1983-03-09

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]
Wednesday, March 9, 1983

Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland):: Madam Speaker, the decision made by the executive of the Canadian Amateur Rowing Association to take the Royal Canadian Henley Regatta from St. Catharines created consternation in rowing in Canada and abroad. I understand the decision was made by the executive of CARA alone. Despite the deep significance of such a drastic change in policy and tradition, and its obvious effect on rowing in Canada, it was not allowed to be voted on by the membership of CARA at the annual meeting. The Canadian Henley Rowing Corporation has consistently registered its deep concern, but so far it has not met with any great success.
We of the Welland riding, and of the city of St. Catharines specifically, have no quarrel with the city of Montreal or the sports people who make up the rowing fraternity in that great city. We wish them well in their planning to develop a major rowing regatta for their Olympic course, and I state quite clearly that CHRC stands ready to provide its expertise and work with them in the advancement of rowing in Montreal and in Canada.
The issue here is a simple one. The title to the Royal Canadian Henley Regatta is vested in St. Catharines. No one else has any rights to this title. So, Madam Speaker, at the usual time in the summers of 1983 and 1984, and thereafter, there will be rowed in the city of St. Catharines a regatta known as the Royal Canadian Henley Regatta. I believe-


Madam Speaker:: Order.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, since the 1974 Turkish invasion of Cyprus, a member of the Commonwealth, the invaders have consistently refused to provide information on the fate of missing persons as a result of the invasion. Indisputable evidence ascertains that 1,619 Greek Cypriots were detained by the invaders in 1974, and their
whereabouts are unknown to this day. On December 9, 1982, the United Nations General Assembly approved a resolution on missing persons in Cyprus calling for a speedy solution to this humanitarian problem. On January 11 of this year the European Parliament adopted a resolution on the problem of missing persons in Cyprus, urging the committee to meet and proceed with all investigations required.
Canada's voice regarding this most tragic circumstance, Madam Speaker, has been conspicuous by its absence in its votes in the United Nations, and by refusing to add its aid to the more than 100 nations around the world in support of equitably resolving the Cypriot problem. This is not a time for fence sitting, it is a time to assert ourselves positively on the side of justice for all the people of Cyprus and their strife-torn country.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, mandatory affirmative action is absolutely essential if women are to achieve equality in the work place. As a major employer, the federal Government should be a role model for private employers. Instead, it has failed abysmally. Government pilot projects have no teeth, they are just window dressing. Only 4.8 per cent of management personnel in the Public Service are women. Yet in the low paying service jobs 81.6 per cent are women, many of whom earn under $10,000 a year. And this is the record of which the Minister responsible for the status of women says she is so proud.
The Government's record on voluntary affirmative action in the private sector is also an abysmall failure. Fewer than 5 per cent of all employers approached agreed to consider affirmative action, and none have actually taken action yet. Last year the Minister talked tough about requiring mandatory affirmative action, and then she backed down. We have obtained confidential information that the Cabinet is currently considering more discussion and consultation only. The recession is no excuse for this reprehensible lack of action. Mandatory affirmative action must be approved immediately so that programs can be implemented over the next few years. Women of Canada demand action now. They are tired of lip service, empty promises, and platitudes. They will not be condemned to low-paying job ghettos forever.

March 9, 1983


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Madam Speaker, I bring the attention of the House to the serious transportation problem in the Atlantic Provinces. I know from discussions with my colleagues that they share my concern about the continuing dispute involving the machinists' union as well as the pilots, with Eastern Provincial Airways. I take this opportunity to invite the Department of Transport as well as the Minister of Labour (Mr. Caccia) to join together to see if their officials cannot develop ways and means to assist the officials of this airline company and the pilots' union in determining if they cannot come to some amicable settlement.
I can tell you, Madam Speaker, that this strike, which has gone on since January of this year, is causing a very severe hardship for Canadians living in the four Atlantic Provinces. It is having an adverse effect on the economy there, and I implore the House to invite the Minister of Labour to see if there is not some way that he can have the president of that Company get a little closer to the union to bring about a settlement at the earliest possible date.


THE PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, the word is out that the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) agents are taking legal action because a new highrise luxury apartment building is diminishing the value of his home and spoiling his view over Montreal. Could the Prime Minister tell this House whether or not he has stopped lately and counted the number of views he has spoiled for Canadians, the 1.5 million jobless, the ruined and bankrupt businesses, and for all those who have lost confidence in the Government? Can he explain why he is deserving of any consideration whatsoever at the same time that he is casting a shadow over the lives of millions of Canadians, thereby denying them their day in the sun?


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Robert Daudlin (Essex-Kent):: Madam Speaker, a matter of concern has recently been brought to my attention and stems from what amounts to an injustice to Canadian taxpayers and to those families which rely on, or are dependent upon, child support payments by an ex-spouse.
Presently, persons who are required to pay child support by reason of a court order are not required by law to continue this child support when they enter prison, even though they may have earnings as an inmate. While it is recognized that the living allowance or wage earned in prison is minimal, the basic
requirement to uphold their responsibility of helping to provide for their children, should not be forgone.
I would ask that the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) review this situation and require inmates, who were paying child support before they entered the penitentiary system, to continue to fulfil their court ordered and social responsibilities, and pay a portion of the support, no matter how small this amount may be. Such action would remove an injustice from the system and could serve to enhance the rehabilitation process by reinforcing the concept that citizens of a society cannot participate in society by avoiding their responsibilities at the expense of the general taxpayer.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) recently announced that persons receiving unemployment insurance benefits will be allowed to take full-time language training if the training is required to obtain employment. This change of heart by the Government is commendable, but my purpose in rising today is to suggest a natural extension of that policy. Thousands of unemployed Canadians receiving benefits would willingly take retraining courses to improve their chances of getting a job. Many will pay their own tuition. But, as soon as they do, the Unemployment Insurance Commission cancels their right to benefits on the basis that they are not available to take a job.
I have had constituents in my riding of Simcoe North complain that these rules are illogical and unfair. The rules and regulations should be changed to encourage all unemployed Canadians to take retraining courses. While they are in full-time attendance at those courses their Unemployment Insurance benefits should not be cancelled.


THE PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, we are aware of the intention of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to sue those involved in the construction of a high rise apartment which obscures the view from the house in Montreal in which so many Canadians hope he will soon permanently reside. These same Canadians still dare to hope that this social and environmental injustice done to the Prime Minister by the invisible hand of the real estate market, in Montreal, will move him to action on much larger issues of a comparable nature in which the so-called virtues of free enterprise have a far greater impact on the lives of average Canadians, most of whom do not have a privileged view to defend, or the money with which to defend it.
March 9, 1983

When will we see some action on the way the marketplace has left many Canadians jobless and homeless, never mind without a view? When are we going to see action on the way free enterprise developers, in their unmitigated search for profits, have damaged the water, air, forest, and wildlife which constitute the common heritage of all Canadians and not just the private property of one person? Maybe for example, if the Norman Wells pipeline were going through the Prime Minister's background, it would be a different story.
When Canadians see the Prime Minister as concerned about these and other issues, they will be more inclined to sympathize with the plight of poor Pierre, who is having his overview of the Liberal kingdom of Montreal obscured. Until then, we can only see the fact that the Prime Minister is reported to have hired as his lawyer, Peter Blaikie, the past president of the Tories and prospective leadership contender, as the latest manifestation of the Liberal-Tory coalition in Canada, an alliance of names which I personally find unfortunate.


Madam Speaker:: Order.

[ Translation]


UNITED STATES DECISION ON CANADIAN LUMBER EXPORTS
Mrs. Eva Cote (Rimouski-Temiscouata):: Madam Speaker, yesterday, the United States Department of Commerce published a preliminary decision according to which the subsidies provided under certain programs to Canadian producers of lumber, shingles and fencing are judged to be negligible. As a result, no countervailing duty will be levied on Canadian exports to the United States. Madam Speaker, perhaps I may be allowed to offer our congratulations and sincere thanks to the industry and the federal and provincial agencies concerned for their joint efforts to convince the United States Department of Commerce that stumpage rights should not be considered a form of subsidy.
As you know, I represent a riding that has over ten sawmills, and a large part of their production is sold to our American neighbours. I would urge the Minister responsible for External Trade to continue his excellent work for the next round on May 23, when industrial assistance programs such as DREE projects and certain subsidy and loan programs will be examined by the United States Department of Commerce. In my riding of Rimouski-Temiscouata, Madam Speaker, the lumber industry alone provides thousands of jobs in the mills and in the bush.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Yesterday, when the Prime Minister confirmed that he was considering a review of the conflict of interest guidelines, he made it clear that he was distressed about the way in which they were interpreted. In view of the fact that the Government's concern seems to be more about the public relations aspects of the guidelines than about their substance or the behaviour of Government officials, how can Canadians be expected to have any confidence in this review?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I do not think the Hon. Member's premise to the question is correct. I do not see how he could conclude that the Government is not concerned about these guidelines. After all, the guidelines have been produced as a result of the initiative of the Prime Minister. They have been circulated, and the Prime Minister said yesterday that he was presently reflecting upon whether there is any possibility of improving these guidelines.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, the Liberals' idea of improving these guidelines is to water them down so that, if the Gillespie affair were to happen again, there would be no sanctions against officials; it would simply be a matter that no allegations could be made that the guidelines were breached.


REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE REVIEW
Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, why will the Acting Prime Minister not agree that the only way to deal with an instance like this is to agree to have a parliamentary review by a parliamentary Committee of the guidelines, to ensure that they are meaningful and that they have some teeth to them?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I think we have seen the political atmosphere which has developed around these guidelines, and I doubt whether sending the guidelines to a parliamentary Committee would change or improve that political atmosphere. I doubt whether they would be considered with the objectivity which is required at the present time.


Henry Perrin Beatty: If a Liberal were caught trying to burn down the Parliament Buildings, the Government would legalize arson.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

March 9, 1983
Oral Questions


REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF MONITORING OFFICER
Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, will the Acting Prime Minister please give us the assurance that, in order to ensure the highest standards of probity are followed in the future, an independent officer of Parliament will be appointed who can report to Parliament, not to the Government of the day, on whether or not a breach of the guidelines has taken place?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member has asked for a parliamentary Committee. How he asks for an independent individual. I do not know what his third suggestion might be.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Resign.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: He seems to have a number of proposals. The Prime Minister stated yesterday that he was giving consideration to or reflecting upon the possibility of improving the guidelines, particularly to remove the possibility of the unjustified interpretations which have been placed upon these guidelines by members of the Opposition. I would be personally in favour of any process which might induce Hon. Members to read the guidelines, to understand them, and to interpret them in a just and fair way. That has not been done up to the present time.


OBSERVANCE OF GUIDELINES
Hon. Erik Nielsen (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, would the Deputy Prime Minister not agree that the ordinary effect of the guidelines imposed by the Prime Minister would be that they be observed to the letter of those guidelines and, if they are not, an offending Minister must resign?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, we have been over that ground a thousand times in the last two weeks. I have nothing further to add to the subject, or indeed to the question which has been raised so frequently on the other side.


Erik Nielsen: I simply put that question to the Deputy Prime Minister because I am sure Hon. Members of the House would have been interested in what he considers to be a fair and just interpretation of the guidelines. Indeed, that is our interpretation; if the guidelines imposed by the Prime Minister are not observed, the offender should resign.
[DOT] (M20)


APPLICATION OF GUIDELINES TO MINISTERS SERVING IN SENATE
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, let me ask the Deputy Prime Minister a question concerning a press release mentioning the Andras and Gillespie cases as well as comments made by Senators Olson and
Perrault. Since this question, exposed by the media, involves two sitting Ministers in the Government, and some that we cannot question in this House because they are in the other place, does the Deputy Prime Minister not feel that the House is owed an explanation as to that case, since those two Members of the Government have themselves drawn a distinction between the Andras Case and the Gillespie case?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, as I understand it, the Ministers have drawn a distinction with respect to the facts, and the facts differ in different cases.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: They are not the same because of the difference in the type of applicants for assistance, for example. There were a variety, as I understand it, in the case which the Hon. Member raised today. To that extent the facts differ, and obviously facts will differ with each different case.


An Hon. Member:: That is a pretty weak answer.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. He was asked a question last week with regard to the Liberal Government's plans to move the Winnipeg air traffic control centre from Winnipeg to Edmonton and Toronto. The Minister said:
All that is being considered is a temporary relocation of controllers-
Can the Minister tell us whether he is going to move these 250 men and their families, and is the Minister going to be finding accommodation for them in Edmonton and Toronto? What are they to do with their Winnipeg homes? How long will they be away from Winnipeg, in Edmonton and Toronto? I would like a clear explanation of what is to happen to their families because that is of particular interest to the 250 controllers.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I have asked for that information but I have not yet been given it. This rumour is one based on a project only, not on an actual plan. If my memory serves me well, that change would take place in 1988. Obviously we have a bit of time to think about how it will be done. May I emphasize that this is not going to happen tomorrow, next month, or the month after that.


FUTURE OF PRESENT EMPLOYEES
A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam Speaker, I would like the Minister to make sure about that by asking his officials, because we have been through this sort of
March 9, 1983

thing in Winnipeg so many times, for instance, with the Air Canada overhaul base. We were told that was not going to be moved. We were told that we were going to get an aerospace training centre. That never materialized.
Are these 250 individuals going to be moved, are they going to be laid off, or is the Minister going to be hiring new individuals in Toronto and Edmonton?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I have already said that this was a temporary action in order to remedy the asbestos danger which exists at the airport. The action being taken is for the very good health of the employees at that airport. The motivation is, of course, an excellent one. As soon as I get the information on how many people will be involved, how long the move will last and when it will take place, I will rush and communicate it to my hon. friend. I will make it a point of honour to do that as soon as I get the information.


RESTRICTIONS ON FOREIGN OWNED BRANCH PLANTS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of International Trade. It concerns the tens of thousands of jobs that have been lost over the last few years. I have here with me copies of previously unreleased confidential documents which quote Government officials in the Departments of Industry and Trade, and also Canadian trade commissioners back in the 1950s and 1960s. From these documents we read that a majority of foreign-owned firms have prohibited their Canadian branch plants from exporting from this country, meaning the loss of tens of thousands of jobs. The documents quote recommendations from officials, and also recommendations from Canadian trade commissioners.
Why did the Government throughout the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and into the 1980s, ignore the advice of its own officials and trade commissioners?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of State (International Trade)):: Madam Speaker, one of the real problems that I will have is answering for the Government in the 1950s and 1960s. I was in provincial government in the 1970s. However, I can say to the Hon. Member that it is certainly our desire to encourage any foreign subsidiaries that are located in Canada to participate fully in export markets. Indeed, in the few months that I have been in this portfolio, I personally have had occasion to discuss that question with some people in the private sector so that that encouragement may be made quite plain.
I think there are many foreign-owned companies that are located in Canada which play a very important part in our export statistics. There may be some that do not fully take
Oral Questions
advantage for one reason or another. If the Hon. Member has any specific instances that he wants to talk about, I would be happy to investigate them for him.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The Minister is now the Minister who is responsible. I remind him that, because of the lack of adequate freedom of information laws, it is difficult to get our hands on all the documents we want. I will send him the file numbers of several documents from which I am quoting today.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, I think we want straight answers from the Minister because, in the documents I have, there is a quote, for example, from a trade commissioner who said, "Probably 75 per cent of the subsidiary companies have their exports strictly controlled by the parent." I also have a document which quotes a senior officer in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce who concluded that, "Foreign capital was the biggest problem facing the Department in its endeavours to expand Canada's exports."
Since that kind of advice came from Government officials and since the present Minister in charge of Treasury Board, who was the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce in 1980, failed to have Cabinet look at this again, why has the Government not acted to force branch plants of foreign firms to create jobs in this country and export from Canada to the world market?
Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of State (International
Trade)): Madam Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is dealing in simplifications. First, I think he would recognize that there are many companies that have invested in this country from exterior sources that are deeply involved in the export business. The Hon. Member could consider the Province that I come from, for instance. In Nova Scotia, most of the exports which we have been able to achieve in the manufacturing field have been as a consequence of companies locating in Nova Scotia and exporting into other markets, thus creating jobs in our country that otherwise would not have been there.
The situation varies according to the nature of the economy in the different parts of the country. I think it would not be wise, and in the best interests of Canada for achieving development and investment, to have absolute and over-all rule of the type the Hon. Member is suggesting. I think a better policy, and one that I would want to follow, would be to encourage most actively all companies that locate in Canada, to utilize export markets to the very highest degree possible. Again, if the Hon. Member or anyone else wants to talk to me about a specific company that is missing opportunities because of foreign ownership, I would be happy to investigate.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER FORCE BRANCH PLANTS TO EXPORT
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, the situation does not vary. I will be happy to send some

March 9, 1983
Oral Questions
information to the Minister after Question Period so he can read for himself what the trade commissioners and government officials have been saying over the years.
Next week, McClelland & Stewart will be publishing a book by Professor Glen Williams, entitled "Not for Export". It will deal with many more of these memos and documents that have been obtained over the years which point out the restriction on the creation of jobs in this country by branch plants.
I noticed on the news last night that the Minister is now a movie critic. Perhaps he can become a book critic and tell the House, after he finishes the book, what action he plans to take to force the branch plants of the foreign multinationals to export from Canada and thus create thousands of jobs for Canadians, and not for Americans, Europeans or Japanese?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, I will be quite happy to review the book for the Hon. Member and give him my best impressions of it. I do not think that he should form his final conclusions based upon the view of one author. There should be great respect for the written word, but it has its limitations.
I say again to the Hon. Member that there are some foreign companies that have better records than others in that regard. But the fact remains that Canada, as a whole, is exporting a larger proportion of our Gross National Product-over 30 per cent-than almost any other highly industrialized country.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Bud Bradley (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Canada Post, but possibly, in his absence, the Parliamentary Secretary could address himself to the matter. Canada Post has exceeded itself. It has now brought in a five cent penalty for small-businesses who do not send their mail out with the proper postal code or size of envelopes. Apparently the reason is that such mail cannot be sorted in the automatic equipment and must be handsorted, which is more expensive. Canada Post has referred to this as being a disincentive to small-businessmen.
I assure you, Madam Speaker, that the small-businessmen of Canada do not need any further disincentives from the Government.


Madam Speaker:: Is there a question coming?


T.A. Bud Bradley: Yes, Madam Speaker. Because of the confusion following this foolish announcement, could the Parliamentary Secretary advise us whether the penalty will be charged to the senders such as the Medicine Hat, Alberta, Chamber of Commerce, or to the receivers, as in Grande Prairie, Alberta,
and whether the penalty charge will be double the rate, as in Medicine Hat, or the single rate, as in Grande Prairie?


Mr. David Berger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member knows perfectly well that the Canada Post Corporation is an independent corporation. I have noted his question and I shall try to get an answer for the Hon. Member as soon as possible.


REQUEST THAT PENALTY SCHEME BE HALTED
T.A. Bud Bradley: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the Parliamentary Secretary's honesty. I hope Canada Post will not ask the letter carriers to collect the penalty. They take enough abuse for the errors of senior bureaucrats.
I suppose the businessmen in Kingston, now that they have lost their automatic equipment, will be required to pay the total penalty.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. First of all, the Parliamentary Secretary noted the question. However, concerning the second question, I do not know what supplementary question can arise from a question of which notice has been taken. The Hon. Member must be brief.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Good point.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


T.A. Bud Bradley: I guess, Madam Speaker, that it is Wednesday.
I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary would also give notice to his Minister concerning a question as to whether he would be willing to ask Canada Post to drop this foolish decision, and to advise and direct it to carry out the instructions of Parliament, namely, to deliver the mail in this country.


David Berger: Madam Speaker, I know that the President of the Post Office Corporation is holding a meeting with Members of our Party. I believe it was also in an effort to explain the Corporations policies to Hon. Members of this House that the President of the Corporation met with the Members of other Parties as well.
I am sure the Hon. Member is aware of the many steps which the Post Office Corporation has taken to improve productivity, to improve its labour relations, and basically to improve the service that it gives to the Canadian public. Once in a while it would be nice to hear him admitting some of the good things that Canada Post is doing-


Some Hon. Members:: What?


David Berger: -rather than always emphasizing the deficiencies.
March 9, 1983


INCREASE IN COST OF MAILING CATALOGUES
Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister responsible for Canada Post, but in his absence I hope the Parliamentary Secretary can answer my question. Last year in Malpeque, a small business operator in the garden seed business could send his catalogues to his customers as third class mail at a cost of fourteen and a half cents per catalogue. This year the cost is 64 cents per catalogue. The result is a whopping increase in cost of over 400 per cent. Could the Parliamentary Secretary explain how the Government justifies this increase in light of its six and five guidelines?


Miss MacDonald:: What guidelines?


David Berger: Madam Speaker, as the Hon. Member is undoubtedly aware, the Post Office has also taken steps to reduce its rates in some cases, where significant economy can be achieved by working with small business operators. As far as his particular question is concerned, I will again take notice and bring it to the attention of the independent Crown corporation, that is, the Canada Post Corporation.


Melbourne Alexander Gass: Madam Speaker, it might be a sleazy way of breaching the six and five guidelines.


IMPACT ON BUSINESSMAN
Melbourne Alexander Gass: Madam Speaker, the businessman in question already printed his costs in his catalogue before he sent them out. What does the Parliamentary Secretary propose that I should advise the businessman on how he is to recover his $65,000 extra in mailing costs when he does not have an accordion-type pricing policy?


David Berger: Madam Speaker, I am sure that what the Hon. Member could do would be to ask this small business operator-


An Hon. Member:: To get an accordion.


David Berger: -to get in touch with the officials of the Canada Post Corporation. I am sure that they would be willing to work with him to find out-


Mr. Clark:: He could call Alastair Gillespie.


David Berger: -ways to deliver his mail efficiently and at a reasonable cost.
Oral Questions LOTTERIES


PASSAGE OF SPORTS POOL LEGISLATION
Mr. Robert Bockstael (St. Boniface):: Madam Speaker, I would like to address my question to the Minister of State for International Trade.


Some Hon. Members:: Aha!


Robert Theodore Bockstael: About two weeks ago we read that the 1988 Winter Olympic Games were given a $5 million advance loan from the Government until the sports lottery could be set up. We did hear representation in the western caucus from the Mayor of Calgary who inquired if the sports pool legislation could be passed. 1 want to know whether the sports pool legislation could be passed very shortly because, while the Games are in 1988, preparations must be completed by 1986, and the money is badly needed. We are wondering if the Government is prepared to pass legislation in a one-day period.


Mr. Paproski:: Why don't you ask Pinard?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, with regard to the sports pool legislation, it has received second reading and has had lengthy and careful examination in committee. It is now at the report stage. What is normal concerning legislation of this type is for agreement to be achieved and for it to be completed in one day because of the limited amount of House time available.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald Augustine Regan: It is my information that, while the New Democratic Party is prepared to go along with that arrangement if the Conservatives do, the-


Erik Nielsen: Be careful!


Gerald Augustine Regan: -Official Opposition is not prepared to allow the legislation to pass in one day.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


Gerald Augustine Regan: It is not prepared to say how much time it would require for the legislation to pass. The result is that Calgary is very hard pressed in relation to money required to finance the beginning of the facilities for the 1988 Olympics.


An Hon. Member:: That's Alberta, Joe!


Gerald Augustine Regan: It is therefore very doubtful that the legislation can be passed in this session unless the Conservative Opposition changes its position and agrees to a reasonable time limit to complete this simple Bill.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


USE OF LOTTERY FUNDS
Steve Eugene Paproski: My question is directed to the same Minister, Madam Speaker. I would like to

March 9, 1983
Oral Questions
ask him what the Government has done with the $98 million which it has received from the Provinces in all the lottery funds.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Minister-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald Augustine Regan: -the Hon. Member, the former Minister, has a very short memory, because I have answered that question for him here over the course of the last three years, back in the days when I was responsible for Fitness and Amateur Sports, a dozen times. What the hon. Minister-what the Hon. Member did, was to trade away Loto Canada, which was giving a profit of $75 million to $80 million a year, for $24 million a year from the Provinces. That money is divided between the Departments of Fitness and Amateur Sport and culture and is used for the general support of these programs as, indeed, the money from Loto Canada would have been used after the obligations to the Montreal Olympics were met.
The sports pool-


Steve Eugene Paproski: Answer my question!


Gerald Augustine Regan: -is something else entirely. It involves the necessity of meeting-


Steve Eugene Paproski: What have you done with the $98 million?


Gerald Augustine Regan: -the needs of up to $200 million, in 1982-83 dollars, to make it possible for western Canada to host the Winter Olympics, just the same as eastern Canada hosted the Summer Olympics.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An Hon. Member:: There he goes! Bye-bye, Gerry!


Erik Nielsen: Get back here!


Henry Perrin Beatty: He's going out to review a movie.


Madam Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Hees:: Blew himself out of the House.


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans I will direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. Nova Scotia is rapidly losing most of its boatbuilding firms. Some 35 companies closed their doors last year and 20 more are expected to shut down next month, bringing the direct unemployment to approximately 700 people and an indirect loss of jobs to at least another 200 people.
Since the boatbuilders charge that they are being put out of business by restrictive policies regarding fishing vessel replacement, will the Deputy Prime Minister undertake to review Government policy in this field with his colleagues, in the hope that changes will be made which will be beneficial to the fishermen and to the boatbuilding industry.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, 1 will draw this question to the attention of the Minister, and I assure my hon. friend that the matter will be considered by the Minister and myself.


INCENTIVES SOUGHT FOR FISHERMEN ORDERING NEW BOATS
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance, if I can get his attention for a moment.


An Hon. Member:: That is you, Marc, still.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: At present fishermen in Altantic Canada are using 42 foot boats in waters where, for safety's sake, they should be using boats measuring 60 feet or more in length. Will the Minister of Finance, when preparing his next budget, give consideration to including five-year investment allowances or special income tax concessions to fishermen who are desirous of building new, larger boats, thereby not only helping the fishermen to fish safely instead or risking their lives, but also assisting in reactivating the boatbuilding industry?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, the Government at the present time is reviewing completely the fisheries policy on the East Coast of Canada. Obviously the fiscal aspects are important. I will take the views of my hon. friend as a representation, and give them serious consideration.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance and follows the question from the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville concerning who has the ability to create jobs. I want to ask the Minister what I think may be the key economic question, namely, whether the Government is going to rely on private sector spending or rely on Government spending. I want to ask the Minister whether he was quoted correctly in saying, when he left the closed-door meeting in Toronto the other day, that we might see a surge in the private sector that will sharply reduce the need for Government stimulus. Was he quoted correctly, and is it the Government's policy to rely on the private sector?
March 9, 1983


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I stated in my October statement that we firmly believe that the engine of growth in the Canadian economy is and has to be the private sector.


Mr. Stevens:: When did you get that idea?


Marc Lalonde: One cannot expect Governments, federal or provincial, to be the main instrument of growth in an economy like ours which is at best a mixed economy and which includes a very large private sector. This being said, government policy obviously and government spending have a significant role to play and they should not be ignored. It is not a matter of either/or, that is, leave it to the private sector or, on the other hand, as the socialists tend to think, it is all to be done by the Governments. Both have roles to play and the Government has to provide leadership in that respect, which we have provided and which we will continue to provide. So far as the specific measures are concerned, I invite my hon. friend to wait for the budget.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, socialists want jobs, and we do not see much leadership from the Government in creating jobs.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I want to direct this supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. After he made that statement in Toronto, a journalist interviewed some of the big employers. In an article in The Toronto Star under the headline, "Don't look to us for jobs most big employers say", it was reported that the President of The Bay saw no immediate plans for private hiring; the President of Alcan said the same thing, as did the President of Imperial Oil. The President of Canadian Pacific said that he was not expecting any major hiring before the end of the year.
In view of the fact that all of these major corporate presidents of some of the leading private companies in Canada have said, in effect, "Don't look to us in the immediate future to create jobs," why is the Government still sticking to the line that the main engine for creating jobs will be the private sector?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, as a good socialist my hon. friend believes that the main way of creating jobs is probably to increase the number of bureaucrats.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I am not the Government.


Marc Lalonde: The Government does not happen to believe that adding to the number of bureaucrats is the correct solution to the unemployment problem.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: I remind my hon. friend that General Motors has just recalled 3,500 workers in Ontario.
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: That is in Oshawa, in his own Leader's riding. At least he should phone his leader and ask him what is happening in Oshawa; it might be helpful.
As far as the general question that my hon. friend raises is concerned, I want to remind him that, as a good socialist, he should also know and understand that there is a small and medium-sized business sector in this country.


An Hon. Member:: What are you doing?


Marc Lalonde: The small and medium-sized business sector has been the main employer and the main source of job creation. This has been taking place under policies initiated by this Government, and I hope that it will continue over the next while and that my budget will contain measures that will indeed help medium and small businesses to play their full role in this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE ADMINISTRATION
Hon. Bill Jarvis (Perth):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister who earlier in the Question Period refused a reference to an appropriate Committee of the House to study the ministerial conflict of interest guidelines on the basis of, to use his words, the political atmosphere.
By what right, convention or tradition is the Government now sitting in judgment on whether a committee should have a reference based on ministerial decision as to whether the political atmosphere is conducive to that Committee's study or not?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I assumed that the Hon. Member was interested in having an objective examination of a very important situation.


An Hon. Member:: Absolutely.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: It will not be in the House.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: All I am saying is that there has not been very much objectivity shown by the Opposition in this matter in the discussions we have had in the House; quite the contrary.


ROLE OF COMMITTEES
William Herbert Jarvis: Madam Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister is part of a Government that ostensibly is interested in parliamentary reform, one of the tenets of which

March 9, 1983
Oral Questions
is the improvement of the committee system. We all hope to improve Committees in terms of their efficiency and usefulness. Should we now interpret the Government's position to mean that they may fulfil or attempt to fulfil that objective of improvement only so long as Cabinet Ministers decide what the political atmosphere is before they commence their work?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Madam Speaker, because the new rules provide that a large number of reports will be sent to Committees automatically, and Committees will have a new opportunity to examine matters on their own, without waiting for a reference from the Government. So my comments do not in any way detract from the important reforms that have been made.


An Hon. Member:: As long as you can stonewall them.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The point that I have made is a simple one, although the Hon. Member may disagree. It is that the atmosphere on this particular question has been, in my view, very heated and very extreme, and it is unlikely that at the present time an objective examination could be undertaken by a parliamentary Committee-


Erik Nielsen: Better to get Mitchell Sharp to do it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -of the guidelines. That is not in any way meant to undermine the importance of the parliamentary Committees. It is to acknowledge a fact that has been very obvious in this House for the past few weeks.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the Acting Prime Minister would tell us if there are other subjects which the Government will not refer to parliamentary Committees because there might be a political atmosphere in those Committees?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, if the Hon. Member can think of a subject he wants to ask about, I will give him an answer.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I am interested in knowing what the policy of the Government is. It is saying that it is not going to refer to a Committee of the whole Parliament a question of morality which affects the reputation of this whole House of Commons, because there might be a political atmosphere in a committee of politicians. That is what he is saying.
Will he tell us whether it is the Government's intention to hold back other questions from parliamentary Committees because there might be a political atmosphere, or is this special
treatment only for a question which has to do with the dreadful, immoral conduct of Ministers of the Liberal Government?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member knows perfectly well that this matter has been dealt with by the House of Commons itself, and the House of Commons itself has rendered a judgment on the matter. I believe the Hon. Member is straining at a very obvious point, trying to make a point where one does not exist.
It is obvious that the Hon. Members of the Opposition are not really interested in examining these guidelines to determine whether they serve the public interest. That is not their concern. Their concern is to do the very opposite, that is, where possible to undermine and destroy reputations, which they have been systematically doing in the House of Commons, and they would not stop if the matter went to a Committee.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


TEST OF GUIDELINES
Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister with respect to the issue of the appearance of privilege and the answer given a few weeks earlier by the Deputy Prime Minister that it was up to the individual conscience of Ministers as to whether or not there was the appearance of a breach of guidelines. Is there no other test, other than the Ministers' consciences? If there is some other test, what is that test by which we can judge the guidelines?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I think that point was covered last week in the discussions which were held. In the very conception of the guidelines it was the obligation placed upon individuals to live up to these guidelines. The onus was on the individual Minister and the former office holder in the first instance, and that obligation still exists. That responsibility still exists and it cannot be shifted. I believe that is a very important principle to be maintained, not only for Ministers but for Hon. Members of the House of Commons, that the responsibility in the first instance rests on them individually.
In addition to that, in the case of a Minister it is obvious that the Prime Minister on any occasion can decide that the Minister has stepped out of line. He can discipline that Minister or he can ask him to resign. The final sanction for Ministers rests with the Prime Minister. I wish there was a sanction on the other side which could be exercised by the Leader of the Opposition so he could discipline his Members.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
March 9, 1983


EFFECTIVENESS OF GUIDELINES
[Stage Direction]
Mir. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot): Madam Speaker, if the onus is on the individual, then what is the purpose of a guideline, if the line to which the Ministers are to be guided is simply their own judgment? Why would there be conflict of interest guidelines if the judgment were to be reflected back only to individuals? That is simply to say the Government has no guidelines. To what line do the guidelines guide the Ministers, and by what force are they to be held to those guidelines?
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member should read the guidelines-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -and he will know that these guidelines with respect to personal assets and business activities, and the handling of personal resources, have been complied with by all Ministers and all office holders. If the Hon. Member wants to make an inquiry-


Charles Joseph Clark: Except MacEachen, Lalonde, and Erola.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -with the Registrar General, he will find out that they have been fully observed. If any particular Minister refuses to observe these guidelines, he must face the court of public opinion. If I recall, in the former Government of the former Leader of the Opposition there were a number of Ministers who balked very vigorously at observing the guidelines with respect to their own personal assets. At least that is what the press told us at the time.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INCOME TAX
Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue and it concerns a very serious problem, a double standard by the Government. As the Minister will be aware, waitresses and waiters across the country, a couple of hundred thousand of them, mostly women, are taxed on their tips. When it comes to taxation, their tips are viewed as income. On the other hand, with respect to their benefits, their tips are not put into their income amount. This causes a very serious situation in unemployment insurance and the Canada Pension Plan for these waiters and waitresses. Would the Minister tell us what the Minister and his Department are doing to correct this injustice to the waiters and waitresses across Canada? What steps is he taking to rectify that situation?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, the matter raised by the Hon. Member is
Oral Questions
very interesting and also very, very complex. I would like to point out that as far as tax returns are concerned, the Income Tax Act is based on the principle that individuals and taxpayers are making a voluntary statement of income, so that a person receiving income other than that declared by his employer has to declare that income himself.
As far as the case mentioned by the Hon. Member is concerned, namely, people who receive tips in the course of their employment, it is up to the individual to declare both the income received from the employer and the additional income received in the form of tips.
In addition, there is a far more complex problem, namely, the deductions for pension plans whether it is the Canada Pension Plan or the Quebec Pension Plan, and also deductions for unemployment insurance. Such deductions will require regular statements of income by these people. Following a substantial number of representations on this matter, I asked my departmental officials to make an in-depth study of this very complex problem which, in addition to the Department of National Revenue, also involves the Departments of Employment and Immigration and National Health and Welfare.


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL ACTION
Douglas Keith Anguish: Madam Speaker, it seems to me that the Minister is agreeing that there is a double standard set by the Government, and I appreciate the fact that he has taken it upon himself to be in contact with the other Ministers concerned with the benefits side of this package. I would like to know when this committee will start and will the Minister make personal representations to the other two Ministers involved, namely, the Minister of National Health and Welfare for the Canada Pension Plan, and the Minister of Employment and Immigration with respect to the unemployment insurance situation? Will the Minister take action on this problem in the very near future so that it will not be covered by a review within only one Department when there are other Departments affected? Will the Minister personally take some responsibility in this area to clear up this dual standard within the Government?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I am not quite sure I understand the Hon. Member's conclusions. I did say the problem was complex, and I wish the Hon. Member would realize this. I also pointed out that it was up to the individual to declare his income and ensure he is paying taxes on his entire income. I am prepared to look into the possibility of making things easier for taxpayers and enabling people to draw any benefits to which they are entitled on the basis of their income statements. However, I

March 9, 1983
Oral Questions
would like to draw the Hon. Member's attention to the fact that the matter is a complex one and that it also requires the co-operation of these taxpayers in stating their entire income.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Hon. John Wise (Elgin):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration, and is prompted because of the difficulty which certain Order in Council changes, or regulatory changes in the Unemployment Insurance Act, have caused part-time workers, particularly agricultural workers. Would the Minister tell us what consultation, if any, took place between his Department and agricultural producers prior to the regulatory change being made and prior to its inception date of January 1 of this year? What consultation, if any, took place?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, in this particular situation, as I pointed out to the House, I believe, two days ago, we were faced with the problem of a number of workers in the agricultural field not receiving the proper income security which other occupations would receive for comparable work. We brought forward these regulations, having had some discussions over the years about that particular implementation.
It has been brought to our attention since then that certain agricultural associations had difficulty implementing the program to the fullest extent, so we have undertaken some very serious negotiations, very ably aided by members of my caucus who represent agricultural areas. The Hon. Member for Essex-Kent and others have been meeting over the past two weeks with the Horticultural Society. I think we now have the problem well in hand and we will be making amendments to that order which will be satisfactory to the agricultural groups.


REQUEST THAT REGULATION BE SUSPENDED
John Wise: Madam Speaker, I know consultations have gone on in the last few days. I also appreciate the fact that seven days are certainly better than 15 hours. But in view of the fact that certain agricultural producers have as many as 400, 500, sometimes 600 people working in the field at one time, and in view of the complications this causes for the producer, would the Minister give serious consideration to suspending this regulation for at least a 12-month period and begin serious negotiations and consultation with the people in the agricultural industry? Would he give serious consideration to that in view of the problems being caused?


Lloyd Axworthy: No, Madam Speaker. I believe it is important to maintain the protection afforded agricultural workers, and I
think that is a commitment we have made particularly because those workers are on the lower end of the income scale and therefore need that security we can provide. I do believe that the resolution to the problems which have been worked out in the consultations, providing a leeway of seven days, will be satisfactory and eliminate the paper work for the temporary workers. I think under those circumstances we can relieve the producers of further headaches. I also believe that is satisfactory to them.


ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT
Madam Speaker:: It is my duty to inform the House that an objection signed by the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight), the Hon. Member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta), the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson), the Hon. Member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart), the Hon. Member for Erie (Mr. Fretz), the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assinib-oine (Mr. McKenzie), the Hon. Member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche), the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) and the Hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Jarvis) has been filed with me pursuant to Section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, Chapter E(2), R.S.C. 1970 to the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Manitoba.
If the House agrees, I would suggest that we follow past practices and print the text of the objection as an appendix to today's Votes and Proceedings. Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Agreed.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I would like to supplement an answer I gave to a question in the House on February 17, 1983.


Madam Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Minister may correct an answer but he may not supplement an answer. I do not know exactly what he wants to do but he may not supplement an answer.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, on that basis I think I am entitled to continue because the supplement I want to add is in effect a correction.


Erik Nielsen: Order, Madam Speaker.
March 9, 1983


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I have the floor on a point of order.


Erik Nielsen: He is not entitled to do that. It is obvious what he is doing.


Madam Speaker:: Well, if the Hon. Minister tells me that his point of order is a correction, I have to take his word for it until such time as I realize that it is or is not a correction. So I simply have to give the floor to the Hon. Minister and hope that he is really making a correction.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, the answer I gave appears at page 22941 of Hansard. In my answer I referred to the moratorium established against the destruction of any personal files of the Security Service. That moratorium was established by the commissioner of the day and was continued by me in June, 1981.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, this cannot be allowed. He should be making a statement on motions. He has been allowed to abuse the rules of the House deliberately.


Madam Speaker:: Well, I am just going to let the Minister go on for another sentence and see whether he is simply elaborating on an answer or whether he is-


Erik Nielsen: Certainly he is; that is obvious.


Madam Speaker:: -really correcting something that was published in Hansard. That is the purpose of a point of order.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Subsequent to making the answer in the House I was informed by the Security Service that in fact, contrary to what I said, on two occasions the destruction of personal files was authorized and did take place. On each occasion the Security Service approached the McDonald Commission-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Minister may not go into these detailed explanations. If he wants to tell the House briefly "I said such a thing and it should read something else", because he made a mistake in the wording or something-and I do not know what the mistake might be- that is all I can allow the Hon. Minister to do. He cannot elaborate on his answer or change some of the full sentences. He may correct a word or two.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, to conclude in one sentence: On each occasion a submission was made to the McDonald Commission-


Erik Nielsen: That is an abuse of the rules.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: -and complete approval was obtained for the destruction that occurred.


Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, on a question of privilege, the Hon. Minister was replying to a fairly pointed question of mine in Question Period.


Erik Nielsen: Asked for weeks ago.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Twenty days ago, I may say, Madam Speaker. My question related to some files of the Security Service relating to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I note that 20 days later, on an occasion when the Prime Minister himself is not in the House, only then is an elaboration coming forward. I must point out to you, Madam Speaker, the very words of the Minister. If he had made the answer then that he is giving now, I suggest to you the conduct of the rest of Question Period on that day might have been far different.


Madam Speaker:: Order. I cannot allow Members to enter into debate. Now, I think both Members have added-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: I note that the Hon. Member for Durham-Northumberland (Mr. Lawrence) is not pleased with the way the Hon. Minister is handling this matter. That is right, he has just said so, and the House will note that. The Hon. Member may ask questions in the course of Question Period on subsequent days.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: On a point of order, then. Surely if a Minister is given the opportunity of making some far-reaching changes to a very definite assurance, and he used the word "assurance" in the House, then it should have been-


Madam Speaker:: Order.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: -done on a ministerial statement so we can get into it.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The Minister was given no opportunity. The Speaker was trying to understand what the Minister was coming to and this often happens when Members rise on questions of privilege or points of order; it takes some time to get there. I interrupted the Minister several times because I felt he was not being direct enough for the purpose of my understanding his point of order. In the end I simply said that the Hon. Minister-well, he made his point but I-


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Precisely, he made his point.


Madam Speaker:: He made his point in the end, in the last sentence. I do not think it was really a correction but there is nothing I can do. Those words were spoken. I tried to get him to be more precise but it did not come forward. That happens often in the House. However, I tried all I could to keep the Minister to a simple correction in Hansard. That does not mean that a debate may ensue.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, let us clear out the technical verbiage here. The practical effect of the Chair really not stepping into the Minister when objection was first made-


Madam Speaker:: I am sorry, the Chair stepped in two or three times; so let us be fair.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: All right, but the Minister has now been able to elaborate on his point, and instead of anyone else being able to elaborate we have in effect been gagged when we would

March 9, 1983
Point of Order-Mr. Lachance
want to question that elaboration. Surely the practical way out of the dilemma we are all faced with would be, in fairness, to accept the Minister's elaboration as a ministerial statement so that then there is a chance for the rest of us to make some points in relation to it.


Madam Speaker:: The Minister may do that if he wants to, but the Chair may not force him.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Rosemont):: Madam Speaker, I wish to draw your attention to my concern about the dangerous trend which seems to prevail during the 15-minute period set aside for statements by Hon. Members under the provisions of Standing Order 21. If I may, I would refer Your Honour to page 7:19 of the Third Report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure where it says:

The Chair would have the discretion to call to order any Member who sought to use this opportunity to convey congratulatory messages or for frivolous purposes.

In this case, Madam Speaker, the Members for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) and Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) referred in the House to the legal action taken by a Member of Parliament, namely the Right Hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), a matter which does not have anything to do with the political or institutional responsibilities of the Member of Parliament concerned. Madam Speaker, I would suggest that that was a flagrant abuse of a procedure designed to enable Hon. Members to raise issues related to the discharge of their duties. The Chair could certainly use its discretion, which is indeed explicitely acknowledged in Standing Order 21, to put a stop to such improper use of the rules.


Madam Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for raising this point of order. I must confess that, during the time reserved for statements by Members under the provisions of Standing Order 21, I was concerned about the fact that certain Members were referring to a private action. To what extent could that private legal action justify remarks such as those that were made this afternoon? As those Members were making their statements, I was telling myself that I should take a closer look at this question.
As for congratulations, I have tried to avoid them as much as possible. I would therefore remind Hon. Members that during this period they are not allowed to attempt to congratulate someone or refer to the presence of an individual in the
gallery, even in the first two or three sentences of their remarks. Such comments do not really pertain to the business of the House. I am aware that Hon. Members would like to congratulate many people, and they can do so at other times, but certainly not when they make statements under the provisions of Standing Order 21.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I believe my colleague referred to me in that statement. My statement was about Unemployment Insurance benefits and had nothing to do with a congratulatory statement.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member says that he has made a mistake and it was not the statement of the Hon. Member for Simcoe North.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Mr. Maurice Dupras (Labelle):: Madam Speaker, I wish to present a petition on behalf of some 50,000 Canadians who are outraged by the fact that the United States is giving military aid to dictatorships in Central America, and, as members of the Development and Peace Movement, are demanding the liberation of these peoples. Although I am not entirely in agreement with some of the terms contained in this petition, I believe it is my duty, as a Member of this House, to make known the opinion of the Canadian people in this assembly, the highest court in the land.


Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, I have the duty to present a petition on behalf of a number of my constituents in the riding of Athabasca. The purpose of the petition, signed by 585 residents of various villages and towns such as Bonnyville, High Prairie, Athabasca, Flatbush, Smith, Hondo, Newbrook, Ardmore, Grand Centre, Cold Lake, Colinton, Boyle, Iron River, La Corey, St. Lina, Grassland, Caslan, Hylo, Lac La Biche, Fort Kent, Glendon, Perryvale, Atmore, Kinuso, Faust, Slave Lake, Joussard, Driftpile, Rochester, Fawcett, Breynat, Wandering River, Plamondon, St. Vincent Mallaig, Goodridge, Therien, Rich Lake and Enilda , all of which are in my riding, is to register their protest against Bill C-85, an Act to establish a corporation called Canagrex.
The nature of this petition is to request that Clause 14 be removed from Bill C-85, the Clause which provides the
March 9, 1983

potential for the Government of Canada to do buying and selling of all agricultural products within Canada.
The petitioners hope that in Madam Speaker's examination of this petition, you will find the petition is in order, sense the urgency of their plea and that you might use the discretionary powers vested in your office to allow discussion and referral of this petition to the Standing Committee on Agriculture at the earliest possible moment.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, I again have the honour to table a petition calling for a full public inquiry into the Amax permit issued in the Amax operation in my riding. The petitioners this time ask that the Order in Council SOR/79345, the Alice Arm Tailings Deposit Regulations of April 10, 1979, be withdrawn, and further that a full public inquiry be held before commencement of the operation of the Amax molybdenum mine at Kitsault, British Columbia. The petitioners are from all across Canada. Some of the petitions were forwarded to me from the office of the Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada. I trust that they are properly filed and that your office will take whatever steps are possible to ensure that the request of these petitioners is upheld.



CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS ACT


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-676, an Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act.


Some Hon. Members:: Explain.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to implement the repeated recommendations of the Canadian Human Rights Commission to add as a prohibited ground of discrimination at the federal Government level sexual orientation. This legislative change is long overdue and would put an end to discrimination against homosexuals and lesbians throughout federal jurisdiction, including in the Canadian Armed Forces.


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


Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, I have two motions which I believe will receive unanimous consent as discussions
Committee Report
have taken place between the Parties. The first motion reads as follows:
That the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry be empowered to appoint nine Members of the House to act as a subcommittee to investigate, monitor and report on all aspects of acid rain;
That the Subcommittee and members of the Subcommittee have the power to adjourn and travel from place to place in Canada and the United States of America and that the necessary staff accompany the Subcommittee and members of the Subcommittee;
That the Subcommittee have the power to retain the services of expert, professional, technical and clerical staff as may be deemed necessary; and
That Subcommittee shall report to the Committee from time to time.
I might add, Madam Speaker, that there is an understanding that the split on that Committee as between the Parties would be five Liberal Members, three Conservative Members and one NDP Member.


Madam Speaker:: Does the House agree to the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
 * *


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, 1 also move:
That the Members of the Special Committee on Pension Reform be: Mrs. Beauchamp-Niquet, Mr. Dantzer, Mr. Desmarais, Mr. Frith, Miss MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands), Mr. MacLellan, Mr. Miller, Mr. Reid (St. Catharines) and Mr. Weatherhead.


Madam Speaker:: Does the House agree to this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I should like to advise the House of a change in the business of the House for tomorrow. House Leaders have been advised that the business of the House for tomorrow will be Bill C-l 39.


MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier) moved: , seconded by the Hon. Member for Labelle (Mr. Dupras), that the Eleventh Report of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous

Order Paper Questions
Private Bills and Standing Orders, tabled in the House on Wednesday, March 2, 1983, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4,545 and 4,622.


Mr. Hawkes: 1.	Did Mr. Edmund Clark, Assistant Deputy Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, receive the Outstanding Achievement Award and, if so, is the Prime Minister aware of this fact?
2.	(a) What are the qualifications required of a person to receive such an award (b) how are such individuals chosen (c) if the selection is done by a group of persons, what are the names and job designations of each person involved?
3.	Along with the award, did Mr. Clark receive a work of art by a Canadian artist and, if so (a) what was the cost of the work of art (b) who was authorized to make the selection of the work of art and what were the names and job designations of each person involved (c) what was the name of the artist chosen and for what reason was he/she chosen?
4.	Is the award and work of art being held in Canada for Mr. Clark's return?
5.	Will it be or has it been shipped to him in Paris, where he is on a one-year sabbatical, and, if so (a) what will be or has been the cost to the taxpayers (b) how has it been or will it be shipped (c) who authorized the shipment?


Hon. Herb Gray (President of Treasury Board):: 1. On
October 13, 1982 at Government House the Governor General in the presence of the Prime Minister, presented the 1981 Outstanding Achievement Award to Dr. W. Edmund Clark, in absentia.
2.	(a) Candidates for the Outstanding Achievement Award will be those public servants who have, over a period of three or more years, performed their duties in a most outstanding manner. This sustained performance should be measurable in some way, possibly in some form of extraordinary accomplishment or sustained contribution to improved efficiency and government performance.
(b)	Each year the heads of departments, corporations, boards commissions and agencies are invited to nominate eligible executives who are worthy of recognition. Documentation in support of each candidate is provided by the nominator and is presented to a Selection Committee of eminent Canadians from outside the Public Service.
(c)	The Selection Committee in 1981 was comprised of the following Canadians who served without recompense:
March 9, 1983
John Bulloch, President, Canadian Federation of Independent Business
Dr. John Godfrey, President, University of Kings College
Professeur Vianney Decarie, University of Montreal Ms. Kathryn Robinson, lawyer, Goodman and Goodman Mr. Colin Kenny, Corporate Manager, Dome Petroleum
3.	No. See part 4. (a), (b) and (c) Not applicable.
4.	Mr. Clark will be entitled to select a work of Canadian art to a value of $2,500 on his return to Canada. See also reply to question No. 4,622, part 2 answered this day.
5.	No. See part 4. (a), (b) and (c) Not applicable.


Mr. Blenkarn: 1.	Were Messrs. Klaus Goldschlag, Gordon Osbaldeston, Gaetan Lussier, Douglas Parkhill and Ed Clark the recipients of the award for "top civil servants in Canada for 1982" and did they receive a work of art as an award?
2.	Will they be required to pay income tax on the value of the work of art and (a) if so, what was the value of the work of art for tax purposes awarded to Mr. Clark (b) if not, for what reason would such an award, if given in the private sector, be taxable, but would not when given to a public servant, especially one who is on sabbatical in France?


Mr. Peter Lang (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: 1. The Outstanding Achievement Awards for 1982 were granted to Messrs. Klaus Goldschlag, Gordon Osbaldeston, Gaetan Lussier, Douglas Parkhill and Edmund Clark. All except Mr. Clark received a Canadian work of art. Mr. Clark will receive a work of art on his return to Canada.
2. The Outstanding Achievement Award is taxable and consists of an original Canadian work of art valued at $2,500 or less and a matching grant in cash. The matching grant is not paid to the recipient but to the Receiver General to the credit of the recipient as tax deducted from source, (a) and (b) Not applicable.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
March 9, 1983


Mr. Dennis Dawson (Louis-Hebert) moved: that Bill S-34, an Act to revive Polyventreprise Ltee and to provide for its continuance under the Canada Business Corporations Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders.
He said: Madam Speaker, with the agreement of the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party, and since this Bill has been considered in the Senate and in the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Quebec East (Mr. Duquet), that the House adopt all stages of Bill S-34 this afternoon, without debate. I believe there is unanimous consent for doing so.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Louis-Hebert (Mr. Dawson) will have noticed that I have just come into the chair and was sorting out my papers. I will simply put his proposition; apparently he seeks unanimous consent for some reason.


Dennis Dawson: I will repeat it, Mr. Speaker. After negotiations with the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party, I think we have unanimous consent, since Bill S-34 has been studied in the Senate and witnesses have appeared before the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders, that the House immediately adopt this motion at all stages.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Hon. Members will understand the motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Louis-Hebert, which indicates that there may be unanimous consent to put the Bill through all stages.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, for the record I would point out that those negotiations have been held, and we are in agreement with the Bill passing today.


An Hon. Member:: Without debate.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Without debate.


Mr. Deans:: Mr. Speaker, we are in agreement with its passage today, and quickly.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, considered in Committee of the Whole, reported, read the third time and passed.
Amax Limited
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Shall all items listed under Private Members' Notices of Motions (Papers) preceding No. 109 be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Ross Fulton: That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence concerning Amax Limited forwarded to Mr. P. Chamut on March 30, 1981, including a letter from (1) M.D. Nassichuk to D. Goyette, dated July 5, 1977 (2) B. Heskin to W. Johnson, dated October 5, 1977 (3) R. Stewart to B. Heskin, dated October 12, 1977 (4) E. Taylor to N. Ferret, dated October 18, 1977 (5) W. Johnson to B. Heskin, dated December 13, 1977 (6) H. Freeland to D. Farmer, dated December 15, 1977 (7) 1. K. Birtwell to R. Kussat, dated June 6, 1978 (8) R. Kussat to P. Scott, dated June 16, 1978 (9) R. Hoos to "Distribution", with attachment, dated June 28, 1978 (10) D. Farmer to P. Nasmyth, dated July 12, 1978 (11) C. Wong to P. Nasmyth, dated July 14, 1978 (12) P. Nasmyth to R. Hoos, dated July 19, 1978 (13) L. Retfalvi to R. Hoos, dated July 19, 1978 (14)
I. K. Birtwell to R. Hoos, dated July 27, 1978 (15) R. Hoos to "Distribution", dated August 1, 1978 (16) P. Chamut to L. Dominy, dated August 31, 1978 (17) L. Dominy to P. Chamut, dated September 1, 1978 (18) R. Hoos to "Distribution", dated September 1, 1978 (19) D. Shutz to G. Jaltema, dated September 27, 1978 (20) I. K. Birtwell to M. Waldichuk, dated October 3, 1978 (21) I. K. Birtwell to M. McNally, dated October 3, 1978 (22) I. K. Birtwell to C. McAllister, dated October 3, 1978 (23) 1. K. Birtwell to Z. Kabata, dated October 3, 1978 (24) I. K. Birtwell to D. Shutz, dated October 3, 1978 (25) D. Shutz to G. Jaltema, dated October 11, 1978 (26) J. C. MacLeod to Cornwall, dated October II, 1978 (27) P. Meyer to M. D. Nassichuk, dated October 18,
1978	(28) C. McAllister to I. K. Birtwell, dated October 26, 1978 (29) Z. Kabata to I. K. Birtweell, dated October 27, 1978 (30) M. D. Nassichuk to R. Hoos, dated November 6, 1978 (31) I. K. Birtwell to P. Chamut, with attachment, dated November 6, 1978 (32) P. Nasmyth to R. Hoos, with attachment, dated November 6, 1978 (33) M. Waldichuk to 1. K. Birtwell, dated November 7, 1978 (34) R. Hoos to RSCC Task Force, with attachment, dated November 17, 1978 (35) K. Smiley to B. Kurtz, dated November 30, 1978 (36) J. C. MacLeod to McEachran, dated December 5, 1978 (37) B. Kurtz to W. McKenzie, dated December 11, 1978 (38) B. Kurtz to G. Jaltema, dated December 11, 1978 (39) D. Trethewey to R. Hoos, dated December 11, 1978 (40) W. Johnson to B. Heskin, dated December 12, 1978 (41) F. C. Boyd to B. Heskin, dated December 12, 1978 (42) W. Johnson to McEachran, dated December 29, 1978 (43) I. K. Birtwell to M. Waldichuk, dated January 3, 1979 (44) G. Jaltema to D. Shutz, dated January 18, 1979 (45) D. Shutz to G. Jaltema, dated January 30,1979 (46) I. K. Birtwell to R. Hoos, dated Frebruary 19, 1979 (47) M. Ito to I. K. Birtwell, dated March 1, 1979 (48) R. Hoos to "Distribution", dated March 26, 1979 (49) P. Nasmyth to R. Hoos, dated April 3, 1979 (50) P. Chamut to M. D. Nassichuk, with attachment, dated April 5,
1979	(51) P. Chamut to F. C. Boyd, dated May 4, 1979 (52) I. K. Birtwell to R. Kussat, dated June 1, 1979 (53) P. Chamut to I. K. Birtwell, dated June 22, 1979 (54) P. Chamut to I. K. Birtwell, dated October 23, 1979 (55) P. Chamut to J. MacLatchy, dated November 6, 1979 (56) J. MacLatchy to I. K. Birtwell, with attachment, dated December 14, 1979 (57) J. Seaborn to the Minister of

March 9, 1983
A max Limited
the Environment, with attachment, dated December 18, 1979 (58) J. MacLatchy to M. Ito, on the subject of metals in stream sediments, dated December 3, 1980 (59) J. MacLatchy to M. Ito, F. Claggett and J. Scott, on the subject of byproduct recovery of metals, dated December 5, 1980 (60) F. Clagget to "File", on the subject of preliminary results, EPS surveillance samples, dated May 5, 1981 (61) M. D. Nassichuk to F. C. Boyd, on the subject of the Amax-US Borax meeting with Alaskans, dated April 1, 1981.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this certainly is not the first time 1 have spoken on the Amax matter in the House. I have reviewed my file and noticed that there are about 50,000 pages of material on this matter. However, I am sure that all Hon. Members of the House, when we finally bring the matter to a vote, will want to vote that these papers be released.
The reason I say this is that any reasonable, thinking Member of the House or any reasonable Canadian, on looking at these documents, will realize that they were all prepared at public expense and that they are documents which in fact have been subjected to what the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. De Bane) has publicly described as a public review process. All these documents were provided to what is known as the Mclnerney panel in British Columbia and were used as substance for the decision to which they came over the past year regarding the safety and propriety of the Amax operation, although in its most recent report it has distinguished that somewhat, in that some parts of the Amax Kitsault operation are not operating according to the special Order in Council granted during the federal election in 1979.
1 urge all Hon. Members who are here today and those who are doing any research on this matter to obtain Motions Nos. 109, 110 and 111 and to look at the documents which are listed so as to assure themselves that they are not what the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith) referred to them as when this motion was referred for debate. He said that they were internal Cabinet memoranda of some kind or that they were some kind of special interministerial documents which could not be released for some special reasons-for the security of the country or something. They are technical documents. They are primarily biological and oceanographic in nature and are very important documents to be released to those members of the scientific community, to the Nishga people and to many of the other groups which have been interested in this matter for some time.
I would like to put on the record some of the groups that called for a full public inquiry and are interested in seeing these documents released. I am sure many Members are now aware that there are several hundred recognized groups in Canada that called for a full public inquiry. Earlier today I tabled another 1,300 signatures of petitioners, bringing the number of names which I have tabled to somewhere in the region of 20,000. I understand that some 80,000 have been directed to the office of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), bringing us to probably the level of 100,000.
The number of individuals represented by these groups is very rapidly approaching half the population of Canada. Here is just a sample: Canadian Union of Public Employees; Native Brotherhood of British Columbia; Prince Rupert NDP;
Victoria Labour Council; Anglican Church of Canada, Ottawa Diocese; British Columbia New Democratic Party Caucus; Project North; B.C. & Yukon Territory Building and Construction Trades Council; National Indian Brotherhood in Ottawa; North Coast Tribal Council; United Church of Canada; Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops; Anglican Church of Canada, in particular the Most Reverend Edward W. Scott, Primate; Anglican Church of Canada, Bishop Douglas Hambidge; NDP Federal Caucus; Anglican Church of Canada; Port Simpson Band Council; Nishga Tribal Council; Telecommunications Workers' Union; West Coast Environmental Law Association; Canadian Environmental Law Association; Greenpeace Foundation; United Fishermen & Allied Workers' Union; Dr. Peter McCart, a biologist; Reverend Peter Hamel of the Anglican Church of Canada; SPEC from British Columbia or the Society for Pollution and Environmental Control; British Columbia Federation of Labour, representing all workers in British Columbia; the Council of the North; Lutheran Church in America; B. C. Conference of United Churches; Kitimat-Terrace and District Labour Council; Vancouver Island Building & Construction Trades Council; Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility; Gitksan-Carrier Tribal Council; the Edmonton Diocese of the Anglican Church; the Huron Diocese; the British Columbia Medical Association; and petitions from every Province and both Territories.
This is just a sample of the groups which are not amused with the footdragging on the Government side at every attempt I have made to obtain legitimate documentation. Most recently I obtained under Motion No. 106 a highly sanitized group of documents; there were parts of documents missing, whole areas of documents missing, entire documents missing. Those were simply in relation to the draft copies of the regulations circulated between Amax and Government lawyers as they were going behind the scenes drafting the regulations ahead of time.
Here are a couple of samples of what has been said in some publications. In December, 1980 the Canadian Churchman had this to say:
Archbishop Scott has written Prime Minister Trudeau expressing "deep frustration" at the lack of response to a letter informing the government of the General Synod's resolution on Amax: "Our concern over the development of this project is even stronger today, and actions that have taken place since then have impressed upon us the need for urgent action to address this matter. Even though Amax and government officials continue to say the Kitsault mining project does not impose any major threat to the environment, a significant and growing body of individual scientists and groups are contradicting that position", he said.
Statements by doctors on behalf of the British Columbia Medical Association appeared in The Globe and Mail on July 18, 1981. One reads:
The entire General Assembly of the British Columbia Medical Association, representing 4,000 doctors, moved and passed a motion on the need for such an inquiry as a basic requirement and passed it almost unanimously at their annual meeting in May.
March 9, 1983

Again from the British Columbia Medical Association we have another statement. This group, I suppose, the Liberals here in eastern Canada consider to be a bunch of quacks and quirks. This statement reads:
We as doctors demand closure of the Amax project and the unsafe, untested and unhealthy disposal of heavy metal tailings into the waters of Canada until a full and open public inquiry is implemented and reports to the citizens of Canada. As doctors we can do no less.
That is what doctors have to say. But what do the Liberals do about that? They continue to hide. The Globe and Mail for May 8, 1981 carried this report:
Alice Richards, daughter of Max Schott, who is a founder and former president of the company that later became Amax, made an impassioned plea to the stockholders at the annual meeting of Amax to save the Nishga from mine tailings that they fear threaten their food chain, livelihoods and their very lives. "In all honesty and justice, if we are so right and there is no danger from dropping tailings into the ocean, then why have we refused to allow public hearings?" Alice Richards asked.
There is the daughter of the founder of the company making a plea for a full public inquiry. Again, no move from the Liberals because everyone in this country knows they are hiding something, and I intend to allude to some of the things they are hiding today.
In the Canadian Churchman for June, 1981 we find this:
The Nishga have said loudly, clearly and repeatedly "We are not against development, we are against the permanent destruction of the marine environment for short term gain. We want to have control of the planning for development, have a share in the profits and have our people employed. We do not want our homeland exploited without our permission and with no benefits to us."
The February 7, 1981 edition of The Financial Post reported:
Canadian Arctic Gas Pipeline Limited spent several hundred million dollars on its fruitless quest for the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline. Amax of Canada Limited president, C. Allen Born, might well ask himself if he is about to walk into the same buzzsaw. There are parallels, even if the projects differ vastly. The company suddenly finds itself at the center of a growing storm, involving two governments, the Nishga Tribal Council and a group of leading Canadian clerics, including Archbishop Edward Scott, the Anglican primate of Canada.
In The Globe and Mail for July 8, 1981 we find:
The United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union, which support the Nishga, has called the government's actions "a massive cover-up".
That is a very mild statement, I must say. Added to that the Ombudsman for British Columbia this past week has come on board. I suppose the Liberals would consider an Ombudsman to be someone who just gets in the way; he should not have access to information. He should be muzzled and shut up as quickly as possible and certainly not given any access to documents which might embarrass the Liberals. However, in The Globe and Mail an article headed "B.C. Government made error on Amax permit, report says" reads:
Vancouver-The B.C. Government erred in granting a pollution control permit allowing Amax of Canada Ltd. to dump mine tailings into Alice Arm without first consulting the Nishga Indians, the provincial Ombudsman has found.
Then there is mention of the documents which the provincial Government had. Of course, we have a Liberal Member who is always standing up for his Party, never standing up for common sense or justice, to make sure that he keeps his mouth in the pork barrel as long as he can. He thinks doctors are
Amax Limited
quacks. He does not think the churches have anything to stand for and that independent scientists do not have anything to say. He thinks that public servants can write documents at our cost, the public's cost, but they are only available to a certain chosen Liberal few. Conservatives are not allowed to see them; New Democrats are not allowed to see them; the churches and the scientists cannot see them. Only the Liberal machinery behind the scenes is allowed to see them.
It has been revealed as a result of research done by my office and by certain other people in British Columbia that the mine permit itself was actually drafted by Amax and its own lawyers behind the scenes in collusion with a Government lawyer by the name of MacLatchy, of course all at the direction of certain Members of the Liberal Cabinet.
As we all know, the permit was drafted by Amax lawyers. All the way up to the Privy Council Office Amax had its own lawyers sitting there drafting the permit, with Government lawyers behind the scenes taking out what Amax did not want in there, and Government lawyers who knew nothing about the science of the project saying: "Well, at my own discretion", says MacLatchy, "I will jerk this section and that section out."


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Did they not have Gillespie in there?


James Ross Fulton: My colleague points out that maybe Gillespie was in there. I do not really know, Mr. Speaker. I do know that lawyers working for Amax-and I will be outlining the history of Amax shortly-were there. Obviously the Prime Minister's office was very much in favour of getting this project off the ground so he could keep his buddies south of the border happy.
The permit, as we know, gave Amax the right to dump 8,000 times above the level set by this Parliament, set by scientists in the Metal Mining Liquid Effluent Regulations, and allows the dumping of 100 million metric tonnes of material into the Alice Arm fishing grounds. There are scientists who no longer dispute the fact that that material is poisoning Alice Arm, killing the fish and killing much of the life in the Inlet. Amax is allowed to dump 12,000 tonnes a day for 25 years, all to save the company $23 million. Effectively this is what the Liberals are giving away in this case.
A Montreal Gazette for March 1, 1983 headline reads: "Tonnes of mining waste dumped in B.C. inlet" and "Firm helped draft its own permit". In part the article is as follows:
The documents, written by MacLatchy in May 1981, show Amax persuaded the government to allow the discharge outlet for the sludge to be 50 metres in length, even though federal officials wanted it to be 100 metres.
Amax lawyer Robert Granger even attended a final drafting session by the Privy Council Office, the documents say.
Let us go to the issue itself and point out why these documents that I am asking for should not be held under this shroud of security. What it is hiding from the public is which Members of Cabinet are culpable in this case and what kind of graft they obtained in order to let this permit go through.
Next I will quote from a document provided to me by the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) who has

March 9, 1983
Amax Limited
been a very honourable participant in all of this. While he was Minister of the Environment he provided me with documents. I did not have to go to him and cower. I simply went to his office and he gave me access to documents. It is too bad he is not still the Minister of the Environment because he has some honour, something which Members on the other side know very little about. I quote from a document provided to me dated March, 1979, headed "Position of the Department of the Environment and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans on the disposal of tailings into Alice Arm". It reads:
Consultants on behalf of Climax Molybdenum have indicated that a tailings pond system with a supernatant overflow can be constructed, operated and maintained based on engineering considerations alone.
It goes on to state:
In considering tailings and impoundment possibilities for the Kitsault Project, three potential sites were examined. The initial estimated cost for an adequate impoundment facility is approximately $25 million.
B.C. Hydro has estimated this cost for power transmission lines for pumping at another $4 million. On-land disposal would require reclamation at the end of the mine life which would result in some further costs. In contrast, marine disposal of tailings is estimated at $6 million for capital costs with low operating costs.
There you have it. A private deal was made with Amax. I think we all know that the present Lieutenant-Governor of Ontario, Mr. John Aird, a leading bag person for the Liberal Party in Ontario and Canada for many years until just three days before he became Lieutenant-Governor of this Province, was on the Board of Directors of Amax. He was the only Canadian on the Board of Directors of Amax International. When he stepped down on September 12, he was promptly replaced by none other than the previous President of the United States, Gerald Ford. I will be alluding to the direct relationship between Senator Aird, who was appointed to the Senate by the Liberal Party, his present position, his former position on Amax, as well as the involvement of his law firm, Aird & Berlis.
The Amax Corporation hired Aird & Berlis as their company lawyers. Mr. Granger, who works for Aird & Berlis, was involved in the drafting of the regulations from the beginning right up to the Privy Council Office, before a decision was made by the scientific team in British Columbia as to whether or not to go for on land or marine tailings. I, and I believe hundreds of thousands of Canadians who have written about this matter, consider it to be extremely corrupt.


Mr. MacLellan:: Mr. Speaker I rise on a point of order. I want to ask the Chair if it is correct for the Hon. Member to cast aspersions on the Queen's representative of the Province of Ontario.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I take it that the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan) is intervening to ask whether or not it is appropriate. It is my recollection that this matter has come before the House
previously. I believe the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) raised the same subject matter.
At that time, I believe I had to review the precedents in order to determine if this type of debate was in order. I am aware of a Standing Order which does call for respect for a certain stated list of individuals in Canada. I would want to review that again.
I believe that the proper procedure at the moment is for the Hon. Member for Skeena to continue his speech and the Chair will take into consideration the point raised by the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys. On the last occasion, I believe the Hon. Member for Skeena was permitted to continue his speech under similar circumstances. I will review the matter immediately and the Chair will continue to recognize the Hon. Member for Skeena.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member will read my speech. He will see that everything I have said is factual. Far be it for me to cast aspersions since Mr. Aird became the Lieutenant-Governor of Ontario. I am simply reiterating his history.
Some other interesting documents have come to light in this matter. They involve about 200 documents that the Government is hiding. In almost any other democracy in the world, these documents would have been immediately released. However, the fact that we have a Liberal Government that practices authoritarianism with respect to the release of documents in the House speaks for itself.
In order to give some background, I will quote from a document which I obtained entitled "Chronology of the Drafting of the Alice Arm Tailings Deposit Regulations":
On February 24, 1977, the Metal Mining Liquid Effluent Regulations were passed. In effect, they prohibited the unconfined disposal of solid tailings into waters frequented by fish. On June 22, 1977, Amax first met with EPS Pacific to discuss the MMLER and Amax's desire to have marine disposal of tailings in Alice Arm.
What is interesting about the document from which I just quoted of, March, 1979 is that the consultants working for Amax had already decided that it was possible to do safe on-land tailings disposal. The costs had been itemized to reveal that there was only a 2 per cent difference on return on investment to have safe on-land tailings.
There is the technical side to the argument as to which is safer. I suggest that the case has now been proven to most Canadians that it would make more sense, provide more jobs and be more environmentally sound to go on-land.
I am now concerned with the technical matter which the House will have to vote on quite soon. We have an hour and 40 minutes of debate remaining on this matter. When it comes time for all Members of the House to vote, I hope that Members of all Parties will return to their caucuses and determine whether democracy is being served as a result of their vote on Motion 109, Motion 110 and Motion 111. It is not a question of whether the Member for Skeena, the Anglican Church, the Nishga's or anyone else would be served, but whether democracy is served by voting on whether documents written by
March 9, 1983

public servants about this matter should or should not be released. 1 am confident that there may even be a couple of seals on the Liberal side of the House who will recognize the views of their constituents. I am presently in touch with most constituencies in the country about this matter. I am sure Canadians will be interested to know how their Members vote on this issue.


Mr. Tobin:: Dream on.


James Ross Fulton: The Member across the floor always has smart remarks about Members on this side. We hear a lot of talk from that particular Member from Newfoundland. I will be in his riding during the next election and we will see whether he comes back here. Liberals do not even like to have facts put on the record, particularly the little one over there.
On September 18, 1978 Amax officials met with the Hon. Len Marchand who was Minister of State for the Environment. The Amax officials wanted to determine the procedure to obtain an authorization under the Fisheries Act to deposit tailings into Alice Arm. There was no discussion on the legal mechanics of drafting a regulation to authorize marine deposit of tailings. That view was expressed by Mr. Seaborn, who was then the Deputy Minister of the Environment and is now the Government's appointment to the International Joint Commission at approximately $80,000 a year. In the drafting carried out by Mr. MacLatchy, almost all of the wording is the same. However, it is interesting to note that section 4 of the MacLatchy document states that Iona Campagnolo was present. She was the Member for Skeena at the time. She was present along with Mr. Marchand and they wanted to determine the procedure to obtain an authorization under the Fisheries Act to deposit tailings into Alice Arm.
I do not believe that any Member of the House can stand in good conscience and vote to continue hiding those 200 documents, knowing that this kind of activity was occurring at the same time as the scientists in British Columbia were trying to determine what the impact would be between marine tailings disposal and on-land disposal.
Of course, this matter was taken before the Joint Committee of the Senate and the House on Regulations and Statutory Instruments.


Brian Vincent Tobin: It was controlled by the Conservatives.


James Ross Fulton: I hear the little mind saying that the committee was manipulated. He never bothered to show up. We know where his credibility lies. On page 2 of the document dated May 28, 1981, which was sent to the former Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the committee had this to say to the Minister:
It is apparent to the Committee that the prohibition imposed by Parliament in Section 33(2) of the Act-
Referring to the Fisheries Act.
-and the general rules set out in the metal Mining Liquid Effluent Regulations will be of little value if special regimes come to be established to allow particular mining operations to dump tailings and effluents in enormous quantities. That such a situation might arise would seem to be altogether at odds with Parliament's purpose as expressed in Section 33 of the Act. Consequently, the Committee must assess the Alice Arm tailings deposit regulations carefully. It is
Amax Limited
clearly not the case that any or every exercise of power to set special standards or dumping limits is an unusual or unexpected use of power. What the Committee must address itself to is whether or not the deposits allowed in this case go beyond or are inconsistent with what reasonable men would consider to be anticipated under section 33.
That is very key.
The general limits set out in the Metal Mining Liquid Effluent Regulations have clearly been drastically exceeded. There has been no mere accommodation of a minor problem, or even of an existing mine. Rather, there has been an accommodation of a mining venture which it appears to the Committee might have been deliberately planned so that a special regime inconsistent with the general prohibition of section 33(2) of the Act and with the standards and concentrations set out in the Metal Mining Liquid Effluent Regulations would be essential.
Subsequent to this letter being written, we now have proof that the former Minister of the Environment, Mr. Marchand, and the former Minister of Amateur Sports, Mrs. Campagnolo, were present at a meeting with Amax either at the same time or at different times. The purpose of their meetings was to design marine tailing deposit regulations before the scientists had an opportunity to oppose the marine tailings disposal. I continue with the letter:
This might be thought to come dangerously close to treating Section 33(4) of the Act as a carte blanche to allow unlimited, unconfined and unrestricted dumping of toxic materials.
The Committee is also troubled by the effect that the latitude being allowed the Amax Kitsault Mine may have on the sentencing of those convicted of breach of section 33 of the Act or of exceeding the limits set out in the Metal Mining Liquid Effluent Regulations. Courts may be reluctant to impose sentences of any real deterrent value when defence counsel can point to dumping limits of the dimensions sanctioned in the case of the Kitsault Mine.
The vote taken by that committee, which was four to three, censuring the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for unusual and unexpected use of power still stands despite the real manipulations of the Liberal Party across the way. I hope they can stand in their place and list the 200 or 300 groups in this country that support the hiding of these documents. I doubt there would be the Anglican, Lutheran or United Church, the B.C. Medical Association or the B.C. Teachers' Federation in that list. I challenge any Liberal to rise in the House and list the groups. The groups would be various Liberal riding associations and corporations trying to hide the facts from the Canadian public.
In fact, I have in my hand today one of the documents which I am pursuing. One of the reasons that the Liberals are hiding these documents so carefully will be proven in a moment as I read a few facts into the record. This document is dated December 11, 1978. It is addressed to Mr. R. Hoos from Mr. D.E.C. Trethewey of the Canadian Wildlife Service, and it is with regard to the Amax operation and the recommendation which Mr. Hoos had made. It states:
I find the procedure employed in the presentation of this report to the JDCC to be highly irregular and completely unacceptable. As Chairman, you have unilaterally prepared and submitted to the JDCC on behalf of the Task Force, but without its approval a report containing a recommendation to proceed with the project. This recommendation did not reflect the opinion of the majority of the Task Force and apparently was based on your own particular biases.

March 9, 1983
Amax Limited
It continues:
I am unaware of any attempt by you to contact Task Force members to determine if in fact such a review would be inconvenient. In its present format, it appears to be nothing more than an information memorandum or progress report to your director.
I have just one more quote, Mr. Speaker. It continues:
In the present situation, the records will show that the JDCC approved a Task Force recommendation. This, of course, is false. The Task Force should not have to bear the responsibility of a decision which in reality was only that of one person.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. Perhaps the Hon. Member would like to seek unanimous consent to continue his remarks, if he wishes. However, I have taken into consideration the point of order raised, which took away some moments of his time. I must now draw to his attention the fact that his allotted time has expired.


James Ross Fulton: I would certainly be prepared to seek unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is there unanimous consent that the Hon. Member for Skeena continue his remarks?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: There is not unanimous consent.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to explain that we have a very important Veterans Affairs motion coming on third, and since we will not have the full hour at our disposal, we would appreciate having as much time as possible for the veterans.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I do not mean to enter the debate, but I think the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) can be assured that there will be a full hour available to him.


A. Daniel McKenzie: I am glad to hear that.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, let me say, without any apology, that I said "no" to a request for unanimous consent that the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) continue. I have been here in the House on half a dozen occasions listening to him making these allegations, speaking in the kind of tone which creates this kind of spurious debate. I am not one who would voluntarily spend any more time walking through the mud than I must. However, the remarks of the Hon. Member have once again taken a very predictable line for many in the debate. He has offered no evidence. He has offered a great many distorted truths and equally as great a number of total untruths today.
The only thing I can say to the Hon. Member is that there is no question but that this kind of decision is always controversial. One can always find those who are either side of the issue.
Having said that, and having been honest enough to admit that certainly, in this kind of environmental question, there are always two sides, it would serve the Hon. Member and, indeed, the House well if, as much as is possible in this kind of debate, we try to stick to the facts, to behave as rational men and women in this Chamber and not seek to drag the reputations of many people through the mud. The Hon. Member has made unsubstantiated allegations, because of the immunity afforded to him-


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Keep talking. We will send it out to the groups concerned.


Brian Vincent Tobin: -which he would not dare make outside the House.


James Ross Fulton: Name one.


Brian Vincent Tobin: The Hon. Member spoke of credibility and accountability. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon. Member has never raised the issue before the Committee on Fisheries and Forestry or before the Committee on the Environment. They are one and the same with respect to either matter, fisheries concerns or environmental concerns.


James Ross Fulton: A point of order!


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, he has not come before the Committee.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member would be well advised to check the record. He said this previously in the debate but I did not bother to object. I raised this many times before both parts of the Committee, and I would urge him to check it out rather than put falsehoods on the record.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member stands in his place and repeats a statement as was pointed out in the last debate by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. De Bane), who rose to the Hon. Member's point of order. Yes, three years ago, once-


James Ross Fulton: A point of order!


Brian Vincent Tobin: -the Hon. Member came before the Committee. If I were to have stood every time the Hon. Member issued another untruth between his teeth in the last hour, I would not have had a chance to speak today.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member does not come to the Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, so he does not really know what is going on. As a matter of fact, I raised this issue with the Deputy Minister just last week. He can check the record.


Brian Vincent Tobin: I am the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and I am always there. The fact that the Hon. Member can rise and make this kind of statement shows how easily he finds it to grab little threads of whatever it is that works in his mind and make all kinds of
March 9, 1983

statements which are to him, the truth. With so many important issues facing the country today, 1 find it almost unbelievable that the Hon. Member for Skeena continues to waste the time of this House on this particular matter.
The simple facts are that, in response to the Hon. Member's earlier request, correspondence relating to the granting of the Amax licence has been tabled in this Chamber. Other correspondence which the Hon. Member asked to be tabled are classified as internal departmental memoranda and, as is generally accepted, are not made public. This position was stated quite clearly at the time by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The situation has not changed and the Department's position has not changed.
The Hon. Member, who is so interested in acquiring new information, has left his seat and gone from the House. Having had his little 30-second news clip for the day, having milked the issue, he has gone off into another chamber outside the House. However, for reasons-oh, he is back. For reasons best known to himself, the Hon. Member for Skeena intends to-


James Ross Fulton: I rise on a point of order. An Hon. Member wished to speak to me, Mr. Speaker. I just went to the door and spoke to him. 1 think the Hon. Member might be well advised to put some of his facts on the record. I think that is why we are here, to find out why his Government will not table the documents.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, it is best known to the Hon. Member for Skeena.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Why don't you quit this juvenile debate and say something?


Brian Vincent Tobin: That was about as intelligent as anything else he has said in the last little while. He seems intent on chasing shadows, insinuating all kinds of collusion and underhanded deals in the granting of the Amax licence.


Some Hon. Members:: Table the papers!


Brian Vincent Tobin: When this matter was debated back in October of 1981, the House was given a full account of the manner in which Amax was permitted to dispose of tailings from the Kitsault mine beneath the surface waters of Alice Arm. The House knows there was a very detailed examination of the environmental risks made by the Department of the Environment and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. If the Hon. Member came to committee, he would know that.
The House also knows that there was a special review of all the data on which the decision was based. The Minister held a review within the Department and he then went to the University of British Columbia and to the University of Victoria. Three very esteemed scientists from each of those educational institutions in British Columbia reviewed all the data and they concurred with the Minister's decision. The results of the panel's review were clear. There would be no significant impact on the fishery at Alice Arm.
Amax Limited
One must wonder what the Hon. Member for Skeena wants. Even a cursory look at the record would tell him that the approval was straightforward and proper. It was not that different from a great many other decisions. Obviously, the Hon. Member does not want to look at the record. He has obtained for himself a lot of ink, and lot of earplay out of this issue. He was really elected as a man of no imagination. He cannot find another issue in order to let this one go, because it has worked for him so long. He is prepared to waste the time of this House on an issue which should have been laid to rest a long time ago on the basis of the facts of the case and on the basis of simple logic, something the Hon. Member has obviously demonstrated again today that he does not understand.


Mr. Althouse:: Table the documents.


Brian Vincent Tobin: The Hon. Member was quoting newspaper editorials. Let me quote one as well. Some time ago the Vancouver Province described the Amax decision as "a storm in a teacup". After listening to the rhetoric of the Hon. Member for Skeena and then considering the work and report of the review panel, the Province, and I am quoting directly from the editorial, stated:
We now learn that the Amax tailings are less poisonous than our tap water.
That is the editorial of the Vancouver Province after his first round of sensationalizing this issue in this House of Commons.
One thing that critics of the marine disposal decision have consistently forgotten is that Alice Arm is far from being a pristine, untouched inlet. The Kitsault mine was operated from 1968 to 1972 by a previous owner, the B.C. Molybdenum Corporation. During that period, 10 million tonnes of raw tailings were deposited directly into Lime Creek near the head of Alice Arm. These tailings spread five miles down the bottom of the arm. In addition, rivers flowing into that arm deposit hundreds of thousands of tonnes of silt every year.
There was at that time no attempt to restrict where the tailings were deposited. While we do not, of course, today regard this practice as environmentally sound, it is interesting to note that there was no public outcry at that time. Not a single letter was received which objected to the dumping of crude tailings in this manner.
More important, during those five years of operation there was no significant change in the numbers of salmon migrating through Alice Arm up into the Kitsault and Illiance Rivers. In other words, the completely uncontrolled discharge of tailings had no apparent impact on the major fishery in that body of water. Certainly there was a detrimental effect on the life forms on the bottom of Alice Arm, but the salmon suffered no apparent harm.
Economic problems forced the closure of the B.C. Molybdenum operation in 1972. In 1973, the property was purchased by Amax. What did Amax have to do in order to reopen the mine? In September, 1975 Amax made an application to the provincial Pollution Control Branch for a permit to reopen the

March 9, 1983
Amax Limited
mine at double the previous capacity and to deposit tailings effluent in Alice Arm at the rate of 12,000 tonnes a day. Notices to this effect were formally published in the B.C. Gazette and the Prince Rupert newspapers. This notice was published twice and a copy was provided to the local community of Kitimat-Stikine. No objection to the application was received. All of this was done strictly by the book, by very regular procedure.
As this House may be aware, there is good communication between the Province of British Columbia and Environment Canada in the environmental review process. There is a referral arrangement between the Pollution Control Branch and the regional office of Environment Canada's Environmental Protection Service. Thus, a copy of the Amax permit application was referred at an early stage to the federal Government.
Why was Amax not allowed to continue dumping raw tailings into Lime Creek? The reason, basically, was that Metal Mining Liquid Effluent Regulations under the Fisheries Act were passed in February, 1977. The Regulations, which are applied throughout the country, prescribed limits for total suspended matter and were intended to prohibit the disposal of tailings into lakes and rivers.
It was recognized in drafting those regulations that the marine disposal of tailings may be the best environmental option in certain situations and would be considered on a case by case basis. The Environmental Code of Practice, which was published by the Government at the same time, states on page 23, and I quote directly from the Code:
6.2 (2) When it can be shown that the unconfined disposal alternative is the most practical method, and that it is environmentally preferable to confined disposal a separate regulation for each specific site must be obtained to allow its use.
So it was clearly spelled out in 1977 that the Government would consider site specific regulations in cases where it was appropriate.
Was it appropriate in this case? The clear answer is yes, it was, but it was not on the basis of sinister political pressure or on the basis of some special favour to Amax, as the Hon. Member for Skeena would have us believe. No, it was an appropriate measure for sound environmental protection reasons, based on hard facts and scientific judgment.
I will return to this in a moment but the House should know that the marine disposal of tailings has been a common practice on the coast of British Columbia. While it may not be the ideal way to dispose of tailings from a fish habitat viewpoint, in the past this was considered the only practical method of tailings disposal in any mining operation in rugged terrain on the coast of B.C.
Anaconda at Britannia Beach, only 20 miles north of Vancouver, dumped its tailings into Howe Sound for more than 50 years, until 1974. Texada Mines dumped its tailings into the Strait of Georgia for almost 25 years, until 1976. Utah Mines on Vancouver Island and Wesfrob Mines on the Queen Charlotte Islands, also in the riding of the Hon. Member for
Skeena, are currently, this day, dumping tailings into the ocean. It is not all that unusual.
I do not mean to suggest that because marine disposal of tailings has been practised in the past it is necessarily acceptable. It is not ideal, and Environment Canada has disallowed it on many occasions. The point I would like to make is that the Government's environmental experts considered it and came to the conclusion that it was not the preferable way to handle things.
In the case of Amax it was the preferable way. It may not have been in other circumstances. I can give examples: at Nanisivik Mines on Baffin Island and at Cominco's Polaris Mine on Little Cornwallis Island, both in the high Arctic, the Government rejected that method. In the case of Amax at Alice Arm, we said yes. We do not automatically give a rubber stamp in every case.


James Ross Fulton: You do. You are a rubber stamp.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Let me move on to another point that probably led the Hon. Member to take up this issue. It is well known that at the time of the Amax decision there was disagreement among Government scientists about whether to permit the marine disposal of tailings in Alice Arm. Biologists concerned with the preservation of fish habitat do not view in the same way the fact that these tailings will bury the bottom of part of Alice Arm.
What is offensive to me is the suggestion that this difference among Government scientists was settled by pressure of any kind from any quarter. Senior officials in Environment Canada and in Fisheries and Oceans weighed the risks and made a decision to recommend marine disposal. That was the result of a proper administrative review and it was vindicated by a review by three highly esteemed experts in this field from the University of British Columbia and from the University of Victoria. Would the Members opposite question their judgment?


James Ross Fulton: We have.


Brian Vincent Tobin: I ask the Hon. Member for Skeena, is it his opinion that these experts are somehow part of a conspiracy? The Hon. Member practises what is almost a Joseph McCarthy mentality in reverse. In his mind, everybody is at the end of a string. Frankly, I find it disappointing.
There was a time in this House, and in this country, when this Party opposite, although its political philosphy is slightly left of mine, earned a great deal of respect for standing up on issues, and standing up with integrity.


James Ross Fulton: We will not be lectured by Liberals about integrity, thank you very much.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Many men who filled those chairs opposite stood up on issues with great integrity. It is now sad, and it is disappointing.


James Ross Fulton: You guys are pathetic.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Perhaps if the Members who sat on the benches opposite years ago were here today, they would be somewhat
March 9, 1983

shocked. It is a little sad to see the kind of spurious raving that emanates from the minds of those opposite these days.
The evidence shows that the permanent on-land impoundment of tailings in perpetuity in the rugged terrain in areas such as Alice Arm cannot be assured at any cost. And the failure to make such an impoundment due to heavy rains or earthquakes could lead to severe environmental consequences. It could destroy the fisheries and the wildlife habitat near the mouth of the Illiance River.
Members from British Columbia know that there is a high potential for mudslides and snowslides in that Province. Many will recall the severe flooding at Terrace, B.C., a few years ago.


James Ross Fulton: The sky is falling.


Brian Vincent Tobin: The damage was estimated at $20 million. If there was a tailings pond failure at the Kitsault mine, nobody knows what the cost would be in environmental damage, but it would be high.
I would like to turn now to another part of the Amax debate and that is the toxicity of the tailings and the impact that they will have on the waters of Alice Arm. The Hon. Member for Skeena is fond of referring to uranium and radium-226, among other things, in the Kitsault tailings, and to the terrible danger these two, sinister-sounding materials represent. This is a complete distortion, like other distortions that have been thrown into the Amax debate.
Uranium and radium-226 are naturally occurring elements found everywhere in the rocks and soils across Canada. These elements are present right now in the very stones and other materials that were used to construct the Parliament Buildings and this very Chamber I stand in. They are all around us right now.


James Ross Fulton: Why do you not go eat some?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Let me assure the Hon. Member for Skeena that he is in no danger, or at least he is in no more danger than he would be anywhere else. I think the greatest thing he has to fear is not fear itself, but this capacity he has to behave as an unguided missile every time he opens his mouth.
The average uranium concentration of ordinary rock in the crust of the earth is around three or four parts per million. The uranium content of the rock in Amax tailings runs somewhere around two parts per million-less than the average found in the stones used to construct this building, Mr. Speaker. What has the Hon. Member done? He talked about uranium-226. Of course, citizens not aware that this is a common substance found anywhere in this land would react with great fear. It is a very perverted mind which would play on that fear and continue espousing these words in hopes of scoring cheap political points.


An Hon. Member:: You are a wimp.
Amax Limited


Brian Vincent Tobin: A wimp? Yes, you are a wimp. I regret to say it. I believe I would much rather be a wimp than be somebody who would deliberately play on the fears of the public, who would deliberately use buzz words and frighten the population in order to score political points.
I would like to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by making two simple statements. I believe the Hon. Member for Skeena in his heart, if he has one, knows the truth. There was no political interference in the scientific examination of the Amax issue. If he infers that in fact there was, then he calls into question the reputation of the University of British Columbia, the University of Victoria, and the very fine men who acted on an independent review panel.
Second, there was no favour extended to Amax.


An Hon. Member:: You are ignorant of-


Brian Vincent Tobin: No, I am not ignorant. I am just not hallucinating most of my life. The defcision to permit underwater disposal at Alice Arm was made on the basis of scientific evidence, and it was a very sound decision. A controversial decision, yes. When we talk about the environment, I hope there is always good cut and thrust in debate. I hope there is always a requirement to ask for a second, third and fourth opinion, that is important, Mr. Speaker. But having asked for those second, third and fourth opinions, and having received them from independent, qualified sources, let us not have an hon. gentleman-and we give him that title-stand in this House and insinuate and smear the reputations of people who cannot come here to defend themselves. Let us not have an hon. gentleman use the immunity of this House to make statements he dare not make outside the confines of this building, Mr. Speaker. That is perhaps the real test of the courage of the Hon. Member opposite.


James Ross Fulton: You say that outside the House with me, little boy!


Brian Vincent Tobin: It is only my maturity, Mr. Speaker, and my wisdom which prevents me from responding to that kind of childlike challenge.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, like my colleague, the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin), I too am perplexed as to why the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) continues to flog this issue. I would like to reiterate the fact that all scientific documents upon which the design to authorize marine tailings deposits in Alice Arm was based have always been freely available. They have been provided to the Hon. Member for Skeena and to other interested groups. All technical reports on monitoring the discharge and other special studies have also been made available to the public.
In addition, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. De Bane) has tabled all requested external correspondence on the Amax matter. Only internal memoranda providing advice to the Minister and the Department have not been released, as is the usual practice.

March 9, 1983
Amax Limited
It would be useful, I believe, if I were to re-emphasize the factors which were taken into account in approving the Alice Arm Tailings Deposit Regulations. This was not a decision that was taken flippantly or in great haste but one that was made only after a detailed technical examination of data on various tailings disposal alternatives carried out by the staff of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of the Environment.
By way of example of the thoroughness with which this task was carried out, I might mention that more than 40 technical reports on the biology and oceanography of Alice Arm were reviewed to assess the immediate and long-term risks associated with maintenance of a conventional on-land tailings impoundment, as compared with the underwater disposal system which is in contention today. Following this extensive study, the conclusion drawn was that a properly designed marine tailings disposal system would not adversely affect the fisheries resources and, on balance, would be preferable in this particular case to a containment pond on land.
The Minister in making his decision based his approval of the Tailings Deposit Regulations on the following factors: first, the conclusion that Pacific salmon and other important fishery resources would not be adversely affected; second, that tailings deposited from the mine would not extend outside of Alice Arm; third, that the tailings would keep to the bottom of Alice Arm at a minimum depth of 100 metres; and fourth, that an alternative method of tailings storage-that is on-land impoundment-would represent a threat in perpetuity to salmon resources entering Alice Arm. This conclusion was arrived at in view of the high rainfall and the steep topography of the area, which meant, in effect, that the permanent stability of an on-land storage basin could not be assured. I feel this is a very important point, Mr. Speaker, one which has been frequently overlooked by those critical of the underwater disposal system.
Having satisfied himself as to the technical aspects of this disposal system, the Minister has freely admitted that there still remained a nagging thought that perhaps the experts might have miscalculated or slipped up somewhere along the line. It was for that reason that he was not unsympathetic or unresponsive to the concerns expressed by the Nishga Tribal Council, on behalf of the native people who live in the vicinity of Alice Arm, that some damage might be caused to the fishery resource as a result of the mining operation.
Because of this, and to make doubly sure that we were doing the right thing, the Minister asked for the establishment of a review panel of independent and highly respected scientists to go over all the data and reports on which the decision was based, and to publicly report their findings. He opted for a scientific review panel rather than the public inquiry which was advocated by the Nishga Indians because the evidence on which the panel would have to base its findings was almost exclusively scientific or, at best, very technical. However, it was made very clear to the Nishgas, and to any other groups or individuals interested in the issue, that the panel would be prepared to meet with them and hear their views or evidence,
and that all reports of the panel would be readily available to the public.
The Minister, and most others involved in this matter, were disappointed that the Nishgas, for reasons best known to themselves, decided to boycott the review panel. In view of the concerns they had raised and their repeated demands for a public inquiry, it was somewhat difficult to understand their position. However, that was their decision.
In the recruitment of members to the review panel, considerable care was taken to ensure that competent and independent scientists were appointed. Its Chairman was Dr. J. E. Mclner-ney, who is Chairman of the Department of Biology at the University of Victoria and a specialist in the physiology and behaviour of fish. The other two members were Dr. R. W. Burling, Professor of Oceanography at the Department of Oceanography, University of British Columbia, and Dr. W. K. Oldham, a member of the Faculty of Civil Engineering at the University of B.C.
The panel's terms of reference were as follows:
1.	To examine and advise on the adequacy of the Alice Arm Tailings Deposit Regulations for protecting economically important fisheries resources and Indian food fisheries of Alice Arm and environs.
2.	To examine and advise on whether planned tailings deposit practices are likely to meet the terms and conditions of the regulations.
3.	To assess the planned monitoring to determine whether it will be adequate to detect violations of the terms of the regulations or impacts upon fish and fish habitat, and to recommend necessary improvements.
4.	To consult with interested agencies and parties knowledgeable about the issue.
5.	To examine and recommend any alternative tailings disposal methods which could significantly reduce or preclude hazards to the fisheries resources.
6.	To recommend further courses of action in the future which in the opinion of the Panel, may be necessary to address the issue.
7.	To prepare two reports: as soon as possible an interim report recommending any action deemed important for protecting the public interest, and a final report by July 1, 1981.
It was believed by the then Minister of Fisheries and Oceans that these terms of reference would look after any possible questions which could arise on this very important issue. The scientific review panel went about its work with much dedication and diligence, and starting around the end of March, 1981 consulted with knowledgeable people in various parts of British Columbia and held open public meetings at Prince Rupert and Vancouver. Between meetings they studied an immense amount of correspondence and reports which had a bearing on the subject.
In the early part of May the scientific review panel introduced its interim report, which commenced with the statement, and 1 quote:
It is the panel's considered opinion that, in the short term, the public interest will not be jeopardized by the continued discharge of Amax mine tailings to Alice Arm. Accordingly, no major restrictive actions are deemed necessary at this time.
The panel's report was issued on July 24, 1981 and consisted of a document of some 154 pages, in itself a somewhat remarkable feat considering the fact that the three scientists involved
March 9, 1983

started their task only four months previously. These were the panel's conclusions, and I quote directly from the report:
(a)	With the possible exceptions of cadmium, lead and zinc in the solid form, no deleterious effects are expected to result from the daily deposit of 12,000 metric tons of Amax/Kitsault tailings into Alice Arm in accordance with the Alice Arm Tailings Deposit Regulations.
(b)	The following substances, in both solid and dissolved forms, all occur in concentrations which are the same or less than local background conditions: arsenic, copper, iron, mercury, manganese, nickel, uranium-235 and its daughter products, radium-226, thorium-230 and lead-210. Moreover their dissolved concentrations in the tailings all meet or are less than Canadian surface and drinking water guidelines and objectives except manganese which slightly exceeds an aesthetic drinking water guideline.
(c)	In the dissolved form, cadmium, lead and zinc all occur at concentrations in the tailings equal to or less than local freshwater background conditions and all three meet or are less than Canadian surface and drinking water guidelines and objectives.
(d)	Molybdenum in the Amax/Kitsault tailings is expected to somewhat exceed ambient levels in Alice Arm but not result in adverse environmental changes.
(e)	A "cloud" of fine tailings containing approximately 4% of the total daily solids from the Amax/Kitsault discharge is not expected to result in increased loads of dissolved substances in the Alice Arm water column.
(0 Most tailings (approximately 96%) either quickly fall out of the discharge plume or are carried as a turbidity current into the deep central trench of mid-Alice Arm. Resuspension and redistribution is expected to be infrequent, of small magnitude and without deleterious effects.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member but it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 24(2), to interrupt the proceedings.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Shall all orders listed under Private Members' Notices of Motions preceding No. 65 be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



INCOME TAX


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of increasing veterans' income tax deductions for interest income from $100 to $1,000 annually, so that veterans would not suffer depletion of their War Veterans Allowance after earning more than $100 in interest income and so that they would be taxed on an equitable basis with other investors.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the seconding of the motion by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie). It comes as a bit of a surprise, Mr. Speaker, that we are called upon to debate this motion this afternoon, a motion placed on the Order Paper in November, 1981, and which had considerable support both before and after that date. Any responsible Government would have moved a long time ago to correct this injustice, this unfairness with respect to Canada's veterans. The fact that we are in the
Income Tax
position today of having to debate the motion speaks unfavourably and loudly with respect to this Government's attitude and whether or not it really does care when it comes to Canada's veterans.
The motion is straightforward in itself, Mr. Speaker. Look at your income tax return. Look at the form. It gives Canadians an opportunity to deduct $ 1,000 of eligible interest income in calculating their taxable income-except veterans. The veteran receiving the War Veterans Allowance is only entitled to claim $100 per year in interest income. Any excess will be deducted from the veterans' allowance. That is not only patently unjust, Mr. Speaker, it is unfair and an insult to veterans. The veteran receives an allowance because he has served his country. He is now either too old to work or he suffers from some disability. He has an insufficient financial base to carry him through the future years. In most cases the disability is a direct result of wartime service.
Years ago, Mr. Speaker, there may have been some justification for limiting the amount of interest deductibility, but now interest rates have changed. They have reached exorbitant and unimaginable rates as high as 20 per cent. In addition, we have been faced with inflation unknown in years gone by. The world which existed when this deduction was established no longer exists and has not for several years. Interest is charged and paid for on every transaction. You can even earn interest on your chequing account. Over the last two or three years a veteran could have less than $1,000 on deposit for a rainy day, or even for burial purposes, and still exceed his allotted exemption. Self-evidently, a veteran receiving a War Veterans Allowance is not amassing a fortune in savings or investment. What most veterans are trying to do with their limited income is to set aside some little nest egg for their future, be that for a funeral or a legacy for their survivors, and a modest one at that. They are not trying to beat the system and amass a fortune for themselves. They gave service to the country. The savings go into an account and are left there to accumulate whatever interest they can while the veteran lives.
As a consequence of this, the interest income should not be regarded as being supplementary to the War Veterans Allowance. The veteran is not investing to earn interest to increase his income. Therefore, why should the Government point to any interest income he might receive from his modest investment and say that $100 is having a bearing on the amount of the allowance he should receive? Any time his investment return or interest return exceeds $100 in a single year, that excess comes off his war allowance.
I began by saying that I was surprised that the Government had not acted long before now. I had reason for making that comment. In the summer of 1981 the Senate Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Science issued a report entitled "They Served-We Care". Recommendation No. 6 in that

March 9, 1983
Income Tax
report urged the Government to increase the interest exemption from $100 to at least $500, and cited many of the reasons that I have given this afternoon for the recommendation. The report was given substantial attention by Canada's veterans and the Veterans Committee, and it was said to have received favourable consideration by the Government.
Various motions were made in the House on the heels of that report, such as motions under Standing Order 43. Questions were also asked in the House. But what has the Government done to implement an increase in the amount of the exemption? It has done nothing. The months dragged by, and still nothing happened. Almost a full year later my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) questioned the Minister about his failure to act on that Senate Committee recommendation. The present Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Campbell) responded by saying that the recommendation was "under active consideration right at the moment". That was in June, 1982, eight months ago, Mr. Speaker. It is too late now to assist these veterans for the 1982 tax year. That has gone by when the Minister was saying it was under consideration, eight months ago.
The Government's failure to act left the veterans vulnerable during those years when interest rates were at the astronomical height of 20 per cent or stretching thereto. Hon. Members will recall that the Government used the same approach to respond to the mortgage rate crisis in the country. Once the worst was over, the Government took some action and proclaimed that it cared. We see the same scenario developing here.
I am not going to prolong the debate, Mr. Speaker. It is important that this issue be brought before the House so that it can be concluded in some form and that we can attack it in a reasonable manner. It should be evident to all Members, as it is to the veterans, that an increase in the interest income deduction is long overdue.
If the Government truly cares and is willing at this late date to correct that long-standing injustice, then this motion should meet with the approval of the House today.


Mr. Roland de Corneille (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid) is proposing that the Government consider increasing veterans' income tax deductions for interest income from $100 to $1,000.
Such a suggestion is superfluous as far as the Income Tax Act is concerned because all veterans, just like every other Canadian who files an income tax return, can claim up to $1,000 in deductible interest income. Strictly speaking, the Hon. Member for St. Catharines is asking for something that is already in existence.
However, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member also makes the worthy suggestion that War Veterans Allowance recipients should be allowed to earn a larger amount of forgiveable interest income than is presently permitted. I should like to address that point.
The Hon. Member is not the first person to put forward such a suggestion. He is echoing resolutions passed by members of a number of veterans organizations.
The last change to the amount of interest exemption was in July 1980, when this House passed Bill C-40. The ceiling was raised from $50 to $100.
You will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that interest rates reached extremely high levels in the months following the passage of Bill C-40, and it has been argued, logically, that a War Veterans Allowance recipient would not need to have had all that much in savings before topping the $100 exemption level.
True, the savings rates now available at banks and trust companies have come down substantially in recent times, but the Minister of Veterans Affairs appreciates the arguments advanced by veterans organizations and now by the Member for St. Catharines.
In fact, the question of interest income is already under scrutiny, but it is only one part of a total, comprehensive study being undertaken of the War Veterans Allowance Act.
Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members should be aware that at the moment the Act is being examined in its entirety. No aspect is being overlooked. Not only are the levels of benefits being examined but also the way the benefits are delivered. In other words, the Department launched an in-depth study into the effectiveness of the War Veterans Allowance Act in 1983- more than 50 years after WVA was introduced by Parliament.
Hon. Members should understand the background against which this study is being undertaken. Within a few years the large majority of Canadian veterans will be over the age of 65. New programs will have to be developed to assist this aging veteran population.
Many Members will be familiar with the aging veterans program launched by the Department of Veterans Affairs last year. This program has been widely praised as it offers a number of services designed to keep a veteran out of hospital and comfortable in his own home. However, this program at present is only available to those who receive war disability pensions. From this initial experience, it is hoped that War Veterans Allowance recipients will also be embraced by this valuable program, and this is one of the matters now under study.
I should tell Hon. Members that the whole War Veterans Allowance review is being undertaken not only by members of the Department of Veterans Affairs but in consultation with representatives of the Department of National Health and Welfare. These officials want to see if War Veterans Allowance, Old Age Security and the Guaranteed Income Supplement can be rationalized in terms of service delivery.
In addition, the opinion and advice of veterans' groups have been sought and are being received. The Minister can inform the House at this time that the review should be finished in the fall. I repeat that it is a wide-ranging review, concentrating on
March 9, 1983

every aspect of the War Veterans Allowance Act, interest income included, of course. Admittedly, some changes to the legislation can be made by amending regulations. The Minister is hopeful that he will be able to announce some positive changes in the near future, however any change to interest income exemptions cannot be accomplished through regulations. The Minister appreciates the attention the Hon. Member for St. Catharines is giving to this subject, but the Government cannot support his motion because of its limited nature.
I ask the Hon. Member to have patience and await the conclusions of the War Veterans Allowance review. I am sure he would agree that it would be wiser and more efficient to await broad, long-range recommendations to ensure that when the Government makes changes to the Act they will be consistent, comprehensive and fair.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, this motion is being brought before the House at an appropriate time. It is one that we in the New Democratic Party fully support. The Government has introduced numerous amendments to the Income Tax Act which are being considered by the House. Unfortunately the proposed motion of the Hon. Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid) is not one of those amendments. I hope the Government will include it at the conclusion of this debate. Since hearing the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. de Corneille), I doubt very much that that will happen today, if indeed it ever happens.
As the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out quite correctly, a number of representations by interested individuals have been made to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Campbell) over the years in support of such an amendment to the Income Tax Act. I think it would be supported by all Canadians. Why the Government would be reluctant to introduce it escapes me. Why should veterans, who have given of themselves in the service of our country, be treated differently from other Canadians with respect to income tax deductions?
The Parliamentary Secretary also said in effect that because all Canadians can take advantage of the income tax deduction on interest income, veterans are not in fact being discriminated against. However, what he failed to point out was that while the Government on one hand allows veterans to take advantage of that Section of the Income Tax Act, it takes it back with the other hand because it is taken off the top of the War Veterans Allowance.
The motion of the Hon. Member for St. Catharines is really a rather simple one. It reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of increasing veterans' income tax deductions for interest income from $ 100 to $ 1,000 annually, so that veterans would not suffer depletion of their War Veterans Allowance after earning more than $100 in interest income and so that they would be taxed on an equitable basis with other investors.
If the House does not give the motion the serious consideration which is requested and indeed fails to adopt it, we would be agreeing to continuing an obvious discriminatory practice against the veterans of our country.
Income Tax
As the Hon. Member for St. Catharines pointed out, the Government has been promising to review this particularly offensive Section for some time. The Parliamentary Secretary has told the House that the whole War Veterans Allowance including income interest is under review again this year. I found this rather curious because, on the one hand, he pointed out to the House at great length that there was no problem, and on the other hand he said that there was a problem and that the Department was reviewing it. We recognize that.
For many years veterans, at least the ones with whom I have spoken, have pointed out on numerous occasions that one of their major problems with that particular Department was the processing of claims. Since becoming a member of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs at practically all the meetings I have attended it was indicated that the major problem of veterans with the Department was in the area of processing and adjudication of claims. The delays, as a result of either that Department's tardiness, lack of staffing or physical movement of buildings around the country, have created tremendous problems for many veterans. The Department has assured Hon. Members of the House time and time again that this would be rectified and that it was not as bad as it was one, two or three years ago. Yet the bulk of correspondence I receive from veterans who still complain about undue delays in processing claims has not decreased in volume. The volume seems to be about the same, if not on occasion larger.
It is a question of how the Department views veterans. For example, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) brought to my attention a problem of one of his constituents who was married to a veteran who unfortunately because of his war experience came out of active service as an acute alcoholic. This individual had attempted to obtain a war veterans pension as a result of that illness. The Department's position, which totally escapes me, gave the following rationale for denying War Veterans Allowance:
-alcohol dependency ... without associated organic disease is not a disease within the meaning of the Pension Act. However, should alcohol dependency lead to organic, physical and/or mental changes, the resulting organic disorders would constitute diseases .. . and, as such, would be considered by the Commission for pension purposes.
I have spoken with numerous doctors and professionals in the field who work with alcoholics. These people have told me that alcoholism is in fact a disease. For the Department of Veterans Affairs to be relying on a very out-dated notion of what alcoholism as an illness constitutes is really beyond belief. I see the Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday) looking at me. Both of us served on the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped. We heard many professionals tell us that alcoholism was a disease and not, as it used to be considered, a character flaw in the individual which caused him to consume too much alcohol.
My suggestion to the Department of Veterans Affairs is that it had better come into the twentieth century when it takes a look at the problems individuals who have been in the Armed
23618

March 9, 1983
Income Tax
Forces and have served in armed conflict are faced with in today's society.
I would like to refer to another issue which indicates the attitude of that particular Department. The committee heard from native veterans associations. They have a multitude of problems in attempting to establish the very fact that they should be entitled to the same veterans' benefits as other Canadians who are not natives. For example, Indian associations across the country told us that the Indian war veterans experienced difficulty in receiving the benefits due to them for having served in the wars. Those difficulties continue today. According to the complaints, those difficulties take one of two forms. Either the veteran has been required to give up benefits as a status Indian in order to receive veterans' benefits, or he has been forced to relinquish veterans' benefits in order to continue receiving benefits as a status Indian. The native veteran is placed in a Catch-22 situation. Either the native veteran gives up the natural right as a status Indian in order to receive benefits, or he does not receive the benefits in order to keep the native status. This is totally unacceptable. This was certainly unacceptable to our committee. We made strong recommendations to the Department of Veterans Affairs about what they should be doing in those instances. Do you know what the response of the Department of Veterans Affairs was? The Department said to the leader of those groups "If you want to go around the country and identify those natives who served in the war years, then we are prepared to take a look at any grievances they may have." The response from the leaders of those native groups was, "We do not have the financial resources or means to talk to every native person in the country to determine whether, in fact, he served in the Armed Forces during the war years and whether he may have grievances against the Department of Veterans Affairs." This is a serious problem. This Department must address that problem in a very reasonable manner.
I have another letter from an individual who tells me that the major economic problems that face War Veterans Allowance recipients is the need for assistance in the care of their wives who are also advancing in years and who have not reached the age of 65 when they will qualify for senior citizens' benefits. There is no allowance provided for dental care and dentures, optical assistance-glasses, etc.-prescription drugs, or prosthesis needs following mastectomy operations. The letter goes on to state that the cost of these services has risen at a phenomenal rate and the payment of these necessary benefits has greatly depreciated the purchasing power of the present allowance in the necessary areas of rent, tax, heat, light, clothing, food, etc. This veteran says that they require this aid in order to enable them to share each other's company and happiness during the twilight years of their lives.
I do not want to assist any attempt to talk out this motion so that it would not be adopted by the House. Therefore, having said that, I conclude.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague, the Hon. Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid) for introducing this simple, straightforward motion. He placed it on the Order Paper in
November, 1981. Unfortunately, the Government should have taken some action at least two years ago and sent a letter to the Hon. Member for St. Catharines that the Government was going to introduce his recommendation to increase the allowance from $100 to $1,000 as a result of economic conditions. We should not even be debating this issue today.
What the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. de Corneille) and the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Campbell) are overlooking is the fact that veterans are aging. Veterans are not getting younger and healthier. They cannot wait for all these long, detailed studies and reviews, nor listen anymore to these things "being under active consideration". This is a simple, straightforward matter that should have been dealt with two years ago. We do not have to wait for some long-ranging comprehensive view of veterans affairs before a simple motion such as this is carried through and changes made to the Income Tax Act, or whatever has to be done.
The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that they are consulting with the Department of Health and Welfare. I hope the Government is not looking at phasing out the Department of Veterans Affairs and bringing it under the umbrella of the Department of National Health and Welfare. I will give the Government warning right now that it will hear the loudest protest it has ever heard. We want the Department of Veterans Affairs to remain as it is. This is a special interest group and we want them treated in that manner. We do not want the veterans lumped in with the Department of National Health and Welfare. I hope you are not entertaining any ideas along those lines.
At the last meeting of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs we had last year I tried to have a motion passed in the Committee that the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs deal on a continuous basis with veterans' problems and call for progress reports from the Minister. This would have made sense. Our veterans are aging and their health is not improving. We need fast, fast action, not years and years of studies and delays.
I am in my eleventh year in this place. When I first came here I heard about these studies. We have had enough studies into veterans affairs. We have an excellent report which came from another place. The veterans organizations present excellent documentation year after year. It is not necessary to have any more studies. A study is just a stalling tactic. The simple things being requested will not cost millions and millions of dollars. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to convey this message. Veterans are aging. They will not live to the age of 100 or 150. We have to do something now, not years from now.
We have asked the Minister repeatedly in the House to make statements on motions as to what progress was being made in the Department. We never hear a word from him. Every time we ask a question in the House, it does not matter whether it is myself or the Hon. Member for Malpeque (Mr. Gass) or anybody else, we hear there is a study or a review
March 9, 1983

going on. This keeps going on and on and on. The Minister should be making statements on motions to give us progress reports on what is to happen.
I hope that this motion will not be talked out. It is very simple. It does not have to be locked into another study. That is not necessary at all. It is unfortunate that arrangements were not made so that veterans could have been considered for the 1982 tax year.
I would like to impress upon the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs to go to the Minister and ask him to take a second look at this particular motion. It is not involved. Perhaps he could come up with a recommendation for his officials, the Income Tax Department, or whoever he has to speak to, to have this introduced.
We cannot accept his argument on long-ranging reviews and studies. Again, let me say to the Minister that our veterans are aging. We have to act now.
I hope that we will receive a commitment from you this afternoon. I hope some Liberal is not in here this afternoon with another prepared statement from some bureaucrat as to why this simple motion cannot be accepted. I hope that some Liberal over there has such a statement in his hand. I hope he will not rise today, but that this motion can be passed and this simple recommendation be put in place for Canada's veterans.


Gilbert Parent: Mr. Speaker, I preface my remarks by saying that it was only a few years ago that I was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. As a compliment to my colleague and next-door neighbour, the Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid), I hope that you do not think that the only reason that Members on this side stand is to oppose what you are saying. I think what he is asking in his motion-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I hesitate to interrupt the Hon. Member, and I possibly should have addressed this comment to the previous speaker as well, but while the Chair is more lenient during Private Members' Business, remarks should be addressed to the Chair.


Gilbert Parent: Mr. Speaker, thank you for your correction. I have had enough experience in the House to remember that common courtesy which we should extend to Your Honour.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, I wish to assure the Hon. Member for St. Catharines that I believe his proposal does indeed have great merit. The previous speaker, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) set up a paper tiger when he said that he hoped the Department of Veterans Affairs would not be lumped in with the Department of National Health and Welfare. I personally, and I am sure many of my colleagues, would be very much opposed to any lumping of Departments at all.
However, it caused me to reflect upon who was the Minister of Veterans Affairs during the short period when the Members
Income Tax
opposite were in power. For all of my thinking, all I could come up with is that they never had one.


Mr. Lambert:: Yes, we did.


Gilbert Parent: If I am permitted to continue, the Minister of National Defence was in charge of Veterans Affairs. Those Members did not see fit to have a separate Minister, as the Liberal Government has had for a number of years. Yet, they set up paper tigers. We think enough of our veterans that we indeed do set them aside and treat them as Canadians who have performed a great service for the country.


Roland de Corneille: It is in the dirty minds of the Tories.


Gilbert Parent: I would not use those terms, I say to my colleague. I am sure that when we are talking about the veterans, that type of remark is a little bit beneath us.
It is my opinion that there is more to be said on the subject being debated here today than can be expressed in one simple answer. The whole question of the War Veterans Allowance Act should be considered in light of just what it offers to those Canadians who are our friends, neighbours and relatives. More than 50 years after the legislation was passed in the House of Commons, Canadian men and women continue to benefit from most generous legislation. This is sometimes not understood not only by their Canadian friends but by those new Canadians who have arrived from countries that are not as far-sighted or as generous.
I can recall the time when legislation came up to extend the benefits to Hong Kong veterans. The Hon. Daniel MacDonald was the Minister of Veterans Affairs then and I was his Parliamentary Secretary. This legislation was brought to the House and passed by a Liberal Government. As Parliamentary Secretary at the time, I can recall that a request was made to extend these allowances to the veterans of Dieppe. We were the ones who brought that in. In fairness, I must say that there were amicable discussions on both sides. At the time there were Members from both Parties who were indeed interested first and foremost in the welfare of our veterans. I notice that the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) is in the House. He is a veteran of Dieppe and a decorated soldier who should be acknowledged in the House as being an outstanding soldier in his time, a Rhodes scholar and a very great participant in all of the debates on veterans affairs. We should continue to listen to him as we have over the years. I compliment him for the work he has done for the veterans.
The War Veterans Allowance Act and the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act provide an allowance for persons who meet service eligibility requirements and who, because of age or incapacity are unable to work and have insufficient income for maintenance as determined by a modified income test. This allowance is available to veterans of the Canadian, Commonwealth and Allied Forces and to certain other civilians who served in close support of the Armed Forces during wartime. It is not only those, but, equally important, widows, widowers and orphans who may qualify under the same Act,

March 9, 1983
Income Tax
and an additional allowance may be paid on behalf of dependent children.
Again I come back to the theme of the fairness and the generosity of the Allowances Acts as they were set up. The War Veterans Allowance Act and the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act are a form of financial assistance intended to ensure that a qualified recipient's income does not fall below a certain level specified under the legislation. As an income-support program, it forms part of Canada's social assistance legislation. In common with other such programs, all other income must be taken into consideration in determining eligibility for the allowance and the amount at which it may be paid.
In order to make this whole picture of War Veterans Allowance a little clearer, I think it would be wise to review the circumstances under which this whole package of legislation evolved so that we can put this particular proposal from the Hon. Member for St. Catharines into its proper perspective.
During the First World War, and during 1917 more specifically, just before the Battle of Vimy Ridge, Prime Minister Borden spoke to the Canadian troops. He is quoted as saying:
The Government and the country will consider it their duty to see that a proper appreciation of your efforts and of your courage is brought to the notice of your people at home, and that no man, whether he goes back or whether he remains in Flanders, will have just cause to reproach the Government for having broken faith with the men who won and the men who died.

Mr. Speaker, four or five years ago I went to Vimy to represent Canada on November 11. I had the great honour of speaking on behalf of our country about the soldiers who were wounded in battle and those who died on the battlefield. We must never forget the tremendous sacrifice made by these men so many years ago. I also would like the House to know, Mr. Speaker, that my father was one of the soldiers who fought over there, and today, in the House.

We have in the galleries another veteran of the Second World War who followed my father's footsteps. He is my brother, Gerald Parent, who was an Air Force pilot. I am happy that he is here today to listen to us discuss these matters about the veterans. Both he and my father are veterans. Like all veterans, I believe they performed their duty well in adverse circumstances, and it is to them that we owe many thanks.
The next 23 years after 1917 was an extremely significant time with respect to the establishment of administrative and adjudicary bodies with responsibility to veterans and their dependants. The War Veterans Allowance Act was approved in 1930 and was administered by the War Veterans Allowance Committee. In 1936, the War Veterans Allowance Board, as we know it today, was established. Ever since that year we have witnessed countless amendments which improved the War Veterans Allowance Act. They were amendments which lived up to the expectations of what this Act was all about and
what was referred to by the then Prime Minister, Mackenzie King, when he said:
This legislation represents an attempt to recognize a service upon which no price can ever be placed. Those whose services are involved have not thought of their duty as being something which would entail a monetary reward, but it is an acknowledgement of the burdens borne and sacrifices endured.
The most recent major adjustment to veterans legislation was enacted in this House on July 17, 1980. The Hon. Member for Edmonton West will remember when Bill C-40, the statute law called the Military and Civilian War Pensions Compensation and Allowances Amendments Act, received Royal Assent. He was present on that day.
Amendments to the Pension Act and the compensation for former prisoners of war extended benefits to widows and surviving dependent children of disabled pensioners or former prisoners of war not eligible under the existing Act. Amendments to the War Veterans Allowance and Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act included a revised benefit structure. Other changes in pension and allowance legislation were aimed at removing specific inequities, disparities or anomalies. In short, major revision of the War Veterans Act and the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act were contemplated and put into place.
Clearly, the philosophy and policy of successive Governments has been to recognize the sacrifices made by Canadian men and women in the defence of Canada by establishing separate legislation which would recognize this group of Canadians as being special among the total population. There is no one in the House who could possibly question the fact that these men and women are indeed special to all of us.
From its inception, a hallmark of veterans' legislation has been its responsiveness to changing circumstances. That is why the suggestion which is being brought forth today is one which should surely be considered by all Hon. Members in the House.
Veterans' legislation has also served to pioneer new ideas respecting income support, compensation and social rehabilitation and support programs for Canada. The Hon. Member speaking for the New Democratic Party mentioned a little earlier that one of the rehabilitation programs being considered, as a matter of fact, concerned alcoholism. This was studied by the committee which was set up to consider the disabilities of Canadians and bring about legislation to deal with them. I would venture to say that alcoholism per se is no greater a problem among veterans than it is among any other groups. Yet if we were to consider some of the causes of alcoholism, we might find that they could indeed be traced to the fact that these men were in combat or under adverse conditions during the war. As a result, in some circumstances they have taken to drink. I think that we as Parliamentarians, as Canadians, would want to say that we in turn should now be our brother's keeper in trying to help veterans to cope with this disease, this illness, which is recognized as such. I accept the recommendation of the Hon. Member that we should possibly
March 9, 1983

consider a redefinition of alcoholism as a sickness and the treatment of certain people who are afflicted in this way.
Once again, returning to the idea involving income support, it continues to set this country above all others in terms of the quality of benefits extended to veterans and to their dependants. However, circumstances and times change. The legislation which we thought was letter perfect a couple of years ago requires further review today. I agree with the Hon. Members who have already spoken. The War Veterans Allowance has retained its basic compensation features as opposed to a strict welfare orientation, and has done so visibly in becoming a leading income-tested, as opposed to means-tested, program.


Mr. McCain:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder whether the Hon. Member would entertain a very brief question. If he is so supportive of veterans and the motion, why does he not sit down and let it pass?


Gilbert Parent: If the Minister or the Hon. Member-God forbid that he should ever become a Minister-means that I should give my place so that someone else can speak, I suggest-


Fred Alward McCain: Let it pass.


Constantine George (Gus) Mitges: You are not sincere.


Gilbert Parent: -that I indeed have something to say, which I want to share, and 1 thought we were all alike in being afforded an opportunity to express our opinions. However, to go along with his suggestion, if he will bear with me for another 60 seconds, I will indeed give my place to the Hon. Member if he would like to stand and speak in his place.
I conclude by saying that the War Veterans Allowance has retained its basic compensation features as opposed to a strict welfare orientation and has done so visibly in becoming a leading income-tested, as opposed to a means-tested program. Circumstances are changing and, for those reasons, the whole of the War Veterans Allowance Act and the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act is under yet another review. I think that this augurs well for us because in so doing we are keeping ourselves abreast of changes and hopefully we will be able to bring about legislation which will be beneficial to our veterans.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Other than indicating my support for the motion, I will abide by the suggestion of our colleague, the Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) and sit down. I wish to support the motion. I thank Hon. Members who have spoken, inasmuch as Hon. Members have served in World War II. Many changes could be brought about and we could discuss them at length, but as I have stated my support for the motion, I will now sit down.


Mr. Gerald Laniel (Beauharnois-Salaberry):: Mr. Speaker, I did not quite hear what the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-
Income Tax
Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) said, but I hope he is not accusing me of having ulterior motives as far as veterans are concerned.
Mr. Speaker, during the debate this afternoon, Hon. Members all showed an interest in the cause of our veterans-those who went overseas during the two World Wars and the Korean War to fight for democracy-and I for one have always done so. During the twenty years I have been a Member of this House, I have always been a Member of this Committee. I was Chairman when the Committee considered the Woods Report and changed the interpretation of the benefit of the doubt to favour veterans. 1 was still Chairman when we made specific recommendations regarding the Hong Kong prisoners of war, which paved the way for another decision which, I agree, may not have been sufficiently generous to other ex-prisoners of war, including those who were at Dieppe and others who were taken prisoner in Europe. I want to say that I am speaking not only as a veteran who has not forgotten his former comrades in arms but also as a Member of this House who for twenty years has shown a special interest in veterans affairs and has done everything in his power to make Government legislation concerning the Pension Commission or the War Veterans Allowance Board more generous to those who sacrificed several years of their lives and came back marked by those years.
Mr. Speaker, I think we should seriously consider-the subject has not yet been mentioned in the House this afternoon-what the veterans allowance actually is. The veterans allowance was established to help those who were affected by the war, either psychologically or physically, without being able to prove this was a direct consequence of battle or their participation in armed conflict, either in the air, on sea or on land, in other words, without being able to prove that they were wounded or had to be taken to hospital and receive treatment, which entitles them to a pension several years later. The veterans allowance, which has been and is still called the burnt out pension, was established for those who were affected, psychologically more than anything else, by the war, and who have required special help from the Government to continue to lead a normal life, raise children, live happily with their wives and without the embarrassment of, for instance, having to pick up welfare payments.
Mr. Speaker, the veterans allowance is not for the rich. It was meant to help those who are in financial need. There are certain requirements as to military service for receiving the allowance. A veteran must at least have served long enough that his psychological or financial difficulties in future years may be directly or indirectly related to his military service. However, this allowance is a substitute for the income that he cannot earn to raise his family and support his children and his wife. We have been told that it is shameful to set a $100 ceiling on the interests that a veteran can receive without affecting his allowance. It may be true that a ceiling of $100 is not high enough, and I personally agree. On the other hand,

March 9, 1983
Retirement Age
can there be that many veterans receiving the allowance who have enough savings that they need a much larger exemption?
Third, Mr. Speaker, it has been suggested that this restriction which prevents veterans from receiving over $100 in interests without any reduction in their allowance is terrible, but there are other exempt sources of income for these veterans. It would perhaps be appropriate to list the other sources of income which can be exempted. As Hon. Members are aware, any war disability pension paid by the Canadian Forces or the Allied Forces is exempt. The disability care allowance is exempt; so are welfare benefits; so are certain amounts paid to dependent children or on their behalf and occasional earnings of up to $2,100 for single recipients and $3,100 for married recipients, interest income up to an amount of $100, which the Hon. Member wants increased, part of the guaranteed income supplement, the exempt portion of the veterans allowance, any pension or allowance received for a military medal, compensation for war services, as well as capital gains.
Mr. Speaker, a veterans allowance recipient is an individual who has served his country with honour and whose financial future we want to protect. But we cannot at the same time offer similar protection to someone who has enough savings and earns a fair amount of annual interest to be able to do without that allowance. Mr. Speaker, I am in favour of looking into the question of whether an increase might be warranted, say to $200, perhaps to $500 or even to $1,000, but the Hon. Member ought to understand that the whole issue must be reviewed in the wide context of the veterans' allowance legislation. As the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out earlier, the Department is now making an in-depth review of that legislation. The Hon. Member knows that we cannot-


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


Gérald Laniel: Mr. Speaker, I would have a lot more to say and, with all due respect, I am sure I could enlighten the Hon. Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid).


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



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Shall all orders listed under Private Members' Public Bills preceding item No. 225 be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS ACT


Constantine George (Gus) Mitges: that Bill C-425, respecting the age of retirement, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am indeed pleased to have this opportunity to speak on a subject which I have always espoused and supported, not only in this House but in many other places and other areas as well. I am referring to voluntary retirement and the right of every worker or individual, if he or she so chooses, and if he or she is physically able to do so, to work beyond the mandatory retirement age set down by legislation.
I am fully aware of the fact that the issue of mandatory retirement has been discussed previously in this House and that many important points have been brought out. However, I should like to add to the debate by expressing my deep concern over the tremendous waste of human resources resulting from a policy of compulsory retirement, a waste both in terms of the work force and of the Canadian society as a whole.
I am distressed more particularly by the debilitating effect that mandatory retirement can have upon the physical and mental health of individuals. I agree wholeheartedly with U.S. Congressman, Claude Pepper, who said:
Mandatory retirement is an extravagant waste of people. It severs productive men and women from their livelihoods, lowers their sense of self worth, and squanders their talents.
In the past, it has been largely assumed that most people wish to retire at the age 65, and further, that for reasons of physical and mental health, people should retire at that age, and perhaps even before they reach that age. The view that people should normally retire at the age of 65 has been so widespread in our society that it has been embodied in various Government acts and legislation. For instance, the Public Service Superannuation Act sets the retirement age at 65. Then there is the Canadian Human Rights Act which prohibits discrimination on the basis of age, except in the case of the individual who is 65 or over. Apparently the Canadian Human Rights Act does not consider compulsory retirement to be a form of discrimination.
I realize that in our society, with its accent on youth, there is a tendency to underestimate the capabilities of people beyond middle life. However, as far as I know, there is no sound scientific basis for setting retirement age at 65, or even at 70, because most people at 65 are at the peak of their mental powers. They have more experience, they have more a balanced judgment and generally are more persistent, more loyal, more tolerant and patient than their younger co-workers. If they have good health, they are more likely to have a steady work record. Considerable evidence has been amassed indicating that older workers are not necessarily the incompetent, deteriorating deadwood which personnel managers sometimes
March 9, 1983

imply. Two studies referred to by the United States Senate Committee on Human Resources made this point: a New York survey compared workers over and under the age of 65 with regard to absenteeism, punctuality, on-the-job accidents, and over-all job performance. It concluded that older workers were about equal to, and sometimes noticeably better than, younger workers.
The University of Illinois came to a similar conclusion in its study, which reported that there was no specific age at which employees became unproductive. Also this report expressed the view that satisfactory work performance may continue even into the eighth decade. The director of a creativity program in the United States found that fully 80 per cent of the most workable and worthwhile new ideas were produced by employees who were over 60. Younger employees had a tendency, as he put it, to "re-invent the wheel".
There is no question that these studies should cause us to pause and re-examine the discriminatory practices prevalent in the whole area of mandatory retirement. We must begin to judge people on the basis of competence and not judge them just on the basis of age.
If we continue to subscribe to the policy of retirement at age 65, we will find that an increasingly larger share of our population will be considered, and will consider themselves, as second class citizens; the unproductive old. It seems to me our present focus on age 65 as the age of retirement is based more and more on tradition rather than on any rational motives.
Let me briefly examine the history of the 65 retirement age policy. The modern history of mandatory retirement and the use of the figure 65 as the magic number are both traced back to Germany's famous Chancellor, Otto Von Bismarck. Hoping to stave off socialism in his country, the Chancellor initiated the social security pension system in 1889 at which time he proclaimed 65 as the appropriate age for retirement.
Bismarck's model has been followed ever since in much of the western world. Over the years it has become ingrained in our society to the point where age 65 is considered the line of demarcation between middle age and old age. Ironically, Bismarck himself was 74 years of age when he introduced his pension scheme and was at the height of his spectacular career as the "Iron Chancellor". Perhaps Bismarck's choice of 65 was quite appropriate for his time and may even have been stretching things a bit, because in Bismarck's day only a small percentage of the population lived to be 65. Life expectancy at that time was 37. Our average life expectancy today is over 74, and many more of us make it to the age of 65 in a state of better physical and sounder mental health than they did in Bismarck's time. Therefore, we must ask ourselves whether it still makes sense in this day and age to retire a person automatically at 65. Is it fair to do so?
For those Hon. Members who still have doubts, I would recommend that they recall that several of our colleagues in the House are well past the traditional retirement age. Personally, I am grateful for the expertise which they continue to offer in our day-to-day proceedings. However, in this House
Retirement Age
we are fortunate in that we do not have to face the threat of forced retirement simply because we have reached some arbitrary age limit. It is only right and proper that this privilege be extended to the rest of Canadian society. Ability and not age should be the determining factor in deciding whether a person should look forward to their retirement at 65, or even earlier, but the important point is that there should be a freedom of choice.
Now let us assess some of the supposed benefits of the current retirement policy. One of the arguments for promandatory retirement is that the 65 retirement age policy frees up scarce positions for unemployed youth. However, it has been found in studies done in the United States that the number of jobs freed by mandatory retirement appears small compared to the physical, psychological and social benefits gained by permitting the older worker, who is willing and able, to remain in the work force. Also there is the argument that after 30 odd years of productive labour, society owes its older workers a number of years of blissful retirement. This may be so, Mr. Speaker, but we do have a responsibility as well to those who have no desire to stop work and to the many who are able to work, who need to work, and who want to work.
In our society where so much emphasis is placed on the work ethic, work gives form, dimension and meaning to the life of the average citizen. The American Medical Association has indicated that there was considerable medical evidence that the sudden cessation of productive work and earning power of an individual, caused by compulsory retirement at the chronological age of 65, often leads to physical and emotional deterioration and premature death. It was indicated further that few physicians deny that a direct relationship exists between forced idleness and poor health, and that chronic complaints develop more frenquently when a person is inactive and without basic interests. These disturbing statements alone should compel us to re-think the whole issue of mandatory retirement.
Of course, there are familiar arguments in favour of retaining a compulsory retirement policy in industry and Government. One is the contention by large companies that retirement pension plans would be greatly disrupted by eliminating the retirement at age 65 tradition. This suggests to me, Mr. Speaker, that actuarial computations are somehow more important than the fulfilment of human lives. I totally reject such a proposition. Such a contention also overlooks the fact that where optional retirement is available and pension plans are adequate, many workers elect to retire before they reach 65. But to postulate from this that all should leave productive employment at a given age is illogical, wasteful and immoral. If, as some authorities maintain, we are resigned to a shrinking national economy, then the economy itself must be economical, particularly of talent and experience.
Those are the few remarks I wanted to make, Mr. Speaker. I certainly welcome input from other Hon. Members. Hopefully, my Bill will come to a vote.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have a chance to say a few words this afternoon on Bill C-425,

March 9, 1983
Retirement Age
which concerns the compulsory retirement age of 65. I have been especially interested in this question during the past couple of years. Since the Charter of Rights was adopted on April 17 of last year, a number of federal Government employees have expressed to me their concern and interest in continuing to work beyond the age of 65. I must say that so far as the two or three cases which I have been involved in are concerned, the Government has recognized at least the spirit of the Charter of Rights and has not required these people to retire at age 65, thus moving in the direction in which the Hon. Member's Bill would have us move. Of course, the Charter of Rights itself does not come into effect for three years, but in the interim, at least in the two or three cases in which I have been involved-one was an employee of the Department of National Health and Welfare and another was a postal employee, which is a Crown Corporation-leniency has been shown.
The effect of the amendments which are proposed in Bill C-425 this afternoon would end the practice of mandatory retirement at age 65 in the federal Public Service and in the federal institutions, which practices are subject to the regulations of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. I want to indicate my support for the Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges) in putting this motion before the House today.
Mandatory retirement has been the subject of a number of reports in recent years. In 1979 the special Senate Committee on Retirement Age Policies issued a report entitled "Retirement without Tears". In January, 1980, the Compensation Research Centre of the Conference Board of Canada published a report entitled "A Mandatory Retirement Policy: A Human Rights Dilemma". A year ago last February the Manitoba Commission on Compulsory Retirement submitted a long and detailed report. Each of these reports, Mr. Speaker, supports the concept of abolishing mandatory retirement. But each study acknowledges that the issue is a complex one and it will bring problems which must be addressed. That is why the relevant provision in the Charter of Rights will not be fully implemented for three years.
There are many arguments for and against mandatory retirement. Those in favour would argue that its abolition will cause serious social and economic problems, particularly at a time of high unemployment. They also argue that mandatory retirement means younger and ambitious employees have greater opportunities for promotion. Mandatory retirement simplifies the work of personnel managers. When retirement is automatic at 65, employers can set up systems for assisting employees approaching retirement. If age is not the basis for retirement, employers will have to set up some system of review to ensure that employees remain fully competent to carry out their duties. Under the present system, employers are usually lenient in assessing employees approaching retirement age. If it becomes flexible, employers may become tougher and there may be more employees retiring earlier than at 65. With a mandatory retirement age, employees have no excuse for putting off retirement planning. In addition, elimination of mandatory retirement would have an effect on group disability
and health schemes, and so on. If you remove mandatory retirement, are the human rights of young people denied?
However, Mr. Speaker, those opposed to a mandatory retirement age, as the Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe has argued-and I would want to be associated with his arguments-argue that there is no arbitrary and predetermined age which corresponds to changes in mental and physicial powers. Mandatory retirement ignores the diversity in people. Some should perhaps be retiring well before 65. Mandatory retirement may damage the standard of living of people and force them into poverty. It may put some stress on people who are really functioning at the peak of their ability and want to continue on past age 65. Mandatory retirement results in a waste of manpower, and is contrary to the national and international emphasis on human rights, especially the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of age. While some may argue that it is impossible to consider human rights in isolation from economic issues, I propose to leave to others the economic arguments both for and against the issue and to concentrate on the legal and human rights implications of mandatory retirement.
The proclamation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms on April 17, 1982 has renewed interest in the question of mandatory retirement. Section 15 of the Charter, which comes into force on April 17, 1985, provides that every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefits under the law. That Section also prohibits discrimination based on age. While it must be read in conjunction with Section 1 of the Charter which permits reasonable limits on rights, there are many who see in Section 15 a bar to any law which establishes a mandatory retirement age. Others, however, are of the view that provision for mandatory retirement at a certain age might be found, in a free and democratic society, to be a reasonable limit on the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of age. This question has been addressed for some time now by human rights legislation in Canada.
Most Provinces have prohibited discrimination on the basis of age. However, in the Human Rights codes of a number of Provinces, age is a defined term, meaning that discrimination is prohibited on the basis of age for those between age 18 and 65. Legislation in Manitoba and New Brunswick does not establish an upper age limit for discrimination. In the case of Newport versus the Government of Manitoba, the Manitoba Court of Appeal held that the Government of Manitoba was bound by the anti-age discrimination provision of the Manitoba Human Rights Act, and the compulsory retirement of Mr. Newport at age 65 violated that Act. Some Provinces, such as Ontario, permit discrimination on the basis of age if the mandatory retirement relates to a bona fide occupational requirement. This issue has come before the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of the Ontario Human Rights Commission et al v. the Borough of Etobicoke in 1982. The Supreme Court upheld a complaint of discrimination by a fireman who was compelled to retire at age 60. The court held that the assertion
March 9, 1983

that firefighting was a young man's game was not sufficient to show that the mandatory retirement age of 60 was a bona fide occupational requirement. The court suggested that such a requirement could only be established with medical and statistical evidence on the subject of aging.
I mentioned the human rights legislation and two court cases to show that the question of the age at which a person should retire is not an easy one, Mr. Speaker, and the abolition of mandatory retirement will create a new and perhaps equally serious human rights problem. How do we determine when employers can require employees to retire? There is a very good reason why Section 15 of the Charter does not come into effect for some three years. The reason is to allow time for the provincial and federal statutes to be adjusted to the changing situation.
In addition to other factors, there are some very unique problems resulting from prohibiting discrimination based on age. Professor London, Dean of Law at the University of Manitoba, in an address at a 1982 conference listed five reasons why prohibiting discrimination on the basis of age was different from other forms of discrimination in Section 15 of the Charter. The term "discrimination on the basis of age" contains many different categories. The problems of discrimination against the young are very different from discrimination against the elderly. Prohibiting discrimination on the basis of age is a new concept, and in some places there is little public perception on the issues involved. It is something all people are capable of experiencing, unlike discrimination on the basis of race or religion. The issues involved in this kind of discrimination, the age to drive, to vote, to drink and to retire, have traditionally been dealt with by legislative means and not as a matter of fundamental rights.
Those are some of the considerations, Mr. Speaker, in dealing with the Bill before us this afternoon. As a matter of common sense, we all know that at some point, and to some extent, age might affect our mental and physical capabilities. There is no question of race or religion ever affecting our ability to work. I should emphasize that Professor London does not think that the unique problems of age discrimination should prevent the abolition of mandatory retirement. However, I do think that Professor London's analysis shows us that we must make sure that we have considered all the ramifications before abolishing compulsory retirement.
It may well be that we will want to bring forward legislation abolishing mandatory retirement before Section 15 of the Charter comes into effect in 1985. Mr. Speaker, I remind Members of this House that the coming into force of Section 15 was delayed for three years so that the federal and provincial Governments would have time to review and change laws that do not conform to the Charter.
The Department of Justice is engaged in a comprehensive review of all federal Statutes to ensure compliance with the Charter. That is essentially the information I received when I made representations on behalf of two constituents to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray)-that this matter
Retirement Age
was being reviewed so that there could be a comprehensive policy established between Government departments.
I am sure that all Members will understand that this is a time consuming and complex process. Legislation cannot be changed without considering the effect of changes on other statutes, regulations and administrative practices. There is also an attempt to co-ordinate certain changes contemplated at the federal level with changes which might be brought about in certain provincial legislation.
In the area of mandatory retirement, it is interesting to note that at least five Provinces are conducting or have conducted inquiries, namely, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Quebec has passed legislation abolishing compulsory retirement.
It is for these reasons, Mr. Speaker, that I am prepared to await the recommendation of the Department of Justice before determining what, if any, steps should be taken with respect to legislation providing for compulsory retirement.
It is only fair to mention, Mr. Speaker, that there are those who do not believe that the Charter is an absolute bar to laws providing for compulsory retirement. These people believe, and in fact, this point was raised by the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) when he appeared before the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on the Constitution of Canada, that the courts will determine if compulsory retirement offends the Charter guarantee against discrimination based on age.
In conclusion, I do not think that it is the time to pass legislation abolishing compulsory retirement in federal institutions. If we are to move in this direction, it must be only after careful consideration of all the ramifications and after consulting with the Provinces. The process of studying the legal, social and economic effects of ending compulsory retirement is going on now, and I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we await the results of this process.
In the meantime, I am pleased to note that the Government is dealing with individual cases where Members have made recommendations that people who are physically and mentally capable and who have the enthusiasm to continue to work past 65 be recognized. Many of them are continuing to make a valuable contribution to society, to the Government of Canada and to the Crown corporations involved.
I am pleased that the Hon. Member brought forward this Private Members' Bill today. It requires the serious consideration of the House in the months and years ahead so that a fair and just policy can be established which recognizes that those people who want to work after age 65 can do so in an organized way that is of benefit to all.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I do not have more time to go into this matter. It is not my intention to talk the Bill out. I hope it will have the opportunity to go to committee as I think more Private Members' Bills ought to. Even though I may not agree with the detail of this Bill, at least in committee there would be an

March 9, 1983
Retirement Age
opportunity for the questions it raises to be considered. I wanted to make that clear at the outset. I will make my remarks brief so that the Government will have the opportunity to talk out the Bill.
The Bill raises a lot of questions. I think the Hon. Member who just spoke raised an important concern, if I understood him to say that we ought not to throw out mandatory retirement lightly. The abolition of mandatory retirement would create a lot of problems that have not been considered in detail by its critics. In the days when people had to work beyond the age of 65, the advent of mandatory requirement was regarded as an achievement. 1 think we should remember that point.
I believe that the answer to the problem lies in greater flexibility of retirement age with more opportunity for voluntary retirement without penalty earlier than at age 65-and I stress, without penalty. Because if we decide that early retirement ought to be more of an option, people have to be able to choose this in such a way that they are guaranteed economic security. Thus we should strive for more voluntary retirement without penalty, from age 55 onwards and for more flexibility about mandatory retirement. The objective should be an improved lifestyle, pursued for social and health reasons, and not because more and more people feel the economic necessity of working beyond 65 either because they cannot trust the Government to leave their Old Age Security payments alone- perhaps the only element of their pension future which may be indexed against inflation-or because they cannot afford to quit working because they do not have a private pension plan.
Thus, if we should move in the direction of less mandatory retirement, it should be but for positive reasons, rather than responding to problems arising from the absence of adequate
pension schemes or adequate economic policies. This we must keep in mind, Mr. Speaker.
It is certainly appropriate for us to reflect on the age of retirement and on the need for society to overcome the perception that people become unproductive at age 65. We must consider the whole concept of work and the meaning it gives to life and the other ways in which people may feel that they contribute to society. We must take all these things into consideration.
I am sorry that I did not have more time this afternoon to go into the matter, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Jack Masters (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to have made some comments on the Bill, but time is running out. One of the provisions of the Bill, if enacted, would result in the removal of the mandatory retirement age of 65 for the Public Service now specified in the regulations made pursuant to the Public Service Superannuation Act. Mandatory retirement at age 65 within the federal Public Service is a subject which has been and continues to come under very careful examination within the Treasury Board Secretariat. While the Bill has merit, we must recognize that it is complicated and deserves further study. I hope that when we have more information on the subject we may see some changes coming in this direction.
I see that it is six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, so I shall continue my remarks at another time.


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

Thursday, March 10, 1983