1983-01-19

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Jean-Guy Dubois (Lotbiniere):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased with this opportunity, under the provisions of Standing Order 21, to discuss the changes in the Crow rate and thus the Gilson report. Since the report was published, Madam Speaker, the Quebec caucus, both at its meeting in Jonquiere in September and since the beginning of the session on October 27, 1982, has been meeting with farmers and with representatives of the FPU, the Cooperative federee and the Association des meuniers du Quebec to discuss the general situation. At the insistance of all Quebec members, the caucus formed a special committee, and although a great many members were interested, we had to keep the number of committee members to ten. On this committee, the members for Rimouski-Temis-couata (Mrs. Cote), Chicoutimi (Mr. Dionne), Saint-Hya-cinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ostiguy), Portneuf (Mr. Dion), Levis (Mr. Gourde), Beauce (Mr. Lapointe), Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Gimai'el), Megantic-Compton-Stanstead (Mr. Tessier) and Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif) and myself, as chairman, are working to protect the interests of Quebec's farmers and to promote the equitable development of Canadian agriculture from east to west, so that no one is penalized and everyone will have a role to play in Canada's agricultural industry.


CANADA DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Cosgrove) announced that he would introduce draft legislation soon to increase guarantee deposit insurance coverage. Agitation to increase the 1967 limit began as early as 1975. Astra Trust went broke in 1980, and still the Government refused an increase and called for a
study. The report of that study was in the hands of the appropriate Minister for more than a year, yet the Government refused to act.
The 1967 dollar upon which the $20,000 limit was based is now worth only 40 cents. Per capita savings in Canada are greater than they are in the United States. Now, after three more trust companies are shown to suffer from financial instability, the Government is struck with creeping paralysis.
The Minister said that each depositor will be insured up to $60,000. A director of CDIC and the Superintendent of Insurance said that, until legislation is passed, depositors will still be limited to a guarantee of $20,000, although they may be protected up to $60,000. What those depositors should have-and the legislation should contain-is a guarantee of up to $100,000. Since the legislation has to be retroactive, why will the Government not give the same protection to the depositors of Astra Trust as to the three trust companies now under consideration?


COMMUNICATIONS
[Stage Direction]
PAY TV-effects of pornographic films
Mr. Henri Tousignant (Temiscamingue):: Madam Speaker, I wish to thank you for giving me a chance to bring to the attention of this House a matter that is making the headlines and which remains a very controversial question. I am referring to the advent of pay television and to its programming which is expected to include pornographic films. Now, I do not wish to seem prudish or Victorian-in fact some of my colleagues will agree that I am quite broad-minded in such matters-but I think it would be useful, Madam Speaker, to ask ourselves what the constructive and what the negative effects of this type of film will be, and I am thinking of negative in terms of delinquency, violence and perhaps social disorder. Unfortunately, ninety seconds would be too short to provide supporting evidence, but I do hope that the members of this House will be willing to consider this matter very seriously and to take a strong stand at the appropriate time. After all, whatever the terms of licensing of these companies or television networks may be, we, in this House, have the power to decide one way or another, and if the majority of the House is against this type of entertainment, I think we should decide according to our convictions.

January 19, 1983


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, Canadian shipyards have demonstrated a production capability that makes our shipbuilding industry equal or superior to the world-wide standard, yet over 2,000 shipyard workers are unemployed in the Maritimes, and thousands more across Canada. Canadian shipyards can compete internationally and for domestic orders if the ground rules are the same for all competitors. Unfortunately they are not.
Some shipbuilding nations subsidize employment. Others use their national banking system or treasury to assist ship construction. Canadian shipyards cannot compete for foreign or domestic orders in the face of such massive national subsidization. In order to maintain viability and secure thousands of skilled jobs, Government protection and help are required.
Here is part of the problem-East Coast resource exploration has created a huge demand for marine drilling rigs and service vessels, yet only the Sedco 709, among the 20 or more drilling rigs, is Canadian-built. Even Petro-Canada charters foreign built oil rigs and service vessels. Canada must have a shipbuilding policy that establishes a "Buy Canadian" principle for energy exploration and the fishery, as well as northern and coastal marine activity, thereby excluding non-Canadian vessels.
The Government policy must also provide realistic financial assistance to off-set the support provided in competing nations. Unless a Government shipbuilding policy provides adequate protection and assistance, a viable job-generating industry will be destroyed. The proposed shipbuilding policy does not meet this test.


INDUSTRY AND LABOUR ADJUSTMENT PROGRAM
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, it is well known that certain Canadian communities are experiencing more economic pain than others as a result of the present recession/depression. In an effort to provide special support to those communities especially hard hit, the Government of Canada established the Industry and Labour Adjustment Program. Consequently, a number of communities are receiving special financial assistance, as a result of having been designated under ILAP.
Recent employment figures have identified the communities of Kamloops, B.C., and Salmon Arm, B.C. with unemployment rates of 27 per cent and 30 per cent respectively. These unemployment levels are the highest in Canada. These communities have therefore been ravaged by unemployment more than most. To seek relief, both formal and informal requests
for designation under ILAP have been made. To date these appeals have fallen on deaf ears.
The questions which spring to mind are: first, how devastated must a community be before it is designated under ILAP and, second, is the designation under ILAP based on a community's need, or is it designated under the auspices of patronage?


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, during this harsh economic time it is especially significant to note that Canada stands alone among the major industrialized nations in that it does not have some form of national productivity centre.
As the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) stated in his three talks to the nation, improvement in the country's economy, especially in regard to our international trading position, requires, in part, an improvement in Canadian productivity. I would like therefore to suggest that the federal Government, in co-operation with the Provinces and other business and labour groups, consider the formation of a Canadian productivity council. Such a council could have as its goals: first, to raise the country's level of productivity consciousness; second, to act as a clearing house for productivity research and literature; and third, to establish centres across the country and offer short courses in productivity improvement.
These goals would in turn encourage both business and labour to increase productivity, decrease the per unit cost of our goods and services, and thereby increase the competitiveness of Canadian goods and services both at home and abroad which would help to spur on the Canadian economy and employment opportunities.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Most
Canadians, including many MPs, believe Canada has enormous agricultural land. That belief is totally untrue and is very dangerous. On a global scale, Canada has only 3 per cent of the world's arable land. Canada has less agricultural land than Western Europe, and one-seventh that of the U.S.A. Within Canada only 13 per cent of our land is arable, and only 4 per cent of that is class one or two.
The yearly loss of agricultural land is enormous. It is over 30,000 acres. The number of farmers has dropped 55 per cent since 1941 to some 318,000.
Liberal Party economic policies have resulted in over 50 per cent of our farmers having to earn income off their farms to
January 19, 1983

survive. The most recent attack on farmers is the capital gains tax. In fact it is a tax on capital, because inflation has been the reason for increased land values and not productivity.
It is now almost impossible for a farmer to keep a farm together as one unit and pass it on to the next generation. Capital gains tax is a time bomb which will result in Canadians standing in food lines. The solution, and it is essential to our national well-being, is for the capital gains tax to be abolished on bona fide farmland. This will encourage small family farms which, in turn, will buy machinery from Canadian manufacturers. It will also result in farms being better managed, and in a higher percentage of food self-sufficiency.
Fellow MPs, let us act together now so our descendants will be proud of us and not curse us from bread lines.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. It concerns the Crown Trust, Greymac, and Seaway Mortgage mess that we are all reading so much about in the newspapers. It becomes clearer every day that the inaction on the part of this Government has been a clear factor in leading to the expected bankruptcies of these companies.
I have been told that over a year ago the Government was made aware of the problems and the manipulations which were occurring in the activities of these companies, yet it took action only after the Province of Ontario stepped in to take over the companies. The result of this delay has meant that the savings of Canadians, their registered savings plans, have been put at risk.
When did the Government take action to look into and stop these possibly illegal activities, in its role as a regulator of the mortgage companies or as the trustee for the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, with respect, the Hon. Member has confused the provincial trust companies under the jurisdiction of the province of Ontario with the supervision exercised by the Superintendent of Insurance over federally incorporated mortgage companies. I would respectfully suggest to the Hon. Member, if he is genuinely concerned and feels, for example, that the statement made by the Hon. Mr. Elgie in the Ontario Legislature was not satisfactory and did not give answers to his questions, that he contact the Minister who is a resident in the Hon. Member's own municipal area.
Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: That is an incredible answer. The Minister totally avoided the question which I put to him. The point is that the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation and two mortgage companies are under his jurisdiction as Minister of State for Finance.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


OWNERSHIP OF CROWN TRUST-ROLE OF CANADA DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, since the loss to the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation could be well in excess of $100 million, since the transfer of the Crown Trust Company to new owners is an important element in minimizing the loss to the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation and the depositors, and since there is some suggestion that CDIC has been delaying the transfer of ownership of Crown Trust to new owners, would the Minister tell the House what he will do to ensure the speedy transfer of Crown Trust to new owners and thereby help salvage the savings of those many Canadians which are at risk right now?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, now I am convinced that the Hon. Member is confused. He is restricting his questions to the discussion of Crown Trust. That is clearly a provincially incorporated corporation. It is under the jurisdiction of the Minister in the Province of Ontario. Again I would urge the Hon. Member to speak to his Conservative Minister in the Province of Ontario.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: If the Minister would only listen to the question that I put to him-the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation is under his responsibility and jurisdiction. That was the basis of the question, as well as what is the CDIC doing to allow that transfer of Crown Trust shares.


REQUEST FOR REPORT FROM MINISTER
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, the Minister mentioned the statement made by Dr. Elgie in the provincial House at Queen's Park the other day. When will the Minister make some statements on these facts to this House? When will he report on the activities of the CDIC with respect to the transfer of Crown Trust? When will he respond to the first question that I asked him about what the Government has been doing with the two mortgage corporations under his jurisdiction, since there are hundreds of millions of dollars in savings of individual Canadians at risk here? I remind you, Madam Speaker, that this could be the largest single financial default in Canadian financial history.


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I would remind the Hon. Member that the specific issue of the transfer of a provincially controlled trust company lies exclusively within the jurisdiction and under the legislation of the Province of Ontario.

January 19, 1983
Oral Questions
Second, I would remind the Hon. Member of the obvious difficulties that are being experienced by companies, the largest of which is Crown. That is a company which is exclusively under the jurisdiction of the Province of Ontario.
The answer to the last question is yes, the question of Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation is a matter under federal jurisdiction, and yes, the Superintendent of Insurance has taken some actions. According to the legislation, the Minister responsible for the superintendent in this area is required to exercise a quasi judicial hearing in the matter. That is presently under way. Until such time as it is concluded I could not, under law, under conscience, or as a practical matter, respond in detail.


GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBILITY
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, the Minister's CDIC yesterday took the liquid assets of Crown Trust and put them in the Bank of Canada. If that is not exercising some responsibility, what is it? Will the Minister tell us about that? While he is at it, will he stop ducking his responsibility? He knows that ever since this Parliament opened, this Party, the Opposition, has been demanding some responsibility. We have seen Re-Mor, we have seen Astra Trust, we will have seen Caledonia and Pitts Insurance Company. When will the Government do something, come clean, and exercise some sense of responsibility to the people of Canada?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, the Superintendent of Insurance of Canada, as one of the officers of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation, in response to the request from the Minister of the Province of Ontario, agreed to support the Province's action in assuming responsibility for Crown Trust, a company exclusively under its jurisdiction, under its supervision, and now under its control.
The Province asked for the help of the federal Government. We have given that help. More than that, we have accepted the advice of the Hon. Member and many of his colleagues, including the last Hon. Member who asked the question, who, in July, asked the Government to increase Canada Deposit Insurance coverage to $60,000. We have done that, and we have done it quickly. We think we have moved with the interests of small, ordinary Canadians in mind, and we will continue to keep their interests at heart.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


VALUE OF SECURITIES
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, the Government knows, as all Canadians know, that we have had falling real estate prices, yet the bulk of the assets of these companies are in mortgages which are supposed to be less than 75 per cent of value. The Superintendent of Insurance and the Government have been asked to inquire into the value of
securities behind trust and loan companies. What action has the Government taken to inspect the real estate securities of trust and loan companies to ensure that mortgage indebtedness against properties is not more than 75 per cent?


An Hon. Member:: Speak to Bill Davis.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: What effort has the Government made to ensure that people can have faith in money they have with trust and loan companies?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, to begin with, the Government has indicated that it will increase mortgage deposit insurance from the present limit of $20,000 to $60,000. That legislation will be introduced in this House of Commons this afternoon-


Miss MacDonald:: Mine will!


Paul James Cosgrove: -and in view of the fact that many Hon. Members oppposite, including the Hon. Member who asked the question, requested that increase, we hope that we will have the assistance of all Hon. Members in the House, who are obviously concerned about the issue, to give speedy passage to that legislation.
Second, because the provincially controlled corporations, the trust companies to which the Hon. Member has referred, are the major shareholders in the federally controlled mortgage corporations, the Superintendent of Insurance, after the Province acted, moved as well to assume control of assets.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: That is a cop-out.


Paul James Cosgrove: The Superintendent recommended to the Minister of Finance that we undertake an investigation. To do that, in co-operation with the Province of Ontario we retained the services of the same accounting firm, Touche & Ross. They are presently investigating the standards, the books, and all of the issues raised by the Hon. Member. When that information is available, when I am permitted under law to give those answers, I will give them to the House.


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, my question today again deals with the Government's lack of an industrial strategy as a basic problem in the country, and is with respect to the announcement of the recent shipbuilding policy in which there was a glaring flaw, the omission of addressing the necessity of placing Canadian manufacturers on an equal footing in relation to shipbuilders and shipowners in Canada. Would the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce be prepared to tell the House why an important feature was left out of that new policy-the approach to providing concessionary financing to shipbuilders in Canada?
January 19, 1983	___________________________COMMONS DEBATES


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, I am sure that the Hon. Member is aware that the shipbuilding industry received the announcement by the Government of Canada with respect to its new policy in a very favourable way. As a matter of fact, what we did ensure was that by raising the tariffs on a more consistent basis for ships, for drilling rigs and for supply vessels, to a tariff of 20 to 25 per cent, which originally applied only to ships within the 12-mile limit, now the shipbuilding industry of Canada will be on a more competitive basis with the shipbuilding industries of Europe and the Far East.
Secondly, we extended the 9 per cent production subsidy to July 1, 1985, for ships delivered prior to that date. I think the Hon. Member should be aware that the comments have been very favourable from the shipbuilding industry, at least the comments that I have received in my office and that the Minister of Transport and the Minister of State (Finance) have received.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, it is very clear that doing anything in that area is certainly better than the Government's record to date, and there was a glaring need there.


LEASING OF SHIPS PRIOR TO PASSAGE OF LEGISLATION
Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, it would appear that there are some serious flaws in the policy statement. One of them is the question of implementation. If, in fact, there is expansion next year through an agreement with the Atlantic Provinces on offshore activity, the implementation date is vital. If that policy is not implemented very quickly what we will find is that the promised activity will be taken up by obtaining and leasing rigs from foreign builders. Could the Minister give us an indication of how he intends to block that major flaw in it, what he intends to do with Petro-Canada, hopefully making it an instrument of national economic policy as well as energy?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, with respect to Petro-Canada I am sure that question can be more properly answered by my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who has the responsibility for Petro-Canada.
With respect to the Hon. Member's point concerning companies renting or leasing ships during the period until the legislation is passed, I am sure that with the co-operation of the other House leaders, my colleague, the Government House leader, will be more than happy to put this legislation forward quickly and to have it adopted by Parliament.
Oral Questions HOUSE OF COMMONS


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OF NEW SOUTH WALES, AUSTRALIA
Madam Speaker:: I would like to recognize the presence in our Gallery of the Hon. John Johnson, who is the President of the Legislative Council of New South Wales, Australia.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

[Translation}


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Pierre Deniger (La Prairie):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport and concerns Wardair.
Could the Minister of Transport inform the House and the Canadian people why, as reported in The Citizen on January 11 of this year, the Government is denying Wardair a chance to compete with Air Canada and Canadian Pacific on certain regular flights, and how such a decision could be said to benefit Canadian travellers and Wardair?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, a few weeks ago, Mr. Ward, the President of Wardair, came to see me and discussed several problems he was experiencing. He asked me to examine with him the problems his company was facing, and to give him some indication, as soon as possible, of the Federal Government's intentions with respect to his interests. I promised to do so, and I am preparing a reply which I shall be communicating to the Hon. Member in due time.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Communications, supplementary to his answers given yesterday. I might remind the Minister that yesterday he indicated he was certain that if "any one of those channels had applied for a pornographic Pay TV licence, that licence would have been refused by the CRTC, and certainly would have been refused on appeal to the Governor in Council".
When he gave that answer yesterday was he aware that the majority of the successful applicants to the CRTC explicitly included in their applications and in their undertakings a desire and a commitment to produce and to show adult or

January 19, 1983
Oral Questions
restricted programming, and that in fact the CRTC has heard the question of whether soft core pornography may be shown, and has approved of it?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, I was listening to Mrs. Barlow last night and I think the women's groups themselves made the distinction which the Hon. Member has not made in his question, that is, the distinction between an adult movie and a pornographic movie.


PORNOGRAPHIC AND ADULT MOVIES
John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, I would greatly appreciate it if the Minister would take the time to enlighten the House on the difference between a soft core pornographic movie and an adult movie, which is the acronym which is used when marketing the film to cover that issue in the law.


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, I would like to remind the Hon. Member that the Minister of Communications holds powers given to him under Acts of Parliament. Parliament in its wisdom, and I agree with it, decided that governments of any political stripe ought not to be the ones to interpret what community standards will be. Parliament has decided that the courts ought to do so and, within a certain restricted range of areas, that the CRTC ought to do so. That is the desire of Parliament. Those are the powers, and the decisions that have been made by successive Parliaments.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. Under an Act respecting the expropriation of land, paragraph 19, there is a provision for retrocession of land to the original owners. In light of the sale to federal public servants of properties in the Mirabel area prior to December 31 so that they would qualify for and get the $3,000 grant, and in view of a Quebec parliamentary commission just having been completed, which was in opposition to the federal Government, what right does this Government have to sell houses in Mirabel to public servants who were tenants, prior to an offer to the original owners?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member would not want his question to be interpreted as being unfair to a lot of people. The decision to offer those houses for sale to those who wanted to buy them was made a number of months ago. Many asked that they be allowed to put in bids before the program of home ownership assistance ran out. Among them there were six, and
that is the correct figure, public servants, many of whom had been residents of the area for many years and happened to work for the Government of Canada. They were not processed quickly. They were examined and re-examined very carefully. Then they were allowed to make purchase offers.
Over 180 houses were purchased in all. Therefore, what we are talking about are six people who, as residents of the area and occupying those houses, were eligible to make an offer to purchase, like anyone else. That they did. I wanted to be doubly sure that there was no last minute speculation by employees of the Government of Canada. That is why I asked that every case be reviewed very carefully.


SUITABILITY OF CERTAIN LANDS FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, 1 have a supplementary for the Minister responsible for this land, the Minister of Public Works. In view of the fact that this is farmland, and the Minister is undoubtedly aware of the tremendous importance of agricultural development, and I am sure he has already heard from people representing the various sectors, considering this aspect therefore, could the Minister perhaps ensure that the future owners, if he is not willing to accept the principle of returning the land to the original owners, could the minister perhaps suggest including a condition that the future owners should be farmers, so as to promote the development of this excellent farmland?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, that is exactly what we have in mind. Furthermore, in line with a decision already made by my colleagues before I was appointed to this Department, I have been emphasizing the broadest possible identification of farmland, and I have done nothing to stop consolidation of farms into units bigger than the original farm before expropriation, if that would make a unit more profitable. Contrary to what is being said by a number of officials of the Quebec Government and by some politicians, farming in this area is in better shape than people say, and I think we should encourage this positive trend and try to put as much land as possible back into farming. That is why I feel that a first step has been made with the identification of some 30,000 acres, and that we must go even further, provided we succeed in reaching an agreement with the Ministry of Transport.


REQUEST FOR RETROCESSION OF 80,000 ACRES AT MIRABEL
Roch La Salle: A supplementary, Madam Speaker. The Minister has just told the House that he had already agreed to 30,000 acres being ceded back. Considering the fact that the government was astonishingly greedy a few years ago, and that present estimates show that it would be possible to cede back 80,000 acres, could the Minister inform
January 19, 1983

the House, still within the context of specific farming operations, whether he is prepared to accept the principle of ceding back at least 80,000 acres, which would leave ample room for the present airport's operations?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I would rather not refer to exact figures before having read the experts' report. The Hon. Member knows perfectly well that although there are definite long-term zoning regulations which cannot be changed at the whim of every new government, there is still a possibility to reduce the scope of Mirabel. We are looking at this and that is the approach we are taking, and if there is a possibility to cede back more than 30,000 acres, I shall do so with pleasure.

[English)


EMPLOYMENT
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Following the last war the Government committed itself to a national policy of full employment. In the intervening years it began to whittle away at this commitment, culminating in the Dodge report of two years ago in which the Government talked about trade-offs between full employment and inflation. Yesterday the former Leader of the Liberal Party in the Province of Ontario, the President or Executive Director of the Science Council of Canada, stated that full employment is now an unattainable goal. Does the Government of Canada still have as its overriding policy in the economy a commitment to full employment? If so, will the Minister tell us the targets for achieving it and define what the Government means by it?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, there is no question that this Government is very deeply committed to the goal of providing full employment in this country to the extent that the resources, conditions, and circumstances that we live in make that possible.
As the Hon. Member knows, and he has been studying the issue for a long time, as we all have been, we are going through some very traumatic changes in the kind of technology that goes into industry and the nature of our international markets. What we are trying to put together in this period of time is a kind of strategy in the area of export markets, the area of reorganizing and modernizing our industrial base and the retraining and development of new human skills, so that we can maximize those, but they do not all come together at once. What we can try to attain as much as possible is working together with business, labour and government at all levels to achieve the maximum benefit possible for workers in this country. That means we have to be very open-minded, prepared to change and to do some awfully hard work to bring about some reforms in our system which are long overdue.
Oral Questions


John Edward Broadbent: I think that can be summarized reasonably concisely by saying the Government's policy now is full employment if necessary, but not necessarily full employment.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT SET TARGETS FOR REDUCING UNEMPLOYMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister with reference to another report that came down yesterday, this time by the Metro Toronto Social Planning Council. It reported that an alarming almost 900,000 additional men and women ought to be included in the unemployment figures but, for reasons the Minister well knows, are not included in the official figures. This means that in Canada now we have in real terms about 2.5 million unemployed. With reference to the report, the director preparing that report said that what is lacking is the political will to achieve full employment. Will the Government set specific targets for the next 12 months that it will aim at in terms of reducing the level of unemployment? It has done this for inflation. Why will it not do it in terms of jobs?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, to begin with, just commenting briefly on the report from the Metro Toronto Social Planning Council, they have not sent me a full copy, but I have seen news reports of it. We have to be very careful with such reports that we do not distort the figures and exaggerate them beyond what the reality is in order to frighten people.
What they do include in that report is what they call the discouraged workers and underemployed workers. That includes a lot of people, who have gone back to school to improve their education and training during that period of time, so I believe we have to be very careful. That does not in any way diminish the seriousness or the critical factor that there are a lot of people out of work, and we must work together to bring them back into jobs.
One of the major achievements we have made over the last several months is in working closely together with the provincial Governments to co-ordinate our efforts, to provide for a combination of resources, to do joint planning so that we can work together to use the maximum amount of governmental resources in this area.
We are now engaged in a meeting with the private sector, with business and labour, to see if we can develop systems to bring that about with them as well. It will only work, Madam Speaker, if we have that kind of partnership and not the kind of rhetoric which the Leader of the Opposition too often uses.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I am not interested in this instance in rhetoric. I am interested in a very specific kind of goal which the Liberal Government set for itself in 1945. When we have unemployment reaching the same level on a

January 19, 1983
Oral Questions
percentage basis almost as we had in the 1930s, surely it is time to set the goals again.
government position on setting unemployment target


John Edward Broadbent: Considering that the Government brought in a program which set as a target an inflation level of 5 per cent for next year-a specific program to try to achieve that goal-and considering that a right to a job is a fundamental human right, why cannot the Government bring in the same kind of target for unemployment levels and the same kind of specific programs to achieve those goals?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, it is my belief that that target of full employment should not just be restricted to Members on the Government side. It should also be a goal which every Member of Parliament endorses. What we must do is establish the framework within which economic recovery and growth can take place. That is the reason why we developed a program of restraint in the economy, to bring inflation right down and to bring interest rates down. Members of the Hon. Member's caucus and the Conservative Caucus stood up in this House day after day saying that the solution to the problem was to bring the interest rates down. The interest rates are coming down, Madam Speaker, because of the establishment of a goal set by the Government last fall and last spring. What we must begin to do through our direct employment program is provide supplementary support for workers who are out of work.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: Your own Members are laughing.


Lloyd Axworthy: And by the way, for the Tories who are laughing now, it is that group who were in Government who cancelled all the direct employment programs so that no one would have had any assistance.


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and I would like to bring him back to the matter of the shipbuilding policy review which he was referring to earlier in the Question Period and which has finally been released after months of indefensible delays by the Government. He is correct when he says it has been welcomed by industry, labour, and management alike, as a positive step in the long-term solution of the ills which have been suffered by the shipbuilding industry due to the Government's inaction over the long term.
As was pointed out, however, by the previous questioner, the policy does have some very serious shortcoming and loopholes,
such as the six-month implementation period during which the Canadian market could be flooded with an influx of cheap foreign vessels which could negatively affect the precious few jobs which remain in the industry, for periods up to five and ten years. The Minister has indicated that he is prepared to implement and bring this legislation-


Madam Speaker:: Order. Does the Hon. Member have a question?


Robert Alfred Corbett: Yes, indeed I do, Madam Speaker, and I thank you for allowing me to put it. Will the Minister now bring that legislation into this House, because I can assure you that, if it means saving jobs in this country, the Government will have the co-operation of this Party in seeing that it is passed speedily?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, first of all, the responsibility for bringing forth that piece of legislation does not rest with my Department. Second, we will try to expedite the negotiations so it may not take six months, but obviously we do not have total control over these negotiations. Third, although there is a possible loophole for the renting and leasing of ships and floating equipment, we do not expect that too many firms will take advantage of that situation. In fact-


Mr. Clark:: Just Petro-Canada.


Edward C. Lumley: -there are few orders on the order books almost anywhere in the world right now for marine construction.


Robert Alfred Corbett: Madam Speaker, this is an indication of how much co-operation the industry can expect from this Minister.


CONSTRUCTION OF FRIGATES
Robert Alfred Corbett: Regardless of how cooperative the Government is going to be, it is going to take months, or even years, before the effect of this policy can be felt by the shipyards. Will the Minister press his colleagues to do something about something which they can do something about, and that is to see that the frigate program, for instance, is implemented immediately, and that those proposals which they have made to build navigational aid vessels, as well as search and supply vessels, are put into effect now, and not six months down the road?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, first of all, my colleagues gave me full support when I requested, in spite of the restraint program, an extension of the 9 per cent production subsidy for the shipbuilding industry to 1985, which also could enable several of our firms to get some export orders on which they are building the present time.

January 19, 1983

Second, we did stretch the rules of the Export Development Corporation a year ago at the request of my colleague, the Minister of Public Works, to ensure that the first major drilling rig for the East Coast of Canada was produced in Canada by Canadians. That was worth over $100 million. But just as my colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, said, Madam Speaker, 1 think if there were a little less rhetoric from the other side of the House and a little more cooperative effort in trying to ensure jobs for Canadians, we could be more successful in industries such as the shipbuilding in areas such as the one from which the Hon. Member comes.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Marcel Ostiguy (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture or to his parliamentary secretary. More than a year ago, the Danish pork-producing industry was struck by an epidemic, and as a result, production was increased in Canada. Could the parliamentary secretary inform the House whether this epidemic in Denmark is now under control and what the effect will be on pork production in Canada?


Mr. Marcel Dionne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, in 1982, an epidemic did, indeed, cause a number of problems in Denmark, and this country has just confirmed that the epidemic still exists, since last week, 120 cases were reported among hogs and seventy-two cases among calves, all of which were slaughtered this week. It is obvious that the consequences will be the same as in 1982, that is, the epidemic will eliminate Denmark from export-import markets, with, once again, favourable consequences for Canadian producers. Finally, I can say that the same sanitary measures will be taken and that the Department is also taking very stringent action to prevent this disease from spreading to our country.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Senior Canadian National officials earlier this week advised the Government of Prince Edward Island of their plans to transfer most of the Island's heavy freight operations from the Island to Moncton, New Brunswick, as part of an over-all rationalization of services within that region and Quebec. Given that that measure, if it goes ahead, will render Prince Edward Island the only Province in Canada without a fully operational carload
Oral Questions
centre, will the Minister undertake to exercise every possible moral suasion with Canadian National officials in Montreal to have this disastrous decision reversed?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I must admit, Madam Speaker, that the Hon. Member has a very special way of introducing that question which makes my answer a little more difficult than it otherwise would have been. But each time that three or four or five jobs are lost in the CN there is a question or protest of this kind. My answer is always the same, that if my hon. friend wants CN to be viable and to give Canadian shippers the best possible rates, the lowest possible rates, they have to allow the Corporation to make these technological and administrative changes. In this particular instance it affects ten people, three of whom are going to stay in Charlottetown, two are being relocated, and the other five will be given the usual pre-retirement and retraining opportunities.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER INVESTIGATE TRANSFER
Thomas Michael McMillan: Madam Speaker, I will put a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. It is not just a few jobs that are involved; it is a question of whether we are going to have an essential service for the Island and an important part of the economic base of the Province.
Given that Island shippers require on-the-spot, direct, personal, day-to-day services provided by CN employees on the Island, rather than having those services provided by computers in some other part of Canada, and instead of echoing some rationale given to him by the head office of CN in Montreal, would the Minister take the initiative to investigate the matter himself? At the moment he is just echoing something said to him by people who have a vested interest in taking apart the railway in P.E.I.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I take some objection to the tone of the question, but I will not answer in kind. I am too generous and too cool to do that sort of thing.


Charles Joseph Clark: That is why you ignored the CTC on VIA Rail.


Jean-Luc Pepin: This is not a position that was imposed upon me by CN. I dare say that people in P.E.I. really believe, as I do, that these changes have to be made if potatoes, other agricultural products or the manufactured goods of P.E.I. are to be shipped at the best possible price. I think that this a strong belief throughout Canada. It has the name of productivity, if my hon. friend is looking for an expression to characterize it.
There is no law in the Constitution which indicates that all provinces should have centres of all Crown corporations of the country. There are other cases where centres are not located in every province in Canada. This is one of those instances, and I regret it. I prefer to be charming, but in this instance I think that the importance of the best possible rates for shippers is the predominant pre-occupation.

January 19, 1983
Oral Questions NATIONAL DEFENCE


TORONTO AGENCY COLLECTING FEES FROM POTENTIAL ARMED FORCES RECRUITS
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Defence my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Are the Minister and the Government aware that in Spadina riding, at the corner of Bloor and Bathurst Streets, there is an enterprise advertising itself as "Jobmart" which promises, in return for a $50 fee, to give exclusive job-opening information to unemployed job seekers? One of the opportunities offered to those who have paid their $50 fee is the chance to apply to join the Canadian Armed Forces. Did the Minister or the Government authorize Job-mart so to advertise the Canadian Armed Forces recruiting program in return for a fee to be paid by the unemployed? If the Minister did not authorize this, what action will the Government take to end this misuse of the name of the Government of Canada in shamefully cheating Canada's unemployed men and women?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I have no information on this point. I think the best answer is to rely on the good sense of the constituents of my hon. friend who would not likely be induced to pay a fee of $50 to join the Armed Forces of Canada. There is a great deal of advertising about the Forces which is well known to anyone who wants to join. I think the Hon. Member ought to rely more on the good sense of the public than upon actions to be taken by the Government at this time.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question about jobs, for the Minister of International Trade. On December 22 last, in response to questions I asked him about potash workers being laid off in my Province, the Minister said that he would do everything possible to help. A few days ago 100 potash workers were laid off at the head office of the Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan, and another 900 workers will be laid off between now and the end of February. This means about half the potash workers in the Province will be laid off. This is largely because the provincial Tory Government scrapped the export wing of the Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan.
Will the Minister tell the House today what specific measures he will be taking to make sure that those workers in my Province get their jobs back within the next few weeks or months?
Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of State (International
Trade)): Madam Speaker, I am reluctant to become involved
in disputes between the Hon. Member and the Government of Saskatchewan. I am sure that the Hon. Member is aware of the fact that international markets for potash, as a consequence of international economic conditions, are not in the sort of condition one would wish. I think he has to look in that direction to determine a large part of the nature of the problem that exists for this particular industry at the present time. The problem that it is experiencing is shared by many other potash producers around the world.
I can say to the Hon. Member that my Department remains available to assist in locating new markets that exist, at any time, but I cannot promise him an earlier solution to that particular problem than to the problem of economic improvement in general.


AIRPORTS
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works. Will the Minister tell the House if the six properties at Mirabel which were sold to public servants were first offered to their original owners as is required by law?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I should correct the record. I said public servants. In fact these are employees of the Crown corporation which administers the lands. They are not public servants in the traditional sense.


Mr. Nielsen:: What Crown corporation?


Roméo LeBlanc: 1 would have to check the legality of this. I am not a lawyer. I would not even aspire to be one.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Lawrence:: There is no sense in overreaching yourself.


Roméo LeBlanc: I was alluding to the Right Hon. Member's former ambitions in that area.
I will have to inquire what the legalities of the situation are, and report to the Right Hon. Member.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I doubt that it would be possible to reach higher standards than those that have been established consistently by the Minister responsible for the pork-barrel in New Brunswick.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


PROVISIONS OF EXPROPRIATION ACT GOVERNING RESALE OF PROPERTY
Charles Joseph Clark: Let me
return to the question, Madam Speaker. The Minister said earlier in the House that he had looked into those matters individually, and with great care. He should know that in the
January 19, 1983

case of the expropriation of land for which the Government no longer has a use, Section 19 of the Expropriation Act requires him to make a first offer to the original owners. That is the law that the Minister is sworn to uphold. Did the Minister follow the law in this case? Was a first offer made to the original owners before those six sales were made to employees of a federal Crown corporation?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I inherited a dossier which said that the lands and the residences would be offered for sale to those who occupied them.


Erik Nielsen: Oh, oh!


Roméo LeBlanc: The Hon. House Leader should really keep his cool.
I have asked that public servants or Crown corporation employees not take undue advantage of the situation. The figures that I have show that six out of some 180 sales were made to these people. That is a reasonable number and each case was looked into.
I did not investigate the legality of this. I am not a lawyer, but I will ask the law officers of my Department about it, and answer the Right Hon. Member's question.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, what the Minister inherited was a law which he is sworn to implement.


QUERY RESPECTING OFFER TO ORIGINAL OWNERS
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the Minister indicated earlier that he carefully investigated the backgrounds of the purchasers, but he did not carefully investigate the law. Will he now answer the question. Was a first offer given to the original owners of these six properties? That is a simple question, and he should answer yes or no.


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, obviously I will look into this. I do not think that if the Hon. Member repeats the question for a fourth time, it will get me to give him more information than I have. I know what I have stated already.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: It obviously is not very much.


Roméo LeBlanc: On the other issue he has raised, I will obviously ask the questions.
_________________________________21993
Oral Questions COMMUNICATIONS


UNLICENSED SATELLITE RECEIVING STATIONS
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Communications. Last fall the Minister was very bellicose in making attacks on pubs and other institutions which had unlicensed earth stations. What has happened since then?


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, as the Hon. Member is aware, our policy is aimed at protecting cable distributors who are licensed by the Canadian Government against unfair competition from people who pirate programs and try to retransmit them, thus competing with licensed cable distributors. There are a number of cases which will come before the courts in February, including one in Chicoutimi and another involving the Holiday Inn in Winnipeg. Meanwhile, as the Hon. Member is aware, the Newfoundland Court of Appeal has confirmed that as far as the reception of programs via satellite is concerned, the Canadian Government has full jurisdiction.


Henry Perrin Beatty: It appears that the Minister has huffed and puffed, but he has yet to blow the house down.


LAYING OF CHARGES
Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, I want to ask the Minister specifically how many charges have been laid, since last fall, as a result of his threats against the owners of unlicensed earth stations.


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, following the statement I made last autumn, we got in touch with a number of people who were using antennae without getting permission from the CRTC and without a licence from the Department of Communications. I remember at least two hotels in the Toronto area which ceased such operations at our request, and there have been other cases in Canada where an order from the Department or the CRTC has put an end to such illegal activity.
I should hope, Madam Speaker, that it will not always be necessary to take legal action in order to make people comply with the law. I believe that now the Canadian Government has successfully put its case to the courts in Newfoundland and in a number of other instances, people will be more likely to comply with the requirements of our legislation.

January 19, 1983
Business of the House



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by approximately 200 constituents in my riding requesting the Government to reestablish the pension provisions as it had originally contracted them and asking the Government to withdraw Bill C-133.


Raymond John Skelly: 

CANADA DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION ACT


Paul James Cosgrove: for leave to introduce Bill C-142, an Act to amend the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act.


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

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Jim Peterson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Economic Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2,786, 4,563 and 4,585.



HOUSE OF COMMONS PRINTERS

['Agreed.']
Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: 1. The
Department of Supply and Services (DSS) has absorbed 52 employees who were engaged at the House of Commons. These persons previously had produced householders in the House of Commons, but that work is now being produced by DSS.
2.	The Canadian Government Printing Office has always had the responsibility for printing Parliamentary Papers including Debates, Order Papers, Votes and Proceedings, Bills and Committee Reports. The responsibility for printing householder mailings for Members of Parliament has been added recently.
3.	No.
4.	The following persons participated in the negotiations regarding householders.
Department of Supply and Services


Hon. Herb Gray (President of Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, I wish to inform the House that there have been consultations among the representatives of the Parties and that it has not been possible to reach an agreement pursuant to Standing Order 80 or 81 with regard to the allocation of time to the report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-133, an Act to amend the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2), and that, 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.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!
G. A. Berger.	Assistant Deputy Minister Commercial Supply Service
Ed. Roberts:	Director General Canadian Government Printing Office
J. G. Jennings:	Printing Production Manager Canadian Government Printing Office
J. M. Denault:	Advisor Staff Relations Canadian Government Printing Office
D. Duguay:	Administrator Personnel Services Canadian Government Printing Office
B. Scott:	Acting Director, Main Plant Branch Canadian Government Printing Office
P. Tarnowski:	Chief, Industrial Engineering Division Canadian Government Printing Office

P. G. Franche:
House of Commons A. Silverman:
Dr. R. C. Blain:
R. J. Desramaux:
R. Laflamme:
Acting Director, Management Support Group Canadian Government Printing Office
Administrator
Director General
Human Resources Directorate
Director, Support Services
Chief, Printing Operations Branch
Deposit Insurance MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Madam Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Notice of Motion No. 113?



[Stage Direction]
Representatives from the Canadian Government Printing Office met with employees of the Printing Operations Branch of the House of Commons at the request of the Administrator of the House of Commons.

Mr. MacKay: What is the financial contribution by the Government to the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs, either directly through grants or indirectly through paid membership of the federal employees?


Roméo LeBlanc: The
Government of Canada makes a matching grant to the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs (CAFC) up to a maximum of $25,000 subject to grants obtained from the Provinces in any fiscal year. Public Works Canada pays an annual membership of $65 to the Association in the name of the Fire Commissioner of Canada.


PAMPHLET &quot;URBAN PARKS AND GREEN SPACES IN THE NATIONAL CAPITAL&quot;
Mr. McCuish: 1.	Did the National Capital Commission publish a pamphlet entitled "Urban Parks and Green Spaces in the National Capital" and, if so (a) what was the total cost for the design, production and distribution (b) how many copies were printed and distributed to date (c) who was responsible for the design and production?
2.	Was the contract awarded outside the Government and, if so, in what manner was it awarded?


Roméo LeBlanc: 1. Yes. (a) $5,100; (b) 50,000 printed; 2,400 distributed to date; (c) Executive Director, Public Activities Branch, National Capital Commission
2. Yes. Printing contract awarded following tender call.
[ Translation]


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: I would ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 113-Mr. de Jong:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all studies, documents, research papers and reports done by or for any department or agency comparing Canadian government agricultural subsidies and United States government agricultural subsidies.


Marcel Dionne: Madam Speaker, in answer to Notice of Motion No. 113, given by the Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong), the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is not aware that the requested papers exist. He therefore asks the Hon. Member for Regina East to withdraw his motion.


Erik Nielsen: Transfer for debate.


Madam Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Madam Speaker, I would ask that the remaining notices of motion for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the notices of motion for the production of papers be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS

["Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member. I would remind Hon. Members that under the provision of new rules and Standing Orders for the House of Commons, one hour has been provided for the discussion of Private Members' Public Bills. That hour has expired and accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 24(2), it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings."]
Madam Speaker:: All orders preceding No. 465 under the heading; Public Bills and made by members shall be allowed to stand, by unanimous consent.

January 19, 1983
Deposit Insurance



Madam Speaker:: Before proposing the question for the second reading of Bill C-665, an Act to amend the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act, the Chair ought to express strong reservations as to the procedural acceptability of this Bill, which seems in part to infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown as far as the power to pay any amount out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund is concerned.
Having entered this caveat, the Chair is prepared to allow debate to take place on the motion for second reading of Bill C-665. Should such debate come to an end, the Chair will have to rule on the procedural acceptability of this Bill.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: that Bill C-665, an Act to amend the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
She said: Madam Speaker, the Private Member's Bill which I have before the House this afternoon, Bill C-665, comes, I would say, at a particularly propitious time. I make that statement, of course, because of the very great concern which surrounds the takeover of certain trust companies based in Toronto and the increased attention that has been paid to that matter in recent days. I would also suggest that that concern has been in the public domain for quite a time.
The purpose of my Bill-and this will explain why it comes at such a propitious time-is to amend the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act so as to increase present insurance coverage for depositors from $20,000 to $100,000. This is a move which is long overdue. The insurance coverage under the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act has really not been changed since the Act was brought into effect back in 1967, even though the $20,000 coverage that was established some 15 years ago is totally unrealistic given today's economic realities. A sum of $20,000 in 1967 dollars no longer has anything like that value today; it is perhaps 40 per cent of the value of $20,000 in 1967. Therefore, it has no relevancy to the needs of today.
I reiterate, sir, that this increase is long overdue. Arguments favouring such a move have come from a variety of sources over a considerable period of time, and rightly so. They have come because of inflation, high interest rates, rampant unemployment and huge deficits. These things have all contributed to the very uncertain economic climate in which Canadians exist today. These are the conditions which have caused Canadians to view their economic security with anxiety and concern. That concern is not limited solely to the vast national problems that affect this country. It is not limited to the economic instability and uncertainty that one hears being expressed from coast to coast. It centres more and more upon the personal financial security of individuals. People are
wondering how they are going to stand in relation to their own future.
That concern was expressed long before the recent developments with regard to Crown Trust, Greymac Trust and Seaway Trust. Obviously those developments which have taken place in recent days have aggravated the concern considerably. But for much of the last year and indeed before that 1 was being questioned more and more often by people in my own riding and by groups to whom I have spoken elsewhere about the security of their deposits with banks and trust companies.
It was in response to those repeatedly expressed concerns that I introduced this Private Members' Bill, hoping that it might be given serious consideration and, indeed, that it would be given acceptance by the Government. In so doing, it would give assurance as well to the individuals concerned that their life savings, in whatever form they might be, whether as RRSPs or as deposits in banks, would not be in any jeopardy.
Canadians are only too well aware that the country has been on an economic roller coaster for some years now. The time has come, therefore, to strengthen some of the safety features which are supposedly in place to protect Canadians. Obviously, the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act is one such measure which needs strengthening. If that measure is going to be there to protect Canadians, then we ought to do what it says we will do, and that is, protect them. At the moment the $20,000 limit does not. What I am suggesting today would help to meet that protection.
Various proposals have been put forward over the years to achieve that goal. My Bill is one such proposal. It would increase the coverage for insurance from $20,000 to $100,000. This proposal does not originate with me; it has been presented by many people and it has been well argued by several organizations. The Consumers' Association of Canada is one such organization that has put forward this proposal.
Tom Delaney, the economic policy adviser for the Consumers Association of Canada, was quoted in an article which appeared in The Globe and Mail on Monday, January 10, 1983. He said that the federal Government should immediately strengthen its deposit insurance protection limits to $100,000 and iron out confusion in the legislation to avert what he calls a crisis of confidence in the trust industry. He is quoted as having said the following:
I'm not saying this is the doomsday scenario, but it's the kind of thing that demonstrates the reason for the CAC's concern over the years.
Concern has been expressed repeatedly by Mr. Delaney and others.
It is my understanding that the Canadian Bankers' Association has suggested increasing the coverage to $40,000 with unlimited coverage for RRSPs. I may be misinterpreting their position, and if so, I am sorry. But if I am correct in my interpretation of what they would like to see instituted, then that is a proposal well worth considering.
This afternoon the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Cosgrove) finally got around to introducing a Government bill
January 19, 1983

to raise the coverage by the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation from $20,000 to $60,000 with protection being retroactive to January 17, 1983. He is the latest in a series of individuals to make proposals along this line. Though I am glad to see the Government is finally taking some positive steps toward reviewing the present insurance arrangement, I am concerned about several factors of that Bill.
First, as my colleague, the Hon. Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid), who also has a Private Members' Bill before the House on this subject, said earlier today in the House, there is some question as to whether or not there would be adequate protection for depositors under the retroactive legislation proposed by the Minister.
In a Toronto Star article dated January 18, 1983, Mr. Robert Hammond, a Director of the Canadian Deposit Insurance Corporation and Superintendent of Insurance, said that until the legislation is passed in the House of Commons depositors will still be limited to $20,000, although they will be protected to $60,000. As a result of this difference in opinion as to the actual protection available, I point to the urgency for this House to end the uncertainty for depositors. That uncertainty can indeed be ended by sending this Bill to committee so that the issue can be studied and adequate protection established at the earliest possible moment. Canadian investors must have that insurance. There exists too much uncertainty today. For instance, how long would it take an investor to be reimbursed for any loss by the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation; and would the reimbursement include interest for the period of time that the investor has to wait for the payment to be made? Those are questions which further aggravate the uncertainty.
Two concerns have been expressed to me about my Bill, Mr. Speaker. One is that it would cause a very significant increase in the premiums that would have to be paid by the chartered banks on insurance deposits which they have in the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation. While I sympathize with their dilemma, I am confident of their ability to meet it.
The other concern that has been expressed is that the increase in insurance coverage to $100,000 may, in itself, add to the anxiety and uncertainty of depositors. In other words, it might cause alarm that a crisis may be imminent. My Bill is intended to do just the opposite. The anxiety and the uncertainty exists already. They are there and cannot be denied. The best way to overcome them is to provide the security that investors have a right to expect. I know of no better way to accomplish this than to send this Bill to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs this very afternoon so that we can get on with implementing its provisions and introduce a level of insurance that will guarantee protection to investors so that the uncertainty and anxiety which exists in the country will be erased.


Mr. John Evans (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise to speak in this very important debate concerning the security of the deposits which Canadians have
Deposit Insurance
in our financial institutions. This important issue has been considered in previous deliberations in the very committee to which the Hon. Member would like to send her Bill, the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. We undertook that study during our deliberations on the question of bank profits when all Members of the House were represented in the Committee. At the time of the report, one of the Parties had decided to withdraw. Certainly the Members of the Official Opposition and the Government were represented during those deliberations and they concurred entirely in the recommendations.
It was made clear by both Members of the Official Opposition and the Government during our discussion on the question of deposit insurance that a $60,000 limit was adequate, given the purpose for which deposit insurance is in place and the changes which have occurred since 1967 when deposit insurance was established at $20,000 per institution, with some exceptions. The existing law has been changed as a result of the announcement by the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Cosgrove) on Monday, when he indicated that any deposit in place from Monday onward would be covered by the new limits, which have been raised to $60,000 from $20,000.
The question we were concerned with at the committee deliberations was the limit at which deposit insurance should be set in order to provide adequate coverage. One can see the necessity for deposit insurance when its history is reviewed. Deposit insurance was originally established in the 1930s, primarily at the initiative of the United States but in Canada as well. The difficulties faced in the United States were much more serious since bank failures had taken place in that country. Authorities in the United States were much more fearful that, if no protection were provided for a depositor's funds in financial institutions, there would continue to be runs on institutions whenever there was a rumour that depositors' funds may not be safe in a particular institution which might not have been able to reimburse the full value of a deposit.
In Canada, our track record in this regard has been much better. I believe that the last bank failure occurred in the mid-1920s and it was a relatively small bank.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: What about trust companies?


John Leslie Evans: Our institutions have been solvent and have not experienced any problems of failure-except for the recent example that the Hon. Member just mentioned of Astra Trust.


Mr. Kempling:: What about Argosy?


John Leslie Evans: Canadian depositors have been very well protected by the institutions. In addition, however, deposit insurance has been in place up to the amount of $20,000. This deposit insurance is structured in such a way that $20,000 is not the total coverage that is available to an individual who has means in excess of $20,000. For example, this means that a depositor can have a deposit at an institution with coverage at all branches of the institution, whether a bank or trust company, up to a maximum of $20,000, but that person's spouse can also have coverage in the same institution for accounts in

January 19, 1983
Deposit Insurance
that person's name of up to $20,000. As well, they can both have a third joint account which is also covered. Under the old rules, this meant that a person and their spouse could be covered up to a maximum at that time of three times $20,000 or $60,000.
In addition to that, the deposit insurance limits apply to the value of deposits in a particular institution. Therefore, if a person deposits up to $20,000 in one institution, they are covered; if they deposit $20,000 in a second institution and $20,000 in a third institution, they are also covered. This means that a person can achieve total coverage equal to the amount of their deposit, whether $100,000 or $200,000, by splitting deposits among different institutions.
The difficulty that arose was that the increase in inflation and salaries gave rise to increased savings and the limit of $20,000 became very inappropriate. For example, the three-year maximum limit of RRSP contributions would amount to approximately $15,000 or $16,000 plus interest, and a person could exceed the total value of the deposit insurance in that institution very quickly. This is a result of the limits remaining unchanged since 1967 while inflation has certainly escalated the amount of savings and income available.
During the review of this whole question in the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs' study of bank profits, the Members of the Committee unanimously agreed, as appears at page 21 of the Committee hearings, that:
Deposit insurance is also important as a means of protecting depositors' savings.
Here, we were referring to the whole question of bank solvency and bank liquidity, but we were not just concerned with chartered banks. We had broadened our scope implicitly to include the solvency and financial integrity of all financial institutions which accepted deposits. The Committee went on to say:
Since it was first implemented in 1967, the value of the protection this insurance offers to depositors has been seriously eroded by inflation. The Committee therefore recommends that:
8. Deposit insurance should be increased to afford a better real protection of depositors' savings. The level of insurance for each individual depositor with any bank should be raised from the present $20,000 to at least $60,000, which restores the real value of protection offered when it was introduced in 1967. The level of deposit insurance should be reviewed every five years.
I believe that was a very good recommendation. It was responsible in light of all of the facts. It certainly goes to restore the real value of the protection that was provided.
I would note that this recommendation is fully reflected in the Bill that the Hon. Minister introduced in the House today and in the statement that he made on Monday with regard to the Bill that the limits have now been increased to $60,000 as recommended. While I have not yet seen the Bill, I urge that there should be some protection for an automatic review of those ceiling limits if that is not in the Bill. There should be some provision for automatic review of those ceiling limits every five years, as we have recommended in the committee report. Every five years we should review the limits of deposit insurance coverage and then we would not get ourselves back into the position we are now facing. Such was the motivation
behind the Bill presented by the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald). Fifteen or sixteen years after the fact we are just getting around to modifying those limits.
We in the committee felt very strongly that not only should the limits be increased, but there should also be an automatic provision in the Bill that the question concerning limits and their adequacy should be brought before Parliament at least once every five years.
Therefore, the question is whether the Government Bill and the raising of the limit from $20,000 to $60,000 is adequate or whether those limits should be further raised to $100,000. I do not think it is necessary to raise those limits to $100,000. I have noted Mr. Delaney's comments, a man I have known for a long time. I respect his work for the Consumers' Association and as a private consultant in the field of financial affairs.
The other night, on "The Journal", I believe Mr. Delaney indicated that the Government's action was too little, too late. I do not agree that it is either too little or too late because certainly, now that we have increased the limit to $60,000 through the multiple family accounts which I described earlier, a person, with his or her spouse, could obtain coverage in a single institution up to $180,000. On the other hand, by simply splitting the accounts across three institutions, for example, a bank, a trust company, and another trust company or bank, which can now be done efficiently because the amounts which we are discussing are large enough, the individual can again be covered up to $180,000, or, across four institutions, up to $240,000.
These limits, these amounts, go far beyond the financial savings of the vast majority of Canadians, and I also think it is good, sound financial practice, for purposes of financial planning and management, for people not to place all of their savings in one institution. It is a good idea to diversify those savings across several institutions and several kinds of investment vehicles, such as five-year guaranteed investment certificates, perhaps self-administered registered retirement savings plans of various forms, or short-term savings certificates. Various forms of financial instruments should be invested in when one is considering the volumes of money we are discussing here under the new coverage. Certainly, a person would be wise to spread those moneys across institutions simply because different institutions have different performance patterns. In order to get a good average rate of return representing what can be achieved from the marketplace, so to speak, it is a good idea to diversify.
Certainly, the coverage we are now asking Parliament to approve in the Minister's Bill today, $60,000, would provide adequate coverage for a very sound investment in any one institution and would allow efficient splitting of savings across institutions, whereas the $20,000 limit clearly did not and needed to be raised. It caused people to find it necessary to distribute their savings of, say, $100,000 or $110,000 in RRSP
January 19, 1983

across five, six or seven institutions. Not only is that inefficient, but it is also difficult for the individual to administer that kind of fund. It also adds to the cost of the institutions involved and thereby lowers the return which could be paid to savers. This is because if an institution has many small accounts of $15,000, for example, instead of a few larger accounts, its cost of doing business increases. It either lowers the rate which can be paid on savings, or it tends to increase the rate paid on loans. Not only do we want to try to make the system fair, equitable and safe for Canadian savers, but we also want to try to make the system efficient from the point of view of the Canadian financial institutions so that the rates of interest charged on loans are the lowest they could possibly be and the rates on savings are the highest they could possibly be.
I think the amendment by the Minister to the Act is an adequate one. It is one which was very strongly recommended by the Finance Committee, there being unanimous agreement of its members. I might add that there was no logical argument against this proposal given to us by the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands other than the fact that the United States has a limit of $100,000. I think there are some other differences of which she may be aware between how deposit insurance is handled in the United States and how it is handled here. It is also a fact that Mr. Delaney of the Consumer's Association of Canada has recommended a limit of $100,000.1 believe the basis of his recommendation is that that is the limit in the United States.
I believe that with the amendment concerning the limit proposed by the Minister of $60,000, in fact the one which is now in place for Canadian depositors, we will be able to provide adequate protection for deposits of any size if they are split in the way I have suggested. I do not see any need to impose additional cost on financial institutions by raising the limit from $60,000 to $100,000, so I do not see the logic in the argument in favour of $100,000. Certainly, in 1967 there was logic in setting the rate at $20,000. The Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands said that that has now been depreciated to 40 per cent of its original value in real terms, which would mean that it has been dropped down to real coverage of $8,000. If we multiply that by 2.5, it is once again $20,000, which would be full coverage. Therefore, 2.5 times the 1967 value, according to her figures, would bring it to full value.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I am thinking ahead.


John Leslie Evans: However, 2.5 times $20,000 is $50,000, the Minister has proposed a limit of $60,000, and she is proposing $100,000. I suggest that perhaps the Hon. Member's figures are slightly off because we considered that situation, and increasing the limit from $20,000 to $60,000 is very close to being the full readjustment for inflation. I think it is more than 50 per cent. I think the depreciation has come down further than 40 per cent. Therefore, the actual restoration of original value requires that we increase from $20,000 to $60,000 today, and then there would be an automatic review every five years to upgrade or adjust if inflation continues at a high rate, which I certainly do not expect and I know the Government does not. The financial markets certainly are not predicting inflation at
Deposit Insurance
historical rates, so we would expect that there might be some deterioration relative to the same extent as we have experienced lately.
Concerning raising the limits further, beyond $60,000, one must consider that in the way our deposit insurance is structured, all institutions are required to pay about one-thirtieth of 1 per cent on deposit liabilities as a contribution to the fund. That percentage varies depending on the type and size of fund and the necessity of further contributions.
There is another issue involving raising the limit which would affect all institutions, especially those which are marginal and might be in a position to get themselves into trouble, such as the ones in the marketplace which have been the subject of much public and media coverage in the last few months. The argument against raising the limit is that institutions which might have marginal lending and investment practices would then be able to borrow from the public through the form of deposits up to a maximum of $100,000 and would have this public insurance umbrella. The fact is that, as a result of that ability, other institutions would have to pay higher premiums for deposit insurance to provide the coverage necessary to protect the public interest with regard to deposits in some of these more marginal institutions. That kind of redistribution I do not think is right; I do not think it is fair.
We have to provide a balance between causing the stable, sound institutions to subsidize the less stable institutions, and at the same time protect the public interest. I think a $60,000 limit does precisely that. It provides for a sound coverage of deposit insurance and at the same time it does not increase the limits to the extent which would allow some of the more marginal institutions-there are certainly some in Canada and there could be more in the future-to exceed their depth at the expense of a publicly insured deposit situation.
Looking at the actual Canadian experience with deposit insurance, there are some figures as to how much additional benefit the Canadian depositor would receive from going from $60,000 to $100,000. Here are some estimates of the percentage of deposits that would be covered at the various levels of deposit insurance. In the case of banks, with the limit at $60,000, 79 per cent of all deposits in the chartered banks are less than $60,000. When you go to $100,000, you only move from 79 per cent to 83 per cent. So you do not achieve a great deal of increase of protection for Canadians by increasing the limit from $60,000 to $100,000.
In the case of trust companies, 92 per cent of all deposits are less than $60,000 and 95 per cent are less than $100,000. For an additional $40,000 of protection and the costs associated with that, you only increase the percentage of total deposits covered by 3 per cent, whether it be with banks or with trust companies.
I think that the possibility of splitting deposits efficiently now, with the new limits of $60,000, and the fact that the vast majority of deposits are being covered by these limits, means that we should support the Government Bill to increase these

January 19, 1983
Deposit Insurance
limits to $60,000. I suggest that if we could get together in the Steering Committee on Finance and come to an agreement, I can see no reason why we could not give the Government Bill all three readings in very short order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) on a point of order.


Mr. Kilgour:: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask the Hon. Member a question but there are other speakers who want to use the time.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief in order that we can move this Bill quickly into the Finance Committee for rapid passage, but I do want to make two or three comments. The Bill is long overdue but I am encouraged that this Bill, which was brought forward by the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), is finally before us.
The Committee to which the previous speaker referred tabled the study into bank profits earlier in the summer, and only on Monday did the Government see fit to bring in their Bill. I wonder if the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands had not introduced this Bill whether that kind of action would have been seen. But whatever the reason, we are now dealing with this very important matter in an effort to bring some stability and to build confidence in Canada. To say that there is a feeling of uncertainty in the country would be an oversimplification. Indeed, for many people in this country there is a certain sense of fear. The takeover of the assets of the three trust companies by the Province of Ontario recently does little to dispel that fear and the most haste we can bring to bear on this Bill will be in the best interests of developing security and hope for the future of Canada.
I have very little interest in the debate on whether or not the maximum should be $60,000 or $100,000. I think that is a point open for some discussion. I have listened to the two previous speakers who have made a strong case for one or the other. I suppose I feel at the moment that $60,000 would be an appropriate figure, for a number of reasons. I understand that a $60,000 maximum would in fact cover about 92 per cent of deposits in trust companies. Raising the limit to $100,000 would move that figure up to 95 per cent, and for that 3 per cent difference, and considering the extra premiums that would be expected from the institutions, I am not certain that is really necessary at this point.
I, along with others, have received a great number of representations, both from trust companies and from individuals who are very concerned. My colleagues from Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen) and the Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish) have expressed the concerns of their constituents. A typical example could involve a man and wife who have on deposit with one of the controversial trust companies, Greymac, about $55,000. Under the present legislation they are not fully protected. They are viewing this as retirement income and are bringing to their Member's attention their concern and urging him to press for raising that deposit
insurance from $20,000 to $60,000, or higher. Again I say that at $40,000 or $60,000 I believe a case can be made for either one.
I listened with interest to the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands who I believe referred to the $100,000 coming from the American model. While we recognize that the United States banking and financial system generally is quite different from ours in Canada, being more along monopoly lines I suppose one of the benefits is that it does provide more security as opposed to the small, independent banks in the United States.
With the $60,000 limit a couple could have security for $180,000 in terms of each individual having an independent deposit protection of $60,000, as well as sharing a joint deposit with the $60,000 coverage.
As other speakers have suggested, spreading one's deposits among various institutions simply reflects good business practice and is probably in their best interest. Again, a $60,000 maximum would probably provide one with all the coverage one may need to expect.
I do appreciate the initiative which has been taken by the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands. I would like to see this Bill referred to committee today and let us get on with it quickly and get it back into the House. I know that as a steering committee we will have no difficulty in negotiating a $60,000 or $100,000 sum. Then we can get the Bill back into the House for rapid passage, preferably without debate.


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


Mr. Fisher:: Which Mississauga?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, my friend from Mississauga North (Mr. Fisher) will note that the Speaker called me the Member for Mississauga! It depends how the representation is in the city.
There are two questions which have been raised in this debate which I think should be dealt with immediately. First is the question whether the limit should be $60,000 or $100,000. Our friend from Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) suggested that the difference was not that much in terms of the numbers of people being covered. He said that 92 per cent of the trust company deposits were less than $60,000 and that 95 per cent of them were less than $100,000. So the Hon. Member asked, why not make it just $60,000? The answer, of course, is why not make it $100,000, because the additional risk is quite minimal. So why not go for the $100,000?
The second question he raised concerned the decision to make the limit $60,000. I remind him that that was before it became eminently apparent that the Government had lost track of its management responsibilities in the money markets. There is a real fear, concern and lack of confidence that has developed, and it is essential that we do something and do it well in order to restore that confidence. I say that $60,000 does not have the ring of confidence that $100,000 has. As the
January 19, 1983

Member for Ottawa Centre pointed out, the cost is not that much different.
The Government has a responsibility to supervise these companies. One way of ensuring that supervision is carried out is to increase the liability of the Government for its failure to supervise. That can easily be done by changing the terms of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act to $100,000. That $100,000 will give real assurance that the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation will look at the securities held by trust and loan companies and make sure that they are properly policed. They have not been properly policed.
We have seen that with the incorporation of Greymac and Seaway by this Government. Seaway was incorporated in 1982. It was not incorporated in 1981. Imagine a company being incorporated in 1982 and before even a year had elapsed it has already had seized its assets and responsibility for deposits. That is a clear indication of lack of attention to detail by that ministry. It is important to restore confidence. This Bill is an attempt to do that.
The next question is, why not proceed instead with the Government legislation? I remind Hon. Members that the Government has been attempting to end this session of Parliament since November, so it says. There are some 18 or 19 Bills which the House Leader has indicated are essential, even though this session is to end relatively early in February. Where will we get time to deal with that piece of legislation? The probability is that, having introduced the legislation and having made a fuss about introducing it, the Government will do as it did with the Bankruptcy Act and a whole series of other statutes. They leave them on the Order Paper. They boasted about them, sent out pamphlets, did their PR work, but they have not been passed.
If this House really intends to deal with deposit insurance and intends to get down to the business of increasing the limit, why not take advantage of this Bill, pass it at second reading and get it to committee? Amendments can easily be made in committee, hearings held quickly, the Bill brought back to the House and the matter dealt with.
The Government has a shortage of House time. We are suggesting that this is an opportunity to take advantage of Private Members' time to get what amounts to Government legislation through the House now. To make sure the Private Members' hour does not elapse, I will resume my seat and let this Bill come to a vote.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to make a few comments on this Bill. May I say at the beginning that I welcome it, and I welcome some of the comments that have been made. A few moments before the debate began we heard the Speaker say she had some reservations about this Bill and would have to pass judgment on it if it got as far as a vote. I take those directions from Madam Speaker very seriously. However, we can be assured that the debate today
Deposit Insurance
has been most useful and welcome in light of the tabling of the Government's Bill earlier today in the House. This has been a constructive joining of efforts to advance the issue and clear up some of the comments on it.
I extend my congratulations to the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) for her obvious concern about this topic and to the other speakers who rose to comment. We all join in trying to clear the air at a time of uncertainty and to give the ordinary depositor and the ordinary Canadian a sense that the safety net of deposit insurance is intact and satisfactory.
Along that vein, I would like to refer to an editorial in the Toronto Star of January 18, yesterday, entitled "And Ottawa's reassuring step". I quote:
Given the concerns raised by Consumer and Commercial Relations Minister Robert Elgie's statement yesterday, Ottawa's decision to triple the level of protection for people who entrust their money to financial institutions comes not a moment too soon.
I quote from the end of the same editorial:
It is vital that people be able to have full faith in our financial institutions and not have to fear the slightest possibility that their life's savings could be wiped out at a strike, through no fault of their own. Cosgrove's announcement is a reassuring step in that direction.
There are two initial comments that can be made about this present debate. First, as I have already said, we welcome the opportunity to debate this question. Second, we are grateful to the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) and other Members of the Finance Committee for the hard work they did on the bank profits study which provided much of the factual background for a Bill such as the one before us.
The increase to $60,000 does give much of the reassurance that the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) is seeking for ordinary savers. It is important and notable that 92 per cent of all the deposits in trust companies are covered by the $60,000 limit. Equally important, almost 79 per cent of bank deposits are covered by that limit.
As the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) pointed out, that is an important emphasis for the trust companies, which appear to be much more vulnerable than the banks. As he said, it is an important benefit that we get from the Canadian banking system. When a community suffers an economic setback, the banking system in that community does not become vulnerable. People's savings are protected by these large banks and the strength of the whole system is applied to the individual community.
There is a different system in the United States. They have community-located banks which are more vulnerable than our banks. They are not able to bring this national strength to bear when a local community runs into economic difficulty.
The fact that 92 per cent of the trust and loan company deposits are covered by this $60,000 dealing is significant. It is no secret that for some time the Government has been considering the question of increasing this ceiling. The Government's Bill, the one introduced today, applies additional insurance protection to the existing deposits in those Ontario trust

January 19, 1983
Deposit Insurance
companies which are currently in difficulty and, as a result, their depositors are not going to suffer.
Now, before I go further, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out some important aspects of the deposit insurance provided by the CDIC. The Corporation was established by federal legislation in 1967, in the wake of the failure of another Ontario trust company in which a considerable number of people lost their savings. Membership in the Corporation is restricted to banks, trust companies and mortgage loan companies. It is mandatory for federally-incorporated companies. Provincially-incorporated trust and mortgage loan companies must apply for membership and they are accepted only if the Government of their Province has approved the application and certain standards and conditions are met.
Deposits with companies in Quebec which are incorporated by that Province are covered by the deposit insurance plan administered by the Quebec Deposit Insurance Board. Obviously, the main difference between the Bill we are debating today and the Government's new proposal involves the amount of the maximum limit of deposits covered by insurance.
The Hon. Member today in her Bill proposes that the present $20,000 limit be escalated up to $100,000. The Government in the Bill we introduced today suggests that the ceiling be increased to $60,000. This is the amount which was recommended, as we have discussed, by the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs in the report on July 27 on bank profits. It is a reasonable amount, reflecting the increases in incomes, prices and savings since the deposit insurance plan was begun in 1967.
Interestingly enough, The Toronto Star in that same editorial estimates that the $20,000 limit would translate from 1967 to today at approximately $63,000. There are additional factors, however, which argue in favour of the $60,000 maximum. One of the most important considerations relates to the basic purpose of the deposit insurance scheme. The goal of the 1967 legislation, and the goal we should be seeking today, is to provide substantial insurance for the savings of average Canadians.
The plan recognizes that ordinary Canadians should be able to deposit their savings in our basic financial institutions with the confidence that their money will be safe. Ordinary Canadians should not have to equip themselves with sophisticated skills and knowledge so as to reassure themselves that this kind of savings deposit can be made with assurance.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: On a point of order, would the Hon. Member for Mississauga North (Mr. Fisher) accept a question?


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to accept a question from my colleague, the Hon. Member for Mississauga South, my compatriot from that beautiful city, but perhaps he would be courteous enough to let me finish my remarks and then I would love to hear from him. It would be a great pleasure.
I suggest that people with individual investments as large as $100,000 can reasonably be expected either to have some knowledge of financial markets, or go to someone who does have that knowledge and equip themselves with that knowledge.
The extent of coverage being provided, even with the existing $20,000 ceiling, really is substantial. We heard from the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) along those lines. With the $20,000 limit, CDIC estimates that there is a total insurance protection for 63 per cent of bank deposits and 76 per cent of trust and loan company deposits. The proposed $60,000 ceiling would mean that approximately 79 per cent of bank deposits would be insured, and trust and loan companies would include 92 per cent of the deposits.
I would point out that even the average investor is not so unsophisticated that he or she is unaware that there are very simple ways of ensuring insurance protection for amounts of savings greater than the $20,000 limit, or $60,000 under the new proposal. Since the limit applies to the total of deposits which an individual has in his or her name within a single institution, that person can simply place extra amounts on deposit in another institution. Even within a single institution, a married person is insured to the maximum amount in his or her own name, and at the same time has the maximum insurance in a joint account held by both spouses. To carry the point further, the other spouse may have a third account insured to the maximum. Therefore, by using three different accounts, a married couple, under the $60,000 ceiling, is insured for up to a total of $180,000 in a single institution. Given these facts, it can hardly be argued that the $60,000 limit is unreasonably low and will not provide the means for adequate insurance protection for the savings of a vast majority of Canadians.
The argument is also made, and was made here today, that because of the large amounts of savings accumulated in recent years in Registered Retirement Savings Plans, and to a lesser extent in Home Ownership Savings Plans, the insurance maximum should be tailored to better accommodate RRSPs. That would not be a wise course for a number of reasons. We should bear in mind that deposits in RRSPs and RHOSPs can be invested in a variety of ways, not only via an insured account in CDIC member institutions. Assets of RRSPs which are invested in this way are insured separately from any other deposit of the holder of the RRSP; thus such an individual has up to $60,000 of insurance for the RRSP savings in such a plan, on top of the other insurance for ordinary deposits outside the RRSP. To provide a higher ceiling for RRSP savings would obviously bias and distort the decisions which are now made as to how RRSP funds are invested. Furthermore, it would discriminate against the very large number of employer/employee pension plans which cover a large proportion of our working force and which do not have similar insurance guarantees for their solvency.
One other essential question must also be addressed in judging a proper limit for this kind of insurance protection.
January 19, 1983

That point involves the need in our system of financial institutions to encourage good management and sound financial practices. That point can hardly be over-estimated in light of recent occurrences in Ontario. It is unreasonable to expect that the federal and provincial agencies which supervise trust and loan companies can on their own ensure the soundness of all the investment decisions made by every company. That would require an army of inspectors. Therefore, we must ensure that the broad rules under which these companies operate are such as to encourage prudent investment decisions within the industry. In other words, we should not be concerned that the limits for deposit insurance are not so high that they serve to encourage speculative investments or firms with inadequate financial resources and weak management. There must be fairness and balance in the system.
Bear in mind that the CDIC insurance fund is financed through premiums from its member institutions. The large, strong institutions which hold the great majority of deposits are, therefore, the principal source of funds for the CDIC. Even without the insurance system, their deposits could be considered secure. It would, therefore, be difficult to justify forcing such institutions to contribute to a fund that would underwrite the operations of smaller and weaker institutions, if we are talking about insuring a deposit of $100,000.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member. I would remind Hon. Members that under the provision of new rules and Standing Orders for the House of Commons, one hour has been provided for the discussion of Private Members' Public Bills. That hour has expired and accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 24(2), it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of amending the Income Tax Act in order to allow voluntary firemen to deduct from their income $1,000 for all expenses incurred in the exercise of their duties.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to address the above motion which I originally made on April 15, 1980 under the then Standing Order 15.
1 have a soft spot in my heart for firefighters in this country, Mr. Speaker, particularly volunteer firefighters. I wish to recognize the service they provide and, if I may, I will relate a story to the House.
Last March, at eight o'clock one morning as I was getting ready to come up to the Hill, the fire alarm went off in the apartment building in which I live in Ottawa. Anyone who
Volunteer Firemen
lives in an apartment building knows that the fire alarm goes off quite often. This time, however, I opened the door to check and found the hall filled with smoke and the apartment next to mine on fire. I ran down the hall, grabbed the hose and at full speed headed for the apartment, only to find that the hose was about 40 feet too short to reach it and so I fell flat on my fanny. By this time the fire was well under way and the smoke filled the hallways.
If anyone has ever been in a fire they will know just what I am talking about. It is not a situation I should like to experience again. However, it gave me a far greater appreciation of the dangers that firefighters have to face. It also showed me, in very dramatic detail, what damage smoke can do to an apartment and to clothes. There was a total of $4,000 smoke damage done to my apartment alone. I can now appreciate the damage done to the personal belongings of people who go to fight fires. This reinforces my feelings about the importance of firefighters, particularly volunteer firefighters, and what they go through.
In 1975, at the sixtieth annual conference of The Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs, a resolution was introduced by the voluntary sector of the Fire Chiefs' Association of British Columbia regarding an increase in the income tax exemption for all volunteer firemen. 1 will not read the entire motion but at that time a $300 exemption was allowed to volunteer firefighters for expenses incurred as a consequence of their duties. This exemption was introduced about 36 years ago and had not been changed since then. In 1979, the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) proposed an increase in the exemption in his now infamous Budget. The proposal, of course, was defeated with the rest of the Budget but it was adopted by the Liberal Government in 1980 when the exemption was increased to $500.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) has told us that a Budget will be forthcoming in the not too distant future. I see his Parliamentary Secretary in the House and I am sure he will relay my message to the Minister. The Minister has spoken of having conferences with various interested groups in the country with a view to determining what should be included in the Budget. I hope he will seriously consider including the recommendation made in my motion. An adjustment in the tax exemption for volunteer firefighters is a small way in which these people could be repaid for their dedication and community spirit. I do not think anyone in the House or in the country would deny their importance.
I will dwell on conditions in Ontario because I am most knowledgeable about that Province. In Ontario, fire protection is a municipal responsibility. In fact, under the provisions of the Municipal Act, councils of local municipalities are authorized to establish and regulate fire departments, incur expenditures for capital and operating costs for such services to be paid from local taxes, and decide on the quality and quantity of fire prevention and firefighting services provided to their citizens. For instance, under this system the available statistics, which are for the year 1978-we do not have statistics for

January 19, 1983
Volunteer Firemen
1981-indicate that 8,301,704 people in Ontario were provided with various levels of fire prevention and firefighting services. It should be noted that there is no legal obligation for municipalities to establish a fire department, although in recent years the Canadian Association of Fire Fighters has recommended that firefighting services be made mandatory for municipalities, through legislation.
Most municipalities recognize that they have a social obligation to organize fire protection services. In cases where municipalities have no fire departments of their own, special equipment and firefighting services are purchased through operating agreements with neighbourhood communities.
The basis of what is known as mutual fire aid is pre-planning to provide adequate manpower-in other words, volunteer firefighters and equipment-for given situations and locations, and to use men and equipment as efficiently as possible to the best possible advantage. The pooling of resources underlies the whole system of mutual aid. Mutual fire aid agreements are particularly effective in towns and villages where firefighting facilities are inadequate to handle emergency situations.
I have spoken about the situation in Ontario and I should now like to touch upon the situation in my riding of Brampton-Georgetown, where there are firefighters of whom we can all be proud. Chief Jim Brunne in Brampton and Chief Cunningham in Georgetown are to be congratulated for their dedication and service. Although Brampton is a city of approximately 160,000 citizens, it has 45 volunteer firemen in four different locations. The town of Halton Hills is divided into two areas. In Georgetown there are 45 volunteers and in Acton there are 3'5. These people are so well recognized in Georgetown that the entire volunteer fire brigade was named citizen of the year a few years ago. They are very dedicated people with a great sense of community. These are the ordinary guys who feel that their assistance to the fire department helps everyone.
In Brampton a volunteer is compensated on the points system. He or she earns five points per fire call and five points for attending a training session or for being on weekend duty. The average compensation is from SI50 to $175 per quarter year. They are given $40 per year, which is expected to cover such things as the cleaning of and the wear and tear on clothing. With $40 per year, one smokey fire and the cleaning bill is shot. I saw the bill to clean the clothes that were in my apartment during a fire which caused only smoke damage.
In Georgetown volunteers are given $1,500 per year to cover the wear and tear on clothing and the cost of gasoline. It is interesting to note the difference in what is being paid in compensation in these two communities which are next to one another. To some the compensation may appear to be enough but I do not think to too many. We must be realistic. In Brampton there is an average of three to ten calls per month on volunteer time. In Georgetown there is an average of 200 calls per year. It is a busy fire department. The compensation and tax deduction simply do not cover the actual wear and tear on clothing, the wear and tear on volunteer's cars, the cost of
gasoline and the disruption in volunteers' time. I strongly believe that an increased tax exemption is warranted and would more adequately recognize the services and actual expenses of volunteers.
Volunteer firefighters are not easy to recruit. Every advantage we can give must be given to persons interested in becoming volunteers and to those who are already fighting a very serious threat to us all-fires. The employment of volunteer firefighters, or a combination of full-time and volunteer firefighters in lieu of only full-time firefighters attached to a fire department, can save governments millions of dollars annually. Volunteers are paid only when they are called to the scene of a fire. The saving to Governments which volunteers represent must be acknowledged. The federal Government must do what it can to encourage the continuation of volun-teerism with respect to firefighters. They render a valuable service to the Canadian community at great risk to their own lives. I do not think anyone would argue that. I cannot imagine what many communities would do without volunteers.
The Hon. Member for South West Nova (Miss Campbell) is vitally interested in this particular issue. I gather, because she is present and I know of her interest and involvement in a similar motion, she will speak on it today. Many Members of my caucus have spoken to me over the last number of days because they knew my motion was coming forward. They are vitally interested in the subject. One said, for example, that in his ridings there were 42 volunteer fire departments and only one permanent one. Of course, he and others support this motion and ask that the Government give serious consideration to it and include it in the next Budget.
Just to give an idea of the numbers about which we are talking, the last available figures for Ontario indicated that there were 16,000 part-time volunteer firefighters, and that of 637 municipal fire departments, there were 503 part-time departments employing only volunteer firefighters. These following statistics for other provinces are for 1981. For some reason the other provinces are more up to date than Ontario in their statistics. At the end of 1981, Newfoundland had 4,175 volunteers; Prince Edward Island, 751; Nova Scotia, 7,000; New Brunswick, 3,063; Quebec, 14,771; Manitoba, 2,400; Saskatchewan, 6,000; Alberta, 4,500; British Columbia, 6,500; the Northwest Territories, 750; and Yukon, 150.
We cannot afford to lose these volunteers and the service they provide. It is about time that the Income Tax Act adequately recognized their valuable service to all Canadians. An increased exemption should be considered and included in the forthcoming Budget. The Minister of Finance has an ideal opportunity to win the repect of approximately 67,000 people across Canada through a very simple amendment to the Income Tax Act. I urge him to introduce such an amendment.
As I mentioned earlier, there has only been one change to the tax exemption since its original inception in 1953. That change was proposed in the Budget of the Hon. Member for St. John's West and later adopted by the Liberals. Once again
January 19, 1983

it is time to look at the tax exemption and to increase it to

I should like to point out what this would cost the treasury. It will cost approximately $11 million in lost tax revenue. Just to put that in its perspective, for most of us $11 million is a lot of money but the Government spends $9 million in the time that it takes to hold Question Period-$9 million in 45 minutes. We are asking for a tax exemption which will cost about $11 million or approximately 55 minutes of expenditure by the present Government. We are not asking for something monumental in terms of this tax deduction.
I think we should sum up the services performed by these volunteers. They risk their lives. They interrupt their day-today routines. In some cases they lose pay at their regular jobs each time they answer a fire call. I think it is worthwhile; I doubt that there is a person in Canada who would disagree with that. If the Minister of Finance conducts a survey of every fire marshal or commissioner in Canada, I am certain he would find unanimous approval of such a tax exemption increase.
In summary, I ask for support of this motion by all sides of the House to increase the tax exemption for volunteer firemen to $1,000 in the next federal Budget, which we expect early in the spring.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Miss Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDer-mid) was quite correct: I planned to speak this afternoon as soon as I knew that his notice of motion would be before the House. I certainly appreciate the opportunity to speak again on behalf of volunteer firemen, not only in South West Nova but across Nova Scotia and Canada.
1 realize that the Hon. Member's motion is to increase the amount allowed under Section 8(1 )(b) of the Income Tax Act to $1,000 for volunteer firemen who receive allowances from a Government, municipality or other public authority. However, in Nova Scotia there are 8,000 firefighters, 7,000 of whom are volunteers. The majority of them receive no allowance at all from a municipal body or any other public authority. In my opinion, the notice of motion of the Hon. Member does not cover volunteers who receive no allowance. We must remember that all volunteer firemen across Canada incur similar expenses. Not only do they incur expenses, but they risk their lives voluntarily and save many lives across the country, as well as save millions of taxpayers' dollars. They do it night or day, winter or summer, and they do it without knowing when they will do it.
As the Hon. Member mentioned, 1 raised my concerns in this regard in the House last July at which time my notice of motion was debated. I have raised it in the past before with Ministers of Finance as to the need to make a special example of the volunteer firemen because of the special type of work that this volunteer does in Canada. I do sympathize with the need to increase the amount. However, I would like to see us amend the Income Tax Act to include these people. I say this
Volunteer Firemen
not to go against the motion because I feel expenses are rightly there, but if they should be increased to $1,000, so be it. I say this because I feel that this motion does not go far enough or deal with that volunteer fireman who is not entitled to take advantage of Section 8(l)(b), which the Hon. Member wants to amend today.
I raised the matter recently with the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) after his appointment because I have been working, as I have said, to have it changed. I wanted to bring my concerns to the new Minister of Finance.
I have a letter from the Minister of Finance dated January 12, 1983 in which again he explains the position of the Government on this matter. I would like to talk about these volunteers. The Department of Finance seems to feel that if we give special status to the volunteer firemen we will be offending other volunteer groups across Canada. I can appreciate that. I can appreciate all the good work that is done by volunteers right across Canada, but I am asking that special status be given to volunteer firemen. Most of us at one time or another have seen the work done by volunteer firemen. Their work includes going to meetings, training, looking for new equipment and, particularly in rural Canada, raising money to run volunteer fire departments. It also includes raising money to buy coats, hats, boots, gloves, or whatever type of clothing they must wear to a fire. They have no choice as to the time a fire takes place. A fire can take place when they are at their normal work. They have to go to the scene of the fire. They have no choice but to go in the clothes they are wearing. They receive no additional recognition if their clothes are destroyed. It is up to them to replace their clothing at their own expense. It seems to me that all Canadians should be aware that for volunteers who do not receive an expense allowance from a municipality this is not provided for in the Income Tax Act. Volunteer firemen cannot deduct expenses like these from their income tax. I feel very strongly about that.
The Minister and his Department have a concern. In his letter to me of January 12, 1983, he writes:
Contributions of money and time in volunteer service is basically personal-
It is a personal decision to be a volunteer. The Minister continues:
-undertaken at a taxpayer's discretion. The related expenses of providing the service are, therefore, personal expenses. Because of the possibility of abuses of tax incentives for personal gains, tax concessions are not generally provided in respect of personal expenses, even when they are expended to earn incomes-
I will accept that. The letter continues:
Given this general tax principle, it would be very difficult to introduce tax benefits for volunteer services that would be fair to the taxpaying public who must ultimately finance these benefits.
The taxpaying public to which the Minister refers is receiving an extra special service from these volunteers who are trained to go out at the risk of their lives to protect property and people in burning buildings. I do not think that the Canadian taxpayers would object if they were asked whether they would mind the deduction being allowed, under Section

January 19, 1983
Volunteer Firemen
8.1, to all volunteer firemen, and Section 8(1 )(b) being amended to include all firemen, whether they receive an expense allowance or not.
It seems to me that the section was obtained because of pressure from the bodies named in the section and is geared to those municipal bodies that can afford to give an allowance to their firemen. It is not geared to the smaller communities, the rural communities, which put in a lot of time and effort to build up a local fire department and cannot give them expense money which would then come back as a deduction under the Income Tax Act.
The other concern in the Minister's letter-and I know it is a concern of the Department as well because I have discussed it with them-is who would decide what is a legitimate expense of a fireman. Under the present system under the Act there is an independent control element because a municipality or a public body gives a certain expense allowance. Therefore, you have a control. If you give up to $500, then you can get a $500 tax deduction. If you give above that amount, you are limited to $500. Regarding that independent control which the Department seems to imply, reading from the Minister's letter we find the following:
Permitting a deduction of these expenses, as you propose, would clearly increase the administrative cost of ensuring that the expenses are reasonable. It would also further aggravate the disparity between volunteer firemen and other volunteer workers,-who constantly point out the inequity in a tax concession for firemen and no similar treatment for them.
I feel there are several elements here. As I have already stated, I do not think that Canadian taxpayers and other volunteer groups would deny that firemen do a special job, right across Canada, independent of each other, but for the same purpose. I do not think that other volunteer groups would be against a special status for volunteer firemen. I do not think either that Canadian taxpayers would mind or begrudge this income tax deduction to volunteer firemen, nor did I feel that volunteer groups would deny that there are special circumstances in the jobs that firemen do, regardless of the amounts being paid to them by a public authority or a municipal body.
Let me come now to control. There may be a few additional costs as to what are reasonable expenses. I believe that most fire chiefs across the country can certainly work out a system whereby percentage-wise they could, by attendance throughout a year, tell what the participation of the volunteer was, and they could make a percentage of that participation up to the full amount of deduction under Section 8(1 )(b) whether amended by the Hon. Member or not. I have to discredit that. A fire chiefs statement could be sworn by a commissioner of oaths as to the number of hours or the amount of volunteer work of the individual fireman. This might encourage others to become volunteers because they would at least be given a deduction on their income tax for expenses they incurred while carrying out their duties.
The Minister also legitimately pointed out that fire protection is a municipal service. I agree that these services are provided locally and that some municipalities provide a
reduction in property taxes to volunteer firefighters. However, I am asking that some consideration be given to the savings provided by volunteer firemen across Canada, not only to the Government of Canada but to all Canadians, as a result of their volunteer work.
I am aware that there is a provincial responsibility as well as a local one to provide incentives to this type of volunteer. In my Province of Nova Scotia a special committee of the legislature has been set up to study this question. I look forward to the report of that committee to see its recommendations, if any additional incentives will be given at the local and provincial level, and whether it believes that the federal Government should also be involved in allowing a deduction.
Since the federal Government has put this item under Section 8(1 )(b) and has given special status to certain volunteer firemen, I believe the federal Government should provide it to all volunteer firemen, regardless of whether or not an allowance is paid by a municipal body. It might be easier for the authority paying the allowance to decide what the legitimate expenses are, but where there is no authority I suggest that this role could easily be performed by a fire chief, perhaps at the beginning of a year when a deduction can be based on the amount of time a volunteer puts in for the whole year.
I do not believe that the Department's opinion that there is no independent control is reason enough to not allow a tax deduction. Let me say in conclusion the Minister has assured me that he will consider my request for future tax concessions. Of course, I am aware of the present economic climate but I feel that this is an important matter which should be considered in the upcoming budget as a concession to the importance of the work of all volunteer firemen in Canada.
I welcome the opportunity to reinforce my motion on this matter and to state very clearly that while I am in favour of the present notice of motion before the House, I strongly feel that it does not go far enough to include my notice of motion. I believe that no increase should be given before the work of this segment of volunteer firefighters in Canada is recognized. They should at least be given the $500 that is presently provided for in the Income Tax Act. As the Hon. Member said, there are 7,000 volunteer firemen who are doing a very commendable job for the people of Nova Scotia, as do all volunteer firemen.


Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate on Motion 52 which was put before the House by the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid). In his motion, the Hon. Member wishes to have the tax exemption for volunteer firemen raised from the current $500 to $1,000.
The previous speaker has pointed out that this does not go far enough. I agree with her. In fact, from discussions which I have had with the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown I know that it was his intention to have the $1,000 exemption include all volunteer firemen regardless of whether they receive any remuneration or honorarium for the volunteer
January 19, 1983

work they do. For that reason I support the motion before us today.
The Hon. Member for South West Nova (Miss Campbell) referred to changes which she felt needed to be made to Section 8(1 )(b). ff she was referring to the Income Tax Act, I believe the section which would apply to volunteer firemen for this exemption would be Section 5(1 )(b) of the Income Tax Act. I cannot overemphasize the fact that this exemption should be extended. I am sure all Hon. Members who have spoken on this issue would agree that it should be extended to all volunteer firefighters, regardless of whether or not they receive remuneration or an honorarium for their services.
My constituency of The Battlefords-Meadow Lake comprises almost a third of the geographic area of northwest Saskatchewan. There are almost 70,000 square miles in the constituency of The Battlefords-Meadow Lake. There is only one fire department staffed full-time in the dozens of communities which have fire departments in my constituency. That fire department is in the City of North Battleford. There are literally dozens of other communities which have volunteer fire departments and a great many of those volunteer firefighters are paid little, if any, remuneration. For this reason, I strongly feel that this exemption must include all volunteer firefighters.
The role of the volunteer firefighter is very important to those communities which have volunteer fire departments. These firefighters are called upon at all hours of the day and night and in all kinds of weather. They very ably serve their communities with a great deal of conscientious service. They are made up of people from all walks of life. In my constituency, volunteer fire departments are made up of men and women. In some cases they are farmers who live within a small community, they are small business people, trade unionists, labourers or professionals. They are the ones who are very concerned and dedicated to the work within their community and who provide the very essential and necessary service that smaller municipalities cannot afford on a full-time basis.
I must say that the role of the volunteer firefighter in some of these departments is just as varied as that of full-time firefighters in large municipal areas. For example, I think of a volunteer firefighter who is not from my constituency but from my Province. In 1982, I was pleased to attend the Governor General's residence to witness the presentation of awards of bravery to people from all of Canada. A medal of bravery was presented to Fire chief Gerald John Jurgens. On September 5 of 1980, this fire chief was called out from his hometown of Eatonia, where he has a small business, to save an 18 month old child who had fallen down a well on the parents' farm. The chief of the volunteer fire department went out to that location and some of the people who were gathered around were uncertain as to what to do. Fire chief Jurgens instructed them to tie a rope around his legs and lower him into the well. Consequently, he saved the life of the child who had fallen into the water at the bottom of the well. I commend this individual for his volunteer service and his concern to his community. There are many other individuals like that firefighter who
Volunteer Firemen
participate in such activities throughout Canada and certainly throughout the Province of Saskatchewan.
I am happy to support the motion which has been brought forward here. If the motion to allow all volunteer firefighters a $1,000 exemption does not pass here today, I would certainly urge the federal Government to include it in its next budget. From the figures which were cited by the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown, I see that there is about one volunteer firefighter for every 165 residents in the Province of Saskatchewan. The cost to the taxpayers of Canada would be about $11 million, which is a large amount of money in terms of one's personal wealth, I would imagine, but if one compares that amount to the national debt, which is expected to be some $150 billion at the end of this fiscal year, one finds that $11 million would amount to less than one one-hundredth of 1 per cent of the national debt.
I am sure the taxpayers of Canada recognize the valuable role played by volunteer firefighters across Canada and certainly would not begrudge this deduction which is quite well warranted because of the very valuable and conscientious job which they perform within the many communities where they provide such excellent service.


Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise to support my caucus colleague who is proposing a simple increase in the tax exemption for volunteer firemen from $500 to $1,000. The notice reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Income Tax Act in order to allow volunteer firemen to deduct from their income $1,000 for all expenses incurred in the exercise of their duties.
I believe it is significant to note that the Progressive Conservative Party has attached a great deal of significance to voluntary organizations in Canada. As I am sure my colleagues in the House are aware, my Party, while it formed the Government, established a special committee of the House of Commons to examine the role of the voluntary sector in Canada. The committee would then have made recommendations on action the Government should take to strengthen the position of voluntary organizations. Tax treatment was an important aspect of the committee's deliberations, and my colleague, the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Cros-bie), as Finance Minister, recognizing the importance of volunteer firemen, proposed in his budget to increase the tax exemption from $300 to $500. While it was unfortunate for Canadians that the Liberal Party did not incorporate all of the budget, it was fortunate that it did pirate the proposal from the Progressive Conservative budget to raise the level of tax exemption from $300 to $500.
I would also like to point out that the exemption for firemen had not changed since 1952, until it was proposed in the Progressive Conservative budget of 1979. This gives some indication of the importance we attach to the valuable service firemen and volunteer firemen provide and how it is placed as a priority with the Liberal Government.

January 19, 1983
Volunteer Firemen
In 1975, at the annual Fire Commission meeting, the Commissioners recommended that the tax deduction be increased to $1,000. The proposal has been with us and I believe it should receive serious consideration by this House.
In Canada, there are approximately 67,000 volunteer firemen and, while some receive compensation for actual hours of service, in most instances it does not correspond to the service which is provided.
My constituency of Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington is primarily rural in character. The provision of fire protection by local municipalities encounters problems which are not prevalent in urban constituencies. Of the 632 fire departments in Ontario, no Fire protection whatsoever exists in some 54 fire areas, and 516 have only part-time departments which employ only part-time volunteers. Residents who live in urban constituencies tend to take the provision of services, particularly fire protection, for granted. However, in rural areas, this is not the case. By removing some of the financial constraints involved, perhaps many of these municipalities which presently provide no fire protection would be in a better position to provide this service which some people in urban areas take for granted.
The volunteer firemen respond to and participate in countless community emergencies across Canada. This service is very important in rural areas which otherwise would not have this protection to life and property. Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington has over 25 different voluntary fire associations. These people provide skills, training and self-help to their respective communities. Needless to say, this service not only provides a valuable safety service but also saves thousands of dollars in insurance premiums paid by property owners. The mutual aid service provided by the voluntary fire department is a prime example of how these men save countless dollars for property owners.
I appeal to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) to increase the income tax deduction from $500 to $1,000 or more. All volunteer firemen should be granted this exemption regardless of whether or not they receive any allowance from local Governments. So also we must amend Section 8(1 )(b) of the Income Tax Act to include all volunteer firemen.


Mr. Garnet M. Bloomfield (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I am genuinely pleased to participate in the debate on the motion before us today. In my view, the motion addresses an issue which is a very important component in the social affairs of Canadian rural communities. While volunteerism and the work of all voluntary groups is necessary, there is no more important job to the small towns, villages and farmers than that of the volunteer firemen who provide an essential service at no manpower cost to the community, risking physical well-being in protecting the lives and properties of residents of their respective areas. Coming from a rural community myself, I understand the value of these firemen and their equipment. Modern equipment is a very valuable asset to any community.
I well remember the hopelessness of the old bucket brigade.
It is a very difficult thing to put a monetary value on the work that these people do, but we all agree that it is very high. Consider the value of the property damage saved by their actions and consider the injuries and death prevented by their heroic efforts, often in bringing people out of burning buildings. Certainly we cannot put a monetary value on a life. But I think of the money these voluntary firemen save governments in medical expenses by preventing accidents and injury, and I think of the millions of dollars in property damage they prevent by their fast, efficient action. Surely we can no longer ignore the unselfish contribution they make to their communities.
Another point I would like to make is that we should be aware of the insurance coverage that should be considered for injury or life. We should urge our municipalities to consider that matter very carefully because those individuals often place themselves in very great danger. Unfortunately, many of these firemen receive very little allowance from government, if any at all, be it from a municipality or other public authority, to help cover the expenses incurred in carrying out their duties as volunteer firemen. The Income Tax Act should be extended to cover these volunteer firemen, in these cases.
I realize that Bill C-54, passed in February, 1981, amended portions of the Income Tax Act and increased from $300 to $500 the amount of tax exempt expense allowance which a volunteer fireman could receive from local government. This was a much needed and welcome change. However, it does not offer compensation to those who receive no allowance at all. For such volunteers, surely a similar tax break should be available.
The volunteer firemen are a very special group. They are on call 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. When the fire alarm sounds they drop everything and answer the call of duty. I know of their dedication at first hand. Whether they are at work, at a social event, shopping, or doing anything else, they respond immediately. With no concern for the clothes they are wearing or the duties they may be performing, they go to fight the fire. Inevitably, clothes and other personal belongings will be destroyed. These items must be replaced, often at great expense to the family income. At the very least, clothes must be cleaned, again an expense to the individual fireman. If dress uniforms are used, normally the volunteer fireman must either pay for the original, a replacement, and oftentimes both. In view of the valuable services volunteer firemen provide to society, surely a tax exemption under the Income Tax Act is warranted.
In a July 16, 1982 address to the House of Commons on the issue, the Hon. Member for South-West Nova, Coline Campbell, suggested a points system that could be used to implement this tax exemption, and today she made the same suggestion again. This points system could be used-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, order! 1 should again advise Hon. Members that they should not refer to their colleagues in the House by their proper names, but refer to
January 19, 1983

them by the name of their ridings or by the portfolio they occupy.


Garnet McCallum Bloomfield: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but I did want to give the Hon. Member for South-West Nova (Miss Campbell) credit for that suggestion.
I agree with her suggestion. Under this system fire chiefs would keep records of the percentages of participation in a given year by each volunteer fireman. For example, if an individual fireman had an activity rate of 100 per cent, he would be entitled to 100 per cent of a set deduction; if another gave only 50 per cent of his personal time, he would be eligible for only 50 per cent of the maximum deduction.
That certainly seems like a very fair way of handling the situation, and a very practical way of solving it. It might also encourage more volunteers to work in volunteer fire departments. More people are desperately needed to do this work, and if a tax exemption for expenses incurred while fighting fires attracted these additional firefighters, then a great benefit would be given to all rural communities in Canada.
At the present time, lack of some form of compensation for this volunteer work could be a deterrent to gaining new volunteer firemen. Personal commitments of time and money spent from personal incomes can make the job unattractive, and eventually unthinkable. As I mentioned earlier, the firemen often must leave work to respond to a fire alarm. If a worker wears special clothing for work and it gets destroyed while fighting a fire, he has no alternative but to buy another outfit before returning to work. Surely both of these factors weigh heavily on any volunteer fireman considering quitting his post with the local fire department, or a prospective recruit planning to join up. However, if a tax exemption were offered to those not receiving an allowance, the possibility of keeping veteran firefighters and attracking new ones would be enhanced.
Many people have argued that introducing such an exemption would be perceived by Canadians as discrimination in favour of this group. I personally do not agree with that sentiment. The rural residents of Canada, such as those in my constituency of London-Middlesex, appreciate the excellent service and protection offered by their volunteer fire departments. I am confident that Canadians would not begrudge a tax exemption being offered to volunteer firemen receiving no allowance, especially in light of the services provided. The exemption being suggested is not large and in my view is a modest return for the valuable service performed.
This issue is a real concern to local rural fire departments in my constituency. I have spoken with several of the chiefs and they unanimously support the idea of a tax exemption for volunteer firemen. I agree with them, and urge that this provision be included in future amendments to the Income Tax Act. These firemen are available for duty 24 hours a day. They are ordinary Canadians giving fellow ordinary Canadians the benefit of extraordinary service. While the social value of their work is recognized, the value of personal expenditures incurred by them is not. I believe that this recognition should come in the form of a tax deduction similar to that presently available
Volunteer Firemen
to those volunteer firemen already receiving an allowance. I therefore ask that the House seriously consider this motion. If it does not pass today, at least we should be considering it for some future amendment to the Income Tax Act.
I believe that these individuals who spend their free time, often giving up their involvement in sports and other activities, put themselves at risk, and are trained to be efficient firemen; these men are not second rate firemen, they are first rate. They are trained; they are capable; they deserve to be recognized in a special way.


Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I will make sure I watch the clock to allow enough time for the question, if Hon. Members to my right would indicate that to me. I understand that I have until 12 minutes after five.
I rise in support of Motion No. 52. It says:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Income Tax Act in order to allow voluntary firemen to deduct from their income $1,000 for all expenses incurred in the exercise of their duties.
I have received representations from my constituency, even before the presentation of Bill C-54, which was referred to earlier and would allow exemptions to be increased from $300 to $500.
I would like to place on record a resolution from the Manitoba Association of Fire Chiefs which reads:
Whereas volunteer fire fighters are presently allowed an amount of $300 as a deduction for income tax purposes for clothing and transportation relative to their fire fighting duties, and
Whereas this deductible amount was established many years ago when economic conditions were a great deal different than they are today, and
Whereas the volunteer fire fighter performs his duties in the protection of lives and property primarily as a public service without or with very little remuneration, and
Whereas the type of work involved in fire fighting duties produces abnormal wear and tear on the volunteer fire fighters' personal clothing and vehicle, and
Whereas due to present economic conditions, inflation and a devalued dollar, the replacement and/or repair of personal clothing and/or equipment damaged in the course of fire fighting duties has become increasingly more costly, and
Whereas the cost of repair or replacement of such personal clothing or equipment damaged in the course of fire fighting activities has for several years far exceeded the $300 deduction allowed.
BE IT RESOLVED that the Manitoba Association fo Fire Chiefs make representation to the federal Government and request in the strongest possible terms that the present deductible amount of $300 per year be increased to $1,000.
This was submitted by Fire Chief Gordon Seeley of Dauphin, Manitoba, my hometown, which has a volunteer fire department, seconded by the Fire Chief of Winnipeg, Manitoba. It was passed unanimously by that association. In view of this and the fact that many other communities have volunteer firemen, I urge the House to vote in favour of this motion. I will conclude now so that the question can be called and voted on favourably.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, this is a terrific motion. It is too bad

January 19, 1983
Volunteer Firemen
the other Members talked so long and talked it out. 1 just want to get a couple of ideas on the record. The spirit of the motion was to bring an idea to the attention of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde). 1 thank the Elon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid) for doing that. It is a good proposal prior to the budget, one that has been well presented in the debate here today.
1 was particularly impressed with the comments by the Hon. Member for South West Nova (Miss Campbell) who worked on this idea in previous presentations, and the ideas from my friend, the Hon. Member for London-Middlesex (Mr. Bloomfield) whose concern for his community shone through his speech. I do not want to downplay the contribution of the Hon. Member for Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox-and Addington (Mr. Vankoughnet), the Hon. Member for Dauphin (Mr. Lewycky) or the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish). All of these people brought good representations to us today. I thank them for the efforts they put into their comments.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There seems to be a general willingness to put the matter through second reading now without a division. I want to say on behalf of my Party that we are prepared to do that.


Mr. Deans:: Mr. Speaker, may I say on the same point of order that with the concurrence of Government Members, we too would be willing to have the matter dealt with now and proceed to committee.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I thank the representatives of the other two Parties for making their position so clear and for their willingness to move ahead on this. However, I suggest it is probably much better to simply pass along our enthusiasm to the Minister of Finance and leave it at that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. Pursuant to Standing Order 24(2), the hour provided for the deliberation of Private Members' Notices of Motions being exhausted, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Shall all orders listed under Private Members' Public Bills preceding Order No. 295 be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



REGISTRATION OF LOBBYISTS ACT


Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Etobicoke-Lakeshore) moved: that Bill C-495, An Act respecting the registration of lobbyists, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on Bill C-495, my Bill, an Act respecting the registration of lobbyists. This matter of lobbying has come before the House of Commons on a number of occasions. I note that in past years it was examined through Bills C-328, C-268, C-428 and now my Bill, Bill C-495.
I will mention at this time that the Opposition Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) in the past referred to a Bill on lobbying. I quote a statement made by him and referred to in the January 29, 1977 issue of the Ottawa Journal'.
-continued above-board dealings between pressure groups and administrators and politicians.
That is really what this is all about. The explanatory note in the Bill reads as follows:
This Bill provides for the registration of lobbyists, and a declaration by them stating in whose interest they are working. It imposes a fine and disqualification from lobbying for those convicted of evading these provisions.
The intention of this Bill is to make the public aware and provide for public scrutiny of the individuals and organizations that hope to influence Government policy and legislation. This would also allow the civil service, with whom many lobbyists deal, to know who they are really talking to and why.
Lobbying is the deliberate organization and application of effort to influence public policy generally for the benefit of some specific person or group. Lobbyists as defined in Bill C-495 means:
-any person who attempts to influence, directly or indirectly
(a)	the introduction, passage, defeat or amendment of any legislation or
budgetary estimates before either House of Parliament, or
(b)	a decision to be taken on any matter coming within the administrative
jurisdiction of a Minister of the Crown, whether or not that matter has come
or may come before either House of Parliament for legislative action;
If this Bill is passed, any person or persons attempting to effect some legislative change, extract some favour or influence policy could be identified through public disclosure. This would also allow the public to gauge the success of lobbyists by the subsequent rejection or acceptance of their proposals by the Government.
In our parliamentary system, the presentation of testimony before a parliamentary committee or subcommittee is a well-established process. It has been widely recognized that our committee system, unlike the more successful United States committee system, is not provided with the resources necessary for adequate performance of committee duties, except for special committees and the Standing Committee on Regulations and Statutory Instruments, where we do have legal counsel. This has already been stated as a major issue for those concerned with parliamentary reform.
January 19, 1983

The time of a Member of Parliament is valuable. Therefore, when they take time to listen, they should be assured the benefit of expert witnesses and quality information. If there is not an established mechanism to sift through lobbyists, we cannot be assured that true representatives of groups get a chance to speak. We also risk wasting time on unnecessary representations.
By registering lobbyists, we would give Members of a given committee access to a master list which would provide them with names of expert witnesses when they are studying a piece of legislation. It would also allow committee Members to vote in a more enlightened way and perhaps recognize and implement amendments that might otherwise be missed. Such a Bill as I am suggesting would allow for a more organized, efficient and effective approach to the taking of the national pulse on any given issue.
If Parliament takes to heart the recommendations for parliamentary reform, they will find it has been suggested that committees be given responsibility for overseeing operations of relevant Government departments. At present our committees do not have the responsibility for overview and scrutiny that United States committees have.
The question is, should our committees take on such a responsibility? If this is so, it is all the more important for a given committee to be in a position to identify on an ongoing basis those individuals or groups outside the bureaucracy whose representations may be relevant. Lobbyists would clearly have access to specialized interest groups.
In his speech in the House of Commons the Hon. Member for Grenville-Carleton, as the constituency was then called, had this to say on January 28, 1977 as reported at page 2515 of Hansard:
-the direction in which our parliamentary system should be evolving-toward a more open Government with a more influential House of Commons-leads me to believe that we should begin now to establish a framework for the operation of lobbyists before any serious problems develop.
I subscribe to that statement. It is as relevant today as it was then. We are now in the process of seriously examining our parliamentary system. Perhaps now is a good time for renewed interest in such matters as registration of lobbyists. Lobbyists are able to provide legislators with feedback on the actual operation of Government programs in the field. As we already know there is usually a discrepancy between bureaucratic theory and the practical application of Government programs. The sooner the Government is able to gain insight into the effects of any given program, the sooner it will be able to act upon that information.
As we all know, many large associations and organizations have taken offices in Ottawa for the specific purpose of lobbying. The biggest of them, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Medical Association, and there are numerous others well known already, present their briefs and publicize their views before each federal budget. They also maintain year-round contacts with civil servants and also members of Parliament who may be working on legislation
Registration of Lobbyists
which affects them. The survival of any organization which claims to effectively represent its members depends on its ability to persuade the power holders to recognize them as a legitimate representative agent. Interest groups have developed links with the existing political and social structure to ensure the protection of their interests and also to keep open the direct lines to the Government.
It is my contention, Mr. Speaker, that it is essential that lobbyists register. It would clarify their situation as well as give a clear understanding of which groups are legitimate and which most fairly represent the interests of the public as a whole. I would like it to be understood that I am not suggesting we restrict lobbying, paid or otherwise, or in any way interfere with the right of the public to make representations to Members of the Senate or the House of Commons. Rather,
I am suggesting that lobbyists should be registered and we should know on whose behalf they are acting and making representations.
Under this Bill, the Clerk of the House will be responsible for maintaining a registry of lobbyists. This registry will be accessible to any Senator, Member of Parliament, and accredited member of the Parliamentary Press Gallery. Each lobbyist shall be issued an identification card. In this way we could maintain an ongoing list of those groups and individuals within the lobbying system, and at the same time ensure a level of security which will be advantageous to the House of Commons as well as to the public.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that, since this matter has been before the House of Commons on so many occasions, and since there has been so much concern and deliberation and debate on the matter, it should be sent to the appropriate committee for further consideration, and I would so recommend.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my rather short speech this afternoon by saying to the Hon. Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson) that I am extremely grateful to him for his very kind references to Bills I have had on the Order Paper on other occasions with respect to this matter. If you read his Bill and my Bills C-432 and C-214 in prior sessions of Parliament, you will see that they are virtually the same, so we are ad idem. I would have seconded the introduction of his Bill, Mr. Speaker, if you had cast your eye my way. I do not fault you for casting it the other way, but I want to say that because I think it is important. I would also like to suggest that the penalty section of his Bill, which does go beyond mine, I feel is a worthy addition to the Bill and something which the committee should be able to discuss.
I am particularly grateful that I am able to respond to his very generous speech, both with respect to the subject matter and to me, personally. I would like to respond in kind and inform the House that the Hon. Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore joined my colleagues, the Hon. Member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie), the Hon. Member for Vancouver South
22012

January 19, 1983
Registration of Lobbyists
(Mr. Fraser), and Senator Joan Neiman from Toronto, in being honoured in the federal Queen's New Year's Honours List with the designation of Queen's Counsel. I think it is right that the Government should see fit to recognize distinguished lawyers on both sides of the House of Commons, and certainly my hon. friend, the Hon. Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore is one of those. I should add that I was surprised that he did not wear his gown today for the purposes of this debate.
My hon. friend and I are ad idem, Mr. Speaker. Both of us agree that it is absolutely essential to the understanding of Government of the problems of the private sector, whether that happens to be the private sector composed of doctors, manufacturers, farmers, accountants, lawyers, secretaries, women's groups, and what have you, or of particular industries and businesses, that there be an interchange of information between Government and those sectors. It is essential for Government to be attuned to the greatest extent possible with the operation of the private sector. Therefore, my hon. friend and I are ad idem that that process must go on.
Equally, it is important that we recognize that through no fault of our own, the word "lobbyist" has taken on a somewhat odious connotation, and that is unfortunate because it seems to imply that anyone who buttonholes a Member of Parliament, or talks to a senior public servant, or a group of them, or even talks to a Cabinet Minister, is advancing at all times a nefarious cause, and that is not so.
It is essential for us as Members of Parliament, and I suppose for the Hon. Members of the other place, to understand the relationship, which is important, and which I characterize in my first reference to "Government's understanding". This Bill, I know, and my Bill, was not designed as a technique to penalize or interfere with, or deal in a negative way with those who are engaged in the legitimate operation of attempting to influence Government-using the word "influence" in its best sense-but what is happening in our society is that all of our instruments are becoming suspect. This Parliament is becoming suspect. Members of Parliament are becoming suspect. The Public Service is becoming suspect. Those who talk and push for a point of view, even legitimately, are becoming suspect. The trust which heretofore existed pretty well throughout the country with respect to all kinds of institutions, is breaking down. People are questioning. The purpose of this Bill is not a negative thrust, as I understand the Hon. Member. It is very positive. It says, "Let us recognize the legitimacy of the function but let us ensure not only that right is done, or that justice is done but that it appears to be done. And what better way is there, or has there been since time immemorial, than full disclosure? We demand more of Members of Parliament who go into a Cabinet than full disclosure. Is it wrong for us to say that those who come to Parliament should be asked at least to give full disclosure?
My hon. friend's Bill says that those who would attempt to move public policy, whether through Parliament or the Public Service, will have to come forward and declare their interest, not how much money they are making, that is their business,
but their interest. It is also important because what may be the interest of one particular lobbyist may very well be interesting to a force which is opposed to the point of view of that first lobbyist. It is, therefore, important that we know who the players are. It has always been important in the Public Service because the Public Service does not have to come and answer here every day on the floor of the House of Commons. The Public Service in our system has carried on outside of the glare of publicity, and that is probably the way it should be. I am prepared to say that is the way it should be. Therefore, it is important that those interchanges which may take place between the public sector as represented by the Public Service, and the private sector, be fully disclosed in the sense of who the players are and what the relationships might be.
We have done something in this Parliament, at least for an experiment, and I hope it is an experiment which will last. We have suddenly done something that should have been done years ago, and I believe when it grows out it will have a profound effect on Members of Parliament, on the work of the Members of Parliament and their individual power in terms of particular issues.
We have given the committees of the House an opportunity to be independent and to respond, on their own, to those persons, ideas, associations and groups of people with ideas, who may ask for an expression by Members of Parliament. We are into the second or third day of the experiment but I do not think all Members quite understand the profound change that this can and will make to the House. As the House becomes used to it and as Members become used to the independence they have as a result of the changes, they will be equally aware of the representations they can make and will be asked to make on behalf of interest groups. It is therefore doubly important that interest groups be registered, that they be public and that their interest be disclosed.
We are embarking upon quite an important experiment, Mr. Speaker. When I introduced the earlier Bills, particularly Bill C-432 which was mentioned by my hon. friend, I received a great deal of correspondence from people who have an interest they wish to bring to public officials and to Parliament. This correspondence was very helpful, but it is interesting that not one letter said that the idea of disclosure was wrong. Some had reservations about the form of my Bill and therefore about the form of my friend's Bill-not about the penalty but about the ambit of the Bill. Invariably they said that the idea was sound, but they did present some problems they had with my definition.
I will quote from a letter I received from the Canadian Soft Drink Association in 1976. The writer made some observations which would be helpful to committee. The letter reads in part
as follows:
A lobbyist would have to be very clearly defined. While we accept the fact that an association may be able to register as a lobbyist, it is unclear whether that automatically covers the chief executive officer of the association, all the staff of the association and all appointed committee members and all directors. This

January 19, 1983
certainly will have to be clarified as in many cases the chief executive officer would be accompanied to Ottawa by some of the elected or appointed members either as resource people or to share the work load.
He was really asking, "What is the extent of the disclosure?" The letter continues:
The next point to be covered of course is the persons hired temporarily by an association for a specific job. These persons may vary depending on their expertise. Supposing it is a piece of legislation under the Competition Act, you may hire a corporate lawyer or if it is a bill concerning say the Health Protection Branch, you may hire a lawyer who is well versed in food and drug regulations. Very often the same lawyer could not accompany you or could not do the lobbying for you and he may send his assistant. Do you therefore extend a blanket coverage to all people appointed and hired by the association or does it only apply to an individual.
Furthermore, we think that registered lobbyists may take advantage of the fact that they are registered, canvas firms that may be interested in having lobbying done on their behalf and thereby weaken the efforts of the association. While this, of course, is left to the discretion of the individual firms, i.e whether they want to go through the association or through a private lobbyist, sometimes the private lobbyist, who let's say is a retired senior civil servant, may have some appeal that outweighs the advantages of acting jointly through an association.
In effect, he was saying that it is important that this type of question go to committee. The Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections could study this, and I am sure it would receive a great deal of correspondence from a growing army of people who come to this capital and others to influence-I am using that word in its best sense-the direction of public policy.
I commend my hon. friend for bringing this Bill forward today and I am prepared to support it, 1 hope that after a short debate the Bill will go to committee for discussion. I think that it could be improved by the committee. I expected my Bill to be improved and I am sure my hon. friend expects the same for this one. I see that he nods in agreement. I am sure that its time has come in our legislative and governmental process.
I hope at the end of today's debate the House will see fit to send the Bill to committee where the subject matter can be dealt with. I believe it is important. I think my friend has done a public service in bringing it forward today. I close as I began, by saying that if Your Honour had cast his eye in my direction when calling for a seconder for the Bill, I would have been pleased and honoured to do so.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I want to join the two previous speakers in giving my support and the support of this Party to the concept that is suggested. I must confess that I have some reservations about the actual legislation. The Bill is a good one but it may have to be changed in order to make it work in the way that the Hon. Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson) would like it to work. That matter could be taken care of in committee where some of the minor and even the more important deficiencies could be dealt with, as could the last point made by the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker). He raised the question of how one could identify the lobbyist as opposed to a lobbying group, and how one takes care of an association as opposed to the private individual or private lawyer who has contacts in Government as a result of having been involved behind the scenes with one or other of the political parties.
I think we must never be seen as trying to subvert or dissuade public input. That is to be encouraged. It is essential
Registration of Lobbyists
that the public at large feel free to contact Members of Parliament whether they be in the Senate, the House, in Opposition in the backbenches or in Cabinet. Members of the public must know that we want this input, but we must make it easier for them to participate.
What we are doing today may make it easier for the public to participate. They will be better able to judge the arguments advanced by certain, and sometimes high-priced, individuals who put forward the position of a particular vested interest but fail to identify that party. I think members of the public would be less likely to be influenced if they fully understood that the person making the argument to Government was a lobbyist paid to do so. From that point of view I think the Bill is valuable.
From another point of view it is valuable as well. I think it is important that the public should be able to identify the players in the field. Those of us who are in politics and have been for some time know that there are certain people who are in and out of government. I do not mean in and out of elected office necessarily, but in and out of government-in the Privy Council, out lobbying later; back into a senior Government position, out lobbying later, working to make people Prime Ministers, out lobbying later. I am sure the House knows the kind of people I mean.


Mr. Keeper:: Liberals.


Ian Deans: Not necessarily. The Hon. Member might be surprised to know that there are even two or three Tories who do this. I think it is valuable that we should have that kind of information readily available. There is a need to show that it is legitimate to be a lobbyist but, more important, there is a need to show that certain people in the country in fact exercise considerably more influence than others, even though they are faceless and frequently nameless. By making provisions such as those brought forward by the Hon. Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, we would at last be able to see the faces and names of those who exercise the power behind the scenes. I think that is important.
1 commend the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton because he has been pushing for this for years. I had reason to read a number of comments made by him over some years and comments attributed to him in addition to the ones he had made personally. His interest is longstanding. He very carefully set out that he did not want in any way to dissuade people from becoming lobbyists, as did the Hon. Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore. It is not a matter of trying to keep people from doing it. It is a matter of trying to get people who want to represent the views of other people to be prepared to stand up publicly and to be placed under the kind of scrutiny which is inevitably put on those who are doing work for pay. There are individuals who, on a matter of conscience on any subject, decide out of their own pockets or by joining with some friends, to attempt to influence the Government's course of

January 19, 1983
Registration of Lobbyists
action, to make representation, to travel overnight to Ottawa, to stand on the steps of Parliament, to visit with Members in their offices, or to telephone at their own expense. Sometimes they share among themselves, but there is quite a difference between the view they might express as a result of their very strong convictions and the view which might be expressed by someone pulling down $100,000 or $200,000 simply for being available to express a view. We have to be able to measure that in our judgment about the force of the argument and the level of commitment.
Let us be quite fair. There may be someone living in Vancouver who has a very strong sense of miscarriage of justice in a particular issue. He or she may, together with some friends, pay the expense of coming to Ottawa to visit various Members of Parliament to express a concern. Such people are not lobbyists in the sense of the word to which this legislation refers. Indeed they are lobbyists inasmuch as they are lobbying Members to gain favour for their points of view. We are not talking about these kinds of people. We are talking about persons sitting in offices somewhere in high-rise towers. Not only are we talking about them, but about those who make the trip for considerable remuneration or at someone else's expense to present a well-thought-out brief which pays little attention to other matters than that it must be done in a professional and very technically correct manner. I do not want to leave the impression that we are in any way trying to do anything to keep down the level of public participation by anyone, but particularly by those whose opinions are being expressed because they are their opinions.
I say to the Hon. Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore that I do not think 1 would be wrong in saying that no doubt he received at least one letter as a result of the recent statements of the Minister of State for Mines (Mrs. Erola). In fact, he smiles; I bet he even received two letters. I have received literally hundreds of letters from people who are vitally concerned about the statements of the Minister. Each and every one of them wrote to ask me to ensure that this proposal never saw the light of day. Each one asked me to do all in my power to keep the Minister of State foi Mines from imposing her nutty scheme on the people of Canada. I am sure Liberal Members have also received similar kinds of communications.
I can only suggest that the people writing to us are doing so in good faith. They are lobbying us quite justifiably. They are saying, "For Heaven's sake, stop that madwoman before she goes too far", and I agree with them. They are not the kind of people about whom we are talking in this legislation. We are talking about the Bill Lees and the Bill Nevilles of the world and the others moving in and out of the circles of Government, lurking behind the scenes in the halls, carefully sidling up to people at lunch and whispering in their ears.
It happens to all of us at some time. I am referring to people who attempt to influence us on behalf of others. It is time we all knew who they were. If someone walks through our doors, calls for an appointment or writes for an opportunity to come before a committee or to speak to us, we ought to be able to refer to a register and see who is this person and whom they
represent, so that we are able to make a judgment about his or her commitment to the cause being presented. Not only that, we might even want to make a judgment about such a person's contacts or general background so that we know-not because it would influence us-or sense how to deal with the individual in the question placed before us.
It was interesting when the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton pointed out a dilemma in terms of the soft drink association, was it?


Walter David Baker: Yes. They were very constructive comments.


Ian Deans: It was a very constructive comment. I could relate to it because it was what was in my mind when I read the Bill. How would we deal with associations? How would we register them? Whom would we register officially? Would we make a provision for others to represent them? If so, at what cost if at all? Would they all have to register? That crossed my mind; we could deal with it in committee. Would we register law firms? There are many legal firms which take on substantial lobbying efforts. If I am not mistaken, I think the petroleum association was represented by a law firm. Am I correct in that?


Walter David Baker: I cannot tell you.


Ian Deans: In any event, it seems to me that the petroleum association was at one point represented by a law firm. Would we register the firm? Would we register the principal within the firm? Would we register the individual? How would we go about doing that? To what extent would we have to have disclosure?
A question was posed as to whether we would want to know the level of income. I think we would be going a mite far if we asked for that, but by the same token there is some cause to look at the question of substantial contribution. For example, lobbyists could receive a substantial contribution and act, for want of a better word, as bagmen for one of the two major political Parties, Liberal or Conservative. Even though they may not be receiving any direct income from the work they are doing on behalf of contributors and, therefore, might technically fall outside the area of this particular law, they could nevertheless be influencing for gain, which may in fact turn out to be gain such as an appointment to the Senate. I think that is not unreasonable. I have looked around and I have seen some who have been appointed to the Senate who have been very active in the raising of funds for one or other of the Conservative or Liberal Parties and who have not perhaps received, I am not sure, any money personally for the lobbying they did on behalf of certain special interest groups but who gained, nonetheless, from their efforts.
I want, therefore, to make the point that the bill is somewhat deficient in dealing with that problem. I think that as we get it into committee, and I hope we will any minute now, we will be able to keep that in mind too. I am sure that the Hon.
January 19, 1983

Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, as also the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton, would be aware of the efforts of Bill Kelly, for example. He is one who comes to mind quickly, a person who has worked very hard on behalf of the Conservatives in Ontario and who knows how much he has raised and who knows whether or not he ever got paid. I do not. Nevertheless, he could be considered a lobbyist. Is that not fair? But he may not fall within the jurisdiction of this Bill. In any event, I make these points. I think they are important. I think there is value in what is being offered. It will find favour with us if amended appropriately. Maybe we can dash this Bill off to committee now, get the committee working on it, make it law, and we will have served the public of Canada in the process.


Mr. Gary F. McCauley (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by congratulating the Hon. Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson) for once again drawing our attention to this important issue. He is, of course, building on the arguments advanced in this House before by the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), as my colleague here says, with eloquence and passion. It was a privilege to hear him once again on this subject which we know is dear to his heart and important to us all. As my colleague, the Hon. Member for Etobicoke Lakeshore has said, this is a subject that has received a thorough airing in this House and also in other places.
I refer to a 1979 symposium organized by the Conference Board of Canada. The topic was: Lobbying: A Right? A Necessity? A Danger? Lobbying is probably all of those things and more.
I believe it is important that we define what we mean by lobbying. In a speech on his Bill in January, 1977, the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton defined lobbying as:
1 think of a lobbyist as someone who seeks, by means of contact with persons of power or influence, to have a significant effect on executive or legislative actions to be taken by the Government of Canada. Lobbyists may act directly for themselves, or on behalf of organizations which hire professionals to make their case. Lobbyists are, in short, special interest and pressure group publicists or their representatives.
That definition encompasses quite well one kind of lobbyist; those whom we would call special interest advocates. It seems to me that is the same kind of lobbyist to whom my colleague, the Hon. Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore was referring. But there is another kind of lobbyist. There is a group or an individual who could be defined as a public interest lobbyist, a citizens' interest lobbyist.
In the symposium organized by the Conference Board of Canada, this type of lobbyist is well defined. The distinction is well made. Let me quote from the symposium as follows:
Public or citizens' interest groups can and should be distinguished from special interest groups. Public interest groups have no financial or other vested interest
Registration of Lobbyists
in the causes they support-They want a better society and so challenge politicians, bureaucrats, businessmen and others to take into account in their decision making aspects of the public interest that might otherwise be overlooked or not given proper weight.
This morning, those of us in the Atlantic Government caucus had an example of that kind of public interest lobby group. We had before us representatives of the International Union of the Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of Canada, Local 3, Saint John, New Brunswick. They presented to us in a forceful and passionate way their beliefs regarding the shipbuilding industry, not only on the East Coast of Canada but on the West Coast and wherever that industry is situated in this great country. They did a fantastic job presenting their case. We were very impressed by the quality of their arguments. I do not think any of us who heard them would be of the opinion that they were a special interest advocacy group about which we have to be concerned, that they were the kind of people who had to be registered, noted and so on.
Another group who fits this category about whom I would like to make note, and I am sure my colleagues in the House who have had experience with them will agree with me, is made up of the various and sundry groups throughout the country who represent the UFFI home owners. They were pleading and lobbying all of us in various and sundry ways and were a great help in forming Government policy, in responding to the needs of these people with UFFI in their homes. They were a great help to us in the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs when we studied this whole question of how UFFI came to be and how the whole problem arose. This group appeared at committee meetings and made their point succinctly and well. They were of great assistance to us. No one in the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs would say that these people should be registered, noted, or that a record should have been kept of who they were and from where they came.
I do not think any of us in this House this afternoon would have any objection to public or citizens' interest groups. There is no need to take note of them or to register them. There is no need to register those who speak for the poor, the disposessed, the unemployed or the powerless in our society. In fact, some would argue that such groups should be assisted by Government to lobby. That would create certain problems, but it is a point worth debating.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: It being six o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 2(1).
At 6 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, January 20, 1983