1983-03-23

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Mr. Marcel Ostiguy (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot):: Madam Speaker, the Federation des producteurs de pommes du Quebec, the Quebec Farm Producers Union and a number of other agricultural organizations in Canada recently asked the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) to reinstate Section 16 of the Unemployment Insurance Regulations, which defined the conditions under which farm workers became eligible for deduction of unemployment insurance premiums. Section 16 prescribed that farm workers had to work a minimum of twenty-five days or earn $250 in wages before premiums could be deducted under the Unemployment Insurance Regulations. Because this provision no longer exists, workers will now qualify for premium deductions from their wages after only fifteen hours of work or earning $70 in wages.
Madam Speaker, although the new regulation simplifies forms for farmers and allows exemptions of up to seven days for farm workers, it is highly impractical for apple growers, because it cannot be properly implemented. The large number of pickers who work on a daily basis and picker turnover during the short harvest season makes it impossible for apple growers to keep proper records for each worker.
Madam Speaker, I would therefore ask the Minister of Employment and Immigration to reinstate the provision of Section 16 of the Regulations that was ideally suited to apple growers and farmers in general.


TRAINING OF HEARING-EAR DOGS
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, let me tell you about a wonderful idea from a remarkable constituent of mine. Jacqueline Harbour loves dogs, and she has devoted her life's work to making the lives of the deaf and
hard-of-hearing much more tolerable through her hearing-ear dogs.
The lady's concept is simple. If a person is blind, you know it. If a person is deaf, you may not know it. The hard of hearing hide it, or they become experts at lip reading. Blind people frequently find "sight" through seeing-eye dogs.
As Jacqueline Harbour says, dogs always answer the door anyway. Her dogs have been trained to answer the front door bell, notify someone when a baby is crying, or alert deaf people to anything from a telephone ringing, to a timer on a stove, to a smoke detector going off. All you need to do is teach them to respond to any sound. Hearing-ear dogs can be trained to lead those people who are deaf out of the fear of moving about and living in a world of silence.
Therefore, Madam Speaker, I would urge the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) and this House of Commons to use whatever means possible to ensure that hearing-ear dogs are accorded the same privileges and treatment as seeing-eye dogs.
Jacqueline's mother, who is deaf, offers this pertinent and poignant quote:
People should be helped in a way that allows them to remain on their own. It's a lot cheaper for the Government, and better for them, than putting them into hospitals and homes. If a dog like this can help them manage on their own, they should be allowed to have one.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin):: Madam Speaker, the Official Languages Commissioner of Canada, in his annual report released yesterday, points out that Canada's Constitution is being violated constantly with respect to the guaranteeing of language rights. Bilingual service in areas where they are warranted are often not available at federal Government agencies. For example, Air Canada has refused to install French-speaking staff at its offices in Timmins, Ontario, even though 37.4 per cent of the residents are francophones.

Corporations such as Petro-Canada and Via Rail have seriously breached the legislation on bilingualism, and the Federal Government must insist that the law be complied with. In a bilingual country such as ours, that principle must be respected and enforced. Minority groups, be they French, English or of

March 23, 1983
another culture, are puppets in the hands of politicians when that is politically profitable. Otherwise, they are ignored.

The federal Government should take a long, hard look at Mr. Yalden's report, with a commitment to acting upon the recommendations contained therein, and also look at the area of multiculturalism and pursue a more vigorous policy in that regard.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Claude Tessier (Megantic-Compton-Stanstead):: Madam Speaker, the $220 million Canada-Quebec agreement with respect to the immediate creation of jobs has been scuttled because once again the Quebec Government has failed to honour its signature of December 23. The purpose was worthwhile indeed, but there is a question we must ask ourselves as Federal Members of Parliament and representatives of Quebec ridings: why should the Federal Government always disregard its own requirements and let the Parti Quebecois force Quebecers to behave as if they were separated from the rest of Canada?
Indeed, Madam Speaker, even though certain features may be considered as peculiar to Quebec, and even particular status to a certain extent, the fact remains that Quebec's Pequiste Government too often acts as if the province had already separated, and because it is behaving as such, and all the more so because it does not have that mandate, we federalist Members and all our supporters have to admit that the Canadian Government cannot be so cooperative as to shirk its own responsibilities towards Quebecers and other Canadians alike.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) is to be commended for his courageous decision not to wait any longer for the Quebec Government, and we urge him to give Quebecers the funds earmarked for immediate job creation.
I deeply regret however that municipalities are now excluded because of the Quebec Government, and yet they could use assistance under the NEED Program and they would be ideal partners to provide services in our respective ridings.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Madam Speaker, with unemployment in Canada at an all time high and growing, it is painfully obvious that the Government has failed to come to grips with this very serious problem.
We have seen the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) pump millions after millions of tax dollars into costly, temporary, and non-productive make-work programs, only to have these temporary jobs cease to exist upon the termination of such programs.
In the meantime a survey by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business yesterday concluded that 700,000 to 800,000 permanent jobs have been lost in the small and medium-sized business sector as a result of the Liberal Government's lack of positive programs and policies for that sector.
This only confirms what we in the Conservative Party have been saying for years, namely, that small and medium-sized businesses form the backbone of our economy and, with realistic and effective policies, are Canada's No. 1 potential employers.
I therefore appeal to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) to adopt in his forthcoming budget specific policies which would encourage employment, expansion and start-ups of small businesses by way of employment incentives and other forms of tax incentives, in order to stimulate this most important sector of our economy.
Then, and only then, will it be possible to move forward on the road to economic recovery and permanent job creation in Canada.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Ray Chenier (Timmins-Chapleau):: Madam Speaker, the announcement made recently by the Minister of National Elealth and Welfare (Miss Begin) regarding the full indexation of Old Age Security pensions for the second quarter of 1983 is certainly good news for Canadian senior citizens. The six and five legislation will not apply in the second quarter of 1983, thanks to the continuing decline in the rate of inflation which stood at 7.4 per cent in February.
When the federal Government introduced the six and five legislation last summer, many people were quick to judge, charging that senior citizens would suffer greatly by the new legislation. At that time we assured Canadians that people who needed help the most would not be affected by the six and five legislation. And now the Government has shown that it too can be fair. Because the inflation rate has dropped so dramatically in recent months, the Government can now provide full indexation on Old Age Security pension cheques.
It is my hope that we will continue to see the rate of inflation fall over the next few months, in order that we may continue the full indexation of Old Age Security pensions in the third and fourth quarters of 1983.
March 23, 1983


CANADIAN WINNERS OF WORLD AMATEUR BOXING TITLES
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, two young Canadians just recently won credit for themselves and recognition for our country, but few of us, and indeed few Canadians, are aware of it. In the world of boxing last week at Reno, Nevada, Sean O'Sullivan of Toronto defeated the Russian defending champion Koshkin, to become the world light middleweight amateur boxing champion. In the same tournament, Willi DeWitt of Grande Prairie, Alberta, won the heavyweight gold medal by defeating another defending champion, Aleksandre Yagubkin, also of Russia.
Through a long and painful apprenticeship these young athletes are now world amateur champions in their chosen sport. In most countries this would have been front-page news. In Canada such ranking in most any other sport would have warranted substantial sports-page coverage, pictures and all.
Money alone does not win Olympic or world championship medals. It takes a dedicated athlete, supported and encouraged by an appreciative nation. That is hardly the kind of support accorded these two young winners.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, a survey by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, an organization which represents a large cross-section of small businesses in the country, indicates that the impact of the recession and the Government's tight money and restraint policy has cut small-business employment by 700,000 or 800,000. A full 51 per cent of respondents to the survey had laid off employees, representative of a majority of small and medium-size businesses in the country. This large portion of the unemployed related to small business indicates the large role this sector could play in an economic recovery.
Small business in Canada is fully up to the job of putting Canada back to work, if it is given the chance it deserves. Some 70 per cent of respondents to the CFIB survey indicate that more consumer spending, lower interest rates at or below the level of inflation, and investment expenditure are essential before any growth in employment can come about. Meanwhile they hear the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) and the Governor of the Bank of Canada talk of restricting stimulus and tightening the screws.
Bill C-139, now before the House, legislates the restrictions to Small Business Development Bonds. Measures are needed to expand employment, not to restrict it. The Government's lack of will and blind callousness are maintaining our high rate of unemployment.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Yesterday in the House the Minister of Finance, in reply to questions regarding the seriousness of the unemployment situation, indicated, as reported in Hansard, that we can "expect the unemployment rate to remain high not only next year but for a number of years after that", meaning of course that the Minister's budget will not contain any quick fix to the unemployment situation.
I remind the Prime Minister that this is a question which is seizing the imagination and certainly the compassion of Canadians everywhere, given the long-term nature and the high rate of unemployment in the country, causing serious social problems such as family breakdown, alcoholism, and serious disruptions within our society. As head of the Government, can the Prime Minister tell me what the Government is doing to address this unprecedented situation, unprecedented indeed since the last election?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I am somewhat surprised at the question when it is phrased in terms of what we are doing. We announced in the last budget, and in the last economic statement, that some $2 million plus would be spent in order to create jobs to train young people, bring them into the work force, and to increase the number of jobs available. We addressed particularly the problem of those people who had exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits. We are in the process of and have concluded with the Provinces the funding of projects to create jobs which will ensure greater employment for the unemployed. I think the question of what we are doing is a rhetorical one.
As far as the concern for facts as foreseen by the Minister, that unemployment will remain high, I think the Minister is avoiding the creation of illusionary remedies, quick fixes, as the Hon. Member says. I think it would be cruel to tell the unemployed that there will suddenly be a quick fix which will reduce the unemployment by half, because that is not likely to happen. That is what the Minister is saying. But certainly we will be addressing the unemployment problem as a very high priority in the next budget.


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, it is even more cruel to leave 2 million Canadians out there without the hope of a job, and that is what I am concerned about. That is the dimension of the problem which the Prime Minister and his Government do not seem to be able to appreciate.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

March 23, 1983
24062______________________________
Oral Questions INCREASE IN NUMBER OF LONG-TERM UNEMPLOYED


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, we have 824,000 Canadians who are now classified as longterm unemployed. They have been unemployed for more than three months. That is 52 per cent of the total of those unemployed. I might add the percentage is 9 per cent higher than last year. Added to that, Madam Speaker, there will be another 600,000 students coming into the job market soon, looking for permanent jobs. Behind every one of these figures there is the potential for human tragedy. Can the Prime Minister not grasp the meaning of what it is to be unemployed, what it is to have your unemployment insurance benefits expire, and what it is to have to go on welfare? Surely we, as a compassionate society, owe something to these people, because we created this unemployment in the first instance?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am not sure what the Hon. Member means when he says "we created this unemployment." If he figures he created it, I do not think we would want to admit that this Government created it. It is perhaps an admission the Hon. Member can take to his breast. But anyone who looks at the reality of the world crisis, with more than 30 million unemployed in the OECD countries alone, that person would realize it would be difficult to think that Canada is putting people out of jobs in the U.S., Britain, France and Germany and all those countries where there is very high unemployment.
It is a world crisis. In our country we are not trying to absolve ourselves from any responsibility to deal with it. Once again, I think it would be cruel to take the line proposed by the Hon. Member, which seems to presume that some quick fix would give jobs to all these people. If the Hon. Member knows this fix quick, I am surprised his Party did not promote it when it was in power and when its Minister of Finance was announcing unemployment of 10 per cent for several years ahead. If the Tories had a quick fix, why did they not use it? If they have one, why are not the various leadership candidates putting it forward now?


REQUEST FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY TASK FORCE
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, surely the Prime Minister must realize and appreciate that we have today in this country a social crisis of unprecedented proportions. We have to address that crisis and I am not talking about any economic quick fix. I am talking about the social crisis facing the two million unemployed and their families, and the fact that 36 per cent of families are directly experiencing unemployment. Half of them expect to be directly affected by unemployment. This places a burden on the families, the municipalities, and the Provinces. Surely we have a responsibility to address that problem.
[DOT] (M20)
I make this appeal to the Prime Minister who, I believe, to be a compassionate man. Will he at least agree to form a
parliamentary task force so that we can get out of this ivory tower which we are in, and see for ourselves just exactly what we are doing to the unemployed of this country who are left out there by the Minister of Finance, without hope?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I want to return the compliment to the Hon. Member. I believe he is also compassionate. I am surprised that he feels the need for a parliamentary task force to express that compassion.
The problem is, what do we do with this very severe social and economic problem? For the past two years this Government has been saying that in order to regain our markets, create jobs in Canada, and make investment attractive to those who have savings, we must bring down inflation. When inflation has been lowered, investment will then become more attractive and we will then be more competitive in the world markets. We will be able to sell more in Canada and abroad.
Following the budget of the present Secretary of State for External Affairs last June, we have succeeded in getting the Canadian people, the Provinces, the municipalities, and the federal Government to pull together to bring down inflation to its goal of 6 per cent. That is why we are beginning to see the signs of revival. Just this morning we heard that we have the first surplus in ten years in our automobile trade with the United States.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is because demand is picking up in the United States since Canadians are becoming competitive.
We have brought inflation down. Our interest rates have come down with it. That is our approach. It is perhaps less verbally compassionate than that of the Hon. Member, but at least it has tackled the problem and brought a solution to it. I have not heard anything close to that from the Hon. Member or his Party.


REQUEST FOR INTRODUCTION OF SHORT-TERM JOB CREATION MEASURES
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance who will know that, unfortunately and tragically, unemployment in the last number of months has risen to the point where we face almost two million unemployed. One of the impacts of this recession is that thousands of people, particularly young people, have had to apply for welfare. For instance, in Metro Toronto alone, one-fifth of the total welfare case load concerns young people under the age of 25 years who have to get by on less than $300 a month. They are losing hope.
Yesterday, the Minister indicated that in his budget proposals there could be measures to deal with immediate job creation in the short term. Will the Minister please bring those measures forward immediately, rather than forcing these people who might be affected by the programs to wait another
March 23, 1983

four weeks or six weeks until the Government gets its act together? Will he bring those programs in now?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, one way of helping many Canadians would be to pass the Income Tax Act amendments that the Opposition is filibustering. I wish to inform the hon. lady that there are 11.2 million Canadians who have filed for tax returns. The refunds to which they would be entitled would total probably $6.5 billion. That money would be returned to Canadians in the next few weeks and months, and most of that money would be used for consumption and to help create jobs, and to act as a stimulant to the economy.
So I invite my hon. friends opposite, as a first and immediate step that they could take, which could also speed up the presentation of the budget, to pass the Income Tax Act that has been in the House for weeks and was considered by a parliamentary committee for months. The Conservatives are blocking, filibustering and preventing the House from proceeding with the legislation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT MINISTER TAKE ACTION
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, what the Minister is saying to the House is that he does not give a damn about the young people who are out there in the country suffering and losing hope in this country, because he and his colleagues will not bring in programs that are designed to help create jobs. Last October he announced the NEED Program, which was to create 60,000 jobs, but to date, five months later, that Program has created only 15,000 jobs. That is the kind of delay that new programs must face.
What I want to know from the Minister is this. If he has programs, will he present them to the House now, or is he in the position of saying to these people, "Carry on in your despair, carry on in your hopelessness, until I get around to introducing the programs at my convenience"?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member's statement is a perfect example of the hypocrisy constantly displayed in this House by the Progressive Conservative Party over the past few days in its filibuster of the Income Tax Act amendments. The passing of this legislation would make it possible for the government to send refunds to some 11 million Canadians and provide them over the next few weeks with $6.5 billion in returns they could spend. This legislation would have quick and immediate results and would put money in the pockets of Canadian consumers; yet, the Progressive Conservative Party has been fighting tooth and nail for months to prevent its passing.
Oral Questions
It is clearly that party's responsibility and every Canadian can see how they are preventing Canadian taxpayers from getting their Income Tax refunds which they could spend on consumer goods thereby stimulating the economy. In this instance, the Progressive Conservative Party is definitely the culprit.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The majority of Canadians have indicated that they are opposed to the testing of the Cruise missile. We in this Party have indicated our clear opposition. The Prime Minister says that the Government has not yet made up its mind, but has signed a framework agreement which will permit the Cabinet, on its own, to make such a decision.
Will the Prime Minister demonstrate a clear commitment to democratic requirements by promising the House that, if the Government decides to go ahead with the testing of the Cruise, it will bring that decision to Parliament, not only for a debate but also for a vote?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the question has been asked before, and I suggested that if Hon. Members of the New Democratic Party thought the subject to be of any importance at all, they might be able to use one of their Opposition days-


Some Hon. Members:: We did!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -with a vote, and they might see the result of that vote. There would be a debate on the subject, and we would be able to hear views from all sides.
We were happy to have that debate, and we are happy to have it again. I hope that in the course of that debate the Leader of the New Democratic Party will tell us why he is so opposed to the testing of the Cruise. However, we never heard from him when the Soviets were testing-


Mr. Stevens:: Good point.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -and putting in place the SS-20s, of which 350 are employed in Europe now, each with three nuclear warheads. We never heard the demonstrations. We did not see the NDP leading the masses with signs to protest this. It was a clear escalation of the nuclear arms race.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, first of all, I remind the Prime Minister, who does not pay much attention to what

March 23, 1983
Oral Questions
takes place in the Elouse, that we already had a motion in opposition to the Cruise, and we voted against the testing. We want the Government to live up to its obligations and bring back a motion after it makes a decision. Second, I would point out that we were not silent concerning the Soviets' treatment of the Poles, unlike the Prime Minister.


PRIME MINISTER'S RESPONSIBILITY
John Edward Broadbent: I would like to ask the Prime Minister a question concerning a serious nuclear matter. Outside the House, at the United Nations and on other occasions, he has left the impression that he is genuinely concerned about debate and information and peaceful resolution of differences, which would lead to disarmament. Considering the fact that two-thirds of the Members of Parliament have not told their constituents where they stand on the Cruise issue, considering that his own Minister of National Defence has said that Canadians opposing the Cruise are "victims of misinformation", does the Prime Minister not think that he has a responsibility, when he reaches such a decision, to bring it back to Parliament for a decision of all Members of Parliament who are elected from all across Canada?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, one of the reasons we have not yet authorized the testing of the Cruise is because the debate has not been completed and the debate has not been joined. We are in the process of discussing that whole subject. We are discussing it today with Vice-President Bush. The NATO Allies are expressing views upon it, and the debate is still going on.
The Hon. Member wants to have that debate in the House. He just says that there was a debate and the vote was taken. I do not know why he thinks that the next vote would be any different. If a whole new series of facts come out, if the debate proves that there should be re-examination of this, as the Government is constantly re-examining it, then the Hon. Member can ask the question again. But I put to him the fact-and the talks about the Soviet treatment of the Poles-if indeed he is sincere in referring to that, if he thinks that the Soviets can be so abject, if I can paraphrase him, why is he not a little bit concerned about the SS-20s? What was the reason for the deployment of this new weapon of terror on western Europe? Does he not think that there should be some process of negotiation which would get the Soviets to withdraw that weapon of terror? What is his position on that? I did not hear him mention it in the debate in the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: You were not here for the debate.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT PROMOTE DEBATE
Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is also directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. For the last 15 days a young Canadian named Karen Harrison has been sitting in the gallery of this House while fasting, to demonstrate her concern over this whole issue of the Cruise missile. This concern is shared, as my Leader has pointed out, by over half of the people in the country.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether or not he believes that he has a responsibility to respond to the Miss Harrisons of Canada by allowing, indeed even promoting, a Government day debate, a debate that is not tied to a confidence motion as the Prime Minister tied the last vote-a debate in this House on the whole issue of our country's participation in the development of the Cruise missile.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, of course the subject is important, and of course it is being debated all across Canada. It has been debated in this House. It has been debated in the dozens of questions from the Opposition that I have answered on this subject. I do not say that it should not be debated. I say, like the Hon. Member, that we have debated it and, if it is necessary, it can be debated again. But I do not like the simplistic approach of suddenly discovering that our side is testing a weapon when we know, because Mr. Andropov said so much in so many words in his December address, that the Soviets are testing too. They are testing the Cruise.


John Edward Broadbent: I never said that.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Leader of the New Democratic Party has some kibbutzing, Madam Speaker. We will hear what he has to say. Has he written to Andropov to tell him to stop testing the Cruise? Has he? He laughs.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Why do we not send him to Moscow?


THE ECONOMY
Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Finance Minister. I am sure that the Minister of Finance is now aware of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business survey which reveals Liberal economic policies have cost some 800,000 Canadians their jobs with small and medium sized businesses. In my riding some of the hardest hit are the welding, fabrication and machine shops, and small foundries. The workers affected are highly skilled tradesmen and technicians. These are people with years of experience.
Can the Minister tell me what hope and encouragement he can offer to the operators of these businesses and the thousands of workers across Canada who have lost their jobs
March 23, 1983

because of the Government's inability to deal with the economy?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to note that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has shown more judgment and more intelligence than the Hon. Member in analysing this situation.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: They have indeed mentioned the severe impact of the recession, but they have not tried to tie it to any particular Government or any particular Party. They know that the recession which we have seen has been international.


Mr. Wilson:: Come on, give the people credit for more intelligence than that.


Marc Lalonde: They know that there are 35 million people unemployed in the industrialized countries at the present time, and they have put their representations and their views with a much broader perspective than the narrow, partisan view of the Hon. Member.
I can tell him that I have had many meetings with representatives of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. We have already in operation a number of measures and programs. It would be very helpful if the Conservative Opposition, in particular, were to pass the Small Business Loans Act-


Some Hon. Members:: Call it, bring it on.


Marc Lalonde: -and the Small Business Grants Act, and support what they have asked for. The Conservative Opposition has been dragging its feet on that.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Bring it on. We will debate it.


Marc Lalonde: I can tell him that in my discussions with the CFIB I have examined with them further steps that could be taken in order to help small and medium-sized businesses. If the Conservative Opposition can pass the economic business before this House-


Mr. Nielsen:: Bring it on.


Marc Lalonde: -I will be very happy to introduce a budget which will come to the help of business in this country. I hope by then that the Conservatives will be less hypocritical about it.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Madam Speaker, my question is again directed to the Finance Minister. We are 24th out of 24 in OECD. I say to the Minister, bring the Bill on; bring the Bill on to the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


BILINGUALISM
Mr. Louis Duclos (Montmorency-Orleans):: Madam
Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. In his annual report for 1982 published yesterday, the Commission-ner of Official Languages states the following about the language of work in the Federal Public Service:
There can be little real progress on language of work while the legal basis and exact scope of this right remain in question-
In view of the accuracy of the assessment by the Commis-sionner of Official Languages, could the Minister tell the House whether the Government plans on proposing amendments to the Official Languages Act in the near future to specify the executory nature of the right to work in the official language of one's choice as recommended last June by the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on Official Languages?


Hon. Serge Joyal (Secretary of State):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to inform the Hon. Member that we have been working for some time at the Department of the Secretary of State of Canada on updating the official languages policy statement which my predecessor made public in 1977. As soon as the Cabinet has approved the revised policy, it will be made public. I suppose that it will then be referred to the appropriate Parliamentary Committee so that it may call witnesses, debate the matter and make appropriate recommendations. I share the concern of the Hon. Member and I believe that it is time to review and update the provisions of an Act which has served Canada well up to now and must continue to do so in the future.


GOVERNMENT AID
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister of Canada. Since the Canada-Quebec agreement on the $220 million promised under the NEED program has hit a snag with respect to Quebec's municipalities since Quebec intends to exercise its jurisdiction in that area, could the Right Hon. Prime Minister give the House the assurance that the $170 million earmarked for the Province of Quebec will be spent in that province, as originally intended?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Madam Speaker, although we regret that the Pequiste Government rejected an agreement we thought would be acceptable to them
24066

March 23, 1983
Oral Questions
and under which the Federal Government would be spending the $170 million, at least partly, through the municipalities and according to priorities determined by the municipalities. We regret this, but we are firmly resolved to see that the $170 million is spent in the Province of Quebec just the same. However, it will not be in co-operation with municipalities and that is unfortunate. We shall find ways to spend these funds usefully, in the federal public sector and certainly in the private sector in the Province of Quebec, in order to stimulate economic recovery and create jobs in that province.


REQUEST THAT PROVINCIAL JURISDICTIONS BE RESPECTED
Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary. I am very pleased to hear the Prime Minister's assurances that the people of Quebec will get the $170 million, because they need it. Yesterday, the Prime Minister said, in answer to a question by the Member for Beauharnois-Salaber-ry, that in cases where agreement could be reached with a province or provinces, he intended to subsidize municipalities directly. The Quebec Minister of Municipal Affairs seems prepared to spend the funds to be provided by Quebec under the NEED programs for municipalities, since they come under his jurisdiction. Has the Prime Minister, who implied that the Federal Government had decided to subsidize municipalities directly, now decided to respect provincial jurisdictions?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, in his first question, the Member for Joliette seemed to be showing a great deal of flexibility, because he was particularly concerned that these funds should be spent in Quebec. My answer yesterday to the Member for Valleyfield was given with the assurance I had at that time that the Pequiste Government would continue negotiations and agree to sign the agreement in question, which would allow us to provide direct assistance and to deal directly with the municipalities. Now that is no longer the case, I am not sure what the Hon. Member means by respect for provincial jurisdictions. I am sure that the other Provinces who allow us to give direct assistance to municipalities will not take any unconstitutional action, and if it is a political decision by the Pequiste Government which does not want us to deal directly with the municipalities, in any case, the Hon. Member's first question and my answer indicated that we were prepared to spend the funds in the Province of Quebec in a legal manner, but we can no longer do so in the manner I referred to yesterday.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF HON. GEORGE BUSH, VICEPRESIDENT OF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Madam Speaker:: I would like to draw the attention of the House to the distinguished presence in our gallery of the VicePresident of the United States of America, the Hon. George Bush.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. As the Minister realizes, Mr. Charlie Watt, of the Inuit Association, has added his voice to those of other native people who claim that there was a switch in the constitutional provision which would provide sexual equality for both men and women under the aboriginal clause in the Constitution. Mr. Watt also claims that the reason for the switch is that the original wording which was agreed upon by the federal Government would in fact guarantee federal benefits to thousands upon thousands of women and children in Canada, and that the new agreement will not do that. Will the Minister stand in this House and deny that there was a switch and, second, confirm that the new wording will not deny benefits to a number of non-status women and their children?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: Madam Speaker, this is the same question that I was asked the other day by a Member of the Official Opposition. The facts are exactly the same, that the agreement which was made public was the agreement that was reached by the committee. We have asked all of the Governments of Canada and all of the other groups about their recollection of the events. The Governments are unanimous that the written agreement represents the agreement that was reached in the committee. Some of the Native groups are of the same opinion.
There seems to be a genuine mistake of fact on the part of some of the native groups that the proposals they put forward were accepted when they were not. There was no debate of them and they were never accepted. That mistake in fact is unfortunate, but it remains. What we plan to do is to encourage the early discussion of this issue in the ongoing process. I understand that the Native Council of Canada is prepared to accept that solution.
March 23, 1983


REQUEST THAT TRANSCRIPT OF MEETING BE TABLED
Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, the Minister says there is some confusion over facts. Some native groups claim that when they put forward the proposition which they claim was agreed to, at best what can be said for the federal Minister responsible, the Minister of Justice, is that he mumbled.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Rodney Edward Murphy: That is the charitable position, that they do not know what he agreed to or disagreed with. In order to clear the air, will the Minister table in this House a transcript of what was said and what the Minister replied in those meetings?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, maybe the Hon. Member would like to take this up with the other Governments in Canada. This is not a position that the federal Government alone is advancing. All the Governments in Canada are agreed on this. Why does the Hon. Member not contact his own provincial Government and see what its position is on this?


NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The Minister of National Defence is at present attending a NATO meeting in Portugal where, according to UPI, United States Defence Secretary Caspar Weinberger is "to consult the allies on controversial NATO plans to deploy United States Pershing II and Cruise missiles in December". Can the Prime Minister assure the House that, on his return, the Minister of National Defence will make a statement on motions to inform the House and the country what Canada's current position is on this very important subject?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I can certainly promise that the Minister will be making a statement to Cabinet. Whether a statement will be made to the House or not at that time is something that we will decide when the time comes. I think the Hon. Member realizes that, while this is being discussed in Portugal, it is also being discussed today in Ottawa with Vice-President Bush and his officials. It is this very subject that we discussed for a few hours this morning. I think that we are making great progress.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER MAKE STATEMENT
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister will surely agree that the country is greatly puzzled over our position on this matter. He did not help matters very much yesterday when in an answer to a question he said:
-I would be repeating myself if I told the Vice-President that there had been no Cabinet agreement not to test the Cruise.
Oral Questions
If there is no agreement not to test the Cruise, one cannot be surprised at the Minister of Justice believing that there had been an agreement to test it, which he has maintained over the last year. I wonder if the Prime Minister might take the opportunity tomorrow, after his discussions with the VicePresident, to clarify this matter and make a statement on motions.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member heard me answer a like question to the Leader of the New Democratic Party five minutes ago. I put it to the Opposition that, if they think this matter is serious enough to warrant debate in the House, there are 13 Opposition days between now and the end of Supply in June. There will be some confidence votes in amongst those 13 days. If the Hon. Member's Party is really interested in having this question debated, I would think its Members would see their way clear to taking one of these days, during which the Minister of National Defence, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, or myself would be able to repeat our positions or state them as they then exist.
If there was a double negative in yesterday's quote, and I do not have Hansard before me, I think the meaning of it was clear, because I have said it many times. I repeated it this morning to Vice-President Bush, that there has been no Cabinet decision to test the Cruise. In fact, I have said before in this House that the United States have not yet asked us to test the Cruise. They asked us whether we would sign an umbrella agreement permitting the testing of weapons systems. The answer is yes, they have asked, and we have indeed signed such an agreement. I have made it clear that before we test the Cruise there will have to be a decision of Cabinet, which has not yet been made.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport regarding the financial state of Canadian National Railways. The Minister knows that Canadian National recorded record losses in 1982 of $223 million, and that $62 million was lost as a result of an imprudent investment in Cast Shipping which was used to purchase six foreign vessels. Has Canadian National proposed a new financing of any kind or requested government financial assistance of any kind? I remind the Minister that the Government has bailed out CN on other occasions.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I think, in talking about CN losses, one has to indicate that a certain number of these losses result from non-

March 23, 1983
Oral Questions
profitable activities of CN such as CN Express, Terra Transport, et cetera. On the subject of the future of the relationship between CN and Cast, it is being discussed now, and I am not in a position to report on the conclusion of these negotiations.


REPORTED PROPOSAL TO ACQUIRE SOFAT1 CONTAINER LINE
Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, the Minister mentions ongoing negotiations between Canadian National and Cast. There are published reports that CN Rail proposes to acquire Sofati Container Line which utilizes the Port of Montreal. This of course means that Montreal will have an unfair advantage over ports like the Port of Halifax. Can the Minister give some assurance that CN will not be allowed to take any steps to acquire Sofati Container Line or any assets of Cast until the Canadian Transport Commission has investigated the relationship between Cast and CN and made the appropriate rulings? Can the Minister stop CN from further investment in this disastrous transaction?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I cannot accept the foundations of the question. Very few people will accept the proposition that what is happening in the Port of Montreal has a direct effect on the Port of Halifax. As a matter of fact, there is a debate on this subject, and many people say that the future belongs to multi-modal facilities in the field of transportation. CN cannot ignore that. I see that the United States has a similar movement-taking place now.
Another factor to take into consideration is what CP does in the Montreal area. CN can hardly stay idle while CP establishes a position that would give it a tremendous advantage over CN.


AGRICULTURE
Marcel Ostiguy: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture and it has to do with section 16 of the Regulations which has recently been cancelled by the Unemployment Insurance Commission. Would the Minister use his influence with his colleague the Minister of Employment and Immigration and ask him to restore Section 16 because this is prejudicial to agricultural workers and Canadian farmers and more specifically to apple growers?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, I have had discussions with my colleague.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Bearing in mind the comments he made in Winnipeg with respect to his proposals for a change in the Crow rate, how does he justify putting a cap of 31 million metric tonnes of grain on which farmers would receive some transportation assistance as opposed to paying the total cost thereafter, also bearing in mind that we are almost at that level of production now? Why would he apply a dissentive to grain production when four-fifths of the world are suffering from malnutrition and there is a tremendous need for cereal protein to be disbursed around the world?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the idea of establishing a volume limit is not mine. It is the result of discussions held by Gilson and the shippers some months ago. The idea came from those meetings. It is postulated on the basis of economies of scale. If you reach the production of a given volume of a certain commodity, it is generally felt that additions to that volume will cost less. In the statement I made at the time of the announcement of the government western rail initiative, I indicated that, for example, for a spending of $40 million more for transportation of grain, western farmers would be in a position to gain $400 million in revenues. That is the justification for the volume limit. There would still be an incentive for the western farmer to produce more.


Arnold John Malone: Madam Speaker, it does not matter who thought of the idea; the idea is wrong because economies of scale cannot be applied just to the Prairies as a whole. They must be considered with respect to each farm family's economic unit.


EFFECT OF INCREASED TRANSPORTATION COST
Arnold John Malone: Madam Speaker, with respect to the Minister's position on an open-ended cost, why will he not tie any increase in cost to the farmer's ability to pay-in other words, some percentage of the bushel or tonne value of the grain? How can he justify his position when, according to his own projection, half the cost of grain will go to pay for transportation by the year 2000? While he is on his feet will he tell us when he is going to table-


Madam Speaker:: Order.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, first of all I do not agree with the statement made by my hon. friend. What is valid on a collective basis is also valid on an individual basis with respect to the savings from volume.
On the subject of the relationship between the cost of transportation of grain and the international price of grain, the idea is again in the Gilson Report, and Gilson says it is one worth studying and suggests that it should be the object of the
March 23, 1983

1985-86 review. So that is where we stand now. The idea is a reasonable one, but there are some disadvantages to it also because, should you guarantee the international price of grain, obviously there would be a similar demand from producers of other goods for a guaranteed price also. A snowballing effect is one which we cannot accept lightly.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. As he knows, the Gulf application concerning Stokes Point came in on March 11 and he has another 30 days to make a decision. I am sure he is also aware that the Canadian Arctic Resources Committee announced this morning that, if the Government goes ahead in approving the application, they will go before the Federal Court. My question to the Minister, as he leads the charge of the oil brigade to Stokes Point into lands which were withdrawn from exploration in 1978 following the very expensive and very lengthy Berger inquiry, the recommendations of which were supported by all Members of this House and by the National Energy Board-and those lands were withdrawn for three very specific reasons, those being the settlement of land claims-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Could the Hon. Member please ask his question? It is very close to the end of Question Period.


James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, would the Minister tell this House whether the 1978 withdrawal of those lands was public posturing, a bill of goods, or was it a serious Order in Council?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, despite the unnecessary and rather insulting preface to the Hon. Member's remarks, it is totally false. May I say it was a serious Order in Council.


USE OF PUBLIC LANDS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Prime Minister on one of his favourite topics, conflict of interest. I would like him to comment on a conflict of interest his colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, finds himself in, in that the 1978 Order in Council was very specific. Those lands were for settling land claims, they were for a national park, and conservation purposes. Would he tell this House whether or not he believes that 1978 Order in Council was in fact bona fide? Was it in the interests of the people of Canada, or is his Minister in a conflict of interest in giving away the land to Gulf?
The Late J. J. Macdonell


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, there is no conflict of interest whatsoever.


John Edward Broadbent: There never is.


John Carr Munro: The situation is that I am in possession of a legal opinion which would indicate that I have the authority to give a land use permit on a temporary basis- this is for exploration-to Gulf Oil Company. For exploration. It is quite true that if it were more than temporary, if it were for a permanent site for transportation of production of oil, an amendment to the Order in Council would be required. Since it is temporary, however, my legal advice is that it would not be necessary to get that Order in Council withdrawing these lands for park purposes, amended. I am advised that I do have the authority.
May I quiet the concerns of the Hon. Member by telling him that I have no intention at the moment of approving even any temporary land use permit for a site at Stokes Point, even for exploration purposes. I have not decided to do so, and I have not decided not to do so either; I simply have not decided this question at all. I am going to undertake, as I should, consultation with the native groups concerned. I am sure the Hon. Member would approve of that.


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by the Hon. Members on Tuesday March 22, 1983, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Minister of State for Economic Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I seek the unanimous consent of all Members of the House to make a brief statement or comment with respect to our late Auditor General, James J. Macdonell, whose untimely death yesterday shocked all of us.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, yesterday we lost a great Canadian and a great friend of many Members of this Cham-

March 23, 1983
The Late J. J. Macdonell
ber and, I might say, a great friend of the Canadian people, the late James J. Macdonell.
When Jim Macdonell came to Ottawa in the early 1970s he already had a record of many accomplishments. He had been a successful and prestigious auditor and a renowned management consultant. He came here and I think achieved what was probably the greatest accomplishment of his career, as our Auditor General. He brought new ideas to the position, he brought enthusiasm, he brought energy, and perhaps above all he brought dedication and preoccupation with the concept of providing Canadians with value for money. He believed that the taxpayers of Canada should receive full value for the disbursement of public funds. In that light and for that purpose he introduced the concept of comprehensive auditing to our system.

Madam Speaker, it was mainly Mr. Macdonell's work that had instigated the establishment of the Lambert Commission, and that has provided Canada with an accounting system for dealing with public funds the efficiency of which has been without precedent.

He reminded us constantly, as Parliamentarians, that the funds we appropriate in this House are funds of the taxpayers of Canada and are to be disbursed and accounted for accordingly. Indeed, Madam Speaker, Jim Macdonell has left all Canadians a very rich legacy.

To his family we extend our deepest sympathies.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, the death of James J. Macdonell, former Auditor General of Canada, comes as a shock to this House and to all Canadians. He was a good servant of the House and of all Canadians.
His reports on the financial procedures of the Government from 1973 to 1980 identified the problem of over-spending by Government and, as the Minister has said, introduced the principle of value for money, a principle totally foreign to the methods of the Government then and now.
To quote the wisdom and words of the former Auditor General, recently he pointed out that Canada in the 1970s "indulged in the biggest spending spree in the history of the country". This statement corresponded fully with the views of the Opposition, although it has still failed to win recognition in the House.
J. J. Macdonell, born in Calgary, sprang from the ancient Highland stock which settled in Glengarry County not far from the capital, Ottawa. A namesake was aide-de-camp to General Brock at Queenston Heights. Perhaps it was this combination of Scottish canniness and dogged dedication to duty that made him a formidable foe of waste and extravagance by the federal Government. He fulfilled his difficult mandate with distinction.
His memory deserves well of this nation and this House.


Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, I should like to join with my colleagues from the Government and the Official Opposition and, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, offer condolences to the family of J. J. Macdonell and say a few brief words about his accomplishments.
As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I first came to know Mr. Macdonell in early 1980. I had heard of him before but had not previously had the opportunity to meet and work with him. The time that I spent on the Public Accounts Committee when he was Auditor General is time that I will cherish. I found him not only to be a person very concerned about the public purse and the way taxpayers' money was spent, but also to be a very warm person. He was quick to offer assistance to all Members of Parliament who wished to come to him to take advantage of his insight into the way that the taxpayers' money was being spent.
I am sure he will be long remembered for his accomplishments. He pushed for the establishment of the Comptroller General's office, he was responsible for the revised estimates that sprang from it, and, as the Minister of State for Economic Development (Mr. Johnston) mentioned, was responsible for putting comprehensive audit into place.
I am sure Mr. Macdonell will be long remembered as one who brought much to Canada and to Parliament. On behalf of the New Democratic Party, I wish to offer our condolences to his family.


Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, as one who had the privilege of serving as a chairman of the Public Acccounts Committee while J. J. Macdonell was Auditor General, I should like to join in expressing to his family my condolences and those of members of that Committee many years ago.
He was able; he was experienced; he was conscientious; but above all he had a bulldog-like tenacity to see an issue or a problem through to its successful solution, no matter whose toes were stepped on. I believe that he will be remembered not only for his well-known reforms in accounting and auditing procedures and concepts, but also for his ability to attract the services of excellent people to assist him. He served the taxpayers of the country well and we all honour him.


Hon. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Madam Speaker, thank you for allowing me to add a few words to those of my colleagues and particularly those of the Minister of State for Economic Development (Mr. Johnston).
I was also a chairman of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts that served under J. J. Macdonell. Those who knew him well knew that he would pass away with his boots on, which was his will.
I think the mark and style of the seventh Auditor General of Canada was described best in the language of Damon Runyon by the late Hon. Robert Andras, who was responsible for some of the great advances Mr. Macdonell was able to give to
March 23, 1983

Parliament and the country, when he referred to his mark and style as being "Ottawa's oldest, established, permanent floating crap game". That more or less describes the vigour with which negotiations proceeded.
He will be remembered as the person who, at the pinnacle of an outstanding professional career, put all aside to lead the design of a system of accountability essential to the continuity and quality of the parliamentary form of Government. Value for money management concepts, the new Auditor General Act, the office of the Comptroller General of Canada, systems in place to measure effectiveness, the new form of the Estimates and comprehensive auditing were all products of that game which was the mark and style of James J. Macdonell.
The conclusion of his great effort rests with us in the House, the backbench Parliamentarian and the Government, that is, to deliver a Committee system which will allow us to use effectively the information system he did so much to put in place.


Hon. Herb Gray (President of Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, as the current President of Treasury Board, I want particularly to associate myself with the sentiments expressed by my predecessor, now the Minister of State for Economic Development (Mr. Johnston).
The late J. J. Macdonell made a very important contribution to the public life of Canada. I will not take the time to repeat his many achievements and interests. I might say, however, that while I did not serve, as some of the people who have spoken, on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts during his time as Auditor General, 1 had the opportunity to have a number of discussions with Mr. Macdonell on a personal basis about his concerns and the initiatives connected with them.
There is no doubt that he has made a very important contribution, as I said, to the public life of Canada. I join with the other Hon. Members of the House who have spoken at this time in expressing my sincerest sympathy to his family and friends on his passing.


Madam Speaker:: 1 am sure the House will want me to convey to the family of the late J. J. Macdonell the sympathy of the House on his untimely death, a sense of gratitude for his remarkable contributions to parliamentary accountability and a recognition of the gentle and firm manner in which he prompted all of us to be more accountable.



POINT OF ORDER


Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order relating to the reference yesterday to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections of the allegations contained in The Gazette of Montreal of March 10, 11
Point of Order-Mr. Lewis
and 12 concerning the activities of the Hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey) with respect to 109609 Company Canada Ltd.
I made some reference yesterday to our concern about the sufficiency of the motion, but be that as it may, quite apart from the question of the sufficiency of the motion, it is our concern that the practices of the House have not been followed with respect to a complaint made of a newspaper.
It is my understanding that when an Hon. Member rises to complain about statements made in a newspaper, the offending words should be read into the record. Furthermore, United Kingdom practice indicates that complete copies of the newspaper or newspapers in which the offending article or articles in this case, appeared should be filed with the Table.
We would contend that until such time as these articles are put on record, the House is not seized of them. To suggest otherwise would be to suggest that anything put in print anywhere in Canada would be a matter of record in the House of Commons.
My case is based upon Citations 83 and 332 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition which deal with questions of privilege based on published material. Citation 332(2) of Beauchesne reads as follows:
It is in order to quote a newspaper reflecting on proceedings in the House if the quotation is followed by a privilege motion.
When a complaint is made of a newspaper, it is the practice in the House of Commons for the Member to rise on a question of privilege and point out that he has been libelled or misrepresented. He may read as much of the article as is necessary to prove his case but he cannot go further. He is bound to confine himself strictly to the question of privilege.
The root of my argument now lies in Citation 83 of Beauchesne, page 25, which reads as follows:
Should a question of privilege be based on published material, the article in question must be submitted and read at the Table.
As a further example of the established practice of the House in this regard, I refer to Appendix D of the first report of the Special Committee on Rights and Immunities of Members, which was laid before the Thirtieth Parliament on July 12, 1976. It indicated that during questions of privilege raised in 1956, 1964 and 1968, newspaper articles criticizing Members were read into the records of the House. These instances can be found in Hansard at page 4528, pages 4431 and 4432 and page 9855.
The Canadian practice is further supported by references in Erskine May to the practice in the United Kingdom. I could provide the Chair with the references for that, but on page 164 of Erskine May, in a rather large paragraph, there appears the following sentence:
When the Member has concluded his complaint the Speaker desires him to bring the document to the table and, when the document has been brought to the table, directs the Clerk of the House to read the passages complained of.
Without trying to interfere with what has gone forward, we would submit that the actual articles have not been read into the record. Therefore, the Committee that is trying to proceed has nothing firm upon which to proceed until they are either

March 23, 1983
Point of Order-Mr. Lewis
read into the record by the Member or by the Clerk. It seems clear to us, if we are to follow proper procedures in dealing with questions of privilege and newspaper articles, and in order to be fair to the Member, to the Committee and to the newspaper involved, that the articles complained of should be read into the record.
I am talking about past practice. Since the matter of privilege has been decided and has gone to Committee, I suggest that for our purposes we would in this instance be prepared to have the articles printed in Votes and Proceedings', but in no case should the Committee start its proceedings without knowing what exactly it is the House of Commons is directing it to review. That can only be done if the articles in question are read into the record, tabled or in some way become a firm part of the record of the House of Commons.


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: 1 have three points to make, Madam Speaker. First, there is no appeal from a decision of the House. Yesterday, the House supported unanimously a motion for referral to committee, and if I am not mistaken, my hon. colleague's party was unanimous in supporting this motion. We cannot criticize or appeal a decision once it has been made by the House, so that the referral may not be changed in any way.
Second, the motion is now before the committee and according to our parliamentary procedure to which my learned friend was referring, no comments may be made on the motion until a report is received from the committee. That is not the case, and I submit that this discussion actually contravenes our Standing Orders, because we may not discuss a matter once it has been referred to committee. Third, the remedy for what was implied by the Hon. Member is in the Standing Orders. I may refer the House to Standing Order 69(8), which, except when the House otherwise orders, empowers the committee not only to hear witnesses but also to produce papers and records, and therefore, if it is relevant and it seems to me that is the case, but I would rather let the committee decide since it runs its own show-the committee has the authority to demand production of the newspaper articles in question. For the purposes of our discussion, I would like to read Standing Order 69(8), which is very clear on this matter, and I quote:
Standing committees shall be severally empowered to examine and enquire into all such matters as may be referred to them by the House, and, to report from time to time, and, except when the House otherwise orders.
And incidentally, there has been no order to the contrary. I shall continue the quote:
-except when the House otherwise orders, to send for persons, papers and records, to sit while the House is sitting, to sit during periods when the House stands adjourned, to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by them, and to delegate to subcommittees all or any of their powers except the power to report direct to the House.
The fact of the matter is that there has been absolutely no order to the contrary preventing the application of Standing Order 69(8), which empowers the committee to produce any relevant papers or records, including the newspaper articles to
which my learned colleague referred, and in addition to ordering production of such papers before the committee, it can also, according to the Standing Order from which I read, print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by the committee. Therefore, these documents will appear in the committee's proceedings, and eventually, it can be assumed that the committee's report will certainly make some reference to the proceedings and the documents.
Therefore, as a practical remedy, if the Opposition is really serious when it says that it wants fair treatment for the Member who proposed the motion, well, I think they should respect parliamentary procedure, refrain from using points of order to cast all kinds of doubts on the validity of the referral, and respect the Standing Orders, which are very clear on this matter. There will be every opportunity according to our procedure, and the committee is able to do so, if it is relevant, and the Progressive Conservative Members on that committee will also be able, to request the tabling before the committee of all relevant records, including the newspaper articles referred to by the Hon. Member.
Therefore, my three points, and I shall not repeat them, are quite simple. A decision rendered by the House cannot be appealed. The matter is before the committee. No comments may be made before the committee reports to the House, and third, the remedy exists in our Standing Orders.
[English)


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I listened to the words of my colleague with interest. I would point out that we are certainly not challenging the ruling of the Chair or the motion that was passed. What we are trying to do is to perfect the proceedings of the House. I suggest to you, Madam Speaker, with respect, that we perfect the proceedings of the House, and under the Standing Order to which my colleague referred, we perfect the matter "as may be referred to them by the House".
In other words, we want the Committee to do its work. We made that very clear at the outset and we made it very clear yesterday. Surely we should have the articles before us. I am not suggesting the articles in question be read in full. It would be satisfactory to us to have copies of the Montreal Gazette for March 10, March 11 and March 12 tabled. Nor are we asking for a delay while the Clerk reads them. But to perfect what this House is doing, we are making this suggestion so that in future when someone asks what was done in March, 1983 on a very important matter of privilege-whether or not it was done before or after, at least before the Committee starts its proceedings-those following us will be able to say: "Yes, the articles were read in and became part of what was referred to the Committee". That is the point we are making.


Erik Nielsen: Those are the facts.


Madam Speaker:: The desire to protect the proceedings of the House is certainly a very laudable one. I would concur with
March 23, 1983

anything that would contribute to that perfection. I thank the Hon. Member for raising this question. As we debated or discussed the proceedings yesterday, there did not seem to me to be any kind of anomaly in the way we did proceed. If there had been, I suppose we would have to recognize that the House did give its unanimous consent to whatever we did. However, if there is any way of perfecting the process, and if there is any avenue open to me in order to do just that, I would, of course, want to do it. Therefore, I will take that point of order under consideration.


PRIVILEGE
Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I would like to reserve my right to raise the subject matter of answers I received today from the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan). I do not have a copy of those answers but I would like to review them. I believe he seriously misled the House with regard to the position of the Province of Manitoba on the issue of equality for male and female persons.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member does not need to give any kind of notice of this type in the House. If upon reading the blues he realizes that he has a point to make, he can do so tomorrow.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of 73 parishioners of the St. Thomas-Wesley United Church in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. Because of the possible testing of the Cruise missile on Canadian soil, your petitioners call upon this House to oppose the testing of the Cruise missile.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, I have a petition to the House of Commons signed by a number of Manitobans opposing the announcement of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) that he would end the statutory Crows-nest Pass freight rates. The petitioners are concerned about how farmers' agricultural organizations, local and provincial Governments, trade unions, and many others will suffer as a result of the Pepin-Gilson plan. The petitioners have also had an opportunity to examine the position of the New Democratic
Order Paper Questions
Party's alternative plan and suggest the House of Commons adopt that instead of the Government's proposal.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, I wish to inform the House that there have been consultations among representatives of the Parties and it has not been possible to reach an agreement pursuant to Standing Order 80 or Standing Order 81 with regard to the allocation of time at the report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-143, an Act to provide supplementary borrowing authority. Therefore, at the next sitting of the House I shall propose a motion pursuant to Standing Order 82 to allocate one sitting day to each of the said stages of the said Bill.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 3,921 to 3,926 inclusive, 3,932, 4,553 and 4,562.


Mr. Lawrence: What is the name of the present (a) Director (b) Deputy Director of the Keele Street Centre, Toronto and, in each case (a) for how long has he/she held the position (b) what position did he/she hold previously (c) what is his/her salary level (d) what formal education does he/she have?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: In so far as
the Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
A.	There is no Director at Keele Street Centre but there is a Superintendent, whose name is Anthony Lombardo, (a) Date of appointment to present position: September 1, 1980. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Assistant Warden, Administration, Warkworth Institution, Campbellford, Ontario, (c) Salary range: $28,118 to $31,640. *(d) This position requires a university degree, preferably with specialization in sociology, psychology, social work, criminology or some other specialty relevant to the position, or to have passed the Public Service Commission Examination, "General Intelligence Test 310" and possess the experience qualifications for the position.
B.	There is no Deputy Director at Keele Street Centre but one of the four Parole Officers, Allan Beauvais, is presently designated by the Superintendent to act in his absence through

March 23, 1983
Order Paper Questions
a Commissioner's Directive issued in accordance with Section 29(3) of the Penitentiary Act. The responsibility may be rotated periodically in order to provide experience and training opportunities to the three other Parole Officers.
(a)	Date of appointment as Parole Officer: March 1, 1978, *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Counsellor at Montgomery Centre, Toronto, Ontario, (c) Salary range: $24,892 to $27,998. *(d) Same as part A(d).
* Information provided is for previous work experience in the Federal Public Service only. The provision of any additional information on individuals regarding previous work experience outside the Federal Public Service and personal educational qualifications is of a personal and confidential nature, the disclosure of which is governed under the Canadian Human Rights Act, Part IV.


Mr. Lawrence: What is the name of the present (a) Director (b) Deputy Director of the Montgomery Centre, Toronto and, in each case (a) for how long has he/she held the position (b) what position did he/she hold previously (c) what is his/her salary level (d) what formal education does he/she have?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as
the Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
A.	There is no Director at Montgomery Centre but there is a Superintendent, whose name is John Arthur Currie, (a) Date of appointment to present position: July 1, 1979. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Area Manager, National Parole Service, Etobicoke Office, Toronto, Ontario, (c) Salary range: $28,118 to $31,640. *(d) This position requires a university degree, preferably with specialization in sociology, psychology, social work, criminology or some other specialty relevant to the position, or to have passed the Public Service Commission Examination, "General Intelligence Test 310" and possess the experience qualifications for the position.
B.	There is no Deputy Director at Montgomery Centre but one of the four Parole Officers, Colin Campbell, is presently designated by the Superintendent to act in his absence through a Commissioner's Directive issued in accordance with Section 29(3) of the Penitentiary Act. The responsibility may be rotated periodically in order to provide experience and training opportunitites to the three other Parole Officers.
(a) Date of appointment as Parole Officer: February 19, 1978. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Counsellor at Montgomery Centre, (c) Salary range: $24,892 to $27,998. *(d) Same as part A(d).
* Information provided is for previous work experience in the Federal Public Service only. The provision of any additional information on individuals regarding previous work experience outside the Federal Public Service and personal educational qualifications is of a personal and confidential nature, the disclosure of which is governed under the Canadian Human Rights Act, Part IV.


Mr. Lawrence: What is the name of the present (a) Director (b) Deputy Director of the Beaver Creek Camp, Gravenhurst and, in each case (a) for how long has he/she held the position (b) what position did he/she hold previously (c) what is his/her salary level (d) what formal education does he/she have?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as
the Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
A.	There is no Director at Beaver Creek Correctional Camp but there is a Superintendent, whose name is Theodore Van Petegem. (a) Date of appointment to present position: March 19, 1973. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Supervisor of Classification, Warkworth Institution, Camp-bellford, Ontario, (c) Salary range: $28,118 to $31,640. *(d) This position requires a university degree, preferably with specialization in sociology, psychology, social work, criminology or some other specialty relevant to the position, or to have passed the Public Service Commission Examination, "General Intelligence Test 310" and possess the experience qualifications for the position.
B.	There is no Deputy Director at Beaver Creek Correctional Camp but the Case Management Officer, Ronald Kerrigan is presently designated by the Superintendent to act in his absence through a Commissioner's Directive issued in accordance with Section 29(3) of the Penitentiary Act. The responsibility may be rotated periodically in order to provide experience and training opportunities to the Case Management Officer and the Living Unit Supervisor.
(a) Date of appointment as Case Management Officer: November 22, 1976. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Classification Officer at Collins Bay Institution, Kingston, Ontario, (c) Salary range: $24,892 to $27,998. *(d) Same as part A(d).
^Information provided is for previous work experience in the Federal Public Service only. The provision of any additional information on individuals regarding previous work experience outside the Federal Public Service and personal educational qualifications is of a personal and confidential nature, the disclosure of which is governed under the Canadian Human Rights Act, Part IV.


Mr. Lawrence: What is the name of the present (a) Director (b) Deputy Director of the Bath Institution, Bath and, in each case (a) for how long has he/she held the position (b) what position did he/she hold previously (c) what is his/her salary level (d) what formal education does he/she have?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as
the Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
A. There is no Director at Bath Institution but there is a Superintendent, whose name is Mel Willard, (a) Date of appointment to present position: July 7, 1971. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment:	Assistant Warden,
Administration and Services, Millhaven Institution, Bath,
March 23, 1983

Ontario, (c) Salary range: $26,871 to $30,280. *(d) The minimum educational requirements for this position are successful completion of secondary school or to have passed the Public Service Commission Examination 320 coupled with relevant experience.
B. There is no Deputy Director at Bath Institution but the Co-ordinator, Offender Programs, Mathew Gventer, is presently designed by the Superintendent to act in his absence through a Commissioner's Directive issued in accordance with Section 29(3) of the Penitentiary Act. The responsibility may be rotated periodically in order to provide experience and training opportunities to the Administration and Supply Officer and the Living Unit Supervisor.
(a) Date of present appointment: July 4, 1978. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Head, Social Development, Kingston Penitentiary, Kingston, Ontario, (c) Salary range: $28,118 to $31,640. *(d) This position requires a university degree, preferably with specialization in sociology, psychology, social work, criminology or some other specialty relevant to the position, or to have passed the Public Service Commission Examination "General Intelligence Test 310" and possess the experience qualifications for the position.
* Information provided is for previous work experience in the Federal Public Service only. The provision of any additional information on individuals regarding previous work experience outside the Federal Public Service and personal educational qualifications is of a personal and confidential nature, the disclosure of which is governed under the Canadian Human Rights Act, Part IV.


Mr. Lawrence: What is the name of the present (a) Director (b) Deputy Director of the Pittsburg Institution Farm, Joyceville and, in each case (a) for how long has he/she held the position (b) what position did he/she hold previously (c) what is his/her salary level (d) what formal education does he/she have?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as
the Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
A.	There is no Director at Pittsburg Institution but there is a Superintendent, whose name is James Caird. (a) Date of appointment to present position: May 1, 1980. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Superintendent, Frontenac Institution, Kingston, Ontario, (c) Salary range: $30,567 to $34,090. *(d) The minimum educational requirements for this position are successful completion of secondary school or to have passed the Public Service Commission Examination 320 coupled with relevant experience.
B.	There is no Deputy Director at Pittsburg Institution but the Co-ordinator, Offender Programs, Douglas Roantree, is presently designated by the Superintendent to act in his absence through a Commissioner's Directive issued in accordance with Section 29(3) of the Penitentiary Act. The responsibility may be rotated periodically in order to provide experience and training opportunities to three other officers.
Order Paper Questions
(a) Date of appointment as Co-ordinator, Offender Programs: May 6, 1978. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Inmate Classification Officer, Pittsburg Institution. (c) Salary range: $28,118 to $31,640. *(d) This position requires a university degree, preferably with specialization in sociology, psychology, social work, criminology or some other specialty relevant to the position, or to have passed the Public Service Commission Examination, "General Intelligence Test 310" and possess the experience qualifications for the position.
* Information provided is for previous work experience in the Federal Public Service only. The provision of any additional information on individuals regarding previous work experience outside the Federal Public Service and personal educational qualifications is of a personal and confidential nature, the disclosure of which is governed under the Canadian Human Rights Act, Part IV.


Mr. Lawrence: What is the name of the present (a) Director (b) Deputy Director of the Frontenac Institution Farm, Kingston and, in each case (a) for how long has he/she held the position (b) what position did he/she hold previously (c) what is his/her salary level (d) what formal education does he/she have?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as
the Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
A.	There is no Director at Frontenac Institution but there is a Superintendent, whose name is George Phillip Downing, (a) Date of appointment to present position: May 1, 1980. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Regional Chief, Security Operations, Regional Headquarters, Kingston, Ontario, (c) Salary range: $32,112 to $36,212. *(d) The minimum educational requirements for this position are successful completion of secondary school or to have passed the Public Service Commission Examination 320 coupled with relevant experience.
B.	There is no Deputy Director at Frontenac Institution but the Co-ordinator, Offender Programs, Bruce Black, is presently designated by the Superintendent to act in his absence through a Commissioner's Directive issued in accordance with Section 29(3) of the Penitentiary Act. The responsibility may be rotated periodically in order to provide experience and training opportunities to the Farm Manager and the Administration and Supply Officer.
(a) Date of appointment as Co-ordinator, Offender Programs: August 11, 1980. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Section Supervisor, National Parole Service, Eastern Ontario District Office, Kingston, Ontario, (c) Salary range: $28,118 to $31,640. *(d) This position requires a university degree, preferably with specialization in sociology, psychology, social work, criminology or some other specialty relevant to the position, or to have passed the Public Service Commission Examination, "General Intelligence Test 310" and possess the experience qualifications for the position.

March 23, 1983
Order Paper Questions
* Information provided is for previous work experience in the Federal Public Service only. The provision of any additional information on individuals regarding previous work experience outside the Federal Public Service and personal educational qualifications is of a personal and confidential nature, the disclosure of which is governed under the Canadian Human Rights Act, Part IV.


Mr. Lawrence: What is the name of the present (a) Director (b) Deputy Director of the Regional Psychiatric Centre, Kingston and, in each case (a) for how long has he/she held the position (b) what position did he/she hold previously (c) what is his/her salary level (d) what formal education does he/she have?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as
the Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
A.	The Medical Director at the Regional Psychiatric Centre, Kingston is Dr. Frederick Peter Stephens, (a) Date of appointment to present position: February 9, 1981. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Clinical Director at the Regional Psychiatric Centre, Kingston, Ontario, (c) Salary range: $52,192 to $63,152. *(d) This position requires graduation from a recognized school of medicine and certification in a medical specialty recognized in Canada by a statutory licensing body.
B.	There is no Deputy Director at the Regional Psychiatric Centre, Kingston but the Clinical Director, Dr. Andrew Maley, is presently designated by the Medical Director to act in his absence through a Commissioner's Directive issued in accordance with Section 29(3) of the Penitentiary Act.
(a) Date of appointment as Clinical Director: March 2, 1981. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Clinical Psychiatrist at the Regional Psychiatric Centre, Kingston, (c) Salary range: $52,192 to $63,152. *(d) The minimum educational qualifications for psychiatrists working in the Correctional Service of Canada require graduation from a recognized school of medicine and certification in a medical specialty recognized in Canada by a statutory licensing body.
'Information provided is for previous work experience in the Federal Public Service only. The provision of any additional information on individuals regarding previous work experience outside the Federal Public Service and personal educational qualifications is of a personal and confidential nature, the disclosure of which is governed under the Canadian Human Rights Act, Part IV.


Mr. Gamble: With reference to the answer to question No. 4,395 which stated in part "There was no preferential treatment in as much as English (and French) radio was utilized in Quebec (and in no other province) to offset the lack of billboard advertising as outlined in Part 2 above" (a) what was the total radio time on (i) English-language (ii) French-language radio in Quebec which was employed to offset the billboard advertising availability (b) how does the use of French radio broadcasting in the Province of Quebec offset the lack of English-language billboard advertising in the Province of Quebec?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: (a) (i) English-language-$32,158.00*; (ii) French-language-$ 120,169.00**.
(b)	French-language radio was never intended to offset the lack of English-language billboard advertising in Quebec. English radio was used to offset the lack of English billboards. French radio was used to offset the lack of French billboards.
(a)	(i)* English radio time over a 3-week period: Each of six stations: 79 30-second spots.
(ii)** French radio time over a 3-week period: Each of 29 stations: 79 30-second spots; each of 66 stations: 42-44 30-second spots; each of 19 stations: 32-34 30-second spots.


Mr. MacKay: 1.	Did the Dominion Fire Commissioner, Mr. G.A. Hope, recently take a trip to the Far East and, if so (a) what was the purpose and duration (b) what were the destinations (c) who accompanied the Commissioner (d) what was the total cost to the Government?
2.	How many years of service has the Commissioner left to serve before his normal retirement age?
3.	Are there any plans to appoint the Commissioner, on an acting basis or otherwise, to the job of head of the Western Region of the Dominion Fire Commissioner's Office, located in Vancouver?


Hon. Romeo LeBIanc (Minister of Public Works):: 1. Yes. (a) As a member of a fire protection delegation sponsored by the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs (CAFC) under External Affairs Scientific and Technical Exchange Program. The Commissioner was out of the country for 15 days (October 23 to November 7 inclusive).
(b)	The destinations were Beijing (Peking); Tianjin; Shanghai; Guangzhou (Canton); and Hong Kong.
(c)	(i) Bernard Bonser, Chief of the Toronto Fire Department and President of the CAFC; (ii) Percy Clark, Chief of the Saint John, N.B. Fire Department and immediate past president of the CAFC; (iii) John Bateman, Ontario Fire Marshal and President of the Association of Canadian Fire Marshals and Fire Commissioners (ACFM&FC); (iv) Donald Baird, Director of Fire Underwriters' Survey under the Insurer's Advisory Organization; (v) Murdoch Galbreath, Architect, Senior Research Officer in the Division of Building Research (Fire Research Section) of the National Research Council of Canada; and (vi) Lome MacLean, Lt. Col., Fire Marshal of the Canadian Forces.
(d)	The total cost to Public Works Canada was $4,000 made payable to the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs Inc., which includes the Department's share in financing a reciprocal visit by a delegate from the People's Republic of China to Canada.
2.	Seven years plus.
3.	The position referred to is not available; however should it become vacant, normal staffing procedures will apply.


David P. Smith: I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
March 23, 1983

[ Translation]


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Madam Speaker:: Shall the notices of motions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS

["Order, please. It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 2(1).\nAt 6 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.", 'Thursday, March 24, 1983']
Madam Speaker:: Shall all items listed under Private Members' Public Bills preceeding No. 321 be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury) moved: that Bill C-521, an Act respecting senior citizens, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
He said: Madam Speaker, in my remarks today I would like to draw attention to a very serious and pressing social issue which, to some degree, affects all of us. The Bill before us may be one means of addressing this issue; perhaps there are other and better means which Hon. Members will want to suggest. At any rate, I think it is essential for Parliament to be giving serious and earnest attention to the needs of the elderly, and specifically to the problem of abuse of the elderly in our old age homes and other senior care institutions throughout this country.
Since this Bill was first introduced I am happy to see that the Government has produced, in consultation with provincial and territorial representatives, a helpful and well documented report on aging. This report, which was initially prepared to
Senior Citizens
serve the Canadian delegation to the United Nations World Assembly on Aging, discusses a number of humanitarian issues related to the aging population including income security, housing, health and social welfare.
But its purpose is informational rather than critical and reflects the perspective of Government officials rather than the elderly themselves. As such, it does not in any way address the inadequacies of care and facilities or the more serious injustices and abuses which affect so many in our aging population. References to institutional care are, in fact, relegated a few pages and there is a conspicuous absence of any allusion to the attitudes of the elderly themselves to the level and quality of institutional care that they receive. This is, in short, a report neither by nor for the people who are its ostensible subjects. Their own voice does not emerge.
There is, however, a growing witness from other sources that incidents of elderly abuse, like other forms of social abuse and violence, such as parents against children or husbands against wives, for example, constitute a social problem of significant proportions and one which can be expected to worsen as the number of elderly in our society increases and economic pressures grow.
In October, 1980 the Ontario Advisory Council on Senior Citizens made an extensive survey of attitudes of the elderly concerning certain of their most pressing needs and problems. Many of the criticisms outlined in this report entitled "Through the Eyes of Others" were specifically directed against nursing homes and institutions.
A recurrent theme underlying many of the survey's detailed findings is the resentment of seniors of the segregation and isolation which they experience in these facilities. They do not want to be shut away or cut off from their community or deprived of normal relationships and activities. They want to be recognized by their own names and for their own qualities and character as persons, to be valued for their lifelong contributions to society and respected as continuing members of that society.
But personnel and staff are often alluded to as insensitive, impatient, patronizing and thoughtless of basic needs for privacy and personal dignity. It was reported that there is an assembly line approach to care and that facilities operate for the convenience of staff rather than the residents.
The survey indicates a high frequency of complaints about overcrowding in rooms and inadequate bathroom facilities. Lack of special facilities for handicapped seniors attracted comment: countless minor daily inconveniences and frustrations are caused by drinking fountains that will not accommodate wheelchair patients, for example, or taps that are difficult to turn.
Theft of personal effects was alluded to as a frequent problem, with clothes and other personal items vanishing from

March 23, 1983
Senior Citizens
rooms or blankets and the like sent by relatives never reaching their intended recipient.
Quantity and quality of food were generally regarded as far from adequate. One woman complained, "My husband is six feet tall and weighed 179 pounds when he went in. Now he weighs less than 100 pounds and has bed sores. There are other men in there who beg for food".
There was a good deal of bitterness about the lack of an effective inspection program or of remedial measures even when problems were detected. Inspectors frequently announce their intention to visit facilities in advance and staff are able to make short-term changes to save appearances. As one senior complained, "The homes make good money by cutting corners on staffing, food and good maintenance care, but they can put on a good show when the inspectors come. The residents are helpless to defend themselves."
Perhaps the most devastating published critique of nursing homes to date comes from author Daniel Baum in his book called "Warehouses for Death". I would like to read a paragraph from that book:
People are there to die. Once they walk through the nursing home door they will not walk out again. They are stripped of their assets, given a small personal allowance, promised minimal nursing care, regulated severely in their routine and medicated to institutional compliance. In a very real sense they are encapsulated and warehoused for death. They are removed from the community, and the community accordingly does not have to see either old age or death.
Such comments may make us uncomfortable and defensive, which they certainly make me, but they cannot be ignored.
The subject of abuse of the elderly is roughly at the stage where that of wife-battering was ten years ago. There has been far less research into this problem than into any other aspect of aging, and most of the evidence of abuse which has surfaced in the last few years has come from investigative journalists and concerned groups of citizens who have made private inquiries of their own.
Some systematic research has been conducted in the United States but no statistics on abuse of the elderly are yet available in Canada. The Government of Ontario has just launched a major inquiry concerning abuse in nursing homes, the results of which should be available about a year from now. Other provincial Governments have undertaken similar studies. For the most part, however, we have to content ourselves with impressions and isolated accounts, as well as a few studies published in foreign journals.
Initial studies in the United States have indicated that the problem of elderly abuse is widespread and takes many forms. The first major study, "The Battered Elder Syndrome", listed physical abuse, psychological abuse, material abuse, violation of rights, medical abuse and failure to provide a sanitary environment as major aspects of mistreatment of the aged at the hands of their caretakers. The study indicated that most of the abuse was psychological rather than physical, centering on verbal assaults, taunts and threats. Physical abuse for the most part involved neglect and blows resulting in welts and bruises rather than broken bones, "slapping, shoving, and shaking rather than hitting with a fist".
Another study by Lau and Kosberg entitled "Abuse of the Elderly by Informal Care Providers" included in its definition of abuse: physical abuse, neglect, and emotional and psychological abuse. Lau and Kosberg found that over 75 per cent of the cases that they investigated involved physical abuse, consisting of lack of physical care, lack of food, lack of medical care and lack of supervision. Over 50 per cent of the cases involved psychological abuse, including mistreatment such as theft or misuse of residents' money or property.
There are certain obvious factors which contribute to abuse of the elderly, including lack of trained personnel in senior care facilities. But two additional and more pervasive sociological factors may also contribute to this phenomenon. They are ageism and negative attitudes toward the disabled.
Ageism, or bias against the elderly, is widespread in our society. As one scholar has expressed the prejudice:
Old is ugly, young is beautiful. Old is useless, young is worthwhile. Old fashioned used to be an accolade; now it has become a pejorative ... the derogation of the aged is subtle and often subliminal, which makes it hard to combat.
Negative attitudes toward the disabled are also prevalent, and since many elderly persons are to some extent disabled, they are victimized by this prejudice as well.
Further research may well establish that the misconceptions and distortions which contribute to ageism and bias against the disabled are also contributing factors in creating situations of abuse. If this is seen to be the case, then we must take them into account in education and employment training programs.
On December 1, 1982 a group calling itself "The Concerned Friends of Ontario Citizens in Care Facilities" issued a report on elder abuse in Ontario. The information was compiled through observations by group members and through informal chats with home operators, employees and ministry officials, and provides a disturbing picture not only of inadequacies in the quality of home care but also of serious violations of residents' rights and personal wellbeing.
The members gathered information from 30 of the 40 homes in Metro Toronto and from other homes across the Province. They repeated frequently heard charges that the industry cannot easily get a fair assessment of this situation in many institutions because inspections are generally prearranged and staffs are able to cover up.
Among the chronic abuses outlined in the Concerned Friends' report, several are particularly unsettling, and I would like to tell Hon. Members about them. They include cries for help going unnoticed; failure
to monitor conditions like weight loss; consistent bed sores and physical injury; indifference to personal difficulty; paralyzed residents being left sitting in wheelchairs in the hall, unable to cover themselves; and cursory visits by doctors. One doctor said he visits 41 patients in one morning each week. There is apparent indifference to appropriate care needs. Rather than giving bowel training or using adult-sized diapers which require effort, one resident complained, doctors usually
March 23, 1983

order catheters for immobile patients. There are also unsanitary conditions. Some homes were reportedly infested with cockroaches.
Critical questions confront lawmakers who seek to make a legal response to such problems as these. Although there is a growing body of evidence of outright violence against the elderly, the problems seems &ed425;-l more often to be one of neglect and deprivation and of emotional and social maltreatment, rather than physical abuse as such.
Apart from the obvious fact that such situations are often hidden and it is as difficult to remedy as to detect, they also pose a quandary: can we legislate care and concern for our senior citizens? Could we realistically expect that any such laws would be enforceable? Genuine solutions will require a much deeper understanding of the problem than we have now. We must inquire whether our knowledge of the etiology of abuse of the elderly is sufficient to enable us to legislate wisely. Our investigations must inevitably take us to a further consideration of abuse of the elderly in non-institutional settings, even within the family itself.
If mistreatment of the elderly is shown to be largely a function of stress due to the difficulties of living with the elderly, voluntary programs which provide services to help the elderly maintain independence or resources to lessen the burden on the nursing home staff or on families can be implemented. An interim measure could consist of drafting an elder abuse prevention and treatment act, which would make it mandatory for nursing home personnel to report cases of elder abuse and neglect and would make renewal of a nursing home licence subject to a clean record with respect to elder abuse.
Whatever measures we might take, we must ensure that laws designed to protect the elderly are sufficiently enlightened that they do not inadvertently contribute to stereotyping of the aged by treating them as incompetents who cannot make decisions with regard to their own welfare.
As Your Honour can see, I have not come with many answers today, but, rather, with a deep sense of concern and responsibility and a desire that we at least begin to ask the right questions concerning this significant social problem. I think it is time to invite the elderly themselves into the conversation. Many of them have been subjected to or have witnessed the kinds of abuse to which I have referred today. We need to hear from them if we are to be able to take measures which will speak to their real needs.
Abuse of the aged is, in the words found in one article on this subject, "everybody's nightmare". I think it should be a matter of urgent priority for this Parliament.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. David Weatherhead (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity today to speak to Bill C-521, introduced by the Hon. Member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie). Like him, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) has great concern and respect for the needs of senior citizens. I also have those same concerns,
Senior Citizens
coming from the older suburbs of the eastern part of Metropolitan Toronto. We have the largest number of seniors in Scarborough in our particular riding.
In recent weeks, I have had the honour of being elected Chairman of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. I have also had the privilege of being appointed, in recent days, to the new pension task force on pension reform. I am looking forward to taking a very active part on both the Committee and the task force in the months ahead.
However, in reading Bill C-521, and in listening to the comments of the Hon. Member this afternoon, one wonders what the proposed Senior Citizens' Commission could be expected to accomplish. The Bill states that the Commission is to study and identify the needs of senior citizens and make recommendations concerning these needs to the Governor in Council. A Commission such as that proposed would more appropriately be a matter involving action by the Provinces. I may say in passing that I think the Hon. Member confirmed this in devoting many of his comments today to the real problems in nursing homes. However, to my recollection, nursing home jurisdiction is almost completely in the hands of the Provinces. Although I am not downgrading his comments in that respect, as this should be of real concern to all of us, I think we should be speaking in terms of the provincial legislatures and not Parliament, or not to the same extent anyway.
Indeed, a number of provincial Governments have already made appointments and others are considering the appointment of bodies to identify the needs of older persons, to make recommendations as to how these needs can be met, and to serve in an advisory capacity in the establishment of programs and services to meet needs, identify gaps in information and services, promote research and, in some cases, carry out research. Called by any one of several names-senior citizens' commissions, provincial advisory councils or provincial senior citizens' councils-they are appointed by Government and responsible to a provincial Minister of the Crown.
Several Provinces have bodies operating under voluntary auspices, either as independent councils on aging or as components of provincial social planning councils. In some urban centres, similar structures have been organized locally. In addition, some Provinces have an office, bureau or division on aging, usually located in the Department of Social Services. Two Provinces have secretariats which serve to co-ordinate the programs and services related to aging and the aged being developed by several Departments. Finally, the appointment by Governments of provincial gerontologists to provide advice and consultation to the provincial Governments, academic institutions, service agencies, research projects and other endeavours, has augmented the work of the aforementioned bodies in identifying the needs of older people and in establishing or cooperating in establishing services for them.
At the federal level, the National Advisory Council on Aging was established by our Government in May of 1980. Perhaps the Hon. Member's Bill was filed before we went back in April of 1980. A number of things have occurred here since

March 23, 1983
Senior Citizens
the Bill was filed, and the establishment of a National Advisory Council was one of them. Its 18-member Board of Directors, all appointed from outside Government, serves as an advisory body to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Its other main role is to serve as an advocate for the aged. Within the Department of National Health and Welfare itself, the Office on Ageing was established in November, 1980. Designated in the Department as the focal point on aging, it serves both the health and welfare sides of the Department and carries a major responsibility in co-ordinating the Department's work on aging.
At the international level, the World Assembly on Aging was convened by the United Nations in Vienna last summer. All Hon. Members of the House received a copy of the Canadian Governmental Report on Aging, which was prepared by a federal-provincial territorial committee and endorsed by all Governments involved in its preparation. Each member country of the United Nations was invited to prepare such a report describing the current situation and outlining the issues respecting the aged to be faced over the next ten to 15 years in the country concerned. The Canadian report has received international recognition for its detailed analysis of the situation. The issues raised and the needs to be met are in accord with those identified in the International Plan of Action prepared by the World Assembly and later endorsed by the General Assembly of the United Nations. The Canadian Conference on Aging is to be held in October of this year as a follow up to the initiatives started by the World Assembly and will further extend Canadian efforts at that time.
Such developments are not surprising when the needs areas of older persons are considered-and the Hon. Member speaking previously has referred to many of them-economic, physical and mental health, nutrition, living arrangements, transportation, leisure activities, education, employment and retirement, and spiritual well-being.
The federal Government's responsibility in the economic sphere is fully recognized. The presentation made earlier in this House when the Green Paper entitled "Better Pensions for Canadians" was tabled need not be repeated, nor any prediction attempted about those that will be made to the Special Committee of this House embarking upon its own investigation into pension reform. As mentioned before, I am pleased to be on that task force. Income security in old age is our concern. Further, federal financial participation with the Provinces in the development of health and social services, as well as the construction of housing and institutional care facilities, has been in effect for many years.
The fact is that health and social services, housing, institutional care facilities, including the nursing homes that the previous speaker spoke so long about, education and so on, are all under provincial jurisdiction. Thus facilities, programs and services to meet the needs of the aged must be planned, organized and developed at the provincial and local levels.
There are those who argue that if older people were provided with enough money, they could look after their own needs.
This is a fallacious argument. It assumes that the services needed are available, that they are accessible, and that, whatever their cost, old people could afford to pay for them regardless of the quantity required or the length of time the services were needed. Recognizing the lack of supportive services to help elderly persons live independently in their own community, despite socio-economic and physical problems, was the motive behind the federal Government's initiative in establishing the Canada Assistance Plan which, although not specific to the aged, is important to thousands of them who benefit from services cost-shared by the federal, provincial and territorial Governments.
The problems of the aged and the aging are as diverse as those which afflict all of society. We know, however, that the aged of the 1980s are very different from those of the 1960s and 1970s, and that those of the 1990s will show even greater differences. It is estimated that about two-thirds of those aged 65 and over have no single identifying characteristic except age. They mingle largely unnoticed in the community. Indeed the majority of older people can function in the community if society permits and encourages them through the provision of special services. Thus, an integral part of the planning process should be the provision of services and resources which will provide opportunities for senior citizens to participate in the community.
The New Horizons Program of the Department of National Health and Welfare, with which we are all very familiar, was established ten years ago to help and encourage retired people to engage in activities of benefit to themselves, each other and their communities. The result has been a dramatic increase in the number of community groups established by, and for, retired and elderly persons. In my own area of Scarborough West, we have between 20 and 30 of these groups, and the seed moneys that are used for their facilities represent some of the wiser expenditures that have ever been made by this Government, and are very wisely spent by the seniors involved.
Many of these groups have joined provincial and national senior citizens' organizations and these organizations have become extremely effective in speaking on behalf of their members. In Scarborough we have the Scarborough Senior Citizens' Council which co-ordinates the seniors' activities in this borough of more than 400,000 people in Metropolitan Toronto. They are a first rate group of people and no one could be more thoroughly familiar than they are with the needs and aspirations of retired and elderly people. On many occasions these organizations meet with the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the Hon. Monique Begin, to discuss their concerns and to present their recommendations for improving the quality of life for retired Canadians. Many of their proposals have been incorporated into Government programs for pensioners, and there is a continuing dialogue between the Department and the spokesmen for senior citizens' organizations. Ways of making this dialogue even more effective are being considered.
It is worth noting that it was as a result of the groundwork laid by a group of very knowledgeable seniors from across Canada, funded by New Horizons money through an

March 23, 1983
independent study of the kinds of structures that might be most effective as a focus for concerns about aging at the national level, that the National Advisory Council on Aging, mentioned earlier, was established. The majority of the members of the Council are older persons. They and their peers have proven themselves quite capable of identifying the needs of senior citizens. The possibility that a Senior Citizens' Commission, as proposed in the Bill before us, would contribute anything of significance to the many efforts already under way appears unlikely.
The paradox in respect to the older population is the tendency to view success as a problem. It is a particularly frustrating irony that progress in man's search for a longer life should produce the "problems of aging". In fact, the very successes in economic, social, medical and industrial progress that now permit such a large number of people to reach old age have also produced the changes that make elderly people a generally "dependent" group and have robbed them of their most important and traditional functions, roles and statuses.
Since World War II, scientific and technological advances with increasing industrialization have changed both the way people live and the ways by which they earn their living. The impact of population growth, urbanization and industrialization on the lives of older people has been heightened by the fact that these changes are occurring rapidly. Coupled with these rapid changes has been a new phenomenon-retirement. For the first time in the history of the world, thousands of persons each year leave the labour force and enter retirement. But it is here that difficulties have arisen. The right of persons to spend their later adult years not tied to the demands and responsibilities of the working world has become accepted, but we have failed to take steps to provide people with systematic preparation for their retirement years. Preparation for adulthood, and particularly for work, is an institutionalized part of the system; preparation for the later adult years is left to the individual, and as a result is haphazard and often incomplete.
With the end of the work role, the value of the older person's contribution to the family, the church, the neighbourhood and voluntary associations has been downgraded. Society has developed negative attitudes toward the aged and the aging. Older people now carry these attitudes, developed earlier in life, into their own retirement with the result that they have negative attitudes about themselves and their peers. The previous speaker spent some time in his speech talking about these negative attitudes. 1 think he was very correct as far as he went in that regard.
Overcoming the negative attitude society has concerning the aged and the aging is the challenge we face. Like all age groups, older people have problems and we must continue our efforts to solve them. But we must not allow our efforts to aid the helpless to become synonymous with the whole spectrum of aging. Stress on the negative side of aging has contributed to the stereotypes and the myths which have grown around it. Most of us have in some way contributed to the false picture that has been created.
Senior Citizens
Until we come to terms with our own aging and accept it, we will continue to endow the later years with all the misconceptions and untruths that society has built up, particularly over the past 30 to 40 years-insidious and ultimately dangerous in terms of society's acceptance of its older citizens. There are older people, many who are frail and not in the best of health, who are demonstrating that chronological age, in itself, is a meaningless measure. They continue to contribute to society, to their families and to grow as individuals. When we see them, aging takes on a new dimension. Mr. Speaker, we all know such people and indeed there are a few in this House of Commons.
But changes in attitudes cannot be legislated. These will only come about through teaching in the homes, the schools and in the training of professionals who will be working in the community with the aged as well as other age groups. Each of us as individuals has a responsibility in this. Older people themselves have a responsibility. Increasingly, they will have to demonstrate that they remain socially responsive and responsible, that they can and do continue to contribute to society, that there are new roles which they are willing and able to assume. We have to help them find these new roles. We have to provide the aged themselves with opportunities to do so.
The forthcoming Conference on Aging mentioned earlier, which is being convened by the Minister of National Health and Welfare and will involve the federal, provincial and territorial Governments, as well as the non-governmental sector in its planning, has been designated as a working conference. It has two major goals: to address the issues of most urgent concern in an aging society over the next 10 to 15 years and suggest proposals and strategies for consideration in resolving them; and also to consider the means whereby continuing dialogue and planning can be most effectively furthered.
The hard work before us now is finding solutions within our human and economic resources to the problems that have to be resolved if the needs of the aged are to be met. To the extent possible, duplication has to be avoided and statutory authority respected.
No one denies that there is much to be done. No one denies the challenge that faces us as such a large segment of our population continues to age. We must, however, deny that a Senior Citizens' Commission such as proposed in Bill C-521 can undertake the tasks that should be undertaken.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Hon. Member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie) for giving the House the opportunity to discuss this very important matter. The Bill is rather straightforward and relatively simple. It calls for an Act that would be cited as the Senior Citizens' Commission Act. The major object of this Act would be to establish a Commission to study and identify the needs of senior citizens. Once those studies have been completed, the Commission would make recommendations to the Governor in Council with respect to the needs of seniors.

March 23, 1983
Senior Citizens
It is in the best interests of the work that has been done in the past that this Bill be referred to a Committee and not be talked out in this House, and for the very reasons that the previous speaker, the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Weatherhead), attempted to persuade the House that it should not. The problems and solutions have been well-known to anyone who has been interested in the whole question of aging. In fact, the United Nations World Assembly, to which the Hon. Member for Scarborough West referred, took place at the end of July and beginning of August of last year. I was a Member of the Canadian delegation which attended that World Assembly. One of the seniors who is on the Canadian Advisory Council on Aging, Mr. Chuck Bailey from British Columbia, spoke to me at the end of that UN Assembly. He said: "When you guys get back to Canada, you will probably hear that another assembly will be held, that another conference on aging will be held to discuss the problems that senior citizens in the country are faced with".
I did not realize it at the time, but I have come to realize that all the information that I received as a delegate to that assembly provides all the arguments required to make the case that finally work should begin to be done rather than being spoken about again and again. Mr. Bailey said to me that all that anyone would require to gain full knowledge about the problems that elderly people face, and which we will all face when we reach that magic age of 65, is in the report of the National Advisory Council on Aging, which was the nongovernmental organizations' report to the Minister of National Health and Welfare in preparation for that assembly. He told me that the other document that would give me full information was the Canadian Government report on aging, which was also considered by that assembly, as well as a copy of the address made to the assembly by the leader of the Canadian delegation. Those three documents list every argument, every problem and every solution required to solve the crisis that people face at age 65.
I would like to see this Bill referred to a committee so that Members of this House can begin putting together programs to address the real problem that people face when reaching age 65. It is not enough to say that all programs that can benefit people at age 65-and I will come back to this in a moment- must be dealt with by the Provinces. I do not accept that at all.
I appreciate that many of the programs in place are cost-shared between the provincial and federal Governments, and in some cases with municipal governments or regional authorities. It is not right to slide out from under our responsibility to deal with those problems in a factual way, sloughing it off to some other level of Government. From my examination of the problems I conclude that we will be abdicating our responsibility as Members of Parliament and as responsible Canadians if we do not address them in a very real way. That is why I would like to see the Bill finally go to a committee in order that we can begin that kind of work.
A year or so ago the Members of this Party, both in caucus and at convention, recognized that we live in an aging world, that by the year 2000 the average population is likely to be quite elderly as opposed to that which exists today. For that
purpose we established a task force to look into the problems of older women in particular. Our past experience, and certainly the one that exists today, shows that while most elderly persons at age 65 look forward to spending the balance of their life living in poverty, statistics show that elderly women in particular look forward to a harder life than males.
There are some two million Canadians now over 65. According to Statistics Canada, with 3.7 million people now aged between 25 and 34, the number of people over 65 will more than double when the "baby boom" generation begins to retire. By the year 2015 and the following decades, the global population of elderly will reach a staggering one billion, or approximately the size of China's population today. In 20 years the number of women over 65 in Canada will reach two million, outnumbering the men of the same age by two to one. Yet older women, especially single older women, are more likely to experience poverty than any other group in society.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada labour force studies confirm that age discrimination persists where workers over 45 have longer bouts of unemployment than younger workers and only 27 per cent of workers over 55 have any jobs at all. As to retirement income, the same statistics tell us that 43 per cent of the Canadian population has no investment or private pension income. So for very many of them, retirement means poverty. Fifty per cent of people over 65 live on less than $6,000 a year. After 11 provincial and federal task forces, various Royal Commissions, reports on pension reform including the recent federal Green Paper "Better Pensions for Canadians", reform for the elderly is still very remote in the sense of providing an adequate retirement income for most people at age 65.
To minimize and indeed attempt to dismiss the fact that elderly Canadians have problems at age 65 is really quite surprising. I know the Hon. Member for Scarborough West is a gentleman who would not do that lightly, and the facts show quite differently. You can hardly look at any media coverage on the personal examination of a person or persons over 65 without becoming quite concerned. For example, a recent study in Ontario showed that Ontario's older women who are widowed, divorced or separated and living alone are the most disadvantaged group in society. In the metropolitan Toronto area alone there is an estimated 36,000 of these older women living below the federal Government's poverty line. That particular study shows that the median income of these women was $5,645 a year in the 65 to 74 age group, and only $4,964 per year for those aged 75 and over. This is an area to be somewhat concerned about.
In another article which appeared in the Toronto Star recently, written by Steve Kerstetter, for example, it was pointed out that Ottawa pays a Guaranteed Income Supplement to people over age 65 with little income other than the federal Old Age Security. It also pays spouse's allowance to people between 60 and 65 in similar circumstances. However,
March 23, 1983

in January close to 1.3 million senior citizens received the supplement and officials say about half the recipients are so poor they qualify for 80 per cent or more of the maximum supplement. The number of people receiving spouse's allowance was nearly 88,000 in January of this year. Even the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) has said that the plight of the elderly poor is particularly severe because they are mostly unable to get extra cash from full- or part-time jobs. So the problem is indeed serious and it bears further examination by Members of this House. If it was referred to a committee we would have a better opportunity to do so.
Another area which I was not really familiar with, and perhaps I should have been, is that studies coming out of some other jurisdictions show that there is an increase in the incidence of violence against elderly people. In fact, I believe that a study done by the Department of National Health and Welfare warned this violence was increasing. There is also an increasing incidence of suicide of people over the age 65. That is not some alarmist statement coming from a Member of the NDP or the Official Opposition; these are statistics produced by the Department of National Health and Welfare. That is something we should be concerned about.
One of the figures I saw was that it was predicted that the incidence of violence against elderly Canadians and awareness of it is probably at about the same stage as violence against children was ten years ago. I know of a case in my own riding which concerned not only violence. It involved an elderly person who, because of age, has become forgetful and whose attention span was not what it used to be. She became easily confused by everything that was going on around her. An individual in an elected position-no doubt in my view in an attempt to assit this lady and ensure that no one took avantage of her-ended up acting as a trustee for her bank account. Unfortunately, this woman ended up leaving the amount in her bank account to this person who was acting as a trustee.
Now, I am not suggesting any bad motives on the part of the individual involved, at least initially, but the point is that when that happened, and it received wide attention in the press, other members of my community came to me and told me about similar cases on their own street where neighbours were going into elderly persons' houses to see how they were and were walking away with half the house.
I know of another case just around the corner from where I live in my constituency where there is no question but that a real estate agent convinced this woman, who was 72 or 73, to sell the house to him. This was only about three years ago. The houses in my area cost anywhere between $80,000 to $120,000. He convinced this woman to sell the house to him for $10,000 and he would allow her to live at a relatively low rent in the second half of the house.
That happens I think more frequently than it comes to our attention as Members of Parliament. It is shameful, Mr. Speaker. But what it shows, I think very clearly on the part of society generally, is that first of all there is an attitudinal problem towards elderly people. When you become age 65 you
Senior Citizens
are no longer considered to be a productive member of society so you are shunted away and forgotten about. No one pays any attention to you or what happens to you or even cares about what happens to you. I think that is how these incidents arise; no one pays any special attention to the elderly person who is living on their own. Society is changing so rapidly that very often people, without thinking about it too much, I suppose, become so concerned about surviving on a personal basis that they forget about people in society who are no longer able to care for themselves.
I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that at the United Nations Assembly on Aging, the difference in attitude between the so-called developed countries and the so-called Third World underdeveloped countries towards elderly people is like night and day. People in the Third World can show us an awful lot of things about how we should treat elderly people. People in Third World countries view the elderly as being rich in experience and wisdom with a valuable contribution to make to society, particularly to the children. It is only now, through some private projects in this country, that we are beginning to realize that when people reach age 65, rather than being dumped they should be encouraged to make a contribution to the community and to society as a whole. In the Niagara Peninsula through an excellent project, elderly citizens are encouraged to participate in the community with daycare and that sort of thing, and this has been very successful.
I could go on, Mr. Speaker, but I do not want to appear to be helping to talk out the Bill. I think it is too important to society generally, not just elderly people, that we take a hard look at what we want to do to assist seniors to continue to participate in the mainstream of Canadian life.


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly be pleased to make a few comments on this Bill but, like my colleague the Hon. Member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie) and the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young), I want it to go to Committee. I wonder how much time is left before the hour is up.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: 1 should inform the Hon. Member that the debate began at 3:30 p.m. so we have approximately eight minutes left.


Stan Darling: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to be the one who is accused of talking out the Bill.
I should like to commend the Hon. Member for York-Sunbury for outlining in detail many of the problems that face senior citizens. I suppose that in order not to get into trouble I should declare a conflict of interest immediately. I am a senior citizen myself and, 1 think, one who is reasonably active.
I share the concern of Hon. Members for senior citizens, some of whom find it difficult to get along financially and others who are not treated as well as they should be. It is probable that a good many of the latter live in the more heavily populated areas of the country. In the smaller towns

March 23, 1983
Senior Citizens
and villages, senior citizens usually have friends and relatives who help look after them.
Some senior citizens who are 65, 70 or 75 are probably more alert and active than a good many people in the 35 to 50 age group. Just two or three days ago I had the privilege of sending a letter of congratulations to a couple in Parry Sound, Mr. and Mrs. Ernest Greer, who will celebrate their seventy-first wedding anniversary on March 25. They are still living in their own home and looking after themselves. That shows how conducive the environment in Parry Sound is to good health!
In the smaller areas apartments are provided for senior citizens. As the Elon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Weatherhead) mentioned, a good many of them are provincially sponsored but the federal Government has done an excellent job through CMHC of providing co-operative or non-profit apartment units for seniors. This enables some people to move out of the large house they have lived in but still be together in an apartment.
The Hon. Member for York-Sunbury has suggested that a commission be established. Of course, it could be claimed that there have been too many commissions already but perhaps senior citizens could be appointed to this one from seniors' groups across the country to act in an advisory capacity to the Government.
In the past week or so someone suggested that a senior citizen's parliament should be inaugurated so that their wisdom could be used. Perhaps they would not need to meet for as long or as often as we do, but I am sure they could contribute some excellent ideas and give good advice on legislation that even this august body could take into very serious consideration.
I feel that the New Horizons Program is very important, Mr. Speaker, as it makes senior citizens feel that they are wanted. Through that program equipment is provided for club rooms, among other things. In the past few months I have had the privilege of visiting three or four senior citizens' club rooms in my riding for which the Government provided the equipment. This is very useful and people like to congregate there.
As the Hon. Member for York-Sunbury said, there is also the other side of the coin and that is care for the people who are in nursing homes which, as he pointed out, come under provincial jurisdiction. Prior to becoming a Member of this House I had the privilege of sitting on the board of directors of a senior citizens' home in my riding. It is a provincial home and a beautiful one where excellent care is given. The staff there does an outstanding job. There are three senior citizen homes in the riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka and I have visited all of them. I can assure Hon. Members that they are well run by a board of directors made up of municipal officials and concerned citizens. There is no way there could be any mistreatment.
A few days ago I received a letter of complaint about the treatment of certain senior citizens. It was claimed that they were tied in their chairs, but when I checked with the director
of the home, I was told that they had to be tied, otherwise they would fall out. The senior citizen homes are doing an excellent job, Mr. Speaker.
I hope the Government will give consideration to sending Bill C-521 to committee and to appointing the commission. This would not cost any money.
I see there are only a few minutes left, Mr. Speaker, so I hope we can put the question now.


Mr. Roland de Corneille (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it surprises me to learn from Hon. Members opposite that they are concerned about talking out the Bill. The Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young) took his full 20 minutes, allowing little or no opportunity for other Members to participate in the debate, and the Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) ran the clock out telling us about the situation in his riding rather than dealing with Bill C-521.
We have to ask if we need another commission to do more study. Clause 3 of the Bill reads as follows:
The objects of the Commission are to study and identify the needs of senior citizens.
It is the position of the Government that we wish to implement the recommendations being put forward rather than give birth to more studies. It surprises me that Bill C-521, which is identical to Bill C-218 which received first reading on October 31, 1977 during the third session of the Thirtieth Parliament, has been reintroduced.
I have the greatest respect and sympathy for the motives of the Hon. Member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie) because the well-being of senior citizens is of great concern to all of us. It certainly is to me. The well-being of these people is part of our concern in the House and the Government's programs are well known to the people of Canada and to Members of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 24(2), it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings.
Shall all orders listed under Private Members' Public Bills preceding No. 164 be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

[ Translation]


AN ACT RESPECTING THE RECOVERY OF ALIMONY AND MAINTENANCE MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Mrs. Celine Hervieux-Payette (Montreal-Mercier) moved: that Bill C-364, an Act respecting the recovery of alimony and maintenance, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
March 23, 1983

She said: Mr. Speaker, I must say I am very pleased with this opportunity of presenting in the House a Bill that has been before the House since May 1980. Patience is a virtue that in this case is its own reward, since this afternoon, we shall at last have a chance to consider a subject that is very important to single-parent families in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I think that a few statistics will demonstrate the seriousness of the problem we shall be discussing this afternoon. Not long ago, we were given the latest Statistics Canada reports. According to the last report, there were 653,440 single-parent families in Canada. This means that for 11 million, or more accurately, 10,959,000 family units where both the father and mother are present, there are 653,000 families with only one parent to look after the children. Mr. Speaker, I also would like to point out to Hon. Members that since in most cases, parents are responsible for the education of their children and for supporting the family, the parent who is responsible for the children's education must have the necessary resources. However, from what we have seen, and according to reports submitted in the House and various groups who are studying the problem, it seems that nearly 50 per cent of court judgements based on existing legislation are not enforced. Mr. Speaker, why is it that multinational corporations have no such trouble with court judgements, while thousands of orders, and thus judgements, obtained legally before the courts are so difficult to enforce? There is of course the administration problem, but I believe we should also deal with the principle of the matter, since the majority of these women-most of the time, single parents are women-live below the poverty line, on the meager resources at their disposal under our welfare legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I realize that this is a matter of joint jurisdiction. In fact, for the benefit of those who are interested in the matter, I asked the Library of Parliament's research branch for a study that is available to all Canadian citizens and deals with the constitutionality of federal intervention in the alimony and maintenance field through a federal or joint system. This study, which is fairly long and I have no intention of reading all thirty-seven pages here in the house, demonstrates the seriousness of the problem and also explains the jurisdictional aspects.
However, Mr. Speaker, we are not dealing with a problem of jurisdiction, but a human problem confronting hundreds of thousands of individuals in Canada who are indeed being deprived of their dignity because they are not entitled to income payments directly related to the family. The main objective of my Bill is to pave the way for more effective enforcement of court orders.
Mr. Speaker, I think that my colleagues will agree with me that my Bill should provide for the possibility of alimony payments being transferred to a Government. Since the Federal Government is present throughout Canada, I would suggest that in case of default, the order could be transferred
Alimony and Maintenance
to the Federal Government. My Bill would amend the Income Tax Act with a view to authorizing the Minister of Finance to enforce the order for alimony or maintenance payments in favour of the spouse. The necessary mechanisms to collect the money are already there, and I know that it is obviously easier for a Government to collect payments on a debt than it is for a spouse who has children but no income.
Mr. Speaker, my Bill also features an amendment to the Divorce Act. It is not a major amendment since the question is now under study, in any event, but still I think it is important to amend the Divorce Act so that once the order has been registered we will be in a position to take action. Naturally, a law is effective to the extent that the penalties are effective.
I have also included in my Bill a provision to amend the Criminal Code. My colleagues will undoubtedly recall that Criminal Code section 197 is entitled "Duties Tending to Preservation of Life", duty of persons to provide necessaries. It states that every one is under a legal duty as a parent and all other qualities which make the alimony necessary-must provide himself with necessaries of life ... and others towards whom he has an obligation. Every one who commits an offence under subsection (2) is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for two years.
Mr. Speaker, we have noted that this provision is not really effective and is rarely used because the courts are reluctant to deprive the breadwinner of his earnings, and of course, spouses often do not really want to start criminal proceedings.
I have proposed amendments to Section 289 rather than to section 197 so that, as is now the case in Germany, it would now be considered a crime if a spouse is shown to have robbed the other spouse by not paying alimony. Some will say that this is rather harsh. It probably is, but we are now facing a very serious problem affecting hundreds of thousands of people, which has not yet been solved and is still being negotiated and discussed by the federal and provincial Governments.
Mr. Speaker, according to the figures for 1978-79, female heads of households and women in general in Canada who are lucky enough to earn their living have an average income of $7,600 compared with $14,900 for men. This means that even those who work and can do something to feed their family already have problems.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, according to the most recent report of Statistics Canada which provides figures for 1979, there were 59,474 divorces in that year, and this does not include legal or de facto separations. We have a very high figure of nearly 60,000 divorces, which means nearly 60,000 maintenance orders.
In view of these figures, Mr. Speaker, we cannot ignore this issue because we are faced not with human problems, but

March 23, 1983
Alimony and Maintenance
simply with an issue that still has to be resolved. I must say in this regard that Quebec and Ontario have both taken major steps to help spouses with dependent children to support their family when the other spouse does not keep up his payments.
I must congratulate the provincial legislators for taking such action. Yet, Mr. Speaker, while these measures are relatively effective, hundreds of millions of dollars are still being paid through the welfare system because the spouse has moved to another province and cannot be reached.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court made a ruling recently. In fact, this is why I asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) that my Bill be referred to the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. This ruling has just been made. It means that even if we could go before the courts, obtain an order and have it registered in another province, we would need a reciprocity agreement if the spouse leaves the country.
The case submitted to the Supreme Court involved a university professor who had left his province to live in Florida. He owed over $100,000 in alimony, which means that he had practically never made a payment, and he finally left the province with an accumulated pension fund of over $150,000. Under the present legislation, the Supreme Court was unable to seize the pension fund and to force compliance with the alimony order. The husband, who was responsible in this case for the maintenance payments, moved to Florida, a state with which we have no reciprocity agreement, which means that it is just about impossible to go through the whole process in Florida all over again and begin proceedings under private international law, which would be quite complex and costly.
Even in cases of this importance where an order called for up to $100,000 in alimony, we can see that there is no compliance with the law and that thousands of rulings are not obeyed in this country, which I consider quite unacceptable.
Mr. Speaker, we took a first step in this House during this session to amend the present legislation concerning the recovery of alimony and maintenance. I feel this must still be stressed by addressing the issue, and I start with Bill C-38, an Act to provide for the garnishment and the diversion of pension.
Mr. Speaker, I must emphasize that it took Canada well over 100 years to allow for the diversion of pensions of every employee within the Canadian government. We may have been slow to act in this respect, but at any rate it is a reflection of our times that the Government, the Parliament of Canada has taken action, as the Bill already has been enacted.
My proposal, Mr. Speaker, does respect the arrangements that may have been agreed upon between spouses, because in cases of separation there may be an arrangement, and where there is a divorce, of course, there is a court decision. But in all cases there is failure on the part of individuals to comply with the arrangement of court order.
Over these last few months, according to the information provided by the Department of Justice, the Federal-Provincial Committee dealing with the implementation of these procedures has been meeting regularly, but if my Bill could be considered by our learned colleagues from the ten provincial legislatures and territories, we could ensure a little more dignity for single parent families, and a little more respect for our laws and our courts.
I am afraid it is too easy to get caught in legal wrangles, the reference being that this is a provincial matter, but as a member of this House, Mr. Speaker, I cannot indulge in federal-provincial bickerings that penalize families, the children and ultimately, the future of thousands of individuals. I cannot accept that.
I would ask my colleagues to consider very seriously the proposals now before them, and if I am so allowed, I would also invite at a later date, the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, of which I am a member, also to consider very seriously my proposals and even to bring in amendments in order to help solve the problem that exists regarding alimony and all monies that may be affected.
Mr. Speaker, when we enshrined the Charter of Rights in the Constitution, when we enacted a clause on equality, I submit that what was intended was both equality of rights and equality of responsibilities.
Mr. Speaker, we must realize that in this country, there has been no dearth of responsibilities for heads of single parent families. Those have been very great, and indeed the Canadian people as a whole have been called upon to assume part of those responsibilities when the spouse failed to do so. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we maintain single parents in a totally unacceptable situation simply by forcing them to show up at welfare offices to be harassed, as is often the case, by allowing legal action to be taken against them or simply by perpetuating the long-standing controversy within the family unit, which has already been dismantled. Mr. Speaker, such a situation should not be allowed to continue in a modern, responsible and advanced society such as Canada.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to forget about the situation of relatives or friends for they might be tempted to pass judgment. I am not passing judgment on any of those thousands of divorces. I simply recognize that there is a problem we must address. We are faced with 600,000 family units which all have an equal right to respect and dignity, yet there can be no respect without a decent income. Mr. Speaker, I believe everyone of us will recognize that in order to raise children, one must at least have a minimum of resources which means providing them with the food, clothing and lodging they need. And I do not think that we can no longer tolerate that the great many women who are heads of single-parent families should live for 20 years in a state of permanent anxiety because 50 per cent of all orders to pay alimony are not enforced. And, as I said, the situation is the same, whether
March 23, 1983

these women are separated or divorced. In cases of divorce, I do not think there are any problems, as far as jurisdiction is concerned.
The study I referred to a while ago dealt with the issue of alimonies granted following legal separations, which is a matter which comes under provincial jurisdiction. We will see, however, that matters can be worked out under the present Constitution because of a legislation which provides that 50 p. 100 of all social welfare funds everywhere in Canada come from the Federal Government and that these funds must finally be spent by the neighbour who, for all intent and purposes, assumes the responsibility of a particular family.
Mr. Speaker, I think we must see to it that all Canadian children grow up in the most healthy family environment possible. And I think also that both spouses share and should continue to share equal responsibilities in this regard, and the very purpose of this bill is to ensure that court orders are strictly enforced.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Montreal-Mercier (Mrs. Hervieux-Payette) for bringing this important issue once again before the House.
I think Hon. Members might be interested in knowing some of the history of this issue and the dedication that backbench Members from all three Parties of the House have given to this issue. It remains an issue only because the Liberal Government of Canada apparently whishes to postpone this tragic issue and prevent its resolution, something which it could quite easily do if it had the will.
Let me go back to the Twenty-ninth Parliament when Mr. Danson, who subsequently became the Minister of National Defence in the Thirtieth Parliament, had a private Members' Bill in the House on this particular issue. His Bill died on the Order Paper. During the Thirtieth Parliament I went to Mr. Danson to ask him if he had any objection to my taking the spirit and thrust of his Private Members' Bill through the Order Paper again in a rewritten Bill. He encouraged me strongly.
The Hon. Member for Montreal-Mercier says that she has been very patient with respect to Bill C-364 since May 2, 1980. The point I am making is that this issue was debated in the twenty-ninth Parliament and again in the Thirtieth Parliament. At that time I brought in a Private Members' Bill, Bill C-203, which was extensively debated and talked out by the Government. On May 2, 1980, I brought in Bill C-250, an Act to amend the Divorce Act, alimony and maintenance orders, which has some six months of background work applied to it by outside lawyers who were interested in seeing a resolution to this most serious condition which exists across the country. The parliamentary counsel advising the Members worked over Bill C-250 of May 2, 1980, and put it in a form that would be
Alimony and Maintenance
acceptable in the context of the procedures of the House and would be acceptable to the Government.
I noticed under the Clause dealing with amendments to the Divorce Act in Bill C-364, that the Hon. Member for Montreal-Mercier has thought well enough of the subject matter and amendments to the Divorce Act that were in my Bill, C-250, in May of 1980, to have taken Clauses 15 and 15.1 and incorporated them into her Bill as amendments to the Divorce Act. I am pleased that she has thought well enough of the work which was put into those Clauses to do so.
I also note that an essential element has been left out. It is the Clause concerning payments into court which states that moneys payable by Her Majesty are attachable. I assume that the Hon. Member believes that the other two Acts which she is seeking to amend cover the particular points in that Clause.
While I am still dwelling on the history of this much needed legislation, may I remind Hon. Members that when Bill C-250 was being debated in the House-I was advised just prior to its debate in Private Members Hour that the Government was going to talk it out-the present Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) was most disturbed that this subject matter would not be allowed to go through to the standing committee.


Céline Hervieux-Payette: That is not true.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: You were not here. Sit and listen. The Minister of National Health and Welfare was most anxious that the subject matter of Bill C-250 should go to the standing committee for discussion. However, the Minister of Justice at that time said that the Government would not let it go through because a Government omnibus Bill was to be introduced which would amend many of these issues and that this issue would be one of the items dealt with in that amending omnibus Bill. This happened back on February 10, 1981 when the then Minister of Justice, in my presence, gave that answer to the Minister of National Health and Welfare behind the curtains on the Government side. He said that this issue would be dealt with in an amending omnibus Bill and that the matter would be cleared up then.
It is now March 23, 1983, and this tragic issue still exists in every Province, city, town and other parts of Canada. It still exists in this "just society". There are spouses who are left alone as single parents and have as many as four children whom they are trying to educate, clothe and keep warm. All across the country there are court judgments for maintenance orders which last for one, two or three months and then cease, with no further payment to the spouse who is trying his or her best to bring their children up so that they may have a chance in this land of opportunity. There are companies that pay extra moneys to single parent employees because these court maintenance orders are not being enforced and children are being prevented from having a better opportunity to be educated, clothed and provided with shelter. There are people on the verge of nervous breakdowns every time that a maintenance cheque does not arrive because they do not know what to do.

March 23, 1983
Alimony and Maintenance
Bill C-250, which was a partial amendment to the Divorce Act which is in Bill C-364, was very simple. All that needed to be done was to repeal Section 15 of the Divorce Act and replace it with two Sections that allowed that, "Any order made under Sections 10 or 11 by any court may be registered in any other Superior Court in Canada and, when registered shall be deemed to have been made by that Superior Court and shall have the same course and effect as if the order had originated from it". We were simply attempting to amend the Act in order to allow maintenance orders to go through.
Further, Bill C-250 sought the inclusion of Section 15.1(1), which stated:
Notwithstanding any law or practice to the contrary, every court making an order under Sections 10 or 11 and every court deemed by Section 15 to have made such an order is responsible for the enforcement of the order within the Province where the court has jurisdiction.
It also sought the inclusion of Section 15.1(2) concerning no special default proceedings, which stated:
Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), the court shall not require a spouse to initiate a procedure for garnishment of wages or seizure and sale of property or any other procedure in order to compel enforcement of an order described in subsection (1), but shall, through its officers, upon default under such an order, issue such continuing orders and initiate such further action as it may, under the circumstances, deem necessary.
Section 15.1(3), dealing with payment into court, stated:
To better ensure the enforcement of its orders, the court may require that all moneys owing pursuant to an order made under section 10 or 11 be paid into court, whereupon the court shall forthwith transmit the moneys so paid to the spouse on behalf of whom or on behalf of whose children the order was made.
Section 15.2 also allowed them to attach and garnishee wages of people working for the Crown.
Why can backbench Members of all Parties in the House not be heard by the Government? Why can we not address this very serious social issue? Why can we not put some heart into our activities here and address this issue?
The United States has taken a much more detailed look at this issue than the Government is prepared to do in Canada. There are income withholding laws in the United States where some States move in and seize the entire bank account and take some serious and drastic actions. Why is the Government postponing action on some simple requests for amendments to the existing law which would give some heart and compassion to this growing segment of our society and would allow children of single parents to be brought up in some decency? I suppose I would call it pride of seed. I would hate to think that I was ever responsible for abandoning a child to another person unable to fully support that child. Where has our sense of pride, dignity and decency gone? Has it gone from the people of this country? We are dealing with a breakdown of the whole family unit. We have a rising number of cases of single parents trying to bring up their children and get them through the educational process, and it is a very difficult task. We should not allow that task to be made more difficult by court orders for payments being ignored, payments which are relied upon to carry out this human function. This has been causing the high levels of anxiety which are being experienced all across Canada.
The statistics are available in Canada. The Family Law Reform Commission has written extensively on the matter, and there is serious debate on the subject in the United States. It simply seems that here is one other Hon. Member proposing a series of amendments to three Acts, when the essential issue concerns the maintenance payments for children being looked after by single parents.
In its working paper on divorce, published in 1975, the Law Reform Commission of Canada stated that "one of the most serious problems facing a divorced spouse is the inability to enforce an existing maintenance order by some simple, quick and inexpensive procedure". That is what I was trying to do, and that is what Mr. Danson was trying to do back in the Twenty-ninth and Thirtieth Parliaments. Yet here we are, still facing this issue. The Commission reiterated the conclusion expressed in its working paper on the family court, that it is necessary to establish services and procedures whereby the court, through its officers, can directly secure the enforcement of its orders.
That is what these amendments were trying to do. That is what the amendment to the Divorce Act through this Bill, Bill 364, is trying to do. It is that simple.
The Province of Ontario, I understand, receives the money and delivers it out to the payee. However, the courts in Ontario will ensure that cheques arrive on time every month so as not to interfere with the maintenance needs of single parent family units. The court then pursues the person against whom the order is made. Therefore, why can we not agree to these amendments to Section 15 which are in Bill C-250 and which are now carried forward in Bill C-364? Can we not address this serious cancer which is out there, this condition which causes so much anxiety concerning growing children? Single parents often face the anxiety of having to go back at least two, three or four times a year for another order, which is not enforced. It does nothing but increase the level of our tolerance to law and order, to the rule of law.
It is time that we got rid of the havens in Canada. Someone can leave a family in Vancouver, out in British Columbia, and move into the Province of Quebec, and the laws of Quebec will offer protection against the moral obligation to support the family left behind.


Mr. Blaikie:: Let's get rid of tax havens, too, Ron. How about tax havens?


Arthur Ronald Huntington: I am not referring to tax havens right now. That is your worry, and I am surprised-


Mr. Fisher:: That's your next Bill.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: -that you are interrupting on a subject as humane as this one, because I know that you are a very humane person.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: There's a moral analogy, that's all.
March 23, 1983


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


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Hon. Members of the NDP are worrying about tax havens. I guess this might be included as a tax haven, because it certainly is a dodge to move across provincial boundaries, and particularly into the Province of Quebec. As a result, there are all kinds of examples of great hardship being caused, because courts from other Provinces cannot attach the assets of such persons.
If we were to consider Bill C-364 seriously and went back to the Bill presented on May 2, 1980, Bill C-250, we would see that there are some ways in which the federal Government could move in this respect. There are some amendments to existing Acts which should be made. The omnibus Bill should come down or this Bill should go through to committee, and the Minister should be forced to do something about it.
I would urge Hon. Members to start taking this issue very seriously. I would be surprised to find very many of us in this Chamber who have not come across examples of the tragic trauma being experienced by all too many single parent families across this land. Why do we not get on with it and do something about it? Must we sit around and wait for another four or five years before something humane is done to correct this growing problem in a society which is losing the value systems which sustain family units? We seem to be going off in all directions, and most particularly toward more single parent families. All too many parents seem to want to escape the obligations they undertook when they conceived and brought children into this life.
If we are to do any leading and to address anything as serious as this problem, it is time the subject matter got through to a committee and we forced the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) to do something serious in the way of addressing amendments to the laws. One cannot handle the detail on the floor of the House, as you know, Mr. Speaker, but in committee we should certainly be able to hear the family law experts and some of the people involved with Bill C-250 so that we can put in this amendment and do much to relieve or even remove this whole problem caused by the breakdown in our courts' ability to sustain the even flow of maintenance payments stipulated in their orders.


Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I also extend congratulations on the part of our Party to the Hon. Member for Montreal-Mercier (Mrs. Hervieux-Payette). I am very pleased that there is unanimous consent to refer this Bill to the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee. It seems a very practical step toward helping to solve a very grave problem about which we are all very concerned.
Bill C-364 will authorize the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Bussieres) to enforce maintenance orders by compelling employers to deduct maintenance money or alimony owing to a spouse from an employee's paycheque. These moneys, as we know, would be deducted from the employee's paycheque, remitted to the tax department, and then forwarded as maintenance payments to the spouse and the children, the spouse usually being the mother.
Alimony and Maintenance
Recent statistics from Statistics Canada show the urgency of this situation because of the very dramatic increase in the number of marriages ending in divorce and the number of children, of course, from those marriages, who need to be assured of regular maintenance care. We were recently told that 40 per cent of marriages end in divorce, a 500 per cent increase since the divorce laws were liberated in 1968 in Canada. This involves some 500,000 children of separated parents who need ongoing support. In 1976, however, we were told that there was a 75 per cent default in payments on the part of spouses, again usually the fathers, who were responsible, through agreement, to pay maintenance for their children and families.
On the other side, of course, is the tremendous expense incurred by spouses who need maintenance payments if they must go to lawyers at $500 a throw in order to follow up and have something done to ensure payment. Therefore, it is a very urgent situation, both as a human problem and also as a financial problem. It involves a great cost to society, as well.
This Bill appears to be a very practical step toward overcoming the very high incidence of non-payment of maintenance to families, payments which are really in default because there is no way in which Provinces or women can now enforce court orders.
Many women who are divorced or separated suffer very severe economic and emotional pressures. I am sure these are reflected in their children in most cases, because support moneys which they need to receive from their husbands or exhusbands are not forthcoming. We know that in many situations women who are unable to receive support from husbands must resort to applying for welfare, although they are very reluctant to do so. We know of course how inadequate welfare payments are. The very high cost of living, particularly of housing, makes it extremely difficult to survive on welfare payment.
Those women who are working, of course, carry a very heavy and unfair burden and financial responsibility if they are raising children as single parents. We know how inadequate the pay is for most women. They are usually ghettoized in the lowest paid jobs. Many who have been raising children have not been in the work force for long or have been in and out of the work force, and they certainly do not receive equal pay for work of equal value to which they are entitled and which is needed to raise a family and pay for all the costs of child rearing.
So we know that this situation creates extreme hardships for families, in terms of security, and this results, I am sure, in very hostile family relationships. As the wife waits for maintenance payments to pay for rent, food and education, she certainly must feel anything but good about the father of her children, and I am sure this is transmitted to the children.

March 23, 1983
Alimony and Maintenance
This Bill is long overdue. It is unfortunate that Members have had to wait three years for it to be introduced as a Private Member's Bill. I am sorry the Hon. Member is not here at the moment, but I commend her in sisterhood for her initiative.
The proposed payment arrangement of Bill C-364, which would treat maintenance payments as an income tax deduction, will benefit society as well as the families concerned.
The Hon. Members seem to be somewhat worried about jurisdictional questions. I would think that this Bill would be received very positively on the part of the Provinces. As a former social worker, I know that this proposal would certainly relieve provincial family courts of repeated costly appeals on the matter of unpaid maintenance. It would also reduce welfare costs in many cases, such as when the husband is working and can pay support, and the related costs of the administration in these two systems. It would also relieve the cost and the frustration and worry that provincial Governments and their agencies have when they cannot enforce maintenance payments. Social service departments have to go from Province to Province trying to cut down errant husbands who are Province-hopping spouses, who really are responsible for repaying welfare costs and very rarely are able to do so.
1 would think fathers also may be relieved at this procedure for paying maintenance costs regularly. Use of the income tax system would be a very neutral, business-like kind of arrangement which would avoid domestic disputes. It is a way for a father to pay for children's support routinely, relieving his feelings of guilt, which I am sure many fathers have, and showing his children that he cares for them. If he does not earn enough to pay income tax, this also will be documented objectively and help to relieve the guilt or misunderstanding within the family.
The federal application of this maintenance enforcement also is essential since it provides for uniformity of payments across Canada and standard access to all families, regardless of what Province either the family or the supporting-spouse lives in. The present system of court orders for maintenance of a dependent spouse or a child is, for all practical purposes, often not worth the paper it is written on. The enforcement of maintenance obligations is the weakest link in the legal chain, we are told by legal authorities. A 1980 Law Reform Commission study paper states that without a doubt the most effective method of collecting maintenance would be to employ the machinery of the tax collector.
Is it any wonder that women often give up and either resign themselves to be dependent on welfare or accept a standard of living for themselves and their children which is far below that which fairness and justice entitles them to, to say nothing of the law, of course? We feel very strongly that this Bill is needed. Reciprocal inter-provincial arrangements which are now in place have not operated effectively. Often it takes years before the defaulting spouse pays anything, and children and wives have to eat in the meantime. Existing garnishment of wages also is not good enough. It is necessary to repeat the
process for each month's maintenance payment, which can result in prohibitive costs to the judgment creditor.
Although Manitoba has proposed some effective alternatives, we believe that to have a uniform system across the country this Bill is certainly of great value. There are intolerable frustrations, undue technicalities of procedures, expenses and delays, and the intransigence of men who seem to refuse to meet their obligations, especially to their children. In Canada of course, as we know, and especially those of us who live in the west, we have a very high geographic mobility rate, so there are very many spouses who are not living in the same Province as their families are.
Of course there are limitations to this Bill and we should see it as a start but not as a complete solution to adequate maintenance payments. For example, there is no assured maintenance for families where the responsible spouse does not pay income tax. We know of course there will be many, many people who are unemployed now who simply are not earning enough to pay income tax and therefore cannot pay support and would not be able to pay this through the Income Tax Act.
This whole question of support for children would not be nearly as urgent a problem, of course, if women themselves were paid more equitably for the work that they do, and if, like men, they earned enough to be independent and to be able to support their own children if they chose to do so. This is a very major social problem and an inequity in our whole economic system to which we must address ourselves. Although it is a band-aid solution that would help, it is certainly not to be forgotten that many women themselves want to be able to raise their own children and not necessarily have to depend completely on the spouse.
Therefore, we must continue to press for affirmative action programs. We have repeated this over and over again in this House, and the Government listens very little to our requests for mandatory affirmative action. We must also have decent paying jobs with access to promotion for women in the same way as we do for men. We must also make sure that equal pay for work of equal value is not just a principle to which the Government gives lip service and then ignores. We have to make sure that this is enforced so that women have adequate incomes and that the many, many women who raise their children on their own will be able to afford to do this.
Another limitation in the Bill is the fact that it may be a double jeopardy for many poor families, where both the man and the woman are poor. There is a very excellent article I would like to refer to in the March 22 issue of the Citizen by Leonard Shifrin in which he refers to the statistics that I have just mentioned, that in 86 per cent of divorces involving children their custody is awarded to the women. He says that although the man is ordered to contribute to their financial support, "Husbands default on these payments with regularity and impunity." Forty-two per cent of single parent families headed by women are living below the poverty line, and that is a good place to start, Mr. Shifrin says.
March 23, 1983

Mr. Shifrin goes on:
The underlying problem is that most ex-husbands remarry, and few earn enough to support two families.
That leaves the first family dependent on a woman's earnings. And these, on average, are only 60 per cent of what men make.
He said that the Law Reform Commission estimated that three-quarters of the men who should be making maintenance payments are in default. We talked before about the high incidence of the divorce rate which is rising.
Mr. Shifrin concludes by saying:
The new reality is arriving rapidly. The 1981 census reports that in the preceding five years the number of single-parent families increased at more than three times the rate of the two-parent version.
What lies ahead may well prove grim. But, if so, it will be because, like dinosaurs, we fail to adjust to the new reality.
We know that when poor families are broken in half, they become even poorer. Both partners have a limited income to cover two households, sometimes with chidren. Unemployment and illness also make it difficult for people to keep up maintenance payments. It is important that we support this Bill as one step in the right direction, but we must not forget that a much more comprehensive social policy is needed to ensure adequate incomes for families. We have talked about this a number of times in this House. This Party is doing intensive research in an attempt to find a solution to the whole question of tax reform as it affects families and how we can gradually replace the regressive child tax deductions with increased Family Allowance payments. That would certainly be one solution.
We must begin again to establish a guaranteed income system. It is more important than ever before, as we look at the full technological revolution and the fact that many people will not be fully employed as they may have been in the past. Family law requires comprehensive reform.
This Bill has particular relevance to the very urgent and dangerous situation facing battered wives. I again refer to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs and the study, of which we are all aware, which shows that one out of ten wives in Canada today is battered. Most of these women remain in deplorable situations because they have no other means of support, nowhere to go, no refuge for themselves and their children. They know that it is very unlikely that they would receive maintenance payments and support from their husbands. In fact, they may feel too intimidated to return to the situation. However, if they knew they could receive regular maintenance payments through the income tax system, they might feel less trapped. In fact, I am sure they would feel they had more choice. Undoubtedly they would take the difficult step of leaving in the interests of their own physical and emotional health, and in particular the welfare of their children if they could be assured of adequate support after they left the violent family situation.
I refer Hon. Members to a report presented to the standing committee by the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, prepared by Debra Lewis. It reads:
Alimony and Maintenance
On top of this, the economic reality means that battered women, who must for their own safety leave their marriages, must choose between a life of fear and one of absolute or relative poverty for themselves and their children. There is no need for us to once again cite the evidence to show that women who are alone are significantly more likely to live below the poverty line. Even women who may manage a somewhat higher standard of living for themselves still know that it may be considerably less than if they stayed in their marriages. Most women are prepared to take the consequences of this decison for themselves. However, it is much more difficult to decide that their children too must go without comforts or even necessities in order to escape the violence. The fact that husbands in general do not generally comply with child support or maintenance payments certainly makes this economic reality worse-
Homelessness is an extension of the fact that battered women do not have adequate financial resources at their disposal. The National Council of Welfare report "Women and Poverty" demonstrated clearly that almost half of single parent families headed by women live below the poverty line. Separated and divorced women in general seldom receive adequate child support and maintenance payments. Enforcement mechanisms for even court-ordered maintenance and support are generally non-existent.
In referring this matter to the Justice Committee, I hope that the Committee will look at the report from the Standing Committee with regard to the situation of battered wives. I suggest that they look at two recommendations, in particular having to do with the jurisdiction of federally appointed judges over family matters.
Recommendation No. 15 states that a recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada has called in question the right of provincially-appointed family court judges to issue civil orders designed to exclude a spouse from the family home or prevent him from harming his family. We hope the Committee will look at this recommendation which is directly related to federal court jurisdiction.
Recommendation No. 17 states that, in light of the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada referred to in recommendation 15, the proposed federal-provincial conference should also address the problem of establishing a validly constituted civil court which is able to issue orders affecting the possession of the family home and prevent a man from harming his wife, at least as quickly and with as little cost to the wife as provincial courts do now.
In closing I wish to say that the NDP supports this Bill. We do not see it as a final solution. We would like to take a very comprehensive look at the whole question of support for separated familes, particularly those with children, and income support generally. We ask that some of the recommendations in the study on battered wives be considered by the Justice Committee at the same time because they are related. The situation in Canada is very serious. The number of singleparent families is increasing. Under the present system, there is absolutely no way of enforcing regular maintenance, particularly for women with children. Again, we commend the Hon. Member for introducing this Bill in the interests of the children of Canada.


Mr. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I should like to offer my warmest thanks to my distinguished colleague from Montreal-Mercier (Mrs. Hervieux-Payette) for the interesting piece of legislation she has put before the House today. Indeed, it is with great satisfaction

March 23, 1983
Income Tax
that I note the deep interest showed by the hon. member in the matter of the recovery of alimony and maintenance. Undoubtedly, several of our Members, including the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan), are equally interested in this matter.

It had been my intention to say some words this afternoon about the enforcement provisions of the laws affecting divorce matters, particularly with regard to those who abscond or who in other ways default on court orders which, as several Members have noted, are enforced by the provincial courts. However, given the limited time available, I shall not attempt to enter into the details of the Bill before us including various legal questions that the Bill raises. I shall simply note that there has been some consultation, and I believe agreement, among Members today to the effect that the subject matter, although not the Bill itself, be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. Accordingly, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Verdun-Saint Paul (Mr. Savard):
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "that" and substituting the following therefor:
"Bill C-364, an Act respecting the recovery of alimony and maintenance, be
not now read a second time but that the Order be discharged, the Bill
withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee
on Justice and Legal Affairs".


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion, as amended?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Accordingly, the order is discharged, the Bill is withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Order discharged and Bill withdrawn.


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


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Shall all orders listed under Private Members' Notices of Motions preceding No. 87 be allowed to stand by unamimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government, in pursuance of a policy of peace and peace-making, should consider the advisability of allowing residents of Canada who pay income tax to transfer a portion of their tax to a United Nations fund that is used for peace research and of having this amount calculated by taking the percentage of the national budget allocated to defence, which is currently 8.8 per cent.
He said: Mr. Speaker, first of all, on a point of order, I presume that there will be an extension of time to provide the full hour for debate on this motion?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Under the Standing Orders governing our proceedings, the Chair has no choice but to put the adjournment question at six o'clock.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity, even though time is short, to debate this motion calling on the Government to establish a fund for peace research. Today is a particularly appropriate day to debate such a motion. First of all, it is appropriate because of the visit of the United States Vice-President, George Bush, who is twisting Canada's arm to secure permission to test the Cruise missile on our territory. Secondly, it is appropriate because in the United States Congress today there is a continuing debate over the size of their defence budget, whether or not some $9.3 billion should be slashed from the $230 billion currently being allocated. Yesterday would also have been an appropriate day to debate this Bill because yesterday the death train arrived at Bangor, Washington, carrying nuclear warheads for the Trident submarine base. Last week would have been an appropriate time to debate this Bill when the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne) spoke before the committee to defend his Estimates and refused to rule out the possibility of a first-strike nuclear attack by NATO. In fact, he explicitly reserved that possibility. In short, Mr. Speaker, this is an appropriate day to debate this motion because, like every day, the arms race proceeds apace. Unless we take action to stop it, our world is indeed doomed.
The motion asks the Government to allow Canadian taxpayers to earmark the percentage of income tax which would normally go to the Department of National Defence and divert that money into a United Nations fund for peace research. The important thing here is the principle; it does not need to be a United Nations fund. A Canada peace tax fund or a list of recognized non-governmental organizations with peace research activities could be established. The important thing is that Canadian taxpayers should be able to transfer tax money from so-called defence to purposes of peace.
This proposal is designed for two groups of people. These groups are not mutually exclusive, but rather one merges into the other. First of all, there is the group of conscientious objectors. There is a long association of people associated with the historic peace churches and conscientious objection to war. Conscientious objectors have won the right not to have to serve in the Armed Forces but to give alternate service during time
March 23, 1983

of armed conflict. This principle should also apply to the paying of taxes. Already in Canada a group of people who have objections of conscience to paying money for militaristic purposes have established a peace tax fund. It is based on the principle of freedom of conscience, which last year we formally recognized in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
This peace tax fund has a growing list of adherents, Mr. Speaker. It is not yet recognized by Government, but 1 believe it should be. In addition to those who are conscientious objectors, there is a wide class of people who do not oppose all use of force by the state but who object very strongly to the present insanity of the arms race. They are a group of people who believe that their money can contribute much more to Canada's security and world peace if it is directed toward such things as peace research, international exchanges and visits to promote understanding, goodwill and trust, and toward pilot projects which could lead to reconciliation in areas of strife. They believe the money could do more good if it could be used to endow peace research chairs in universities. At present the Department of National Defence supports some five chairs in strategic studies. Why do we not do something in terms of supporting peace research? They believe that their money could be better used for some kind of independent analysis of the arms race.
We often hear criticism of Canada's Armed Forces, Mr. Speaker. Just this last week a United States source criticized our navy as a collection of miscellaneous cats and dogs. Yet this next fiscal year we will spend some $7.8 billion on defence, an 11 per cent increase over the $7 billion spent last year. It is a fact that 8.8 per cent of our tax dollars goes to defence; that is over $300 for every man, woman and child in Canada. But still this is not enough to satisfy those people who look to our Armed Forces to provide us with the kind of security we need to live a decent life. It is true that it is not enough and it will never be enough, and we only need to look at the United States right now and the debate whether over $230 billion is enough to understand that we can continually escalate the amount of money we spend on defence and it will still not be enough. The simple fact of the matter is that we do not find security through armaments. Whether we limp or whether we sprint, the arms race is not the answer to our problems.
I would like to read just a couple of short paragraphs from a speech given by the late Lord Louis Mountbatten on May 11, 1979. He said:
Next month I enter my eightieth year. I am one of the few survivors of the First World War who rose to high command in the Second and I know how impossible it is to pursue military operations in accordance with fixed plans and agreements. In warfare the unexpected is the rule and no one can anticipate what an opponent's reaction will be to the unexpected.
So much for some of our planned limited nuclear warfare. He goes on:
As a military man who has given half a century of active service I say in all sincerity that the nuclear arms race has no military purpose. Wars cannot be fought with nuclear weapons. Their existence only adds to our perils because of the illusions which they have generated.
There are powerful voices around the world who still give credence to the old Roman precept-if you desire peace, prepare for war. This is absolute nuclear nonsense and 1 repeat-it is a disastrous misconception to believe that by increasing the total uncertainty one increases one's own certainty.
Income Tax
We cannot increase our security as a nation by increasing the insecurity of our world.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has talked about suffocating the arms' race, but if anything has suffocated under his leadership it is our halting effort at disarmament. The ambassador of disarmament has a budget of $300,000 per year, which is approximately what the Department of National Defence spends on its magazine. That is what I call suffocation, Mr. Speaker.
This past winter, in 130 communities 75 per cent of the people voted in one way or another for disarmament. On the specific question of Cruise missile testing in Canada, 52 per cent of Canadians are opposed. The Government pretends that these figures do not mean anything. It claims that it is easy to vote for disarmament, and it asks how serious the commitment is behind that 75 per cent.
This motion challenges the Government to give people the opportunity to vote with their money. If only 1 per cent of Canadians chose to divert 8.8 per cent of their income tax to peace research, that would bring in approximately $2.7 million. That money could go into peace research and should be compared with the measly $300,000 that is presently allocated to the ambassador for disarmament.
I should like to deal briefly with some objections raised by people who say that the peace research fund sounds like a good idea but that it would be difficult to administer. There are many ways it could be administered. All Members of the House have benefited from provisions in the Income Tax Act that allow people to make contributions to political Parties and to claim tax credits for them. We could have a similar provision to allow people to make contributions to the United Nations fund or to recognize non-Governmental organizations and claim a 100 per cent tax credit.
The second objection is that anyone with an axe to grind concerning some Government expenditure would want similar provisions. For example, someone who objected to the official languages policy might demand that his money not be used for that purpose. The critics fear a hodge podge where everyone opts out of paying taxes for one project or another.
In answer to these criticisms I propose that the Government should bring in a Bill to alter the Income Tax Act and make this diversion possible. The issue of national security and world peace is the most serious issue of our times. Such a provision demands the time and attention of Parliament. It would rule out the possibility of less serious issues receiving the same consideration.
The third objection is that the arms' race would continue in any event. In a sense that is true. The danger of the arms' race is not likely to end overnight, but with this proposal a significant number of people would be able to register their disapproval of it in a way that the Government understands. They would be able to make a positive contribution to peace and work toward that time when the arms' race would no longer be

March 23, 1983
Income Tax
necessary. It depends upon mutual distrust, but if we accept this motion we can begin to build trust and understanding. In the long term, this would lead to a reduction in the arms' race.
The final consideration that many people raise is employment. With two million people already unemployed, we do not want more people laid off from DND establishments or defence-related industries. I admit that this is a most valid concern in today's economy, but two factors need to be considered. First of all, in the foreseeable future, Canada will continue to need the Armed Forces for United Nations peacekeeping duties, for establishing and maintaining territorial sovereignty, air-sea rescue facilities and dealing with disasters. There would be no immediate dismantling of domestic facilities.
As well, it is important for Canadians to realize that more jobs per dollar are created through peace-related industry and activity than from military-related activity. One of the areas of research that the peace research funding should be directed toward is the transition from a military to a peace economy.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to accept the motion and to recognize its importance. By accepting it we would implement in a political manner the Prime Minister's suggestion that we suffocate the arms' race. We would recognize that Canada's way to security is not by limping along behind the United States but that our security can only be found through world peace. A peace research fund such as I and others have proposed would be one small step in that direction, and I urge the House to take it.


Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to challenge some of the statements made by the Hon. Member who proposed the motion. He has raised a number of issues that cannot all be answered in the short time available to me.
The first of these is the statement made by a naval officer in the United States, Commander Byron, who happens to have expressed a personal opinion which has not been confirmed or substantiated by the United States Navy or their external affairs officers. He is a submariner and has a very periscopic view of forces. He sees the force only as a submarine commander does, with a very narrow and limited view. He would like to see the Canadian navy converted essentially into a submarine supporting agency for the United States Navy. This has never been the intention nor has there ever been any suggestion of it by NATO commanders. The three submarines that we have are training submarines and take part in submarine detection.
I would prefer to quote a former commander of the Atlantic supporting units of NATO who indicated that there is no better marine unit in the world than the Canadian marine unit in detecting submarines. He has given them full credit for a job well done, particularly emphasizing the professionalism of the men who carry out the duties allotted to them. The safety of transportation across the Atlantic depends on the submarines, surface vessels and the Aurora planes.
The statements made by Commander Byron are not indicative of the true state of our navy. It has been allotted a task by NATO, but it must also protect the sovereignty of our islands, protect our fishery patrols, support whatever needs there are in search and rescue, as well as take part in the collective security of the country, along with our commitments to NATO.
However, as far as the Hon. Member's motion is concerned, while doubtless prompted by the highest of motives, it is one which I suggest it would not be prudent for the House to support. The course of action which the motion would have the House advocate is one that it would be irresponsible for the Government to follow. The fault lies not in the motion for more peace research or indeed in relation to support of the United Nations. The fault lies in the implicit idea that our efforts to come to grips with the causes of international conflict are an alternative to, or a substitute for, Canada's efforts to preserve our security by the maintenance of our contribution to collective defence.
Some Members may say that the motion does not necessarily call for a transfer of resources from the defence effort to anything else. This is quite true. It does not. However, it relates one activity to another in a way which could create an utterly false impression that the Government's defence policy is in some mysterious way not concerned with peace-the making of peace and the keeping of peace. Members will be aware that Canadian security policy has been and continues to be aimed exclusively at the maintenance of world peace and, in particular, the prevention of a war that would engulf Canada.
As the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne) stated recently, we have achieved our aim by providing, in concert with our allies, a believable and therefore effective deterrent to the threat of aggression which we have seen the Soviet Union and its allies as potentially raising against us. At the same time, we have pursued with vigour and persistence the objective of arms' control and disarmament arrangements which would produce equal or greater security for all, while lowering reliance on military power, particularly nuclear power, for that purpose.
The Government is convinced that as long as there is a threat to our security at home by way of a nuclear attack on North America, or there remains a threat of aggressive action against any of our European NATO allies, the preservation of our collective security must be found first in collective deterrence and defence measures. Unattractive as a policy of deterrence may be for keeping the peace, it has the advantage of having worked. It is also likely to continue to work as long as there is as much thought given to preserving a deterrent as there is to finding means to get around it. As costly as defence measures may be, there is no substitute for them in a world in which the application of military force is an option in the pursuit of national objectives. What we seek is stability through a balance in the potential for the use of force between
March 23, 1983

states in order to make resorting to force an unattractive option.
The Government accepts its responsibilities to see that Canada bears an appropriate share of the collective defence and deterrence burden. But the Government knows that arms alone will not provide certainty that a military balance will remain stable and reliable in the long term. Lasting security and simple common sense require that the attempt be made to create a stable military equilibrium at the lowest possible level by means of balanced limitations of military potential. We have seen that such agreements, if they are to be of any value, must take into account the military efforts of the other side. They must also provide for unreduced security by maintaining a balance of deterrent and defence capabilities at every stage of moving toward lower levels of military effort. As has been said many times, the Government sees arms' control, disarmament measures and deterrence by military means as mutually reinforcing elements of a policy having security and stability as its basic objectives.
I am sure Members of the House will have heard how, in pursuit of security and stability at lower levels of military effort, Canada plays a full role in the work of the United Nations and the Committee on Disarmament. The pursuit of an easing of tension between East and West is an important objective of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, CSCE, in which Canada also participates. As a Member of NATO we also take part in alliance consultations on the bilateral Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, START, and the Intermediate-range Nuclear Force Treaty, INF, nuclear arms negotiations. We participate directly in the Mutual and Balanced Force Reduction, MBFR, negotiations. In short, we continue to believe that our current approach of attempting to maintain a stable military balance, coupled with active pursuit of negotiations to reduce the levels of both nuclear and conventional forces, offers the best possible prospects for peace now and for the foreseeable future. This is the policy for peace which the Government has long pursued and will continue to pursue.
There is another aspect of the peacemaking process in which Canada as a country and the Canadian Forces as instruments of Canadian policy have been particularly active for many years and to which I would draw the attention of Hon. Members. Among the more significant achievements of the international community since the Second World War has been the development of the concept of peacekeeping-the use of truce supervisory bodies, military observers or larger military forces to prevent or control conflict among nations. The concept evolved in a pragmatic and ad hoc fashion. Soon after the
Income Tax
establishment of the United Nations, it became clear that fundamental political differences among great powers would preclude close co-operation among them to maintain international peace and security.
Peacekeeping techniques were developed as a means of enabling the international community, with full consent of the Governments directly concerned, to take positive action in disputes threatening international peace and security. Since 1945 Canada has participated in ten United Nations peacekeeping operations. It has also been a member of the International Commissions for Supervision and Control in Indochina, which were established outside the framework of the United Nations.
Our service personnel continue to serve in the following significant United Nations missions: United Nations Truce Supervision Organization, where 20 Canadian military officers are deployed with other nationals in Israel and surrounding countries; United Nations Disengagement Force, where approximately 220 logistics, signals and observer personnel serve in a multinational contingent, and this contingent is supported by regular CF strategic airlifts; and United Nations Force in Cyprus, where an infantry unit of approximately 550 personnel serves as part of a multinational contingent which maintains the security of the border area between the Greek and Turkish Cypriots. The Canadian contingent is rotated every six months and resupplied weekly by Canadian Forces strategic airlift. Also, Canadian Forces continue to maintain one infantry battalion and supporting elements on standby for these such other peacekeeping operations as may be undertaken by the Government.
In conclusion, it is the Government's view that Canada has made and will continue to make a significant contribution to peace through the implementation of its defence policy. Canada's national security and the security of our allies require action on many fronts. We must make it clear that an attack on us would be a venture too costly to be justified, no matter what the aggressor might hope to achieve. We must pursue means of reducing the risks of devastation through deliberate or inadvertent action by arms' control and disarmament arrangements.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 2(1).
At 6 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, March 24, 1983