1983-04-22

OFFICIAL REPORT


[Stage Direction]
32 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada
Available from Canadian Government Publishing Centre, Supply and Services Canada, Hull, Quebec, Canada K1A 0S9.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, April 22, 1983


Mr. Andre Maltais (Manicouagan):: Madam Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the problems of the people of Schefferville with respect to mobility. Two months ago, the Federal Government agreed to pay up to $4,500 of the moving expenses of people laid off by the Iron Ore Company. I feel this arrangement should also be available to families who were not directly employed by Iron Ore but are working either for the town, the school board or the local small- and medium-sized businesses, so that anyone in Schefferville who wants to move and find a new place to live can do so with the help of federal funds. I am pleased to see that the Province of Quebec, after a lot of persuading, has agreed to pay 25 per cent of eligible costs and that the company will pay the same percentage, so that finally, the Federal Government will contribute $4,500, the Province of Quebec about $1,250 and the same will be contributed by the Iron Ore Company, so that in the final instance, thanks again to our federal programs, the people of Schefferville will be able to increase their mobility.



HORTICULTURE


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, the eastern Canadian apple industry suffered severe damage to its orchards caused by the 1980-81 winter, the impact of which has now reached the critical stage. The industry seeks essential financial relief similar to that which has previously been extended to other agricultural production which was subjected to abnormal climatic factors beyond its control.
As there was no tree insurance program available which would have provided the necessary protection to cover this type of disaster, eastern Canadian apple producers are looking to the federal Government for leadership in resolving this unfortunate problem. Without a viable domestic industry, the price
of imported produce will only escalate, but with the help of the federal Government, Canada can improve its self-sufficiency and reverse the current trend.
Hopefully at the joint apple industry-Government meeting planned for April 26, a position acceptable to the federal Government and to the apple industry will be successfully reached and acted upon so that the apple industry can get on with the job in meeting the Government's challenge in its endeavour to buy Canadian by replacing imports with home grown produce.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, I wish to raise a matter in this House once again concerning what I and many other Members feel is a serious long standing injustice in Canada.
In the late 1930s, 1,200 Canadians made their way to Spain to Fight against the combined fascist forces of the Spanish army, Germany, and Italy. The war against fascism actually began in 1931 with the invasion of Manchuria by Japan, and it expanded further with fascist attacks on the elected Government of the Republic of Spain. The fight expanded between 1939 and 1941, until the entire world became involved in the fight against fascism.
It is interesting to note that one of Canada's heroes, Norman Bethune, was an active participant in the fight against fascism in Spain and in China. Norman Bethune, a Canadian, became a Chinese national hero. Canada officially ignored him for 30 years until it became convenient to recognize him as a Canadian hero because we were in the process of recognizing the Peoples' Republic of China. It was because of Bethune's great achievement over 30 years ago that we put aside questioning his political persuasion, and we put aside the fact that he had violated the Foreign Investment Review Act, and looked specifically at his achievements in Spain and in China.


Mr. Lewis:: What does FIRA have to do with it?


Raymond John Skelly: It is time that we looked at the achievements of the Mackenzie-Papineau Brigade and recognized the achievements of these Canadians in their contribution to the fight against fascism.

April 22, 1983



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Rosemont):: Madam Speaker, this week, the State of Israel celebrated its thirty-fifth birthday. The international community, including multilateral organizations such as the United Nations and at the bilateral level, has regularly criticized the establishment of settlements in occupied territories. On the very day of Israel's thirty-fifth birthday, a new settlement in Upper Nablus was announced by the Israeli Government. Hon. Members will recall that Nablus is located more than 60 kilometers north of Jerusalem, in a territory where Palestinians and Arabs are in the majority. I would like to point out to the House that this new settlement proves that it is extremely urgent that the parties concerned, namely Israel and the Palestinians, negotiate a settlement as soon as possible, so that the Palestinians can find a place to live and have a citizenship that is recognized, and Israel can live within recognized and safe borders. Madam Speaker, these settlements are a very disturbing element of policy in the Middle East, and 1 hope that the House and the Government will indicate to the Government of Israel the need to negotiate.
* *
*



CANADA POST CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]



Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. James):: Madam Speaker, the Government's economic policies clearly indicate that it is, colloquially speaking, out of its tree, that it is in fact out of touch with reality, and that it psychologically insane. I say this because the Government is refusing to deal with reality. Rather than planning for jobs, it has turned over its financial elbow room to the private sector. Rather than planning for full employment, it changes the definition of full employment. Rather than changing its policies, it changes its words.
Madam Speaker, the Government is attempting to make acceptable to Canadians what is clearly unacceptable. It is preaching as being realistic an unemployment rate of 12.4 per cent today, 10 per cent for the long-term, and an ultimate goal of 7 or 8 per cent.
The Government is playing with our dreams, our hopes and our values, rather than acting on them. The Government is denying its responsibility. It is treating the economy as if it were the weather. It is blaming what is happening today on economic analysis rather than taking appropriate action.
Not only that, the Government has a split personality. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) refuses to speak in specifics with regard to jobs. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) talks about some 300,000 jobs coming out of the budget. The Government must get its act together. It is time to call in a clinical psychologist to return some sanity to this place.


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, earlier this week the press reported an interview with the president of Canada Post Corporation, Mr. Michael Warren, in which he commented that postal rates could be expected to go up again on some unspecified date. This should come, I suppose, as no surprise to any of us, but I find it particularly interesting because it has also come to my attention this week that this same Canada Post Corporation is spending upwards of a million dollars to renovate their executive offices in the Sir Alexander Campbell Building here in Ottawa. Tenders, I am informed, will be let by invitation only.
Renovations were made last August to some of the offices in the annex. In November, $300,000 was spent to renovate the eighth and ninth floors, and the expenditure of $424,000 to further re-do the executive area has just been approved. None of these contracts was made by public tender.
I commented yesterday that the budget fiasco was the product of an exhausted Government weary unto death. Clearly this condition is not limited to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) and his cronies. Has the Cabinet surrendered all control over Government operations, or is it just too tired to care any more?



CONTROVERSY OVER HEROIN USE IN TREATMENT OF TERMINALLY ILL

Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, there has been considerable discussion recently on the possibility of using heroin once again as a pain suppressant in the treatment of terminal-ly-ill patients. It must be remembered that while heroin remains a prescriptible drug and one which medical doctors may still administer, its importation and manufacture in Canada have been forbidden since 1955. This prohibition action was taken by the Canadian authorities at that time in compliance with the International Narcotic Control Convention established by the World Health Organization.
The use of this drug for palliative purposes is very controversial. Heroin is favoured because of ease of administering by hypodermic needle. However, very many medical practitioners are opposed to giving terminally-ill patients medication by injection, and find it more acceptable to administer medication by mouth.
April 22, 1983

The medical community has sufficient knowledge to realize that drugs given for pain are effective only if given regularly rather than intermittently. Currently there are excellent drugs available for this purpose other than heroin. Heroin is a potent respiratory depressant, a phenomenon which has lead many medical practitioners to discontinue its use before any Government intervention.
I am concerned that columnist power instead of good judgment is being used to extract money from Canadian citizens, money that could more effectively be used in other fields of medical research than returning to the use of heroin even in a limited way.



THE BUDGET


Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Llovdminster):: Madam Speaker, when is a peep a leak, and when is a leak a theft? The Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) told reporters yesterday, and I quote:
1 would rather call it a theft than a leak, or a peep than a leak, if you wish.
Just to confuse matters more, the Minister then tried, through his press secretary, to put pressure on a reporter from Newsradio to withdraw the offending phrase. This was followed by intimidation, threats, and a bribe to the reporter by offering a further seven-minute interview with the Minister of Finance.
Is there no end to the Minister's largesse? The reporter was offered more interview time with the Minister if he would only remove the offending word "theft". Truly it can be said of this Minister: "Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive."
It is one thing for the Minister to add $200 million to our already crippling debt load, but it seems to me that he is adding insult to injury by blaming it all on the media and then going so far as to accuse them of theft.
We are now in a situation, Madam Speaker, where reporters invited into the Minister's office for a pre-budget photo opportunity session are accused of theft for simply doing what they are invited to do in the first place-take photos of the Minister holding up his budget. This photo session cost the people of Canada $200 million in additional debt over two years, which at present interest rates costs $1 million a month.




Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, I want to follow up on the statement just made by the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight). The evidence that the House and the country have heard over the
Oral Questions
last few days with respect to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) is a good indication of the Peter Principle at work: when things can go wrong, they will. The Minister of Finance has added a new wrinkle: when things could be worse, they will be worse. Yesterday he compounded his difficulties.
In some of the statements he has made he talked about the necessity of opening the budgetary practice. I think the House of Commons ought to consider it a necessity to review the budgetary practice. If there is no case to be made in some areas for secrecy, then secrecy should be removed. We ought not to have these monumental intrusions on good sense and logic compounded by deception. Murphy's law, the Peter Principle, or whatever applies-this is a mess that is now in the hands of this House of Commons to clean up.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Janies A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Yesterday the Minister of Finance stated that 7 or 8 per cent of the work force would remain unemployed even if the economy were running full speed ahead. That pretty well confirms the projections contained in the Minister's budget that when we are supposed to be three or four years into recovery, for example in 1987, we will have an unemployment rate of 8.8 per cent, or 1.162 million Canadians unemployed. Were these personal musings of the Minister of Finance, or does the Government now accept 7 or 8 per cent to be full employment in this country?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, the Government has views about the current situation and it has proposed a budget to deal with the situation. What happens seven or eight years down the road is a matter for pretty general conjecture. If I am Prime Minister at that time I will certainly undertake to express my views on that before the time arises.


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister has just confirmed what he said this morning, that he was leaving it to others to worry about unemployment five or ten years down the road. We are talking about projections of the Government based on its own strategy for economic recovery. I would remind the Prime Minister that in December, 1979, when this Party was in office and unemployment stood at 7.2 per cent and was projected to reach 8.2 per cent, as reported at page 2297 of Hansard the President of the Treasury Board said that our proposal showed:

April 22, 1983
Oral Questions
-a shameful willingness to accept unemployment and economic weakness in this country on the part of the Conservative Government.
I would describe what the Prime Minister is saying today, and what the Minister of Finance said yesterday, as an outrageous copout and an outrageous betrayal of the unemployed. We have now doomed this generation to be a lost generation without any hope of obtaining jobs.


GOVERNMENT POSITION ON UNEMPLOYMENT
James Aloysius McGrath: Can the Prime Minister tell the House if it is the policy of the Government that full economic recovery means full employment which, in the estimation of the Government, is an unemployment rate of 8 per cent? Is that the view of the Government? If it is, the people of Canada find it totally unacceptable.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member misquoted me when he said I would leave it to other. I was telling members of the press who were asking me the same question as the Hon. Member that they could worry about what was going to happen in seven or eight years from now and whether it would happen in any particular way, and that we were concerned with the current situation which is certainly a very difficult time for many, many Canadians.
We have presented a budget which is before the House. I find it typical of the Opposition that, not being able to deal with the budget or criticize it constructively, they are worrying about seven or eight years down the road. They should cooperate with getting this budget through; they should cooperate in improving it, if possible, and they should make the situation for Canadians here and now as good as is possible. Then we can start worrying about the longer term figures.
The budget itself has taken measures to ensure that over the medium term the deficit would be coming down and that Canadians would be able to compete more efficiently with other countries because in the next 18 months they would be putting a lot of expenditure into building our infrastructure. That is the position of the Government. I think the Hon. Member's constituents would be more satisfied if he showed himself a little more exercised about the present and stopped speculating about what happens seven or eight years down the road.


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, I am not speculating; I am quoting from the Economic Strategy of this Government contained in the budget that the Minister of Finance brought down in the House a few days ago.


YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT-REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER RESIGN
James Aloysius McGrath: I would refer the Prime Minister to page 38 of the Government's Fiscal Plan which shows projections well into 1987 of over one million people unemployed. That means that five years after the
Government's economic recovery plan, we will still have one million people unemployed.
Even with the Government's projected rate of recovery, unacceptable as it is, the Prime Minister knows that the last to be hired in economic recovery are young people, and today we have 600,000 young people unemployed, soon to be joined by another 300,000 graduates from our universities and postsecondary institutions. They have no hope for jobs because all we get from the budget is a possibility of 27,000 new jobs this year for young people. Is it the Prime Minister's view- because the young people are looking for an answer-that this country, blessed as it is, cannot provide opportunity for our young people coming onto the job market, because, if that is his view, why in the name of God does he not resign?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I do not think God has much to do with my decision to resign, and I do not know why the Hon. Member is using profanities in the House.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence but also involves the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It relates to their job-creation program in the Department of National Defence. On several occasions, Madam Speaker, both Ministers have denied the charge that the Department of National Defence has dismissed 1,027 employees in order to hire 3,000 people under the NEED Program. The Ministers say they are different jobs, but the Union of National Defence Employees, and others, say the jobs are exactly the same in many cases.
What I would like to know, and I believe what all Hon. Members want to know, is who is telling the truth? Is it the Executive Vice-President of the Union of National Defence Employees, who says that employees are being dismissed so that new ones can be hired in the name of job creation? Is he telling the truth, or are the Ministers telling the truth? If the executive Vice-President of the Union of National Defence Employees' association is not telling the truth, will the Minister kindly explain what is happening and why is there this horrible misunderstanding which is affecting hundreds of Government employees?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, I believe yesterday I answered a question on what the Department is doing about job creation. As far as the matter related by the Hon. Member is concerned, I would like to say that the union has made no formal representations to me with respect to any perceived conflict with employees hired through the NEED Program. The persons referred to are employees who are term employees, employees who would have happened to be terminated at a certain point in time
April 22, 1983

his constituents, "Look, do not bother with the dogs. Try to get some public works done, aqueducts-"


Mr. Waddell:: You are the Prime Minister. It's your program.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Oh, yes, and that is what I am telling the people. However, it is hard to get through to the Hon. Member. Fortunately, some fourth grade people understand what we are doing.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In view of some of the incredible, recent revelations about financial and corporate machinations in Montreal, could the Minister, who is responsible for Air Canada, please stand in this House and tell us what the devil is going on in Air Canada in Montreal, with the RCMP raids on the office of the Chairman of the Board, and also on his office in Quebec?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I was told by the Minister of Justice that he would answer this question because it is essentially his domain, so I will let him do that.


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: Madam Speaker, it is the long standing custom not to answer questions-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mark R. MacGuigan: -concerning investigations which may be under way or thought to be under way.


LEASING OF HEADQUARTERS
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, I will direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Transport as well, since it comes directly within his jurisdiction. Can he shed some light on what is transpiring, without getting into the details of an investigation, and certainly assure the House that the present investigation has nothing whatsoever to do with Canadair or the Mackasey hearings before the Committee on Privileges and Elections and, with more particular specifics, advise as to whether the investigation is directed against Mr. Rene Amyot-


Mr. Ouellet:: Speculative questions.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: -as the former director and secretary of Place Quebec Incorporated, which sold its interest to Trizec Company, which received the successful award on the building to which Air Canada has just transferred its headquarters?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I will try. I have been asked a number of questions,
Oral Questions
by a number of newspapermen in particular. One asks, "What does it have to do with this?" And the other one asks, "Does it have to do with that?" And another one asks, "Does it have to do with this?" If I answer all these questions, people will have to know what it has to do with.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: We have a right to know.


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is what the problem is. I am told by the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General that this is an RCMP inquiry, and I must not get involved in it because that is their business, and if I open my mouth on the subject I will be compromising the validity of an inquiry. I just thought I had to explain that, in order to get across to my hon. friend why I am saying nothing as opposed to my normal tendency, which is to tell him the whole truth. My hon. friend knows how much I like to answer questions he poses to me in committees and elsewhere. In this particular instance I must be abnormal, by my standards, and shut up.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: We'll see how abnormal it is on Monday.


Mr. Nielsen:: It must be Friday.


COMMUNICATIONS
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications. This week's federal budget imposed a new 6 per cent tax on cable. In addition to the cable rate increases which were permitted under the six and five program, which are being charged to cable customers, how does the Minister square this increase year over year, which is roughly double the six and five program, with the various injunctions from Cabinet Ministers that ordinary Canadians must tighten their belts?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member knows full well that this has nothing to do with the six and five program. It is a question of the tax increase which was brought down by the Minister of Finance to raise general revenues. There is, as a result of the raising of these general revenues, a program production fund which has been set up which will total some $60 million a year and which will bring about a good deal of employment for Canadians who are engaged in creative work, particularly people in the artistic or cultural community in Canada.
I think that on all sides of the House there are people who want to say that they are delighted that we have indeed been able, perhaps for the first time in our history, to put as much money at the disposal of the private sector in the area of film production. 1 expect that this fund of $60 million will lead to the creation of over $180 million annually in new program

April 22, 1983
Oral Questions
production. That will obviously have a very real effect on employment, a very real effect on stimulating the private sector which is engaged in the production of films and television programs.
The Hon. Member knows, as well as I do, the number of new opportunities which will be made available in the creative community in Canada as a result of the setting up of this fund.


Henry Perrin Beatty: If the Minister of Finance had not made his $200 million gaffe on Monday night, he would have had $200 million sitting there which could have been used for this production fund without increasing taxes. Apparently this money was just sitting there, ready to be used, but the Minister of Communications did not have access to it.


DEREGULATION OF SATELLITE RECEPTION EARTH STATIONS- ROLE OF CABLE COMPANIES
Henry Perrin Beatty: Let me
ask a question relating to the Government's broadcasting strategy. In view of the fact that the announcement made by the Minister of Communications that the Government would be deregulating the use of earth stations has led to a number of institutions disconnecting from the cable system, yet cable companies are still being prevented from competing fairly and offering satellite services on cable, when will the Government act on its commitments and permit cable companies to compete fairly? Can the Minister confirm the fact that it could be up to a year before he actually delivers on the commitment that he made in his policy statement?


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member knows full well that a number of the matters that were contained in the broadcasting policy are matters that have to be implemented by the CRTC. We have indicated quite clearly the general direction that we see broadcasting heading over the next few years.
The Hon. Member, speaking on behalf of his Party, has not really indicated whether or not he thinks this is the direction in which we should be headed. I should add that there has indeed been a general consensus as far as I can tell, and I know the Hon. Member attended the same Financial Post conference on broadcasting that I did, that there seems to be a very strong support from the broadcasting community and the cable industry itself in Canada for the direction the Government intends to go in the area of broadcasting.


SHIPBUILDING
Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It pertains to some provisions in that rather right wing budget that was presented in the House the other day. As an aside, it would appear that the Minister of Finance might be
thinking seriously of challenging the Conservative leadership with his budget.
Much was made of the question of vessel acquisition and shipbuilding. There have been three programs over the years which seem to be hanging in limbo. First is the Patrol Frigate Program, second is the one that both the Conservatives and the Liberal Government announced, the $300 million Coast Guard Acquisition Program, and finally the extension of Canada's 200-mile limit in the recent shipbuilding program. We have seen nothing concrete laid down. Is this just another promise, or will the Minister give us an indication of when the Government will make those announcements concerning the Patrol Frigate Program, the Coast Guard Vessel Acquisition Program, and when it intends to implement the recent shipbuilding policy that it proposed in the House?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, first with respect to the shipbuilding policy, that program is already under way. As a matter of fact we recently made an announcement to a shipyard of $1.7 million assistance for a major contract. Also, my colleague, the Minister of State for Economic Development, will be making some announcements next week. I think the Minister of Finance has already indicated that some of these projects will be in vessel procurement.


PATROL FRIGATE PROGRAM
Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, certainly one of the largest programs in place is the Patrol Frigate Program. That certainly should have been out long ago. It was our understanding that we would be hearing about it in the late spring or early summer. It now appears that that Program has been pushed back even further. Can the Minister give some indication of when the Government will move on this Program and give a real shot in the arm to the shipbuilding industry?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, since the Canadian Patrol Frigate Program is one that comes under my responsibility, I am pleased to advise the hon. gentleman that, as I have indicated in the House previously, the Program is proceeding on schedule. I trust that we would be in a position to make the final decision in terms of the identification of the contractor by next July, 1983.


RAILWAYS
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Madam
Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Will he tell us which groups or individual producers in western Canada are in favour of his plan to restructure the Crow rate?
April 22, 1983

regardless. However, if there is any conflict between these two programs, I will certainly look into it because clearly the NEED Program is not meant to do that. The information I have at the moment is that there is no conflict between the two programs. If the union would like to make formal representations to me, I will receive them kindly and look into the matter very seriously.


NEED PROGRAM-REPLACEMENT OF EMPLOYEE
Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, the union of National Defence employees has certainly made representations. I will pass them on to the Minister so that he can examine them.
Meanwhile, may I appeal to the Prime Minister in the case of one of the employees involved? His name is Stephen Dent. He is a married man with children, including a four-week old child. On March 25 he was dismissed from his employment in the Department of National Defence. He says, and I believe him, that a person was subsequently employed last week under the NEED Program, who is providing the same work services. Does the Prime Minister agree that this kind of activity in the name of job creation in a Government Department, the Department of National Defence, should not happen? And will he undertake to look into this case and make sure that this misunderstanding is clarified and that no employee, Stephen Dent or any other person, will have to suffer the hardships of unemployment in the name of Government job creation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, if the Hon. Member were genuinely interested in this case, I suspect he would have given me notice or given the Minister notice and we would have been able to look into it. He was not interested in this case. He was interested in making politics.


EMPLOYMENT
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, we in the New Democratic Party are also concerned that there seems to be a growing acceptance of the high rate of unemployment almost as natural or normal. That is contrary to what the Bishops have said, and it seems to me to be contrary to any notion of a just society. I have a question for the Prime Minister-


Mr. Malone:: The High Priest.
[DOT] (U25)


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Can we keep God out of this, please? My question is for the Prime Minister. One year ago the Government's job-creation strategy seemed to be to have job spin-offs from megaprojects. If the Prime Minister would visit southern Ontario, the industrial heartland, as I have recently, he would see that the Government's job-creation strategy, continued in
Oral Questions
the budget, is basically the NEED Program which offers jobs like the raking of leaves, cleaning up of brush, and so on. Is that the message the Prime Minister wants to give to the young people of Canada, that the Government's strategy is raking leaves and cleaning up brush, and that is what we are going to have in the future of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The short answer is no, Madam Speaker, that is not the strategy, that is not what the Minister of Finance has been talking about, and that is not what the Minister of Employment and Immigration has been talking about. The Hon. Member, I guess, shows the level of his ingenuity when he thinks that this $4.8 billion will be spent on raking leaves. He does not have much confidence in Canadians.
In so far as the rate of unemployment is concerned, Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member should be asked to examine his own political and economic thinking on this matter. What is a satisfying rate of unemployment? Is it 8 per cent? Is it 5 per cent? Is it 3 per cent? Or is it less? I remember a great socialist, Nye Bevan, saying that it should be 3 per cent. Now, is not 3 per cent very much unfair for the 3 per cent of unemployed people? How can a well thinking socialist-I am sure admired by the Hon. Member, as I admire Mr. Bevan myself-accept 3 per cent unemployment as not being unacceptable in a just society? The Hon. Member should do some thinking on these problems.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Let me tell the Prime Minister that I have confidence in Canadians, but no confidence in this Government. If the Prime Minister did some reading instead of airy-fairy thinking, he would see that his budget talks about 11.5 per cent unemployment next year, and his own Minister of Finance, as quoted in The Toronto Sun yesterday, talks about 7 per cent unemployment. Those figures are totally unacceptable.


INQUIRY RESPECTING CANINE CENSUS
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, is the Prime Minister aware that in Windsor, Ontario, one of his job-creation programs involves a canine census; that is, the counting of dogs? That is the nature of the program. Is the Prime Minister aware of that, and does he believe, as a reader of socialists and so on, that that is the kind of job-creation program that anyone who is at all progressive would introduce?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Lucky you are not a tree.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member talks about 7 per cent unemployment as being unacceptable. What is acceptable to the Hon. Member? Six per cent? Five per cent? Four per cent? Three per cent? Or what? He could just invent some figure that is acceptable to him. If we knew what his principles were, then perhaps we could discuss the practices.

April 22, 1983
Oral Questions PENITENTIARIES


OBSERVANCE OF NATIVE SPIRITUAL RIGHTS-HUNGER STRIKE AT B.C. INSTITUTION
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. Will the Minister say what his Department is doing to resolve the serious situation at the Kent Maximum Security Penitentiary in British Columbia where several Indian inmates are in the twenty-third day of a hunger strike because they have been restricted from carrying out their Indian spiritual ceremonies. Would the Minister intervene to resolve this serious situation as soon as possible and take steps to see that Indians have the same spiritual rights in penitentiaries as do other religious groups, which I believe is a basic principle in the New Charter of Rights?
Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, as a matter of interest, native religious ceremonies have not been permitted in Canadian penitentiaries in the past. I decided to change that. I asked the Correctional Service of Canada to design a policy permitting native spiritual observances in institutions. They have designed a policy. The native people in Kent are dissatisfied with that policy, and tried to get an injunction under the Charter. The court has held that the policy which CSC devised was a satisfactory one so far as the Charter is concerned, from my understanding of the judgment. I have asked to see that policy myself. I am now in the process of reviewing it to see whether changes can be made. However, I think the Indians are going a long way when they characterize this new policy, which first allows religious observance in institutions and native observance, as a form of genocide, and I think it not unreasonable that there should be some restrictions on the amount of religious material and equipment which each Indian should be allowed to have in his cell. I want to review the policy, as I say, but I am very pleased that a great deal of progress has been made on this subject in a very short time.

[DOT] (U30)


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I was not yet finished with the Prime Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: He's on his last legs, too.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I wonder if I could ask him a further question, seriously. I have in my hand a letter from an action group of unemployed people. These groups are going up all over the country, and they cannot direct a question to the Prime Minister, so maybe I can.
In the letter the writer states that he asked some grade four students what they would do if they were Prime Minister. One
of them said, "If I were Prime Minister, I would gather taxes for the poor and help them to find jobs."
I therefore want to direct this final question to the Prime Minister. If we are to have a high rate of unemployment, which seems to be Government policy in the budget, in the statements of the Minister-I believe in full employment, but apparently the Government does not-I want to ask the Prime Minister how he will get money, real money, to these people. How will he redistribute money to these people who will suffer among the 11 per cent or 12 per cent unemployed in our society? Is this his idea of a just society? If it is not, how will he redistribute some income to these people so that they will have satisfactory and full lives like the rest of us who are working?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Hon. Member repeats again that he is in favour of full employment. He has failed, in my three attempts to get a view from him-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I'm asking the question. Why don't I get some answers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Oh, this is a cross-examination, Madam Speaker. I still do not know how the Hon. Member can speak of full employment and not be able to define it, at what statistical level he would find unemployment to be correct for a just society. However, I think he has quoted to me a good source for an answer to his question. I think that fourth grade student gave a very good answer. If the Hon. Member goes and meets with the fourth grade student, I bet he will get explanations as to why the Minister of Finance is doing the right thing, because if I understood correctly, the fourth grade student said that the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister should gather taxes and give jobs to people. That is what the Minister of Finance is doing in his budget, with some $4.8 billion which the budget has-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: And jobs counting dogs?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -earmarked in order to give jobs to people. Some of it will be given to the private sector, with some $2.4 billion having been set aside for that. The other will be job creation in infrastructure by the federal Government. I would think that even the fourth grade student would be able to explain to the Hon. Member that one does not have to count dogs in order to build the infrastructure. I do not see how that would help.
What one can do is build airports, harbours, public works programs, encourage all kinds of-well, the Minister of Finance was giving examples to the Hon. Member for St. John's East the other day-make sure that the search and rescue apparatus is upgraded, make sure that Coast Guard ships are built. All these are things which Canada needs.
The kind of idea that Nye Bevan and the other Bevan were developing some 30 or 40 years ago should reach the Hon. Member. He should know that there are more things on the shelf than projects for counting dogs. He should be able to tell
April 22, 1983


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, you would not allow me to list them all. In the farm community there are groups like UGG, Unifarm, and Palliser. There are many groups in the West on the farm side who are strongly in favour of what they think the Bill is all about.
In the non-farm community it is generally accepted that this is the way to proceed. I will send my hon. friend a copy this afternoon of the list of people who have expressed a desire to see a Bill of this kind introduced.


David Kilgour: Some of those groups were in favour of the Gilson plan. My understanding is that a much lesser number of them are in favour of the Minister's plan.


SASKATCHEWAN PETITION OPPOSING CHANGES
David Kilgour: Madam
Speaker, will the Minister give us his reaction to the 108,000 people in Saskatchewan who signed a petition opposing his plan? Will he tell us again why he thinks his plan is fair and equitable for the farming and urban communities in western Canada?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, obviously I cannot do that today, but when the Bill comes in I will do so. The difficulty to which my hon. friend alludes is one that inevitably comes with attempts to compromise. With respect to the method of payment, some say that 100 per cent should be paid to producers while others say that 100 per cent should be paid to the railways. Gilson himself compromised with 81 per cent to the producers and 19 per cent to the railways. So there has to be a compromise. You cannot accommodate everyone 100 per cent.
That is what we have done with the 50-50, in the knowledge that we did not have a monopoly on good intentions or intelligence and that, after a period of time, there would be a major review. This is the commonsense approach that we have taken. I regret that it has not yet gained unanimity in the West, but it is on its way.


FINANCE
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I wish to address a question to the Minister of State for Finance. He will know that the Minister of Finance has repeated in the House on several occasions that he feels people who are locked into high interest rate morgages for a long period of time should be treated fairly and equitably by the lending institutions.
Is the Minister aware that the Farm Credit Corporation has people locked into mortgages at 16.75 per cent, and that the Federal Business Development Bank has Canadian businesses locked into interest rates of 22 per cent for long periods of
Oral Questions
time? Does he think that it should not be possible for them to refinance with the same institutions?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, when the Minister of Finance was asked that question, I recall that it was in regard to people who had mortgages on homes. So the specific question and the answer of the Minister related to home purchases.
Obviously the principles must be the same. First, the response is that over the last two years most of the mortgages have been short term rather than long term because of the high interest rates. The majority of people who are so-called locked in, are under contracts that are not of a long duration. Second, the Minister indicated that those companies that let mortgages at the high rates of course had to take money at rates that would cover their operations.
Having said that, the Minister undertook to talk to representatives of the banks and trust companies who are handling mortgages so that they would be as sensitive as possible to difficulties in particular cases.


RATES CHARGED BY CROWN CORPORATIONS
Gary Michael Gurbin: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same Minister. I think he made the point precisely that the Minister of Finance was indeed talking about home owners, perhaps over 700,000, who are locked into high interest rate mortgages for periods of time, both short and long.
The federal Government does have the responsibility for two Crown corporations; the Farm Credit Corporation and the Federal Business Development Bank. Both of those are lending money over long periods of time. If the Minister can find $200 million out of thin air overnight for some programs, why is it not possible for the federal Government to have the sensitivity that it is asking of the traditional lending institutions, on behalf of the people who are committed to long term mortgages with those two Crown corporations?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I think if we accepted the Hon. Member's invitation to transfer $200 million to the banks of Canada or the trust companies of Canada, the next complaint we would hear from the Opposition is that it is a give away program to the private sector. Rather, the Minister indicated that the additional $200 million would be on top of the $4.6 billion infrastructure program. Of that, $2.4 billion goes toward immediate job creation in the country. We know that people are concerned about high interest rates, but there are many Canadians concerned about jobs immediately. That is why that $200 million was allocated toward jobs. I do not understand the Opposition's criticizing that move to put an additional $200 million toward the creation of jobs for Canadians.

April 22, 1983
Oral Questions


THE BUDGET
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. During the course of the last week, with the unfortunate events surrounding the Minister of Finance, he made some suggestion that he was not happy with the closed atmosphere that surrounds budget making, that he thought it was too secret a process. Could the Minister tell the House whether or not the Government has under review the question of opening up the budget process? If that is being actively considered, in a broad, general way, how is that process envisaged by the Government?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. That is a very important aspect of Government structure and parliamentary business. It was as a result of that kind of question and the concern raised by the Hon. Member that, for example, in June last year the then Minister of Finance issued a Green Paper calling for public discussion on this very issue. That suggestion was further developed by the present Minister of Finance, by working with the Canadian Tax Foundation in arranging a symposium on the subject with members of the Foundation, I believe scheduled for June or July. These two specific steps were taken to engage response by the public, with the opportunity for the Government to work with that private response on a very difficult subject.


EXAMINATION BY SPECIAL COMMITTEE
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Minister will be aware that the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure of the House of Commons indicated as part of its future mandate that reforms relating to the opening up of the budget process would be considered. When the Committee undertakes that kind of investigation, can it be assured of assistance and help by the Minister of Finance, the Minister of State for Finance, other Government colleagues and the Public Service of Canada, in examining this very important procedure that goes right to the heart of the events which occurred last week since budget making is not only a financial but a social policy process?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, of course I cannot speak for the agenda or the timing of Committees of the House, or what will be their work schedules, but I can say to the Hon. Member that the Minister is very concerned about it. There is no question that he will engage all Canadians, as well as Members of Parliament, because of their very constructive concerns about the process. The Minister has indicated-and it is my perception as well-that the time has long come for an examination of the entire process in order to move what I think is an antiquated procedure, into this century.


COMMUNICATIONS
[Stage Direction]
SATELLITE TELEVISION RECEPTION DISHES-OWNERS* DILEMMA
Hon. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications. It concerns the reception of television broadcasts via satellites. The Minister has announced a new policy on the Government's approach to this, but there seems to be a gap between the policy announcements of the Minister and the law as it exists. For those individuals and organizations who have satellite receivers in place receiving off satellites, legally according to the Minister's new projected policy, but illegally according to the law as it now exists, are they to take down their receivers and wait for the law to be changed, or will they be allowed to continue to receive according to the Minister's new law? What has to be done to end this confusion?


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, actually there is no confusion. If the Hon. Member reads the policy documents he will see very clearly that we have indeed liberalized individual receptions of satellite signals for individual purposes. Also we have indicated that in months to come the CRTC would be considering applications from present licence holders to increase the range of signals being made available to licensed operations such as cable operations. I can only suggest to the Hon. Member that any of the licensed cable operations in his area that are interested in increasing the number of available signals could make application to the CRTC.
Also I point out that less than a month ago the CRTC brought down a decision increasing the range of television services available to northern communities by modifying the licence issued to the CANCOM operations, allowing them to put on Canadian satellites the three plus one services which are available to other parts of the country. Indeed there have been a number of measures taken, not only the measures indicated in policy documents but ones of a concrete nature which have allowed over the past year an equalization of service opportunities throughout Canada.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and it has to do with the growing concern of people globally about the nuclear arms race, particularly the proposed testing of the Cruise missile in Canada. Many people do not believe that a further build-up would be any kind of a deterrent. In light of the fact that the Prime Minister has a very good international reputation-it might be as good as any Canadian Prime Minister has ever had; certainly much better than his reputation in Canada-instead of involving Canada further in a nuclear arms build-up in the world, would he offer himself
April 22, 1983

and the Government of Canada as mediators to work toward a meaningful freeze of nuclear weapons, and at some point in the future to work toward the elimination of nuclear arms?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member would know that I have done a great deal in Canada to denuclearize our whole approach to defence. I did that in Canada, and I did that in NATO by denuclearizing our planes in Germany.
In so far as the over-all progress toward the reduction of nuclear arms is concerned, the Hon. Member would understand that it is not something Canada can do directly. It will depend ultimately upon negotiations between the two super powers. Canada as a member of an alliance, of which the United States is also a member, has made many suggestions in order to improve progress toward nuclear arms reduction.
I do not happen to think that the freeze is a good solution, certainly not a unilateral freeze. If we are talking about a freeze, and a verifiable one, it would certainly involve negotiations as to what we freeze, how, at what rate and how it is verified, which would be extraordinarily complex, intricate and lengthy. Rather than talk about a freeze, I think our side is correct in talking about a reduction which will take the same kind of verification and detailed negotiations. It is those negotiations which are going on now between the super powers. It is these negotiations which Canada is monitoring as closely as it can.
I think there is an honest division of opinion in Canada on whether or not the Cruise should be tested here. All I know is that that matter in a real sense, whichever way it is decided, will not be the crucial decision. The crucial decision is how quickly the two super powers are prepared to begin reducing their arsenal of atomic weapons.


Douglas Keith Anguish: I was not talking about unilateral disarmament. I think the Prime Minister can play a meaningful role as the Prime Minister in mediation between the super powers because of his international reputation.


PROPOSED TESTING OF CRUISE MISSILE
Douglas Keith Anguish: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Prime Minister. We have come one step closer this week to testing the Cruise missile in Canada. I think that is unfortunate. There has been a great deal of secrecy around the agreement leading up to the testing of the Cruise missile. Will the Prime Minister assure the House that there will be a ministerial statement made by either himself, the Minister of National Defence or the Secretary of State for External Affairs, outlining the steps which have been taken so far and what will be the future stpes leading up to the proposed testing of that missile, before any further agreements are signed allowing Cruise testing to take place?
Tabling of Documents


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I could make a short statement within the framework of the Question Period. I suppose the next step would be for the United States to reach the conclusion that it is ready to ask to test the Cruise Missile in Canada. The step after that would be for the Cabinet to examine whether we should accede to that request or not. We would be happy to have views from the Hon. Member on the subject.


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Thursday, April 21, 1983, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Madam Speaker, seeing that you have found my petition correct as to form, I would ask that the Clerk now read the petition.


Madam Speaker:: As the Hon. Member knows, that request can only be complied with by unanimous consent. Does the House give its unanimous consent to the reading of the petition?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member does not have unanimous consent.


PRIVILEGE
Madam Speaker:: I am prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised by the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens). However, as is usual, I would prefer to delay the ruling until the Hon. Member is present in the House.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 46(2), I

April 22, 1983
Point of Order-Mr. Donald Munro
am tabling in both official languages revised budget tables dated April 22, 1983.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to ask the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Cosgrove) whether this is in response to the request by the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens).


Madam Speaker:: I suppose the Leader of the Opposition may find that out when he consults the documents which have now been tabled.


Erik Nielsen: 
POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My recollection is that when we agreed to the Permanent and Provisional Standing Orders taking effect at the beginning of this part of this very long session to be accepted for use in this particular part of the session for this calendar year, there was an undertaking that there would be an index provided to supplement the Table of Contents.
I have raised this question on a number of occasions. I raised it on that first day. I have raised it quite frequently since then. I understand there were requirements of the Queen's Printer, as I hope she is still called, to produce the index as soon as the budget papers have been corrected, amended, re-corrected, reedited and now revised. I gather that that process is now complete. It may or may not be complete; there may be more revisions.
The index to our Standing Orders, permanent and provisional though they may be, is a matter that concerns all of us. I am just reminded once again that we are all waiting, not with bated breath because we would be out of breath if we were to continue bating our breath like this, for this index. I hope that within a measurable period of time we will see that index to the Permanent and Provisional Standing Orders of the House of Commons.


Madam Speaker:: I have to thank the Hon. Member for his patience because I know how eagerly he is waiting for this index in order to be able to refer more easily to the Standing Orders. His patience is only equal to mine because I need this index even more than the Hon. Member. I must tell the Hon. Member that the Queen's Printer is actually printing the index, but there is trouble with the cover. The last news is that 200 copies will be ready on Monday. I will be getting those
200 copies. I am not in a position to determine, but I guess they will be distributed on a first come, first served basis.


Donald W. Munro: Is the cover coming out in a blushing red, Madam Speaker?


Madam Speaker:: I have no idea!


Walter David Baker: May I respectfully suggest that the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) get the first copy and that it be autographed by you, Madam Speaker!


Madam Speaker:: Good idea.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Jim Schroder (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, the following question will be answered today: 4,721.


Mr. Blenkarn: 1.	Has the Government received a request from Johns-Manville Canada Incorporated for a grant for $35 million to maintain its mine operation in Asbestos, Quebec?
2.	Has the Government advanced any money by grant or loan or loan guarantee during any of the past five years to this company?


Edward C. Lumley: In so
far as the Departments of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Regional Economic Expansion are concerned:
1.	Both of these Departments do not make public, for reasons of commercial confidentiality, information on whether a company application for assistance has been received unless and until it results in an accepted offer of assistance.
2.	Both of these Departments have not advanced any money to this company by grant or loan or loan guarantee during any of the past five years.


James Duncan Schroder: Madam Speaker, if question No. 4,712 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Madam Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
April 22, 1983


Mr. Althouse: 1.	Were four working groups established to do follow-up work on the Gilson proposals and, if so, how many of the persons appointed to serve on the groups were paid for their services from government funds?
2.	What was the individual per diem or salary paid in each case where per diems or salaries were paid?
3.	What were the specific functions of each of the four working groups?
4.	(a) What was the membership of each group (b) what was the name of each member and whom did he/she represent?
5.	What amount of Government funds have been expended by each of the working groups to date?
6.	What is the total cost of this project expected to be?
7.	On what date is the work of each group expected to be at an end?
Return tabled.


James Duncan Schroder: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS

["The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) is quite correct. Pursuant to Standing Order 24(2) it is my duty to interrupt proceedings and to call it four o'clock.\nIt being four o'clock, pursuant to order made Thursday, April 14, 1983, this House stands adjourned until Monday next at eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 2(1).\nAt 3.27 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.", '\n\nMonday, April 25, 1983']
Madam Speaker:: Shall all orders listed under Private Member's Public Bills preceding No. 454 be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Lambert:: Mr. Speaker, I again raise the point that I made the other day with regard to the other Private Members' Business and the calling of Private Members' Public Bills. Bills numbered in the 400s and 600s are not being called. There was a procedure laid down which was followed with regard to Members getting a draw and then Bills were listed in the order that they were presented. It is a simple matter for those who may be in charge, whoever they may be, and God only knows because no one else knows, to draw up the precise order.
It is my view that many of the Bills in the 200s and 300s should have been called. Those persons doing the staff work should see if Members are prepared to discuss their Bills. Many of us should have been called, but we did not receive any calls. Lo and behold, out of the blue some Bill comes up for discussion on Private Members' Day. I object to that system. Those of us who have had Bills on the Order Paper for three years should bet a call long before those who have placed Bills on the Order Paper in the last six or nine months and, in some cases, within the last six weeks.
Private Members' Business


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair is in somewhat of a difficulty. Perhaps I can take a moment to explain. Private Members' Bills, Notices of Motions and Motions for Papers were organized some years ago by the office of the President of the Privy Council. It would be beyond my scope to speak knowledgeably as to how these Bills are brought forward from day to day. I know from personal conversations I have had that an effort is made to give every Hon. Member the opportunity to present and debate his Bill, Motion or Notice of Motion for Papers seriatim in the order in which it has been called from the draw.
Many Members, as the Hon. Member knows, will find they are busy on the particular day they are called, or for one reason or another they may not want to proceed. 1 have indicated that that is not within the scope of the Chair. The Hon. Member may want to argue that it ought to be within the scope of the Chair and under the responsibility of the Table. But even if he does so wish to argue, I think we would have to look to some further form of discussion in order to arrive at that point. For the moment, the Chair presumes that there has been what I might call a good faith organization of this material, and what I put before the House is the result of a procedure that is followed elsewhere and is hopefully to the satisfaction of the Members.
I do not know that I can now take the discussion any further. Perhaps the Hon. Member himself may wish to comment further. The Chair and the Members will be pleased to hear his comments.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I believe I made it clear from the very beginning that 1 certainly do not impute responsibility on the Chair but on the system behind the Chair. The Chair's original role is to preside at the draw for the 50 priority places and the Members then have the right to elect within those 50 places whatever Bill they wish to bring forward. But beyond that there must be a system.
I do recall, not so long ago, when the prior Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council would come to the Opposition or whoever had Bills and say: "Is the Hon. Member prepared to go forward with his Bill either this week or next week?" That way, there was some order to the sequence.
I do not raise this objection simply because I am not on this week's list, but someone indicated to me that if I were ready to go forward with the first of the Bills that I have, then I would likely come forward. That is not my point. The system at the present time is just not working right.
The appearance of debate today almost seems to suggest that every week someone in the Privy Council office-and why it should be the Privy Council office handling Private Members' legislation is beyond me-merely dips into a basket and comes up with two or three names, and depending upon the

April 22, 1983
Private Members' Business
order of business to be dealt with, either papers or Private Bills or Private Members' Public Bills, we then proceed. I object to that because it means that we are to keep filing our Private Bills, and if the luck of the week's draw happens to favour you, it is like winning one of the lotteries. That is not right.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, may 1 make a brief intervention with respect to the problems and questions raised by the Hon. Member for Edmonton West. I share his concern about the conduct of Private Members' Business. I know it is of concern to a number of Members and it bears some close examination.
I would like in passing to record a very simplistic suggestion which I think might relieve some of the concern of Members with respect to the notification of what is to transpire regarding Private Members' Business. In particular, may I put on the record a suggestion that could be considered at some subsequent point by the Chair and by the Officers of the House of Commons. We now receive in some cases notification of what are the projected items for Private Members' Business. In fact, I have in my hand a document that is dated April 21, 1983 that lists the items to be considered or projected to be considered today in Private Members' Business.
I would simply make the suggestion that once this projection of Private Members' Business is known, it be communicated as quickly as possible to all Members so at least they will know as quickly as possible what the projected business is. I realize that similar notification can be posted and so on, but that has proved not to be successful.
I would ask the Chair and Officers of the House to consider whether there might be some more effective method for notifying Members, and preferably as much in advance of the time for considering Private Members' Business as possible. In the normal operation of the new Standing Orders, Private Members' Business is considered on a Wednesday, so that such a notification should be given no later than the preceding Monday.


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I agree wholeheartedly with the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Edmonton West. I do not know how these matters are chosen. Surely there is some kind of a system. But here we are dealing with Bills going right back to No. 22, and, we are now dealing with those in the 400s and the 600s. I do not know how this is dealt with.
For weeks the Hon. Member for Vaudreuil was requesting papers from us and Bills were not even considered. I have a hunch that part of this difficulty is because the Government refuses to follow precedent by calling a session each year. We should have had a session called in 1981. There should have been a new session in 1982. There should have been a new session in 1983. Instead of that, we are still in the same session.
I know what the Government is trying to do. It gypped Private Members out of two days a week for several weeks, because after the first 200 hours of Private Members' Business only two days a week are allowed. Now under the new rules we are still gypped out of at least one Private Members' hour with the three hours allowed on Wednesday, and for this week on
Friday. If the Government would follow precedent and start thinking about the country instead of itself, we would not have this difficulty. Many of these things would be taken care of.
The British House of Commons invariably starts a new session every October except when there is an election in the middle of the year. Invariably the Queen reads the Speech from the Throne. If the Government does not have its Bills finished, too bad. It is the Government's responsibility to get important legislation into the House in time for it to be finished. In the British House, if this important legislation is not finished, too bad. The House must start over again the next year. That is the way it should be.
We in Canada should follow this precedent by having one session a year, not one session that is now in its fourth year. Here is where the difficulties arise, and the responsibility for that rests entirely on the doorstep of the Prime Minister and the Government.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, I draw to the attention of the House that we are at this time engaged in debate on something that I fail to understand. The Speaker asked if there was unanimous consent to hold all Bills prior to No. 454. I have agreed.
I understand the concerns of some Members and I share those concerns. Sometimes we are not consulted as to the order in which Private Members' Bills are to be called on days like today. But I do not want to take any more time from the Hon. Member whose Bill has been called. I agree, and I did not hear anyone disagree, that we should proceed with Bill C-454.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I hope you will hear my comments although they may not be entirely relevant to the discussion. Since you are listening to grievances regarding Private Members' Business, I thought perhaps I would take this opportunity to cite my grievance. I can leave it for the learned Officers at the Table to muse over and perhaps advise Your Honour.
I had a Private Member's Bill which was considered by the House last fall. The precise time last fall escapes me at the moment but it was late last fall. There was an agreement in the House that the subject matter of the Bill would be referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts. It was referred but it has not yet been considered by the Committee. I have no control over that because I am not a Member of the Committee. It is a Private Member's Bill and has nothing to do with the policy of this Party. It is strictly my own personal opinion that is reflected in the Bill.
If the House agrees to discharge the Bill and I agree to have the order withdrawn on condition that the subject matter is referred to the Committee, then it becomes an order of the House and is referred to the Committee. If the Committee refuses to deal with it, however, where does that leave me?
April 22, 1983

What recourse do I have? I should like the Committee to take that under consideration.
1 did not raise this matter earlier because I did not want to take up the time of Private Members, but now that we are into this grievance session I raise it. It is a Bill that I have had for ten years or more and deals with our attitude toward children on television and how we use children as surrogates with regard to advertising. It would open up the whole area of Government policy with regard to television and how it deals with children's programming and that kind of thing. There was general interest in it throughout the country but it reflects my personal opinion.
I agreed to having the order withdrawn on condition that the subject matter be referred to the Committee. That was done and the order of the House was made. The Bill was referred to the Committee but the Committee has not dealt with it to date, and I would like to know what my position is.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I think it is obvious to the House that there is some measure of dissatisfaction with the procedure being followed with respect to Private Members' Public Bills, Motions and Notices of Motions. The Table has provided me with a copy of the ruling by the then Deputy Speaker Laniel dated December 5, 1977 in which he reviewed the practice. He indicated that in his view the House at that time had found satisfaction. I make reference to that ruling and the date because I think it will relate to my next suggestion.
It seems to me that if the Hon. Member for Edmonton West were simply to indicate, or make a motion perhaps seconded by such other Hon. Member as may feel the same way, that in view of the fact that the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization is reviewing all of the Standing Orders and procedures of the House and that there is a strong feeling about this, the Standing Committee should examine this issue to the eventual satisfaction of Members. That might be a very direct and satisfactory way of putting the matter before the Standing Committee.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, I would be attempting to put on a debatable motion and I do not think that I could. I have already intruded into the time of the Hon. Member who had the first item. I would agree that he be given an hour and that we just extend the time to so provide. I raised the point of order with regard to the drawing of Bills but I do not want to cut in on whoever is on the list for today. I shall write a very positive letter to the Chairman of the Committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It seems to me that the Hon. Member has resolved the point of the order. In that case perhaps we could proceed with the Bill standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell).
National Parks Act NATIONAL PARKS ACT



Ian Gardiner Waddell: that Bill C-454, an Act respecting a national park on Moresby Island and its adjacent islands, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this Bill involves the creation of a park on south Moresby Island, which is in the Queen Charlotte Islands off the northwest coast of British Columbia amid the rainswept fiords and rugged mountains in the former ancestral home of the Haida Indians. Hon. Members may recognize the geography if they recall some of the wonderful pictures of the last remaining Haida totem poles in a state of nature on the West Coast.
I have a problem with my Bill. I found out that another Bill has been presented in the British Columbia Legislature by Mr. Lea, an Opposition MLAS. It is Bill M-208, the Southern Moresby Wilderness Park Act. His Bill is more detailed than mine and the area is better defined. In my Bill I had some problems with the definition of the area and so on.
I would ask leave of the House to let my Bill stand. Mr. Lea may shortly be in a position to implement his Bill. For other reasons as well I should like to have a chance to redraw the boundaries in a better way in my Bill. Whether we do it federally or provincially, in the end we should retain this unique area in Canada. It is a world ecological site, along with the pyramids and things like that. We should retain it for the future.
I know that many Members have indicated support for the Bill but I would ask that it stand until I can deal with the changes I have outlined.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The House has heard the Hon. Member's motion. Is it agreed that Bill C-454 be withdrawn from debate for today and allowed to stand?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, what I am concerned about is whether this should not be in the form of a resolution. A very considerable expenditure of funds is involved in the creation of a national park. The Hon. Member's idea is very commendable but 1 would have thought it would be presented in the form of a resolution that the Government of Canada give favourable consideration to the creation of such a national park. To that extent I would say that I think he would be wise to withdraw his Bill because I think it is entirely out of order.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member. He has been around the House a lot longer than I have and I appreciate his wisdom. I was hoping that I could achieve what I want by other methods, perhaps in the provincial area. I would ask the Hon. Member for Edmonton West if he would bear with me and agree to allow the Bill to stand. When I have another look at it I may want to withdraw it and put it in the

April 22, 1983
Canada Elections Act
form of a resolution. But I would like to have the option, so I would ask the Hon. Member not to stand in the way of consenting to have the Bill stand.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It is the understanding of the Chair that there is unanimous consent that the Bill shall stand.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Bill stood.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I now have to put the
question which Hon. Members will realize is basically the issue which took up the time of the House for half an hour under points of order.
Shall all orders listed under Private Members' Public Bills preceding No. 318 be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, what would you do if we said no?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: 1 would begin by calling the order numbers seriatim. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Donald W. Munro: that Bill C-518, an Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (mobile polling stations), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this has been an interesting interlude, if I may call it that, with respect to the order and manner in which Private Members' Bills are chosen. I do not have the actual Order Paper here describing the three Bills which were to be discussed today, but they are not in any order which one could determine from their numbering.
The Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) did raise the question of how the selection is made. I could indicate, as I am sure any other Hon. Member who has a Private Member's Bill come forward could indicate, that notice comes about as a result of a telephone call. I received such a call yesterday or the day before asking whether I would be prepared to have my particular Bill come forward. I was ready for it, but I am not satisfied, like many other Hon. Members, that this is the best way to proceed. We could revert to the practices of the past, which sometimes proved to be a pretty good order of doing business, and have the Bills selected in order after discussion with the Hon. Members involved to assure they would be here on the day their Bills are to come forward.
Another aspect of the Private Member's Bill is Private Members' Day, itself, which was not mentioned. It does not have anything to do with the change from the Wednesday to
the Friday. It has to do simply with the matter of the three hours. There are never three full hours for debate on Private Members' Bills even on a Wednesday, Mr. Speaker. There are always matters such as Questions on the Order Paper and all sorts of other items which are brought forward.
I do feel, therefore, that we should take that into account. I am going to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the proceedings of today, particularly the matter which was raised by the Hon. Member for Edmonton West and the discussion which followed, all of which contributed to this particular matter, be especially referred to the Special Committee on Procedural Reform so that it might consider the wishes of the Hon. Members as to the disposition of the three Bills on Private Members' Day.
I am delighted that my particular Bill has finally come forward for discussion. It was given first reading three years ago almost to the day, on May 2, 1980. One of the criticisms which we all have of Private Members' Business is that there is an undue delay. The Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) mentioned that it is largely as a result of the failure of the Government to have a second session in this particular Parliament, or probably now a third session, so that there would be some order in the numbering of our Private Members' Bills. That may be one of the reasons why my Bill, which has the number 518, is unusually high on the list. The draw should work and then one should go through the other Bills, seriatim, but with plenty of advance notice.
Another matter related to these current rules which provide for the consideration of three Private Members' Bills on Wednesdays is that there be sufficient advance notice for the Hon. Member whose Bill is being brought forward so that he may find friendly disposition in his own Party or in other Parties of the House to have the Bill discussed in a suitable manner. Therefore, I do suggest that today's proceedings be referred to that Special Committee so they might consider the views expressed here today.
I have another complaint, Mr. Speaker, if that is the way to describe it, and that is that this Bill was introduced on May 2, 1980, very shortly after it was re-written and re-presented, immediately following the election in 1980. That is a time when all of us come back here with memories of errors or corrections which we want to make in the Elections Act-and I am talking about revisions in the Elections Act. I have talked about the permanent voters' list, for example. That is something which I have felt for a long time ought to be inaugurated. It would shorten the length of the election period, for one thing, and I believe it would also be cheaper, although I have had arguments to the contrary. While the memory is still fresh in our minds, Mr. Speaker, that is the time to discuss a matter such as we have been asked to discuss today, not three years after the event.
There is another element which I have had in mind to suggest as a modification to the Elections Act. I believe that
April 22, 1983

the same privileges which exist for rural voters should be transferred to urban voters and urban voting stations. If these people, rural voters, are away during the time of the enumeration, they should still be sworn in and able to be put on the list. These things are forgotten three years after the event. I cite those examples as the most obvious.
This present Bill, Mr. Speaker, has a special purpose. I feel that it is time we made better provisions for the disabled, the handicapped, the aged and the shut-in so that they might vote.
There is one other category which I feel I should include, and that is the person who is in an emergency situation. If they are taken to the hospital because of an accident or because of sudden illness and they are deprived of their vote because they did not vote during the advance poll, they should have that opportunity. The proxy vote provision I believe is generally acknowledged as a complete mess and a failure. It does not work. I suggest, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that this particular Bill is intended to deal with that situation.
I tried the same idea once before back in 1976 after my second election. It appeared as Bill C-336. The subject matter was referred to committee where it was discussed. I have now been through four elections. On that earlier occasion I had been through only two and was perhaps not as conversant with the manner of dealing with a subject matter of that sort in Committee. However, if the subject matter of this Bill could be referred to Committee, which I would be very happy to see happen, I would be much better prepared to defend what I am intending to do through this Bill before that committee.
The last time I was before the committee on this subject I heard some of the most extraordinary rationalizations trotted out by a number of Hon. Members as to why this particular notion is not practical. What I am intending to do in this Bill, Mr. Speaker, in its simplest terms is to bring the ballot box to those who have difficulty getting out on voting day, for whatever reason.
The regulations for working out such a system should not be too complicated. We already have over 100 rules in the Canada Elections Act, falling into two categories under Appendix A and Appendix B. Another one or two rules to deal with mobile polling stations could be inserted without too much difficulty. Of course, the rules would have to deal with the security measures required to make sure that the ballot boxes are properly looked after at all times. That is done in any event by the polling clerk and scrutineers who should accompany the mobile van.
How do we ensure that those who vote by this method are struck off the voters' list in the place they would normally vote, so that second votes do not take place? I think that is very important and can be done. This Bill does not deal with the particulars of the manner of notification of a desire to make use of the mobile voting station. It might be two weeks or three weeks advance notice. When might the mobile poll be taken? Well, for example, on the days of the advance poll, or even a
Canada Elections Act
week prior to voting day. It might be two or three weeks prior, once the voters' list is stabilized.
How are the votes to be counted and distributed to the various constituencies where they belong once they have been deposited in the ballot box? Of course, there will have to be provision for the write-in vote because, as was suggested in the last committee hearing, it would be quite impossible that there be a collection of printed ballots for Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver. They are huge cities with several hospitals, for example, where the mobile poll would go and there would be people in those hospitals from several constituencies. I think there must be a method whereby, once the ballots are collected, they be distributed to the appropriate balloting station.
What service then is to be offered? To my mind, Mr. Speaker, the mobile poll should on appropriate notification call at hospitals as well as extended care facilities or nursing homes for the elderly. Even individual homes for individual voters. The proof of the need for the service can be dealt with, of course, in the regulations.
As has already been mentioned, provision will have to be made for advance notice of this particular need.
There have been many arguments put forward against this idea and that polls can even now be installed in hospitals. Well, all hospitals are not prepared to have these comings and goings. For example, a minimum of 25 people is required in order to have a poll installed in a hospital. The polling boxes are taken around from bed to bed. That is fair enough and that can be done. But if it can be done that way, I do not see why it cannot be done with a mobile poll. Having a separate polling station there to which the general public in the surrounding area might attend I think is not a very practical solution because of the unwanted and unneeded traffic withing a hospital. This applies to extended care facilities and nursing homes as well. I do not think they are prepared to put up with that sort of thing. So that many of the arguments advanced during the hearings I felt were trifling.
I think we should also bear in mind that there is provision in a number of provincial Elections Acts for this very matter. In Alberta, British Columbia and Manitoba, if I remember correctly, there is provision within the Elections Act for mobile polling stations. If it can work provincially, I see no reason why it cannot work federally.
As to notification of the person's home riding once he has voted in a mobile polling station, I think that is a very simple matter. Alexander Graham Bell is pretty well known in this country. There was some mention in one of the hearings that when you get to a hospital in a border area you might have people from another Province voting in that hospital. Still, that can be dealt with. Constituencies do stop at provincial borders, true, but there is a means of contacting the polling officer even in another Province. That comment notwithstanding, I suggest the facility is probably more useful within an urban context than in a rural context.
The write-in ballot provisions may have to be taken into account because, as I say, it would not be easy to have the

April 22, 1983
Canada Elections Act
printed ballots from a number of constituencies carried around. There are travellers in Canada who unfortunately might suffer an automobile accident and be taken to a hospital and deprived of their vote. Why should they not be able to vote?
For these reasons alone, Mr. Speaker, I urge that this particular Bill be given full consideration and, if possible, referred to committee and that the committee have hearings on it. We have all heard of Bills that get lost when they go to committee. I would like to think that perhaps if we set a six-week or two-month limit, some defineable limit within which this particular subject matter would be heard and a resolution arrived at that would satisfy that problem.


Mr. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I will only take a moment of the time of the House on this Bill, the intent of which is certainly correct and proper. I certainly agree with the Hon. Member who moved the Bill that this provision is required in a riding such as my own consisting of 6,500 square miles and we have several hospitals. The only problem 1 have with it, though, is that to establish one mobile polling station would mean they would never make the rounds in one day within my constituency. So that the Bill could be construed to mean that we have only one mobile polling station in each electoral district.
For this reason, I think that a suggestion to refer this Bill to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections is quite proper. It is the Hon. Member's second attempt to have this particular convenience to the voters introduced into the Canada Elections Act, with his First attempt made in 1976 when he introduced a Private Member's Bill in the same fashion. That Bill was referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections after second reading. It was never reported back to the House.
Therefore, I would move at this point:
That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the word "that" and substituting the following therefor:
"Bill C-518, an Act to amend the Canada Elections Act, be not now read a
second time, but that the order be discharged, the Bill withdrawn, and the
subject matter therein referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and
Elections".


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, 1 am glad that Your Honour called me to second the motion. It is the second time I have had occasion to offer to second a motion presented by the Hon. Member for Lambton-Middlesex (Mr. Ferguson). Now it has actually happened that I have done it. I will not occupy the time of the House for very long because I understand that the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) would like to speak for a few moments. He has always had an interest in the Bill.
When the Bill does go to Committee, I hope no one will be concerned about the fact that it appears to speak about a mobile voting station, as if it were singular, per riding. I think that the Interpretations Act would allow the singular to
include the plupart and that the regulatory power of the Chief Electoral Officer could be used to deal with that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The Chair has made an error. I saw the sense of agreement of the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) and, of course, then proposed his name as the seconder. However, that was an error because the Hon. Member is in fact rising to speak on the subject, and perhaps, with agreement, someone else will second the motion. We will consider the amendment seconded by Mr. Maltais.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, it ought not to come as a surprise to any Hon. Member of the House, but your ruling is quite correct. I think that the rule concerning the seconder is something forgotten. I had hoped it would be forgotten today, but it was not.
At any rate, concerning problems, I think that the Chief Electoral Officer tries to meet the problems concerning apartment buildings, extended care and nursing homes. There is a singular problem with respect to hospitals. I must say, representing a constituency with both a rural and suburban make-up, that it would be particularly useful in rural areas. I must say that I can envisage it would be extremely useful in rural areas, where, for instance, extended care facilities are not large enough to warrant a polling station for itself. The people there have as much right to vote as people who live in larger areas.
All in all, I am delighted that my friend, the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro), has once again demonstrated his concern and brought the Bill forward and, as indicated by the Parliamentary Secretary, that it has been accepted by the Government side for consideration, as evident in the motion to withdraw the Bill and send the subject matter to the committee. I support it and look forward to hearing the words of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) for his Bill. I join with other Hon. Members in congratulating him on his success in having his Bill withdrawn, and having the subject matter referred to committee for study and consideration. 1 say this with tongue in cheek because I tried the same thing not less than a month ago concerning a matter similar to this one, and I was not as successful as the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich in convincing the Government.
The Bill I presented dealt with the right of Canadians to vote wherever they are at a time of general election, be they travelling abroad, in an embassy, on business, or working for the Canadian Forces overseas, but not as a teacher or as a member of the Forces. I thought the Bill made sense. However, I was not as lucky as the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich and I will have to go to him to learn a few tricks as to how one gets his Bill through and convinces the Government to act positively in such matters.
I just want to put a couple of comments on the record. I was told at the time that the Chief Electoral Officer, by statute,
April 22, 1983

must come before Parliament at every session and present a report within 10 days after the convening of the session. I was told that we would have a session, God knows when, some time in the future, at which time the Chief Electoral Officer would be presenting certain recommendations. My argument at the time which, I think, would support the argument of the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich, was that we indeed did pass a Constitution not a year ago, a resolution adopted by the House. I want to read Article 3 of the Constitution for the Hon. Member because I think it would be very useful in his debate. Article 3 states:
Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.
In my opinion, that includes those who are physically handicapped, those who are disabled or temporarily in shut-in situations, perhaps as the result of an accident, in a hospital or otherwise. To me, every Canadian, whether he works abroad or is travelling abroad, should also have the right to vote. If I understand it correctly, the idea of a mobile polling station is one which should be seriously considered by the Chief Electoral Officer in areas such as the base at Lahr, where a substantial number of Canadians are working for us who are not eligible to vote at this time because they are not members of the regular Forces or teachers on the base, but are perhaps working in administration or as doctors. A cousin of mine is in charge of radio broadcasting there. He cannot vote, nor can his wife and children.
I find it disgraceful that in a country in which we passed our Constitution less than a year ago, there are still situations where Canadians working for our own Government would not be able to vote if a general election were to be called, and would be disenfranchised because they are outside the country.
I want to congratulate the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich on his success with the Bill. I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that it should go to committee. I would hope that he would use the argument that it is a constitutional right. It is one which we have earned and is to be followed and obeyed. He should also present argument concerning the costs involved. If the Committee is to argue costs, for God's sake, let us be frank. Not very many expenditures will be involved, although I know someone will raise it because it was raised before. I am sure the Hon. Member can get around that by saying that we are not adding any extraordinary costs to the process.


Donald W. Munro: Not $200 million anyway.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: We are just giving more Canadians, all Canadians, a basic democratic right to vote in any federal election.


Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to say a few words about some of my concerns about Bill C-518. I am definitely very supportive of this particular Bill. It is time we did introduce the measures which are espoused in the Bill. There are already some similar
_____________________________________24775
Canada Elections Act
examples in Canada. I am referring to the fact that Manitoba is the leading light in the matter of mobile polling stations.


Donald W. Munro: One of the leading lights.


Laverne Lewycky: A number of provisions exist for those electors who are not ambulatory or who live in remote areas. For example, there is provision for mail ballots for individuals who are confined to their own homes. The returning officer, himself or herself, will personally deliver and pick up those ballots. From my own involvement in provincial and federal elections, I have noticed a great contrast.
There is also the provision of a travelling ballot that can be transported by car, together with the ballot box, the poll book, the district returning officers, the scrutineers and poll clerks. Certain areas are designated, such as senior residences, and a poll is held in these areas at a prearranged time.
I wonder if I should call it one o'clock and continue my few remaining comments at two o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I was allowing time to go by. I thought the Hon. Member wanted to put the matter through prior to one o'clock but I think, from his comments, that he has further remarks to make. In that case we will call it one o'clock and I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1:02 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. When the House rose at one o'clock, the Hon. Member for Dauphin (Mr. Lewycky) had the floor.


Laverne Lewycky: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be able to continue the discussion on this excellent Bill in the name of the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich. Bill C-518 is an Act to amend the Canada Elections Act with regard to mobile polling stations.
Before we adjourned for lunch, I was referring to the fact that in Manitoba we have had a very profitable experience for a number of years regarding the provisions of voting facilities for the disabled and handicapped. I am very grateful to have had the opportunity to work for three years with the Society for Crippled Children and Adults of Manitoba. During that time the executive director was Mr. Archie Carmichael who was responsible for sensitizing myself and many other people to the needs of the disabled and the handicapped. It is because of pressure from individuals such as he that we were able to introduce changes to the Manitoba Elections Act.
For the benefit of the House I would like to share some of the provisions which are available in the Province of Manitoba.

April 22, 1983
Canada Elections Act
I believe they would be very helpful and very instructive, assuming that this Bill will be going on to Committee. There are provisions for people who are in hospital. First I should mention that mobile polls in Manitoba are called moving polls. I invite Hon. Members to take a look at the Manitoba Elections Act because some of its provisions have been tested for a long period of time.
As I was saying, people in hospitals are able to vote either in their own stations or in mobile stations. If one happens to be confined to hospital outside his or her district-and of course this is very important for people in rural areas-there is provision for special blank forms which can be used. They can be placed into mobile polling stations as well. In addition there are special provisions for the blind and for those who are in various remand centres. These polling stations are available for those people who are charged with offences but are in detention centres awaiting trial. There is no minimum number of eligible voters necessary to receive this type of ballot service. Returning officers conduct surveys to determine the need. I am very glad to report to the House that to date this has worked very well.
Also there is provision in the Manitoba Elections Act for moving polls for sparse populations. Of course, northern areas pose certain problems. The Chief Electoral Officer has the power to declare any area remote and to have a mail-in ballot. In addition, there are regular polls in as many places as possible in northern areas. For example, in Churchill a ballot box is put on a train and voting is conducted on the train at various sidings. I do not know what will happen now that VIA Rail has cut out services in that area. I notice the Hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) is present in the Chamber. Knowing his work and concern for the handicapped, I am sure he will take this matter under consideration and ensure that people in northern areas have these opportunities. I know he is aware that there will be experiments in regard to providing a rail-bus service. Perhaps he could assist in ensuring that these things come into effect so that people in northern areas qualify.
There is another interesting provision which I would like to highlight for the benefit of the House. It deals with disabled persons who may come to polling stations but because of the physical facilities at the polls may not be able to vote there. There is a provision whereby the deputy returning officer can move the ballot box to the disabled person. Of course there is a restriction that the ballot box cannot be moved more than 50 metres from an entrance to the building where a polling station is. I think we might want to look at that provision federally because I know such concerns have been raised with the Chief Electoral Officer. I am pleased to indicate that some of these provisions are under consideration.
In Section 45(22) of the current Act there is provision, where a polling station has been set up in a sanitorium, a home for the aged, a chronic hospital or similar institution, whereby the deputy returning officer can move the ballot box from room to room to people confined in bed. Furthermore, it has been known for the ballot box to be brought outside the polling
station to people who are disabled. However, this is not strictly legal. The only provision in the current Act for such situations is that of proxy voting. With the new Charter of Rights and Freedoms individuals will want to vote and cast their ballots by themselves. The current provisions are clearly inadequate, and I mentioned the situation in Manitoba because we have additional provisions there which have been found to be very successful.
I would like to emphasize another point rather strongly. I refer specifically to the Obstacles Report. It is a nice, slick document but I think we should look at the substance of it as well. We ought to look beyond the gloss and glare and at its recommendations. It contains four recommendations which directly refer to voting rights and voting provisions for the disabled. Recommendation No. 5 is that we establish a postal vote system similar to Manitoba's. That is recommendation No. 5 of the Obstacles Report, which has received widespread circulation. It is important that we set up the appropriate machinery and programs recommended in the report to meet the needs of the disabled. It is a report that was worked on by many people.
Recommendation No. 6 is with regard to ceasing the policy of centralizing polling places. It specifically refers to Section 33(9) of the current Elections Act which gives discretionary power to centralize polls. The specific recommendation is that we deal with this and take into consideration the mobility problems of the disabled, the aged and the infirm.
Recommendation No. 7 talks of establishing orientation sessions for polling place personnel on the needs of disabled voters. This is something that should definitely be done. Returning officers of all constituencies and their staff should be provided with special training to ensure that the needs of the disabled are highlighted and provisions for the disabled are understood by all the staff.
Recommendation No. 8 of the Obstacles Report recommends that questions regarding accessibility for disabled voters be referred to a standing committee. Bill C-518 fits into the broader scope mentioned in the Obstacles Report. I wanted to emphasize that because I know the Government has highlighted the Obstacles Report. However, we have not seen much action on the specific recommendations. I hope we will very shortly.
In summary, there must be greater provision for the nonambulatory federal electorate, the disabled. Providing a mobile polling station fits into that category. It is encouraging to see advances in various Provinces. I again refer to the Manitoba experience. I am also encouraged by the fact that the Chief Electoral Officer has indicated that he is studying what is being done in the Provinces and is having a dialogue with them. He has also stated that he is looking at the Obstacles Report presented by the committee.
The New Democratic Party is very much in favour of extending the voting franchise. Therefore, we wholeheartedly
April 22, 1983

support the principal of the Bill. I do have one slight reservation with regard to the requirement that there have to be 50 electors before the service is offered. However, that is something that can be considered in Committee.
On behalf of the New Democratic Party, I commend the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich for his Bill. We hope it will receive speedy action, perhaps even before the next session.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to speak to the amendment which is before us. I do not want to repeat the procedural disputation we had previously. In this matter of considering the qualifications of those able to vote in a federal election, we start from the basic premise that a voter must be a person in a constituency and living within a certain polling subdivision. That is the basic rule.
As we know, a person who has moved during the election period may be able to correct his or her non-enumeration by going to a court of revision. In the usual instance of two months for the electoral period, the individual must return to his or her constituency to ensure they are on the electoral roll or that they get inscribed thereon through a court of revision. Conditions vary around the country with regard to ambulatory patients, those restricted persons and patients in hospitals.
First of all, I do not want to throw a wet blanket on this, but I suppose an electoral officer and his officials would be as welcome as a skunk at a hen party in a treatment hospital, going up and down the corridors to take the vote. The first consideration of health would immediately throw out that suggestion.
It used to be in some of the teaching hospitals that the polling station was set up in the nurses' residence. Under the present act, persons who are resident for a certain period prior to enumeration and resident at the time of the election could vote at the hospital. Other than that, patients in hospitals must return to their home, either on advance polling day or on election day.
There is one restriction that should be imposed. I cannot go so far as to say that ambulatory Canadians waltzing around in other parts of the country or the world should have the right to vote by dropping in at some point of reference and voting either by mail or otherwise. We have seen in other countries the gross difficulties that are caused by the mail-in vote. Usually most of the mail-in stuff has to be done before election day. People do not know for whom they are voting. There are any number of difficulties about voting.
There is a high proportion of Canadians who, resident in their homes, do not go out to vote. Either they are tired, it is raining or for some other reason they cannot be bothered going out to vote. It is not as though 95 per cent of Canadians vote and 5 per cent are disenfranchised because there are some restrictions on them.
In the case of hospitals, many doctors would hit you on the head for suggesting that their patients be disturbed in order to vote, to be placed on a gurney and transported to some central point in the hospital to vote, or have a troop consisting of the DRO, a porter, and scrutineers traipsing from room to room to take the ballots of patients.
Canada Elections Act
Who knows the constituency of residence of the individual patients? Who are the candidates? What are the types of official ballots? These are important points. I am not saying that technically it cannot be done; certainly it can be done. You could arrange to have almost 100 per cent of the population vote if you wanted to spend the money and go to all the trouble and possibly follow up the reasons for people not voting.
In any event, with a mobile van moving around in a city constituency where there is a higher concentration of hospitals, the question is whether the van can get to all of them. It would certainly require more than one van in certain places and none in others. I do not know how one would cover the area in rural constituencies. Perhaps my Hon. colleague's riding of Esquimalt-Saanich may be covered by a mobile van moving at speed during the day. Perhaps Victoria could be covered. I am wondering about northern constituencies such as Skeena and Prince George and Peace River. There is no way that these constituencies could be covered even if there were several mobile vans. These questions need to be looked into.
In so far as persons who are restricted to their homes are concerned, I would think that that would present the greatest difficulty. A dear young thing with a couple of small children may say, "I cannot get away from home right now". A van would have to call at that home. That is nonsense because her husband has four hours at the end of the day free from employment to go and vote. Those people who want to vote will find the opportunity. In many cases, if people want to vote, they can. It must be remembered that people have a duty to vote. It is a freedom. People have the right to vote. That is what this democratic country must have as its foundation. Surely to goodness it is not up to the Government of Canada to take these people by the hand and lead them along a plush carpet to the polling station.
In any event, I am in agreement with the motion that the subject matter of this Bill be referred to the committee. There are many things that have been discussed by Hon. Members today with regard to electoral reform, and there are many other things that can be discussed.
The question was raised about prisoners. Well, there I draw the line. I was one of the first to participate in bringing polling stations to mental hospitals where there is a voluntary section. May I say that I do not know whether these patients gained anything by the visits of people electioneering in the hospital. Not very many patients exercised their right to vote. If patients in a mental hospital are attached to a poll and an address is given, in many instances that would stigmatize all those persons who are on the voters' list as being people who are patients in a mental hospital. I do not think that that is information that must necessarily be made public.
With those few remarks, I hope that the committee will get on with this subject and will not emulate the committee that

April 22, 1983
Senate Reform
was charged with looking after the subject matter of the Bill presented by my colleague for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Shall all orders listed under Private Members' Public Bills preceding Order 440 be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Ferguson) agreed to.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Accordingly the order is discharged, the Bill withdrawn, and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
Bill withdrawn and order discharged.


THE SENATE OF CANADA REFORM ACT
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East) moved: that Bill C-640, an Act to provide for structural reform of the Senate of Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I thank you and the House for the opportunity to speak on my Private Members' Bill C-640, an Act to provide for structural reform of the Canadian Senate.
My intense interest in Senate reform began in 1978 after I had resigned my ministerial post in the Government of Alberta. Since then, I have pursued several initiatives in regard to Senate reform.
This House is aware that on November 18, 1981, I introduced a motion to establish a joint committee of this House and the Senate to bring before Parliament a Bill to provide for structural reform of the Senate. That motion was seconded by the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) and was debated in the House on June 4, 1982.
On November 3, 1981, I introduced Bill C-640, an Act to provide for the structural reform of the Senate of Canada. We are today debating this Bill, and I trust that Members will not hesitate to participate in the discussion.
On December 20, 1982, I released a major report entitled "Renewed Federalism; Structural Reform of the Canadian Senate". This is a major study on the origin of the Senate, its mechanics and composition, followed by a review of recent Senate reform proposals. It includes an analysis of the consequences of the Constitution Act 1981 and the new amending formula on the future of Senate reform. It also discusses the need for legitimacy, accountability, independence, and stability as well as continuity in a reformed Senate.
This is followed by an in-depth analysis of structure and content, the foundation and analysis that underlie the evolution of Bill C-640. Every Member received a copy of this report. Several thousand copies have been distributed and it is now listed as a Parliamentary Library document. The report fully discusses Bill C-640.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, the report has been translated into French and 500 copies in this official language were recently distributed. I wish to publicly apologize that it has taken so long to get the report translated and printed in French.
Many people have received a copy of the report and have commented on its content. In particular, Senator Eugene Forsey examined the document in depth. His comments have been both pertinent and useful, and I publicly thank him very much for them. All political observers acknowledge that Senate reform is urgent and is the first priority for additional constitutional reform.
On December 16, 1982 the Government introduced in the Senate a notice of motion to establish a Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons to consider Senate structural reform and to bring forth a proposal no later than December 1, 1983. The Government resolution is very similar; in fact, it is almost a copy of the resolution that I introduced on November 18, 1981. The Government resolution originating in the Senate on December 16, 1982 was approved by the House months ago. Why has the Government not moved sooner with the resolution to get the Joint Committee working? Why did it wait until yesterday after it knew we were going to debate Senate reform through Bill C-640 today? It seems to me that the Government only moves when it is prodded. Nevertheless, we must get on with the process of Senate structural reform.
Certainly the first priority is the economy of the nation, but the sickness of that very economy to a large degree is the result of a weak, ineffective and uncaring Senate. The economic failures can be attributed to the failure of federal provincial relations, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said in one of his latest interviews, and the lack of meaningful regional and provincial input into national economic and social policies. This input and restraint was partially the function of the Senate. But it failed to restrain the Government throughout the seventies and it completely capitulated to the Government in the eighties.
The Senate must be reformed. The function of the Senate is to represent adequately in the Canadian Parliament the national interest, the regional interests and the provincial interests. With respect to the national interest, its over-riding function is national unity, national cohesiveness and national accountability. Where was the Senate voice during the Quebec referendum, or during the growth of separatism in the West? It was not heard.
Where was the voice of the Senate in regard to regional interests during the entire debate over the National Energy Program? It was not heard.
April 22, 1983

Indeed, where was the collective voice of the Senate during the constitutional drama in regard to protecting provincial interests such as that of Quebec? Its voice was barely a whisper. Indeed, it gave up its constitutional veto with barely a whimper. A suspensive veto was appropriate, but surely not for all possible constitutional change. Surely the Fathers of Confederation set up the Senate to protect minority rights such as Quebec's language and cultural rights in a vast sea of language and cultural homogenization. Surely the Senate should have retained a narrow selective veto over certain provincial and regional interests and rights.
Yes, the Senate must be reformed-but how? In my view, Bill C-640 shows the way-a compromise between two extremes, if approval by Parliament and seven Provinces having 50 per cent of the population of Canada is to be a reality.
What are the two extremes? The first is the provincial view and that is to scrap the existing Senate and replace it with a totally provincially appointed Senate, completely subservient to provincial Governments and their interests. Such is the fundamental basis of the Ontario proposal from 1978, British Columbia's 1978 proposal, the Quebec Beige Paper proposal of 1980, the Alberta Government's proposal of 1982, and even the Pepin-Robarts 1979 proposal. This extreme is simply not acceptable to the Canadian Parliament. In my view it never will be.
The other extreme is a fully elected Senate on a regional or provincial basis. Such an elected Senate would be powerful, overshadowing and compromising the authority and influence of Premiers, provincial Governments and legislatures in federal provincial relations and bargaining. Indeed, such an elected Senate would seriously compromise the fundamental authority of the House of Commons itself. Such an elected Senate is becoming increasingly popular with proponents such as Senators Roblin, Manning and Frith and Gordon Robertson, the former Clerk of the Privy Council.
A fully elected Senate at this time is an emotional illusion. It is not a practical reality at this time. The Provinces will never accept this extreme, nor will the House of Commons. An elected Senate can only be accomplished step by step, not in one leap. Such is the essence of Bill C-640. The Bill, through the introduction of the reconfirmation principle, is a possible step by step process to a fully elected Senate on a provincial and regional basis.
What then is the reality, the direction, or solution to reform? Death of the Senate through atrophy is one solution, and it will surely be the reality soon if reform is not forthcoming. It would not be particularly difficult for a new Government in Ottawa to find agreement with seven Provinces having 50 per cent of the Canadian population to scrap the Senate, especially now that it has been reduced to a suspensive veto on constitutional change.
Is there a solution which would retain the Senate? Yes there is, and it is a compromise between the two extremes I just mentioned-a compromise acceptable to the Provinces, to the federal Government and to the people of Canada. It was just such a compromise or middle ground proposal that I put
Senate Reform
together in Bill C-640. The Senate has all the powers that it needs. What it requires is structural reform.
The key is to have a Senate of two parts-one part being provincially appointed Senators, and the other part being federally appointed Senators on a regional basis. But the structure must meet the needs for legitimacy, independence and stability. Bill C-640 does meet these needs.
To represent both the regional and provincial interests in Parliament a reformed Senate must have provincially appointed and/or elected Senators and regionally appointed and/or elected Senators. The ratio of provincial Senators to regional Senators in a restructured Senate is fundamental. In Bill C-640, this ratio is one-third provincial and two-thirds regional or federal. Some argue that this ratio should be 50-50 as in Bill C-60 or 60-40 in favour of the Provinces.
Bill C-640 recognizes five regions in Canada with each being assigned 30 Senators, mainly because the Atlantic region now has 30 Senators, for a total structure of 150 Senators. The five regions are the Atlantic, Quebec, Ontario, Central and Pacific. Of the 30 Senators in each region, each Province would appoint five to maintain equality of provincial status, and the difference would be regional Senators appointed by a Standing Committee of the House of Commons, not solely by the Prime Minister. Under Bill C-640 the Atlantic region would have 20 provincial Senators and 10 regional or federally appointed Senators. Quebec and Ontario would each have 5 provincial Senators and 25 regional, federally appointed Senators. The Central region would have 15 provincial and 15 regional Senators, and the Pacific region would have 10 provincial and 20 regional Senators.
Each Senator would be appointed for a six-year term and at the end of the term would have to seek reconfirmation or election by the people to continue in a second or third term.
Equality of provincial status in regard to provincial appointments is desirable but idealistic and has been discarded by all the provincial proposals. Indeed, provincial senatorial appointments in all provincial proposals are weighted according to population. Alberta's proposal of five population weighted categories is reasonable. There are other reasonable proposals. Therefore Bill C-640 can be altered effectively to incorporate the Alberta proposal.
The Atlantic region would, therefore, have 16 federally appointed Senators and 14 provincially appointed Senators. In other words, of the provincial Senators, Prince Edward Island would have two; Newfoundland, four; New Brunswick, four; Nova Scotia, four; and the rest would be regionally federally appointed Senators. The Quebec and Ontario regions would have 20 federally appointed Senators and 10 provincially appointed Senators. The Central region would have 12 federally appointed Senators and 18 provincially appointed Senators. The Pacific region would have 20 federal and 10 provincial appointments, and that is eight for British Columbia and two for the Yukon. The over-all Senate with this variation in Bill

April 22, 1983
Senate Reform
C-640 would have 62 provincially appointed Senators and 88 federally appointed regional Senators. Provincially appointed Senators could, of course, be elected Members of provincial Legislatures, indeed even Ministers.
I structured Bill C-640 prior to the patriation of the Constitution and before an amending formula was agreed upon. If I were doing it today, I would make several modifications. The first change I would make is to provide the Provinces with the right to recall their appointed Senators by a two-thirds vote of their Legislative Assembly. Second, I would use Alberta's suggested weighting formula of provincially appointed Senators, rather than 5 appointments by each province. Third, I would limit the total Senate to 125 Members, of which 62 would be provincially appointed and 63 federally appointed or regional Senators. Each of the five regions would then have 25 Senators. It would not be necessary to maintain the Atlantic region at 30 Senators with the new Constitution. The Atlantic region would have 14 provincial Senators and 11 federally appointed Senators. Both Ontario and Quebec regions would have 10 provincial appointments and 15 federal appointments. The Central region would have 18 provincial-Alberta 8, Manitoba 6, and Saskatchewan 4-appointments and seven federal appointments. The Pacific region would have ten provincial appointments that is, British Columbia, eight; Yukon, two provincial Senators, and fifteen federal appointments.
Such a mix would surely be more acceptable to the Provinces than the mix suggested in Bill C-640. I shall be following closely the meetings and hearings of the Joint Committee on Senate Structural Reform, and I trust that each Hon. Member of this House will also be following closely those meetings. I trust that many Hon. Members will read the report which my office has presented. I will make myself available to explain any part of it to any Hon. Member of this House. This is a topic, Mr. Speaker, which I can speak on for hours, but I see my time is up. I hope that other Hon. Members will participate in this debate.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, before I discuss some of the details of the Bill before us this afternoon, I would like to commend the Hon. Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) on his long-standing efforts to encourage public debate on Senate reform. He has acquired an in-depth knowledge of many of the intricacies associated with reform of the other place. He has demonstrated a grasp of the main issues to be addressed in Senate reform, and of the obstacles which may need to be overcome before it can be achieved. Moreover, he has done his best to expand the discussion on Senate reform, both among Hon. Members and among the general public. The Hon. Member for Edmonton East has been very dedicated on the subject. The Bill which we are discussing today was introduced in November, 1981, nearly a year and a half ago. At that time the Hon. Member circulated a few pages of explanatory notes about Bill C-640. That was a useful step, since I am sure many would agree that parts of this Bill are somewhat complex. A couple of weeks later, the Hon. Member presented a motion asking that a special joint
committee of both Houses be established to report on "structural reform of the Senate". This motion requested that the proposed Committee consider a number of reports on Senate reform published in recent years, along with the federal Government's Bill C-60 of 1978, and this Bill.
The Hon. Member's motion was debated on June 4, 1982, but was not adopted. However, he had a chance to present his ideas on Senate reform on that occasion, as did a number of others from all political Parties. Even though his motion was not adopted, he was not daunted. He published a concise article in the well respected journal "Policy Options" in September-October 1982. Last December, he circulated a detailed and, I feel, a useful study prepared by him and his research assistant. The study is called "Renewed Federalism: Structural Reform of the Canadian Senate". It contains a great deal of information on the history of Senate reform and on several major proposals for reform of the past several years. And, as we might expect, in that report Bill C-640 appears as the Hon. Member's recommendation for Senate reform. I was interested to hear today that he has other suggestions regarding the question of Senate reform which, perhaps are not reflected in Bill C-60. Nevertheless, his concern and his contribution to this question is certainly formidable.
As Hon. Members can see, the sponsor of today's Bill has become a determined advocate of Senate reform. While his own particular remedy may not be considered perfect, it has a number of good points. More important, perhaps, is the way in which he has stimulated a debate on Senate reform through the various efforts which I have described. These efforts have been timely. Last December, as we all know, the terms of reference of a Special Joint Committee were announced and agreed to by the House and by the other place. The Committee will soon begin its work. I hope that a public debate on Senate reform will ensue as a result of the appointment of this Committee and that a large number of Canadians will become involved in this very important question. The Hon. Member has helped to encourage such a debate and 1 hope he will continue his work as the Committee carries out its task.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, it would be useful to consider just why the Hon. Member has pursued the subject of Senate reform so assiduously. I know his sincerity is unquestioned, and I believe many Hon. Members would agree with his reasons for arguing that Senate reform should be seriously considered. When he spoke on his motion on June 4, 1982, the Hon. Member for Edmonton East pointed out that with patriation an amending formula was incorporated in the Canadian Constitution along with a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. He went on to say, "We must now take the reform process one step further". In his remarks that day, and on other occasions, he implied that this next stage in the reform process should involve an examination of our national political institutions. In the notes which he circulated with Bill C-640, he stated:
The fact is that reform of the Senate won't wait much longer. We have reached a point in our national development where we must make our institutions more responsive to every facet of Canadian society.
The Hon. Member's views on the phases through which constitutional reform might proceed accord with the feelings of
April 22, 1983

many Elon, Members on this side of the House. Since at least 1968, Liberal Ministers and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) have said that once patriation was achieved, once we had the means to amend all parts of our Constitution in Canada, we might then turn our attention to national institutions. We can now amend all our Constitution here, Mr. Speaker, through the amending formula with its various procedures for different items of constitutional change. I feel that with the establishment of the Special Joint Committee on Senate Reform we are embarking on that second phase.
When 1 quoted from the notes the Hon. Member for Edmonton East circulated with Bill C-640, I referred to his view that our institutions should be more responsive. I think it is fair to say that this notion of responsiveness is closely connected to the desire of many to see the Senate's role in regional representation strengthened. In his article in "Policy Options" the Hon. Member wrote:
Unless steps are taken to provide the regions and provinces with a more meaningful input and role in the institutions of the central Government, there is every indication that national unity will be increasingly threatened.
It is no exaggeration to say, Mr. Speaker, that these words strike a cord among many of those who have been looking at Senate reform in the past few years. The Canada West Foundation examined how the Senate might better speak for the regions in its 1981 report entitled "Regional Representation". All the details of their proposed reform may not find favour with everyone, but I encourage Hon. Members to consider the analysis in this very interesting report. The former Secretary to the Cabinet, Gordon Robertson, has written about Senate reform on several occasions. He is very concerned about regional representation in national institutions, as was evident in a speech he made in Quebec City only a month ago when he said:
In Canada . .. our regional differences are unusually wide and deep. They require to be effectively represented, voiced and discussed as a part of the operation of our central governing structure.
It is clear that this concern about regional representation in Parliament is shared by the Government. The Special Joint Committee's terms of reference make this very clear. That Committee has been asked:
To consider and report upon ways by which the Senate of Canada could be reformed in order to strengthen its role in representing people from all regions of Canada and to enhance the authority of Parliament to speak and act on behalf of Canadians in all parts of the country;
So, Mr. Speaker, it is plain that the Hon. Member is far from a lone voice calling for a serious examination of regional representation in the other place. Rather, he is one among a growing number who feel that the Senate should, through some kind of reform, be better able to speak on behalf of the various regions of this country. This theme of regional representation is evident in Bill C-640 which allocates 30 Senators to each of five regions, even though direct representation of the Provinces is also included.
While I feel the Hon. Member should be given a great deal of credit for this Bill, some parts of it puzzle me. In the
Senate Reform
remainder of my remarks I would like to raise a few questions. Others may wish to comment on some of these points later in the debate. The Bill's sponsor may himself think about some of them if he plans to develop further his ideas on Senate reform. I understand from listening to him, and I think it is to his credit, that he is prepared to keep an open mind and develop this very important question and policy as he goes.
First of all, I must ask why a Senate of 150 Members is proposed. At present, there are 104 seats in the other place.


James Aloysius McGrath: One hundred and six.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: One hundred and six.


James Aloysius McGrath: Six from Newfoundland.


Mr. McKinnon:: The same as B.C.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Well, 104, 106, but in that general framework.


James Aloysius McGrath: There was 100; is that right?


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: There was 100. Therefore, why increase its size by almost 50 per cent? Other proposals in recent years have raised the total membership somewhat as well. The Goldenberg-Lamontagne Committee report proposed 126 seats; Bill C-60 suggested 188; others, however, like the Pepin-Robarts task force, suggested a smaller Senate of around 60 members. It is useful to make some comparisons with second Chambers in other federal countries. The American Senate, for example, has 100 members. In Australia, there are 64 Senators, and in the Federal Republic of Germany there are only 45 members in the federal second Chamber, the Bundes-rat. I offer this only as a thought, but I wonder whether Canadians would readily accept such an increase in the size of the Senate, especially when this House is to increase by 28 Members after redistribution.
I would also like to comment on the Bill's provision, namely Clause 10, for Senators to have their terms reconfirmed on the basis of a so-called non-partisan campaign. That Clause reads as follows:
A Senator campaigning for reconfirmation shall do so on a non-partisan basis, identifying with no official political party represented in the House of Commons but identifying only with the role and performance of the Senate of Canada.
In the report he prepared last December, the Hon. Member explained the purpose of this Clause, namely to remove the process of reconfirmation from the realm of partisan politics as much as possible. Senators seeking reconfirmation would not be able to fall back on their Party affiliation. They would be compelled to campaign exclusively on their "record of achievement" in terms of legislative review or regional representation.
Now, if I might say so, this sounds rather unidealistic, Mr. Speaker. How could Senators divorce themselves from their political parties? After all, according to this Bill, 50 of them would be appointed by provincial Governments and the rest by what is called a Regional Appointments Standing Committee of this House. Why should we expect that some six years after their appointment Senators would conduct a reconfirmation

April 22, 1983
Senate Reform
campaign as "neutral" representatives? In fact, perhaps the Members of a reformed Senate could help to strengthen our national political Parties in areas where representation is now lacking. In this case, why should they want to hide their Party's allegiance? I know the Hon. Member would like to see regional representation emphasized above other considerations in a reformed Senate, but I am not sure we should go as far as he proposes, even if Section 10 of Bill C-640 were practical.
There are other questions about this Bill that come to mind but I know other Hon. Members wish to participate in what I consider a very timely debate. Once again, I commend the Hon. Member for Edmonton East for his hard work and thoughtful presentations on Senate reform. He has helped to show how the Parliament of Canada can help lead a public debate on Senate reform. I hope other Members will follow his example in the coming months as our Special Joint Committee carries out its work. I would think, as a personal observation, that members of the Special Joint Committee would be remiss if they did not include the Hon. Member for Edmonton East as one of their witnesses. I hope that they will give very careful attention to the Hon. Member's Bill C-640. It is a good piece of work which serves the Parliament and people of Canada well, and I would like to commend the Hon. Member.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) for bringing Bill C-640 before the House. I think the question of Senate reform is one which has been appropriate in Canada for many years. As has been said before, everyone knows we need Senate reform because, quite frankly, the Senate has not served the cause of Canadian democracy. In fact, it has very often served to undermine it. We should not be surprised because, in fact, the Senate was not designed to enhance democracy; rather, it was designed to keep a check on it. It is to prevent a surfeit of democracy. Sir John A. Macdonald, in one of his more cynical comments, said, "We must protect the interests of minorities, and the rich are always fewer in number than the poor". So much for the protection of minorities, those whom the Senate is supposed to look after.
The Senate does not have a terribly distinguished history. In 1896, allegations were made that Senate seats were on sale at a bargain basement rate of $10,000. The money was supposed to go into the coffers of the Party which was in power at that time, which just happened to be the Liberal Party.


Mr. Nickerson:: Things haven't changed very much.


James Douglas Manly: I do not believe that Senate seats are being sold these days. I believe that they are being given away.
In our time we have seen a steady stream of appointments by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who has appointed friends and cronies. Therefore, I welcome the Hon. Member's initiative in bringing forth the Bill.
Bill C-640 attempts to deal with some of the problems in Senate appointment. One of the basic problems, as those of us from western Canada know, is the present regional imbalance. I am not sure whether it is laughable or lamentable, but considering the low opinion which most of us have of the Senate, I suppose it is laughable that a Province like British Columbia, with 2.8 million people, has six Senators, and Prince Edward Island has four Senators. Perhaps six Senators is enough for British Columbia. However, the Hon. Member wants to get around this imbalance by creating an extra region in the Pacific which would take in British Columbia and the Yukon. That seems to be a reasonable compromise if we are to have a Senate. However, we must ask if we really need more Senators. Is this really the route by which to go?
I am concerned that Bill C-640 has a very cumbersome process of appointment. The Hon. Member for Edmonton East outlined a two-tiered system of appointments by which some would be appointed on a regional basis through the federal Government and others would be appointed provincially by provincial Governments. The process seems to me to be cumbersome and rather difficult to understand. It would mean that ordinary people would not really know how their Senators were appointed. Of course, that would be no different from now when many people wonder how the Senators are appointed.
The Hon. Member pointed to the problem that a fully-elected Senate would overshadow the House of Commons. To me this seems to rather beg the question. If a Senate which was to be elected and had real power would overshadow the House of Commons, and that is really what we are afraid of, then what is this whole exercise about? If we need to strengthen the House of Commons so that we have the power to do the things that we need to do to serve the people of Canada, let us do that, but let us not just tinker with the system and have a Senate which is neither fish nor fowl, nor even a good red herring.
The appointments of Senators by the Provinces, which the Hon. Member would retain, would continue to retain the patronage elements which I think all of us, or at least all of us within this Party, would want to see eliminated.
The possibility of the reconfirmation of present Senators when they reach the age of 75 rather boggles the mind. Some of these Senators whom we have seen appointed over the last few months will not reach the mandatory age of retirement until well into the twenty-first century. To think that 25 years from now, these tired old Senators would come up and people would actually have to vote as to whether or not they wanted them to retire finally or not, seems to me to be a little bit ludicrous.
However, apart from the specific merits or demerits of Bill C-640, it seems to me that there are two fundamental questions which we must ask about Senate reform. The first is, will any genuine reform of the Senate be acceptable to the Government? The quick answer to that is no. The Government does not want Senate reform because there is no point in it from the
April 22, 1983

point of view of the Government. There is no point in reforming the Senate because it is ideally designed to serve its two main functions, those functions being to serve as the top prize in the pyramid of patronage and to serve as an internal lobby for business interests. I would just like to make a couple of comment on each of those points.
In terms of patronage, we have seen the appointments made by the present Prime Minister over the last several years, We have seen former executive assistants appointed. We have seen the appointment of a Conservative Member to the Senate, a Member from a seat which, in all probability, would go Liberal in a byelection and which, indeed, did go Liberal. We have seen the appointment of a former Member for Spadina to the Senate, a Member whose main qualification, according to Saturday Night magazine, was that he travelled well. He was appointed in order to make way for a parachute candidate who was supposed to land in Spadina and take that seat for the Liberals and, hopefully, have a seat in the Cabinet. Unfortunately, my colleague, the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap), managed to win that seat for the New Democratic Party because the people of Spadina and the people of Canada just do not like the kind of patronage associated with that kind of parachute candidate.
We have seen the appointment of the former Clerk of the Privy Council to the Senate. Yesterday, the announcement came that one of the Prime Minister's long-time friends and travelling companions was appointed. The list continues. In addition, the Senate has been used as a plum and a safe haven for Party organizers and bagmen, by both the Liberals and the Conservatives. It has been used as a source for pseudorepresentation on the Cabinet from regions where those particular Parties have not had the ability to elect Members, the Conservatives from Quebec, the Liberals from the Prairies and British Columbia. Therefore, we see very well that the Senate has served the interests of the Government as the top prize in patronage appointments.
Second, the Government is not particularly anxious to see the Senate disappear because its friends and big business want the Senate there. It serves as an internal lobby for business interests. In a study of the Canadian Senate by Colin Campbell, called "The Canadian Senate: A Lobby from Within", at page 71, he quotes two Senators who discussed their method of operation. One said:
Without us, the Cabinet and the bureaucracy would never get the type of cooperation out of the private sector which is needed to make the system run.
Mr. Campbell continued:
The second corporation lawyer emphasizes the tactics which business reviewers employ. He says that they frequently ask members of their law firms to help them draft amendments to Bills. Then they lobby according to an established pattern: "1 go to the Minister in charge and show him what I think should be changed in the Bill and ask for his cooperation; then I go over to the Commons and start lobbying among the M.P.s, pointing out, of course, that I have been to see the Minister and that I have his blessing."
Another Senator touches upon some of these points when he summarizes his perception of business review. Although the role emerges from the business and legal expertise of senators, he says, it relates most fundamentally to an appreciation of the legislative process. Bureaucrats want to 'cover the waterfront' in legislation. Senators, on the other hand, ask two crucial questions of each Bill
Senate Reform
before they vote on it. First, does it preserve Parliament's ultimate authority to make law, especially by denying Ministers excessive discretionary powers? Second, does it meet those requirements of the business community which are essential to maintenance of the free enterprise system? This Senator's view, then, is explicitly oligarchic. In fact, he voluntarily suggests that the Founding Fathers established the Senate because "they were worried about the possibility, without an Upper House, of popular swings which would take command in the House of Commons and generate legislation that throws the whole system out of whack."
fcampbell details the efforts of Senators in restricting progressive tax changes or in the dilution of FIRA.
We all recognize that business has legitimate interests and that those interests need to be represented in Parliament. But those interests should be seen in context with other legitimate interests; the interests of consumers and labour. Any conflicts between those different interests should be fought out in the public arena. Business should not have the privileged access to the ears of Ministers and to caucus which the Senate gives them and does not give to other groups. Yet this is the very basic reason for the existence of the Senate.
It seems to me that from the point of view of the Government which can use the Senate as a patronage plum and wants to represent the interests of business, it has the Senate as a convenient lobby to keep it informed and it has no real interest in Senate reform.
That leads me to the second question and perhaps the most basic of all: is the Senate worth reforming? Do we need a Senate? From the point of view of our Party, the answer is no. The Senate has not served the Canadian people in the past. We do not see any useful functions that the Senate can be serving in the present or in the future, and the most meaningful contribution we can make to Senate reform in our time is to push for its abolition. 1 urge that upon my hon. friends.


Mr. Evans:: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to stand and speak on Bill C-640 today.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Our Party has not yet had a chance to take part in this debate. Surely we are entitled to one speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilgour):: I was misinformed. In that case I will recognize the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath).


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I will give the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) a little time so that he can have the privilege of talking out the Bill. I will leave that honour and distinction to him.
The question that was posed to us by the Hon. Member who just took his seat is: do we need a Senate? I believe that we do. I believe that the federal system does require a bicameral legislature. I do not believe that there is a federal state in the world that does not have a bicameral legislature. It is for the very obvious and fundamental reason that varying sizes of states or provinces mean various sizes in the representation of those states and provinces. Therefore it is necessary to have an upper Chamber to balance the disproportionate representation which often takes place in the elected Chamber or House.

April 22, 1983
Senate Reform
The subject of Senate reform is almost as old as the nation itself. It has been in existence since shortly after we became a nation. It is interesting and ironic that we should be talking today about Senate reform when we look around this place and find, I suspect, that we ourselves are desperately in need of a little reform in this institution.
I would hesitate to draw to the attention of the House the fact that we may be operating with something less than a quorum, although there is a quorum within the environs of this Chamber. If there were to be a quorum called we would have a quorum very quickly.
The fact of the matter is that we are dealing with reforming the other House of our Parliament. When one sees the attendance here today, I suppose it is commensurate with the interest that there is here in that particular subject.
I am one who believes that the Senate can and does serve a very useful function. If we go back over the committees of the Senate, I can think of the Committee on Poverty which conducted an excellent study and brought in excellent recommendations under Senator Croll. I think of the Senate Committee on Aging, and the Committee on the Media. There are a number of Senate and standing committees of the Senate which do very good work on an ongoing basis. The problem is that no one knows what is going on there because no one pays any attention to it, least of all the press. I believe that is unfortunate.
We find ourselves in a position today where events have overtaken the Hon. Member's Bill. Only yesterday, the House agreed to a joint resolution for a Senate-House committee on the subject of Senate reform. It is interesting that that initiative came from the Senate, and it is to the credit of the Senate that it would include Members of the House of Commons on a joint committee. They did not have to proceed in that manner and could have carried on their study with their own committee, as we are indeed doing with our special committee on our rules. They felt, quite rightly and to their credit, that the elected representatives of the people should have some say in reforming the Senate of our Parliament.
To my knowledge there will be, for the first time, a Joint Committee on Senate reform. That is not to suggest that it has not been studied before. One only has to go to the Library of Parliament to see the reams and reams of paper from numerous studies over the past 70 years. I believe this is the first time, however, that it has been the subject of a joint committee of both Houses.
Having said that events have overtaken the Bill in terms of the joint resolution setting up the Joint Committee, I believe that we have to give that Committee an opportunity to do its work. We should not prematurely judge what our representatives on that Committee will put forward and whatever consensus they will arrive at with the representatives from the other place. Hence, one resists the temptation of putting forward one's own particular views on how one sees Senate reform.
I do believe that we will continue to require a Senate if our federation is to survive and prosper. How else can smaller Provinces be assured of an equal voice in the affairs of the
nation unless we have an upper House that tends to balance the disproportionate representation by population that we have in this, the elected Chamber?
It is interesting to note that that great democracy to the south of us only got around to having an elected Senate after the turn of the century. I stand to be corrected, but I believe it was around 1912 that the U.S. Senate became an elected House. Prior to that time I believe it was appointed by the States of the Union. Today, of course, it is not only an elected Senate but, in terms of the U.S. Congress, it is a very powerful Senate and one that has caused many problems in regard to the division of power within the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, an example of that is the Canada-U.S. Boundaries and Fisheries Agreement. That was an agreement that was painfully worked out between the Governments of Canada and the United States over a period of two years, only to be killed on the floor of the Senate by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. This gives some idea of the scope and the power which has grown in the elected Senate of the United States. Which should we have in Canada? Should we have an elected Senate? There is an argument to be made for that, and I tend to opt for it. Should we have a Senate of term appointments? Some suggest ten-year appointments. Members could certainly put forward arguments to support that thesis.
I certainly do not believe that the tenure right now is acceptable. I believe the life tenure, or what virtually amounts to a life tenure, retirement at 75 years of age, is not acceptable. Should we have appointments made solely by the Provinces? Should we have appointments made by the Provinces and the federal Government, or should we opt for an elected Senate? These are the questions which will be studied by the Joint Committee. I look forward to the report of that Committee. Perhaps it will generate a more lively debate than we have had in this place today.
Having said all that, I suspect that if we come back here in 25 or 50 years' time, we will still be talking about Senate reform. The point can be made and has to be made that there is a role in our federal system for the Senate. Whether it should take the form of an elected Senate, a term-appointed Senate, a life-appointed Senate, a Senate of regional representation, a Senate elected by some form of proportional representation or a combination of all these, are questions which seize the imagination. One can only hope that the Joint Committee will once and for all put the subject to rest. In any event, whatever evidence comes before the Joint Committee, I hope we will still have a bicameral legislature. If our country is to survive as a federal state, we have to have a bicameral legislature.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, in the time remaining I would like to make a few comments in the area of Senate reform. I agree with the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) that there should be a bicameral system in Canada. I disagree strongly with the position of the New
April 22, 1983

Democratic Party which, strangely enough, is precisely that of the Labour Party of Britain. That Party believes the House of Lords should be done away with, just as the New Democratic Party thinks that our Senate should be done away with.
The real issue before us with regard to Senate reform is not so much the question of whether or not there should be a second Chamber. I think reasonable people can see very strong grounds for the continuance of a second Chamber, a Chamber of sober second thought, of serious deliberation on particular issues; a Chamber whose membership does have a longer or more permanent tenure than the membership of the House of Commons, which gives rise to the development of the necessary expertise for sober second thought. For example, the United States Senate has terms of six years, whereas the United States House of Representatives has terms of two years.


David Kilgour: Tell us something we do not know.


John Leslie Evans: The Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) knows so very little that just about anything I could say would be a great improvement.
The point of the Senate is to provide that sober second thought which perhaps is not possible with an elected House of Commons.
The question raised by the Hon. Member for St. John's East was whether the Senate should be elected. 1 think that is a very serious issue, and I happen to disagree with it. The Senate should not be elected because we do not have a system which has a separation of the executive and the legislative such as the
Senate Reform
one in the United States that gives rise to the possibility of and rationale for having an elected Senate.
If we had an elected Senate and an elected House of Commons where the Government sat in the House of Commons, where the legislative and the executive were melded together, we would have serious conflict of interest problems between the two bodies. At what point would the power of the Senate cease to over-ride the power of the House of Commons, in which the Government would presumably sit, or would the Prime Minister and the Government sit in the Senate from time to time?
These kinds of questions where you do not have the separation of the executive and the legislative mean that it is very difficult to have an elected second Chamber. We have to have a second Chamber, but it cannot be elected in a popular fashion so that its jurisdiction and authority over-rides that of the legitimately elected Members of the House of Commons.
I see my time is up. If the House would allow me, I would certainly continue, but I understand the time allotted for the debate has expired.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) is quite correct. Pursuant to Standing Order 24(2) it is my duty to interrupt proceedings and to call it four o'clock.
It being four o'clock, pursuant to order made Thursday, April 14, 1983, this House stands adjourned until Monday next at eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 2(1).
At 3.27 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.



Monday, April 25, 1983