where he is of the opinion that the admission thereof would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
Let us now turn our attention to current developments in Canada. In 1977, following the report on evidence from the Law Reform Commission of Canada and the Law Reform Commission of Ontario, the Uniform Law Conference undertook, as it were, to prepare a synthesis and a Uniform Evidence Act that would be amenable to application in both the provincial and federal jurisdictions. To carry out this work, the Uniform Law Conference established a federal-provincial task force on uniform rules of evidence. The work of this task force was completed before the proclamation of the Charter. The task force made recommendations for reform in the law of evidence and tabled before the Uniform Law Conference a draft Act. In its report the task force devoted an entire chapter, Chapter 16, to illegally obtained evidence. The Uniform Evidence Act, as passed by the Uniform Law Conference in plenary session, was taken up by the Governments of Canada's
Canadian Flag
various jurisdictions. After several amendments to the Uniform Evidence Act and after extensive consultation with the Provinces, the federal Government tabled Bill S-33 in the Senate in November, 1982. The provision of the Bill that affects the admissibility of evidence is Clause 22 which reads as follows:
Relevant evidence is admissible unless it is excluded pursuant to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, this Act or any other Act or law, and evidence that is not relevant is not admissible.
The court may exclude evidence the admissibility of which is tenuous, the probative force of which is trifling in relation to the main issue and the admission of which would be gravely prejudicial to a party.
It would appear, therefore, that the Bill proceeds on the recommendation of the task force that no provision should be enacted to allow for the exclusion of illegally obtained evidence. This, indeed, was the position advocated by the federal-provincial task force, and I should like to quote a passage from that report. It reads:
The common law rule that judges should not be concerned with the propriety of the means used by a party to obtain evidence is subject to two exceptions in criminal cases: confessions and wiretap evidence. To ensure that a confession is reliable and that the accused's right to silence was not violated, the judge must inquire into whether a confession was obtained voluntarily. To protect the citizen against unauthorized wiretapping and eavesdropping the Criminal Code prohibits wiretapping or bugging unless the party obtains either the consent of a party to the communication or the authority of a court order. The Code also regulates the admissibility of such evidence in criminal proceedings. The sanctions in the Code would seem to be effective deterrents of illegal wiretapping and to make unnecessary an exclusionary provision for civil cases. The proposed discretion would require the court to speculate about the impact of admitting illegally or improperly obtained evidence upon the police and society. The role of the judge should be limited to the conduct of the trial and should not embrace these larger issues.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 24(2), it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Shall all orders listed under Private Members' Public Bills preceding Order No. 396 be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


AN ACT REQUIRING THE CANADIAN FLAG AND THE FLAG OF THE PROVINCE TO BE FLOWN ON FEDERAL BUILDINGS MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Mr. J.-Roland Comtois (Terrebonne) moved:: That Bill C-596, an Act requiring the Canadian flag and the flag of the

June 23, 1983
Canadian Flag
Province to be flown on federal buildings, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.
He said: Mr. Speaker, a little over three years ago, I rose in this House to introduce this bill entitled An Act requiring the Canadian flag and the flag of the Province to be flown on federal buildings. I would like to remind my colleagues of the comments I made at that time. It was on May 21, 1980, the day after the Quebec referendum. I then said the following:
Madam Speaker, I am very proud the day after a large majority of Quebecers have expressed their will to remain in the Canadian federation to introduce this bill to provide for the flying of the Canadian flag and the flag of the province on federal buildings.
I also said:
Madam Speaker, Canadians from Quebec have rediscovered yesterday that they are proud of flying both the Canadian and the Quebec flags together. Given the spirit that prevails today in this House-
I asked for unanimous consent to proceed without debate with all stages of this Bill. I had consulted the then Leader of the Official Opposition, the Right Hon. Member for Yellow-head (Mr. Clark), the Leader of the New Democratic Party, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), and the Leader of my own party (Mr. Trudeau), and ail three had given their consent. At the last minute, one of my colleagues, unaware of these negotiations, rushed into the House to object, and he was the only Member to oppose this motion. That is why this Bill is still on the order paper three years later.
I hope that today, my colleagues on all sides of the House, and particularly in my own Party, will do everything in their power to allow this bill to proceed through all stages with unanimous consent before we adjourn.
Mr. Speaker, all my Quebec colleagues and myself fought against the concept of separation at the time of the May 20, 1980 referendum. I would like to remind my colleagues what the supporters of separation were doing at that time. PQ members were going all over Quebec carrying the Quebec flag, which had become the symbol of Quebec separation and independence. As for us, supporters of federalism, we went all over the Province with both the Canadian and the Quebec flags. That is the symbol that prevailed at the referendum, which was won by federalist Quebecers by 60 per cent against 40 per cent.
1 would like the House to reflect for a few moments on the fact that very soon, perhaps within a year, the Parti Quebecois will hold another referendum or a provincial election on Quebec sovereignty. For my part, as I am convinced that, as a French-speaking Quebecer, I belong in Canada, I would like the Canadian Bag and the provincial flag, the flag of my Province, to be flown on federal buildings, especially in Quebec, as a token of our attachment and our sense of belonging to this country.
This very short and simple Bill contains three Clauses. The first Clause provides the following:
The Canadian flag and the flag of each of the provinces and of the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories shall be flown from the Parliament buildings situated in Ottawa.
Mr. Speaker, on Canada Day next week, all these flags will be flown side by side on Parliament Hill in front of the Centre Block. All the visitors to our national capital city will be happy to see the flag of their own province flying on Parliament Hill. Unfortunately, it is only for a week and then the flags are removed. I still wonder why. In a country such as Canada which is a federation of ten provinces and two territories, I wonder why those flags are flown during only one week in the year when they should be flown all year round on Parliament Hill. It is the first Clause of my Bill.
The second Clause of my Bill reads as follows:
The Canadian flag shall be flown on all buildings owned by the Crown in right of Canada as well as on all buildings occupied by federal services.
We know that in all Provinces, many rented buildings are occupied by federal services. This legislation would compel the owners of those buildings to fly the Canadian flag and that of the relevant Province. Besides, several provinces if not all, except Quebec, are already flying on their own provincial buildings both the Canadian and the provincial flags. Unfortunately, in Quebec this is not done. However, I think that as federal Members we should set the example and fly both flags on our own buildings.
The third Clause merely states the following:
The Governor in Council may by regulation define "building" for the purposes of this Act.
This is a very simple Bill which has a great symbolic importance especially in Quebec. As I said a few moments ago, we will soon have another battle to fight in Quebec over the issue of independance or attachment to the Canadian federation. I am convinced beforehand that the Parti Quebecois will launch its campaign by flying the Quebec flag as a symbol and again as federal Members of Quebec, we will fight with both flags in both hands. Why not legislate this dual attachment and this dual symbol throughout the country and not just in Quebec?
I will not say anything more, Mr. Speaker, because there is very little time left until adjournment, but I hope my colleagues on both sides of the House, particularly on this side, will shorten their speeches so that before we adjourn we may ask with unanimous consent that the House go through all stages of this Bill to put this legislation on our statute books so that we will be able as soon as possible to fly both the Canadian flag and the provincial flag on all federal buildings in Canada.


Bruce Halliday: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Terrebonne (Mr. Comtois) for bringing in Bill C-596. I think that all of us who are at the
June 23, 1983

federal or provincial level of legislative activities are interested in the symbolism of flags and feel that we bear some responsibility to consider proposals such as the one brought in by the Hon. Member. At first glance, I do not see much objection to the proposal, although I note that the description of the Bill reads: "An Act requiring the Canadian flag and the flag of the Province to be flown on federal buildings". That seems to be mandatory, as it is stated there. However, when one goes through into the reading of the Act itself, one finds that Clause 2(2) states:
The flag of the Province or the territory in which the building is situate may also be flown on such buildings.
I simply detected a discrepancy. I am not sure whether the Hon. Member's real intention is that the flag shall be flown as the title seems to suggest, if I am using the right terms in describing the heading of the entire Act. However, I am just wondering whether or not the Government's real intention is that it will be mandatory for the Provinces to fly the provincial flags.
The only other problem I see probably lies in Clause 1 of the proposed Bill. 1 certainly have no objections to the philosophy of having the provincial flags flying on the Parliament buildings here in Ottawa. I see some merit in it, although it might be overdoing a good thing, in a way. It is certainly appropriate to have the Canadian flag flying here. I know that none of us would dispute that. I just wonder how it would look and the logistics that would be involved in flying the 12 other flags. I dare say that it could be done. 1 see the wisdom of it on ceremonial occasions such as we have had when the monarch or other people have visited. Then we want to have the flags of all our Provinces and of Canada displayed at the same time.
I think the Hon. Member for Terrebonne was perhaps suggesting that we recognize our flags in that way all the time, not just on special occasions. 1 am not so much arguing against it as I am simply raising the logistical question as to how we will fly those extra flags.
Therefore, I commend the Hon. Member for bringing the Bill before us for consideration. Perhaps he cannot, by the rules of the House, reply to my inquiry about the apparent conflict I see in what we have in front of us. Perhaps one of his colleagues could answer that question so that we would better understand whether or not it will be mandatory for the Provinces to fly their flags on federal buildings within each given Province.
[ Translation]


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in the debate on this Bill because it was introduced by my colleague from Terrebonne (Mr. Comtois) in 1980. In my opinion, it was fitting that he introduced it the day after we won the referendum, when we Canadians of the Province of Quebec were reassured about the intentions of Canadians in that province who were anxious to remain Canadians and continue to live as such.
Canadian Flag
I am all the more pleased as I share his views on the absence of the Canadian flag on our provincial institutions, such as schools and halls of justice which are the responsibility of the Province of Quebec, and all other Government buildings which belong to the province. I think that as long as the present Quebec Government continue to refuse to fly the Canadian flag, it will be denying Canadians in that province the right to show and affirm that they belong to this great country. I think that is unacceptable. That is why I want to reassure my colleague and tell him that I support his Bill. If it is not adopted this afternoon, it will be soon, because sometimes the Government takes a little while to understand the will of Canadians. Perhaps this is a striking example of the heartfelt desire of Canadians to see the flag of their country on all Government buildings of the Province of Quebec.
As to the possibility of flying the flags of all provinces on Government buildings throughout Canada, I think that could be the subject of a debate. I am not sure I would like to see the flag . . . Perhaps there is a place near the Centre Block where the flags of the provinces and the territories might be flown.
In any event, I fully agree with my colleague from Terrebonne when he talks about the flag of the Province of Quebec.
I should like to remind the House that this blue and white flag has had an official status for a long time, for it was Queen Victoria who in 1868, granted the province of Quebec this blue flag with three white fleurs-de-lis. Even then, Quebec residents used to consider this flag as the true French-Canadian emblem, and I strongly support the Hon. Member for Terrebonne when he says that this flag cannot be identified with a political party, since it was granted to the province of Quebec in 1868, a long time before 1976.
He is perfectly right on this, and he can truly say that we are proud of our flag; I think that it is quite proper that we should be dealing with this issue on this day, the 23rd of June, the eve of St. John the Baptist Day, the day when French-Canadians everywhere celebrate their patron saint who has always been a source of inspiration to us, French Canadians, born and raised in the province of Quebec, together with other Canadians not necessarily of French descent but who are nevertheless good Canadians who have contributed to the good of our society and the economic development of our province.
I wish to say again to the Hon. Member for Terrebonne that I fully support his bill and that I hope, should it not go through today, that it will be passed in the near future, and I am looking forward to the day when this Canadian flag, which thrills the souls of all Canadians who can be proud of it, will fly over all government buildings in the province of Quebec.


Mr. Andre Maltais (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, you know very well how to recite the whole list. There is no problem.

June 23, 1983
Canadian Flag
I would also like to join my colleagues from Terrebonne (Mr. Comtois) and Labelle (Mr. Dupras) in discussing this legislation that has come in for second reading today. I would like to commend the Hon. Member for Terrebonne for introducing that Bill after the referendum campaign, and I feel we should hasten to pass it, because I feel it is mere political meanness not to have in this country two masts for flying first the symbol of Canadian unity, the Maple Leaf, and, second, the flag of each province. I feel this would simply be a sign of unity and pride, since there would be no contradiction between the two. We all know very well Gilles Vigneault's song "My Country is Winter". It is a factor of unity for this country to have a hard winter climate from South to North, from North to South, from East to West and Mgr. Savard has written quite an extraordinary poem entitled "My country" which closes with these words: "Happy the nations that get on well". It is my view that putting both flags side by side would simply show that the two founding groups, the French-speaking and the English-speaking, should be but one within this country, this Canada.
Of course, in Quebec the problem has been harder to experience because there is a political war going on. But despite all this, Quebecers made their choice in 1980, even though the question seemed and was in fact biased. All Quebecers are proud of their flag, and that includes the Members in this House who represent not only Quebecers but also the French Canadians, but more so those who live in Quebec. It is my view that nobody who comes here in this House has any intention of giving up anything. It is just the opposite, because when we come here we try to enhance the pride of the Quebecers and promote it from sea to sea. It is important that this be stressed.
The goal pursued by the Hon. Member for Terrebonne is indeed to stress this. There is nothing as interesting as landing at Dorval Airport and seeing federal land with both flags flying side by side, and I would even say that municipal flags should also be flown. In Quebec City, at Laval University, we see a perfect example of a trilogy in completeness. There is a triangle, with a mast at each apex, and there we have the Canadian flag, the Quebec flag and the University flag, and to whatever side one may turn there is always one of them in the center.
Therefore nobody seeks the central spot because it is a perfect triangle. In Quebec as in this Chamber, we somewhat act as missionaries because we have to explain mysteries. In religion, you have the mystery of the Trinity. In politics duality must often be explained. Thus, if only we could come back to the good old triangle which would give us a perfect base, very much like in mathematics where the triangle is the perfect form for the proper distribution of weights, everybody would be proud, including municipal governments. Everyone knows perfectly well that in current debates, mention is often made
that each level of government should guard its autonomy. We still can see instances in Quebec where as a result of government legislation , municipal authorities cannot receive federal funds. These debates may be seen as constitutional debates, but what the people of Quebec, of Ontario, of Manitoba want is to be able to keep a larger share of their tax revenues in their province.
Therefore I believe that the suggestion made by our colleague, the Hon. Member for Terrebonne, seconded by the Hon. Member for Labelle certainly deserves recognition and should be implemented without delay. I believe that when amendments are before the committee I think that one dealing with a mast for municipal governments should be moved. As a matter of fact quite often, when one refers to two flags, it is as though a choice had to be made between the two which in fact is never the case. You don't take away, you add instead, which I think is the important point. However, I find this quite difficult to explain to our constituents because we tend to refer to famous examples while we should think in more simpler terms, such as a family with the father, the mother and the child. There is never a choice to be made among them. A family is a sum of its members gathered in the same entity, just as you have a country made up of districts, municipalities and provinces.
The bill is quite welcomed and I support it fully. It is too bad Mr. Speaker, that we did not get it passed more rapidly and in that respect I think that Canadians have every right to complain when they see governments move so slowly. It is a little bit embarrassing to see such a simple and well balanced bill trigger so much debate. I believe we should speed up the process in this Chamber.
Perhaps the Hon. Member opposite was right a moment ago when he pointed out a slight difference when we say the flag should be required to be displayed, while the various clauses provide that it is merely desirable, that the Governor in Council may allow the flag to be displayed. I think we should simply try to standardize the formulation to ensure that there would be no contradiction. However, deep down, all we are asking for in this bill is that the Canadian flag as well as the flags of Ontario, Quebec and so on be equal everywhere, without one of them replacing another but instead, one adding to the greatness of the other. It is very interesting when we visit places like British Columbia or Newfoundland to see the Canadian flag everywhere and to come back home to see once more the Canadian flag, but this time accompanied by the provincial flag. I suggest one should try to the utmost to avoid such flag wars. These symbols are supposed to be a factor of unity while too often they are viewed as a factor of division. These are important aspects and I believe we should think about them.
More and more, Mr. Speaker, one can see, coming out of the economic crisis we have been through, an incredible tendency for Canadians to turn to the central Government in order to
June 23, 1983

benefit from equal revenue everywhere. One can see federal buildings being constructed in greater number in the province of Quebec as well as other provinces, and I can see a stronger federal presence in the Maritime Provinces. I believe the federal Government should not be visible alone. It is important that the federal Government be visible together with provincial Governments, with each separate entity in every province, since that is what makes for the greatness of this country. It would be desirable that the provinces do likewise and fly the Canadian colours together with their own over all provincial buildings. It would not shock anyone. It is simply a matter of common sense.
Mr. Speaker, I will conclude by saying that I will probably introduce amendments in committee to make sure that there are also flagpoles for municipalities. Indeed it is fine to be proud of one's country and one's province, but one should also be proud of one's municipality. It is only when we can be proud of all three of them that the great unity problem is solved.


John O. (Jack) Burghardt: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to congratulate my colleagues, the Hon. Member for Terrebonne (Mr. Comtois), the Hon. Member for Labelle (Mr. Dupras) and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Maltais) who has just spoken regarding Bill C-596, an Act requiring the Canadian flag and the flag of the Province to be flown on federal buildings. This Act would require the Canadian flag, the flag of each Province and the flag of the Yukon and Northwest Territories to be flown from the Parliament buildings here in Ottawa. It also calls for the Canadian flag and the flag of the Province or territory where a federal building is situated to be flown on such buildings.
As I have mentioned, I applaud the intent of this Bill which I know is based on the premise that flying the flags in such a manner will indicate the complementarity of both levels of Government in the lives of all Canadians.
I must point out, however, that there are several problems which require consideration before proceeding in such a manner. First, there is the matter of identity. For example, Canadians who are looking for services of the Government of Canada know that those services are located in buildings flying the Canadian flag. If provincial flags are also flown, confusion can arise as to exactly what kind of services are being provided in that building, whether they are federal or provincial. I
Canadian Flag
believe that there should be visibility for services provided to Canadians by their national Government. The flying of the Canadian flag only on buildings owned by the Crown is one way of contributing to that necessary degree of visibility.
I think we should also consider what the Parliament buildings would look like with ten provincial flags and two territorial flags as well as the Canadian flag. I suggest that such a display would detract from the majesty of the Canadian flag flying in its solitary splendour atop the Peace Tower.
I would remind Members that a short distance from Parliament Hill is an area where all the provincial flags are flown- the Garden of Provinces. I feel that this is the appropriate place to display these flags. We should also remember that on all ceremonial occasions such as the proclamation of the Constitution last year or of Canada Day, we proudly fly the flags of Canada's Provinces and Territories at suitable locations.
I think we also must consider that it is not solely within the purview of the national Government to determine whether provincial flags should be flown along with the Canadian flag on federal buildings. I think it is important to determine the stand of the various provincial Governments and the territorial Governments on this issue. I believe the Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday) perhaps referred to some concerns along these same lines.
How many Provinces might agree with this type of suggestion? Surely provincial Governments also have a say in how their provincial flags are to be flown. It may be that some Provinces would not welcome the confusion of provincial flags flying from buildings owned by the Government of Canada.
I could go on but I believe that my time is up. I would certainly recommend to the House that while this suggestion is worth-while, there still needs to be much thought and consideration given to it. Again, I would like to compliment the Hon. Member for Terrebonne for bringing this private members' Bill to our attention for our consideration.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please! As it is now 6 p.m., pursuant to the order adopted on Thursday, June 16, 1983, and the provisions of Standing Order 2(2), the House stands adjourned until Monday morning at eleven o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, June 27, 1983