1983-06-28

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport) moved:: That Bill C-163, entitled "An Act to establish the Canadian Aviation Safety Board and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof', be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport.
He said: Mr. Speaker, all Members of this House will agree, I am sure, without my having to demonstrate it, that air transportation safety is important. By approving Bill C-163 on the establishment of the Canadian Aviation Safety Board, Parliament will have taken a long step toward achieving the goal of safe aviation. Obviously we are not the first to involve ourselves in this area. Some Hon. Members will remember perhaps that in 1972-73 the government asked Brigadier-General McLearn to prepare a report on methods used to investigate transportation accidents in general. This report served as the basis for other consultations, which led in 1979 to the introduction of Bill C-40, the Transportation Accident Investigation Act. I would like to point out that at that time the proposed legislation covered three modes of transportation and not just aviation as this Bill does. Bill C-40 having died on the Order Paper, and public opinion having become alerted to certain alarming situations in the aviation sector, the following government, and more specifically the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), the then Minister of Transport, set up the so-called Dubin Commission to look into aviation safety. The main recommendation of Volume I of the Dubin Report, which was tabled in May, 1981, was precisely that a Canadian Aviation Safety Board be set up.
1 would like to say a brief word on existing aviation safety measures. The current system was drawn up under the provisions of the Aeronautics Act of 1927. It provides for the establishment of safety standards and of measures making it possible to guarantee and ascertain compliance with these standards.
For many years now successive Ministers of Transport have been concerned about the worth and the effectiveness of this system. The Dubin enquiry attracted the attention of the public to the system's deficiencies, a certain number of which
will be corrected by Bill C-163. The reform of the Aeronautics Act, which I expect to present in the fall, will correct other deficiencies. And some of them can be dealt with, and in effect are being so dealt with at present, by simple administrative and budgetary measures.
One element in the existing system has attracted special attention, and that is accident investigations. But I must point out that this is obviously only one of the elements in a much broader system. At the present time, when an accident occurs, an investigation is carried out by the Aviation Safety Bureau, which as you know comes under Transport Canada's Air Administration. It is however also responsible for setting standards, for drawing up the regulations that affect safety in the aviation sector. There is thus a risk of conflict of interest between these two responsibilities, which have hitherto been exercised by the same people.
Mr. Justice Dubin recommended, and I quote:
-the establishment of a tribunal unconnected with any federal department.
And that is just what Bill C-163 provides for: the creation of an aviation safety board independent of Transport Canada, so that the functions related to regulation and those related to investigation will be disassociated from each other.
Once Bill C-163 has been passed and implemented, and the new Aeronautics Act as well, as I hope it will be this fall, I believe that Canada will be endowed with a first-class aviation safety system.
S)

This is only the first of two pieces. The next instalment, if I can call it that, will come in the fall when I am sure we will all be here. In the second "tranche" of this reform there will be important material, for example, the appeals tribunal hearing appeals against the decisions of the Minister, the fines he could impose, or the taking away of licences.
The Bill was drafted so as to set out clearly the Board's objective, jurisdiction, and power. It includes provisions aimed at ensuring that the Board co-ordinates its activities with those of other parties such as the RCMP and coroners who have related mandates. The objective of the CASB is to advance aviation safety, and I emphasize this. It is not to assign guilt; it is not to pass judicial judgment on who has done it right or who has done it wrong. It is just to advance air safety.

June 28, 1983
Canadian Aviation Safety Board
The principal activities of the Board will be as defined in the Bill; first, to identify safety deficiencies as evidenced by aviation accidents and incidents, or by situations or conditions which, if left unattended, could induce accidents or incidents; second, to conduct independent investigations and, if necessary, public inquiries by itself or by other individuals, into aviation occurrences-and the word "occurrences" is the generic word which encompasses accidents, incidents, and situational conditions or hazards-in order to make findings as to their contributing factors and causes; third, to report publicly on its investigations and inquiries and to make general recommendations. These are the three objectives of the Board to be created.
Structurally the CASB will consist of three members, one of whom must be a full-time member appointed by the Governor in Council, as usual, for a term not exceeding seven years for full-time members and five years for part-time members. The Board will be required to report annually to Parliament, to ensure its independence, through a responsible Minister who will be designated by the Governor in Council. Presumably in the committee this afternoon there will be some generous views expressed on this as to who should be the Minister responsible for the Board. There are arguments on all sides.
Under its mandate set out in Clause 12 of the Bill, the Board will be able to investigate, as I already said, any accident, incident or situation associated with the operation of aircraft.
You will have noticed, Mr. Speaker, that the Board's mandate is restricted to aviational occurrences. It is a unimodal board and consequently excludes occurrences in the other transportation modes, rail, road or water. There is no dispute that conflict of interest between regulators and investigators can equally be alleged to occur with respect to the other modes as recognized by a former Bill, C-40, and brilliantly by the Private Members' Bills introduced by the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) in past years. However, a unimodal board can be established more quickly- I am being very practical-and it is easier for the investigation of air occurrences than for those in the marine and rail modes, partly because of the proselytizing work done by Justice Dubin and others.
We also know that different procedures and practices have been developed in each mode. There is not the same degree of dissatisfaction in the other modes, rail and marine, as on the air side. Consequently, there is more urgency, I suggest, to do it now on the air side than on the other modes. Attempts to move to uniform procedures for consistency could meet with resistance at the present time.
Mr. Justice Dubin has recommended the establishment of a unimodal air board. 1 do not know if he meant first, but that was his recommendation. Let me emphasize that the establishment of the CASB in no way precludes the future establishment of a multimodal board, or unimodal boards, with jurisdiction in the other transportation modes. To that effect, the experience with the CASB will be a valuable guide.
You will also notice, Mr. Speaker, that I am not being theoretical in this matter. I am being purely practical. Work is now being done in the other modes, on the marine side for example. This is an exercise that will last some time, although not too long, and in due course this exercise will come to a conclusion as to the other modes.
Let me enumerate some of the powers and duties of the Board. Investigators will be given a wide array of powers, including the right to enter, inspect, and seize. The powers are limited, however, to those necessary to enable the investigator to obtain all the information required to carry out the purposes of the Act. In keeping with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, appropriate safeguards have been laid down, including the requirement for the investigator to obtain a search warrant before entering a private dwelling.
The Board will be required to prepare a report on its findings in every investigation and that report will, whenever possible, include general recommendations, as I said before, on its findings. All reports will be made available to the public.
The Board will be required to give other parties opportunities for comment during and after the preparation of reports. For example, before a report is issued, parties with a direct interest must be provided with a draft of that report to comment on. The Board will also be required to provide its report to any Minister whose area of responsibility is affected by the recommendation. That Minister will, in turn, be required to reply in writing within 90 days as to his intentions regarding the implementation of the recommendations. As the Minister's reply must also be made available to the public, the entire sequence of events, including the Government's response, can be examined by the public.
I would like to stress the fact that all of these things were recommended by Dubin. In some cases we have partially amended the recommendations, but never have we gone against what Dubin had recommended.
What about privileged information? The Board in its investigation will obtain evidence of various sorts. For some of those documents there is a good reason to claim privilege from disclosure. The reason is to encourage the evidence to be made available by persons involved. Again the purpose of the inquiry would be to advance aviation safety, not to assign guilt.
Let me give you three examples of this, Mr. Speaker. First, the Board might receive in evidence a cockpit voice recording. Under the terms of this Bill, that document will be privileged and the Board will be prevented from releasing it to anyone or producing it in any proceedings other than as specifically set out in the Bill. There are some provisions in the Bill for cockpit voice recordings to be made available to other parties.
Second, the use of air traffic control recordings obtained by the Board will be prohibited, but only for use against air crew and controllers in criminal or disciplinary proceedings. In
June 28, 1983

other words, there are different degrees of privilege ranging from a degree that is nearly absolute in principle to one that is quite limited. Every situation is described in the Bill so as to avoid misunderstanding.
The third type of document is witnesses' statements, and those will not be allowed to be used against a witness in any legal or other proceeding except civil or perjury proceedings. All of this is defined in some detail in the Bill because the subject is obviously a very difficult one, and a ticklish one as well.
The privilege provisions in the Bill have been developed as a set of compromises after long consideration of the arguments on both sides, the individual and the public interest. I believe that they strike the balance required to provide adequate protection to ensure that evidence is forthcoming while, at the same time, respecting the general principle in favour of public disclosure and the over-all policy thrust of the Access to Information Act.
Again, 1 stress the fact that nothing in the Bill contradicts the Dubin Report. Some of the provisions go further than recommended, but nothing contradicts the recommendations of the distinguished Justice who gave his name to the report on air safety.
What about incident reporting? In 1981 a study of a comprehensive aviation incident reporting system was undertaken. That was after the Dubin Report. As a result of that study the Bill includes a Clause to enable the Board to set up mandatory and/or voluntary incident reporting systems. There is room for justification of a mandatory system for some big commercial transportation systems, and a voluntary system for smaller carriers, smaller planes, individual pilots et cetera. In the first case the situation is more or less institutionalized. There is a pattern of reporting. In the second, we want to entice people to come forward so it is done on a voluntary basis. All of this is debatable and those who prepared the Bill again attempted to do a balancing act, which is the only "Act" Parliament has never passed, but obviously is the most important of them all.
[ Translation\
The Bill contains clauses obliging the Board to co-operate, as far as possible, with other federal and provincial government bodies such as provincial police forces and coroners. These clauses are there because of concerns expressed by the provincial Attorneys General in the course of discussions surrounding Bill C-40 in 1979. For example, Bill C-163 contains a special provision guaranteeing peace officers and coroners access to the information they need to carry out their own investigations, and requiring that if necessary the Board shall communicate its preliminary conclusions to the coroners.
The preparation for Bill C-163 began a long time ago. The government had the advantage of expert advice in all fields, and particularly from the conclusions of the Dubin Report as well as the many presentations that were made within the framework of the Dubin Commission enquiry. I believe that we took full advantage of all the advice we received and that
Canadian Aviation Safety Board
its high quality is reflected in that of the Bill we have before us at the present time. It only remains for me to express the hope that my fellow Members will consider that the Bill deserves their support. I would especially like to thank for their cooperation the Hon. Members for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Ellis), Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) and Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly), who are, I believe, going to speak on the Bill. I want to thank them for their co-operation because it is thanks to them that the House will be able to pass this Bill fairly rapidly this morning, on second reading.


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-163, an Act to establish the Canadian Aviation Safety Board, has finally made it to the floor of the House of Commons and frankly, Mr. Speaker, it is damn near time.
Before I deal with the substance of the Bill I intend to take a few moments to deal with the timing of this very important piece of legislation. It is intriguing that in introducing the Bill-and I have not discussed what was to be said-the cadence of the Minister's remarks ties in with mine so that I can discuss them as I speak.
The July issue of the Canadian version of the Reader's Digest has as its lead story and article entitled "Air Safety- The Shocking Record". In that article of five pages, condensed in the manner of Reader's Digest, are a number of statements guaranteed to give the millions of readers, and especially those who are regular fliers, a very real fear of flying in general, and of flying in Canada in particular. The article speaks of an accident in Vancouver Harbour in which 11 people were killed, stating that the investigation was confused and delayed. The last sentence of the paragraph is, "Still no preventive action was taken".
The article goes on to discuss the actions of Mr. Justice Dubin, stating:
He encountered a shocking record of neglect and cover-up in the Canadian Air Transport Administration, the very agency charged with air safety.
After a series of sensational statements such as this, the article concludes by saying that the Parliament of Canada must act in this matter.
The Parliament of Canada has been prepared to act for a long time, Mr. Speaker. The Minister mentioned the Aeronautics Act which will be put before us for changes in the fall. Recently, that Act has been universally condemned by many aviation authorities. The amendments are very necessary. I hope the second part of this dual set of legislation will not be so hard to get started through the House.
The Bill we are discussing today was ready in late 1982. The Transport Committee, through its Chairman, the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne), and others, is more than willing and has been more than willing to deal with the matter on a priority basis.

June 28, 1983
Canadian Aviation Safety Board
The time and effort put into the whole matter do not warrant the delay we have experienced over the past seven months. At the Dubin Commission there were 116 hearings, 350 witnesses gave testimony, there were 26,000 pages of oral testimony, and 30,000 pages of exhibits and other evidence.
Given the accidents of an extremely serious nature in air transportation over the last few weeks, this may be one of the more important pieces of legislation that Parliament will deal with in this session. The Minister called it a giant step. I think any nomenclature of that nature we could give to the Bill could not over estimate or over state the importance of the matter. Yet for the last seven months the Liberal House Leader has refused to bring the Bill before Parliament. Now, in the dying days, we are told that only two hours will be allowed for debate in the House. It must go through committee today and be reported back to the House tomorrow without debate. Is it any wonder that Opposition Parties balk at the heavy-handed, inconsiderate, partisan, and highly political way in which legislation is dealt with by the Government?
The aviation community wanted this Bill dealt with earlier. It did not want the ministerial advisory committee with members of the Canadian Air Transport administration on it taking the slower steps that were taken to hold the legislation up before it got to the House. In an unprecedented show of unanimity ten aviation associations told the Minister of Transport to implement Volume I of the CASB when it was released in May, 1981. Those bodies were the Air Transport Association of Canada, the Canadian Air Line Pilots Association, the Canadian Air Traffic Controllers Association, the Canadia Air Line Flight Attendants Association, the Canadian Air Line Dispatchers Association, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, the Canadian Owners and Pilots Association, the Royal Canadian Flying Clubs Association, L'Association des Gens de l'Air du Quebec, and the Aircraft Operations Group.
There will necessarily be a number of bodies such as these which will want to speak on the Bill in committee. I am delighted to report that these associations, given the very short notice, have made a real effort, either to attend this afternoon on the assumption that, as we have agreed, we will put the Bill through the House this morning-they have agreed to attend, or have already submitted very interesting comments on the Bill.
Let me deal for a moment with the background of the Bill, Mr. Speaker. It is the result of the continuation of the Progressive Conservative Party's 1979 election campaign promise and its implementation by the former Minister of Transport, the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). He probably contributed more to the competent government of Canada in that short time than any Minister of the Crown. He certainly accomplished more in the Department of Transport, prorated, than any Minister before or since. He was able to convince the Cabinet of the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) to appoint Mr. Justice Charles Dubin to a commission of Inquiry on aviation safety.
While he took definitive action and from that action came this legislation, he was not alone in recognizing the need. The Minister spelled out in some detail those who had looked at this matter before and indicated the need for this type of legislation. There were discussion papers from the Air Transport Association of Canada in 1977, and the Bill that the Minister mentioned, Bill C-40, which was not passed by the House.
I have to mention, as did the Minister, my colleague, the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall), who has long advocated a multi-mode safety board. I know he is particularly concerned with this Bill and I trust that he will speak on it. Like myself he is happy that we finally have a piece of legislation.
The question that obviously arises is whether we must wait for a Royal commission of inquiry on each subject, or a major catastrophe in each mode of transportation, before we finally get a similar body for marine and surface transportation.
The first report of the commission of inquiry headed by Mr. Justice Dubin, was tabled in May, 1981. The 63 recommendations in Volume 1 of that report dealt with the establishment of an independent Canadian Aviation Safety Board. A year later, in March, 1982, a leading editorial in the Toronto Globe and Mail dealt with the matter, and I quote from that editorial:
It is all the more necessary to create, as Justice Dubin recommends, an independent body, the Canadian Aviation Safety Board, to investigate aircraft accidents and safety practices.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, two years later, the legislation is being dealt with in this House. It is indeed a sorry record of this Government. In fairness here, I must point out that the fault lies very heavily on the Government House Leader, since I know that the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) tried repeatedly to have this matter brought forward in the past seven months. Indeed, he showed the courtesy to the members of the Standing Committee on Transport to apprise us of the steps he had taken, and to keep us posted along the way on what was happening.
Let me briefly deal with the substance of the Bill, Mr. Speaker. The Board will have jurisdiction over any aviation accident or incident within Canada. I define the word "incident" roughly as a situation which could or may have led to an accident. In addition the Board will have the right to cooperate with other jurisdictions where Canadian aircraft are involved in accidents or incidents outside Canada, and with the Department of National Defence in Canada. The Board will have the right to conduct public inquiries for the purpose of finding the causes and making recommendations, but, as the Minister said, not to apportion blame.
The Board will have the right to enter, inspect, seize and protect, and all of those things which the Minister mentioned, as part of its ability to carry on a proper investigation. I am a little upset that we have no idea of what the regulations will be. Obviously, much of what will happen will be carried out
June 28, 1983

within the regulations. I fully agree that the members of the Board should be given the full opportunity to participate in the formulation of those regulations. Elowever, I would have like to have seen some draft outlines of regulations, because there are a few matters in the Bill which are not as clear as I feel they should be.
In my opinion, and I am sure in the opinion of a number of my collegues, it would have been a much better piece of legislation in this instance had the Government followed more closely the recommendations of Mr. Justice Dubin. For example, the recommendations of Mr. Justice Dubin specifically included that certain present functions of the Department of Transport be transferred to the Canadian Aviation Safety Board, including the Aviation Safety Bureau, the Aviation Safety Engineering Division, the Aviation Safety Analysis Division, and the Aviation Safety Promotion Division, none of which are explicit in the Bill. When Canadians read articles such as that which I quoted a few moments ago from the Reader's Digest, I am sure that they would want to expect an independent body to have charge of these functions, given the lack of care taken by the Canadian Air Transport Administration in the past.
I am delighted to see the Minister nodding his head as though, in a sense, there is a good rapport between the Minister and myself. Perhaps that will happen. If it does, I would be delighted.
In order to avoid any conflict of interest, the Dubin Report recommended that a Minister, other than the Minister of Transport, be responsible in the House of Commons for the new safety board. Once again, that Minister is not named in the Bill. The Bill also states that the Board shall send a draft report of accidents or incidents to that Minister on a confidential basis. While 1 can certainly appreciate the need for confidentiality with regard to cockpit tapes and other pieces of information which may, in fact, he vital to any subsequent criminal or civil trial, nonetheless, there was never any specific recommendation of confidentiality in the Dubin Report, and I doubt that there is quite the need for confidentiality as is outlined in the Bill. It will be very interesting to see exactly how this is dealt with in the regulations. I appreciated the remarks of the Minister a few moments ago when he spelled out in his three examples the possibility of making available certain information in certain instances. However, we will have to see how that works.
I fully understand, Mr. Speaker, that for a Board as important and as new as this one, there will necessarily be a breaking-in period during which the Board will have to proceed very carefully and cautiously, because, obviously it will be breaking new ground in the area of the administration of air safety. It does, however, Mr. Speaker, follow the Government's penchant for secrecy. It is interesting, in light of the freedom of information legislation which is with us right now, that some of these matters are included in this Bill.
An editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press a little over a week ago stated:
Canadian Aviation Safety Board
There is no reason why it has taken ten years for appropriate legislation to be acted upon in Parliament. The number of accidents in which the present investigator, the Ministry of Transport, was itself involved in its dual role of regulator of the aviation industry, has been growing at a rate which demands prompt action to create an independent board.
This, Mr. Speaker, is just one of many examples of the growing cry within the community for the Board with which we are asked to deal today. The editorial went on to say that the Bill, having been introduced as it was about two weeks ago, left only two weeks in the spring session of Parliament, and again quoting the editorial, "There is some suspicion that the Bill has surfaced not so much on its own merits but as a matter so desired by responsible Members that they may be willing to ease up on the more controversial legislation."
I can tell the House, Mr. Speaker, and the Minister knows this, that the Bill has surfaced because the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East, the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly), myself, and others have been hammering at the Minister. In fairness to him, he has been trying for lo these past few months to get this Bill before the House. It is an important piece of legislation and we all recognize the necessity for it. It is only because of the major importance of this piece of legislation that those Hon. Members I have mentioned, and myself, are bending the regulations and the rules in order to deal with it as expeditiously as we are.
I have already in my possession, as I said earlier, recommendations and suggestions from those air associations which I have mentioned. Their comments must, of necessity, be given a major priority and, indeed, this afternoon we will deal with them at some length. I am purposely making my comments brief, Mr. Speaker. I know others want to get involved in this debate. Everyone involved in air safety is bending over backwards to accommodate this particular piece of legislation.
A committee meeting is tentatively called for this afternoon on the assumption that the Bill will pass. The witnesses who wish to come before the committee are in place, again assuming that the Bill will pass. We are prepared, all of us, to deal with it expeditiously. There will not be major changes made in the Bill, if any. Frankly, we do not like the idea of having this Bill pushed on us in this second or third last day of the sittings of the House of Commons before the summer recess. However, as the Minister has said, it is a giant step. It is a most important piece of legislation and, because of that, we are going to deal with it as expeditiously as possible. The tragedy, Mr. Speaker, is that we are having to go about it in this manner when it has been sitting idle for the last seven months.


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking today with some very mixed feelings about the particular legislation before us and the way in which it is being handled. I would like to comment particularly on some of the remarks made by the previous speaker.
I returned from my constituency late last night to find this Bill was in fact up for debate today. I was absolutely astounded this morning to come into the House and find it to be the

June 28, 1983
Canadian Aviation Safety Board
intention of the Government to push the Bill through committee, report stage, and final reading tomorrow. Let me say at the outset that I have no part in this and I totally disagree with this approach, and I will elaborate why.
One of the comments that Mr. Justice Dubin made as a result of his investigation concerned interference by the Ministry of Transport in the activities of the air safety investigation group. One of the primary thrusts of this Bill is to separate those two groups. Therefore, the public is in no way in jeopardy if we continue this process through to the fall and the investigation units are allowed to conduct their competent thorough investigations and report them in a fair and open manner. If that happens, serious accidents, which happen from time to time in aviation, can be investigated and the important points brought to light. But I would like to re-emphasize that the public would be in no further jeopardy if we maintain this same procedure until the fall. The Bill should go through second reading today, be referred to committee, and then all parties who presented material to the Dubin inquiry should have an opportunity to comment on this Bill.
It is not correct to say, Mr. Speaker, that the people who were so instrumental in bringing out critical information before the Dubin Commission have had a chance to peruse this Bill. I am speaking today without having had an opportunity of perusing the Bill in the way I would have liked, to compare it with Mr. Justice Dubin's recommendations, work through some of the details, and have a chance to think about them. Concerning the groups that have been contacted to appear in committee, some have attempted to put together a brief quickly, but certainly I suspect they have not had any greater opportunity to think about the Bill. I am pleased that someone managed to produce for me briefs from two organizations which will attempt to appear tonight. I have had telephone conversations with other organizations which have spent thousands of dollars and put in thousands of hours in an attempt to enhance air safety in Canada.
One group were approached and asked if they would like to appear, but the notice was too short for them to be able to prepare anything suitable for the committee, so they will not be attending the committee meeting. They have had no opportunity to examine the legislation in the kind of detail they feel is necessary. They have itemized two serious problems they want to have more time to look at before they come forward. Their final comment is that this is too serious a matter to stuff through in an afternoon.
My research assistant is in the lobby this afternoon trying to run through a group of organizations to get their response to the jamming through of this Bill.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, it was my understanding that this legislation would pass through second reading, and I would like to see that happen. We could then move to committee with an opportunity to talk about the Bill, and talk to the Minister about possible changes or further clarification of questions we have. Then we could use the summer to solicit input from organizations responsible for making the Dubin Commission the successful inquiry it was. We could give them a fair chance
to examine the Bill, something this whole country would benefit from because of their expertise. But unfortunately that is not being done. I think the Government is just being totally and completely irresponsible in doing this. It is more concerned about the House Leader's scorecard than aviation safety.
It might be interesting, Mr. Speaker, to examine this material in the context of the Government's proposal for changes to the Aeronautics Act. I appeal to the Minister to release the draft of those changes as soon as possible so that people can have a reasonable opportunity to comment on and look at this particular legislation in conjunction with those changes.
The Dubin Commission has to be one of the most successful Commissions ever undertaken in Canada. First, it was not this Government which appointed the Commission. It was in fact the Opposition when they were in Government. I think that had a nice touch to it in that it was slightly more open and comprehensive than it might otherwise have been. But that is only speculation. However, many people were very impressed with the product. It might be useful to consider having a variety of input into the appointment of such commissions in order to round out the various points of view.
Another interesting thing I found in going through the Commission's material is that many employee groups were involved. It was the unions, organized labour, and the Government's own employees who came forward with information. There were attempts by the Government to stop them from testifying before the Commission. But they made a very great contribution, and I would go so far as to say that had they not made that contribution we would not have had the report before us today.
There were senior officials within the air transport administration who attempted to rewrite accident reports or have accident investigators modify their reports. That was a major reason for the lack of confidence in the procedures; it was not the air accident investigators, it was the senior officials. On page 25 of the Commission's report there is reference to a memo to a regional controller which says, "You are to fully consider the possibility of embarrassment to the Minister and any other potential political implications which may result from suspensions". This is absolutely astounding.


Jean-Luc Pepin: You have given it a special meaning.


Raymond John Skelly: What I am suggesting, Mr. Speaker, is not to point the finger of criticism, because we have to recognize that there are changes being made. But given the fact that some of the soundest recommendations in Mr. Dubin's report came about because of the commitment of hundreds if not thousands of hours of time by the Government's own employees, perhaps there is some room in this legislation for a permanent advisory body made up of selected individuals representing employee groups. The Minister might consider that in order to facilitate their input.
Another thing to note, Mr. Speaker, is that probably some of the worst examples of labour relations in Government are
June 28, 1983

those between the air administration employees and its management. Hopefully restructuring of that organization will result in better employee relations and a better opportunity for employees to have meaningful consultation with management on matters which affect air safety and that of transportation in general. Those relations must be improved, and there is really no visible public indication at this point in time that that kind of improvement is under way.
It is critically important that along with this legislation air transport administration, employee relations and the mechanisms for providing advisory input be strengthened and improved. 1 would just use an example of one area of which the Minister and many others are aware. It stems from the Cran-brook crash which has been discussed at length by government and involves a litany of errors. 1 think that maybe even Mr. Justice Dubin erred in recommending that positive control of vehicles on the runway be given to flight radio operators. These people are dealing with vehicles on runways at remote airports. They could be hundreds of miles away. They are also faced with controlling vehicles in areas where they cannot see the runway. Individuals have come forward and reported errors and in some places disciplinary action has been taken. They have asked for provisions in their contract that would protect them, and if the tapes are searched and errors found, that they be used for improving operational standards rather than disciplinary action. At some point in the day, I think the Minister should comment on these peripheral matters that are important to air safety.
Just before I conclude I would like to comment on some of the other occurrences in general aviation that disturb me. I wonder if this is not part of the mechanism by which the Government is trying to improve air safety, and that is by driving people out of aviation. I am very concerned about the move that I see toward dramatically increasing costs and restrictions on flying which I do not think will particularly increase safety. It is incumbent upon the Government to show where its proposals will increase safety.
I recently had an opportunity to peruse a document released by a senior official of the Department of Transport which listed a number of recommendations about restraining private and general aviation. The rationale for so doing was the Dubin Report. In all honesty, some of the recommendations were solid but in other areas they were not. The additional restrictions and constraints would simply result in driving up the cost of aviation and driving people out of the business.
I would like to give some recent examples. Parking fees have become absolutely astronomical. The Government argues that it is doing a cost recovery program, but it drove virtually every private aircraft out of the Port Hardy airport. They have all moved away and people have sold off their aircraft and have ceased becoming involved in flying any more. What revenue there was has been lost. My thought is that maybe it is simply
Canadian Aviation Safety Board
reducing the number of people flying and therefore the potential for accidents is being removed.
There is also a monopoly involving fuel costs at airports. It is time there was an inquiry into how ordinary 80-octane and 100-octane gas for airplanes, which is virtually the equivalent to regular unleaded gas at the service station, can cost in excess of 60 cents a litre. It is just ridiculous. Maybe we should be considering the manner in which those concessions are granted and those prices arrived at airports, because it is driving people out of aviation. It will certainly reduce the number of accidents if people do not or cannot fly.
Radio licensing, a complete aggravation, has increased 100 per cent with absolutely no rationale for so doing.


Mr. Fulton:: Was it the six and five?


Raymond John Skelly: No, the six and five is a matter with which we can deal later.


Jean-Luc Pepin: That's before six and five.


Raymond John Skelly: Concerning occupational training, there are many people who are still interested in becoming pilots, air crew and whatnot. However, the cost of occupational training is astronomical. To obtain a private licence costs in the order of $3,500. God knows what a full 200 hours of flying time to obtain a commercial licence is worth. If one wants 40 more hours for an instrument rating or one wants to obtain an ATR or senior commercial licence, it is beyond the reach of most people, yet the Government moved not too long ago to restrict the claiming of a deduction on income tax. It is quite prepared to put up student loans and facilitate, to whatever degree, other training programs, but it does not provide a reasonable opportunity for the people who want to pursue a career in aviation. The expense is beyond belief and simple assistance with income tax to bona fide individuals pursuing that field would be useful.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Some of those fees have not been increased for 30 years.


Raymond John Skelly: Some of those fees have not been increased for 30 years, the Minister says, but there have been dramatic increases. If there is any doubt about it, I would be more than pleased to show him concrete examples of where the increases in fees have driven people out of aviation, and these increases are simply not justified.
I would simply be very cautious to ensure that there is a great deal of consultation about the way in which restrictions are placed on the flying public, because I am certain that it is not the intention of the Government to drive people out of aviation. There is an argument for cost recovery. There is an argument for restrictions on certain kinds of activities. However, this must be carefully considered because people are being driven out today in, I would say, record numbers.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The total cost recovery is 5 per cent to 10 per cent.


Raymond John Skelly: I hope the Minister has a chance to respond just before the Bill goes through. There have been some very
26848

June 28, 1983
Canadian Aviation Safety Board
serious aviation accidents. Maybe we in the House are a little bit guilty of blowing them out of proportion at times. It is unfortunate that we must do that in order to catch attention and gain a freer flow of information on matters that concern us and the people we represent.
It still strikes me that the most dangerous part of flying, as the old adage says, is driving to the airport. Per passenger mile, we should probably be spending much money and effort on highway safety, or at least the equivalent, where costs for damage, death and injury are astronomical. Nevertheless, air safety is vitally important. More and more people fly. The Bill before us today is a start in the right direction. It is extremely unfortunate that the Government has chosen to move in this manner and that it is intending to push the Bill through all stages today without allowing consultation with other affected groups which would provide very valuable input.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, when I first raised, in this Chamber, the question of separating the departmental regulatory responsibilities from those of its investigative arm back in 1967, some 16 years ago, 1 thought that perhaps the wisdom of simply removing any potential reason to believe conflict of interest might arise or could arise would in fact occur to Government and to Members of Parliament and that very shortly we might resolve the matter. But by 1968 or 1969, nothing had happened. By 1970, nothing had happened.
Therefore I took it upon myself to consult with the transportation industry in Canada. Without exception, as the Minister is aware, everyone agreed that there should be our a priori independent commission to consider transportation occurrences. I remind the House of interprovincial transport of gas and oil, the possibility of moving grain by pipelines, all the way through to the operations of ferries in our country, air transport, trucking-the whole range of transport that falls under or is touched upon one way or another by federal regulation. It still needs the attention of this Chamber. Thirteen years is too long to achieve one-third of the required independence that will not only aid transportation so it is seen to be safe but to in fact be safe. The surface mode and marine mode remain to be dealt with.
I accept the work of Justice Dubin because it was necessary. His report was very much to the point and told Canadians of the horror story in flying. While pilots occasionally tell us that flying involves hours of boredom, the beginning of these flights hold moments of terror and there are always moments of terror at their end. The same is quite true for passengers except they are not quite as aware of the terror. That same terror still exists in the minds of people who travel on our trains, highways and ferries and in those who work on our ships.
If it has taken us 13 years or longer to achieve an independent commission with respect to air travel, I must ask if we must wait another 13 years for marine transport and then another 13 years for similar commissions with respect to surface transport. The Minister is correct that this new body
will provide a good learning experience for us in this country. However, we have had 13 years to learn. Indeed we have had 100 years to learn about transportation.
As far as removing any question of conflict of interest is concerned, we should be taking action today on the three primary modes of transportation in this country. I accept the fact that this legislation represents a first step. I am pleased to join with my colleague for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Ellis) and my friend for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) in welcoming what I hope is just the first step. As I have suggested, if we must wait another 13 years for a similar piece of legislation dealing with marine safety, then what will become of the lessons that we will learn from Mr. Justice Hickman's inquiry into the Ocean Ranger disaster currently taking place in Newfoundland? Will we have to wait another ten years after his report before we determine that there is a need for independence of investigation in that area of transportation as it relates to safety, minimum requirements, construction, operation, repair and inspection?
We know what Judge Hugessen said in his report on the shipboard fire which occurred Christmas Eve, 1981. We know the contents of another judge's report with respect to the accident involving dangerous gases which occurred in urban Toronto approximately four years ago. Why has action not been taken on these recommendations? I am sure the Minister is aware of this concern because he has acknowledged the urgency to take action.
There are many questions to be asked. The Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River has related some areas with which he is concerned. He has stated his concern that members of the general aviation community in this country will not have an opportunity to deal with the issues in detail. I share that concern and I am also concerned about how the Board will be able to fulfil its mandate within the parameters of this Act within a completely independent milieu. I am not satisfied that it will happen.
Notwithstanding that, this Bill does represent a giant step toward safety in Canadian skies and I therefore must welcome this legislation. 1 hope that it will provide the experience to form the basis of similar pieces of legislation dealing with maritime and surface transportation matters. To do anything less on our part would be irresponsible.
Justice Dubin, in recommending this step, did not preclude and indeed suggested that similar legislation respecting the other two modes of transportation might very well produce the same type of thrust. My concern is that I do not want to wait another 12 years and another 12 years after that for similar legislation. I do not see any reason why we cannot establish an a priori independent body which would have that first responsibility in all areas.
When dealing with this legislation this afternoon, I hope we will have an opportunity to deal with it clause by clause so that I may ask questions that concern me. I was concerned about certain questions when I drafted a multimodal bill very similar to this legislation in the 1960s. I am sure those questions will
June 28, 1983

be answered in some depth today and I hope the Minister will be with us in committee this afternoon. Will he?


Jean-Luc Pepin: There will be good people answering your question.


J. Michael Forrestall: We certainly want you and your experts as well. I think we will be able to clear up a number of questions about which we are concerned.
I do not see the need to delay this matter any longer because certain institutional groups in the general aviation community will not have a full opportunity to appear before us to make their views known. This does not concern me because I know that the institutional aviation groups in this country in general, from our major domestic carriers to the manufacturing and operational side, have been concerned about this matter for some time. There are very few measures in this Bill of which specific interested groups in the aviation community have not been made aware, have not helped develop or have not been consulted in their development. After consultation with the Provinces, I am satisfied that the intent of the Bill with respect to jurisdiction is acceptable to them.
I do have some concern about other investigative processes. For example, the Bill does not embrace the military. This could cause difficulty because if one area is excluded there may be a tendency to exclude other areas. I believe this should have been a priority. But this matter can be pursued in committee and experience may prove that the Bill is either correct or incorrect in the exclusivity.
It is important that we have taken the first step and I hope it will lead to increased awareness of aviation safety. I also hope this is a workable Bill which will form the basis for similar legislation in the near future which will cover marine and service transport matters. I suggest to the Minister that if he does not make a start quickly, as soon as we have a by-election in Central Nova and other events take place, whoever is the next Minister of Transport in this country will not live in peace until the legislation is in place.
In closing, may I just congratulate the Minister and his officials for having lost two of the children but having saved one. Again, I regret the delay, as other Member have and as I am sure the Minister has. I will not attach blame to that; suffice it to say that the Bill is now in front of us and pray God that this legislation will be the basis for enhanced general aviation safety and control in this country.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify one aspect. I know the previous speaker has been very involved in this particular topic. He had a chance to draft the Bill which he had put forward in a multimodal approach. It was an excellent proposition and it is unfortunate that it has not been brought forward.
However, there is one aspect to his remarks on which I would like a little elaboration. I am referring to the suggestion that we should go ahead quickly with the Bill. This Bill will be
Canadian Aviation Safety Board
approved in principle in a few minutes. It will then go to committee. Essentially, it will be well on its way to being passed. Two and a half months is a very short time in which to have an examination or to have input from people who work continuously in this field.
Let me just give an example of where one of the problems arose. The Canadian Airline Flight Attendants Association is involved on a day to day basis with safety in aircraft. This group was invited to examine the Bill, but unfortunately the Ministry, because of its excellent relations with that organization, sent it to the person who was the president three years ago. The Association saw the Bill just yesterday for the first time. As the group's comments would indicate, it is not very pleased with that kind of liaison and consultation. Most of the organizations that we have contacted, and we are going to use the phones right now to find out where they are, are also not pleased that they have not had an opportunity to comment.
Since it appears that we will, in fact, pass the Bill, it having been approved in principle, would the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) not concede that it would be advantageous to slow down for a few moments to allow those people who put so much time and energy into the Dubin Report an opportunity to peruse and put together something for our consideration which may help us to fine tune this Bill?


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, with all defence to a distinguished assistant of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin), that is a hell of a faux pas. I was not aware of that and it is a matter of regret. I am not suggesting it would not be useful or helpful to the committee, to Parliamentarians, the Minister and to Government itself to have had the benefit of these briefs. What I was suggesting was that there are, to the best of my knowledge, no institutional groups within this air transport community that have not been fully and widely consulted and have not had the opportunity to make far reaching and very fair contributions.
This matter has not been under way for two or three months; it has been under way for ten or 15 years. The Standing Committee on Transport is seized now with the Crow Bill. We have outstanding matters of relative importance to the proper conduct of committee work with respect to Air Canada. We have a number of issues already. To refer the report to the Standing Committee on Transport, and to wait another six to eight months before it is dealt with and is sent back into this Chamber, in my judgment would be somewhat irresponsible. I think we should get on with it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Are there any other questions or comments? Debate?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.

June 28, 1983


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to. Bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport.
Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe the next item of business is Bill C-95. In view of the fact that we have dealt with this Bill so expeditiously and sent it to committee, would the House be disposed to call it one o'clock, since the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens), has the floor? He is not here at the moment and I know he wants to continue his remarks.


Mr. Smith:: Yes, Mr. Speaker, being eminently reasonable on this side we think that is an acceptable suggestion and agree to it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: There being unanimous agreement, this House stands adjourned until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 12:26 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Carlo Rossi (Bourassa):: Madam Speaker, I am rising in the House today to protest against a statement made yesterday in France by Rene Levesque, to the effect that the next referendum in Quebec will be won by the Separatists, because according to Mr. Levesque, 100,000 senior citizens will no longer be there to speak out against separatism. His comments are a sad reflection on the extremist mentality of Mr. Levesque and his feelings of vindictiveness vis-a-vis senior citizens. He is practically wishing a speedy demise on the senior citizens who built Quebec and defended its traditions and language well before the Separatists or Levesque himself. It shows a lack of tact, of judgment, of charity and of gratitude to those who deserve our gratitude, love and respect. Madam Speaker, these words spoken by the Premier of Quebec reflect a morally and socially cynical outlook and the attitude that the end justifies the means. Today, I am ashamed of the Premier of Quebec, and I am therefore speaking out on behalf of millions of Quebecers who respect our senior citizens and want
to live in a Quebec that is free of separatism and part of a prosperous Canada that respects its senior citizens.



NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS


Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to release the results of 2,567 written responses to a questionnaire distributed in May, 1983, on the testing of the Cruise missile. First, the findings reveal overwhelming support for NATO's decision to deploy Pershing II and Cruise missiles in western Europe to counter the imbalance created by the Soviet deployment of over 300 mobile SS-20 missiles. Second, the vast majority favours Canada testing the unarmed Cruise missile in Canada.
The results of the questionnaire are as follows:
Do you believe that our western allies should station Pershing II and Cruise missiles in western Europe if the Russians fail to remove some 315 triple-headed SS-20 missiles threatening western Europe?
Those people who answered yes, 84 per cent.
The next question was:
Do you believe Canada should remain in NATO?
Those who answered yes, 95.8 per cent.
The third question was:
Do you believe Canada should agree to have the unarmed Cruise missile tested at Cold Lake, Alberta?
Those who answered yes, 79 per cent; those who answered no, 21 per cent.
The results of this poll cause me to believe firmly that Canada should encourage and promote positive discussions at all levels of disarmament negotiations. However, I do not feel world peace can be achieved from a position of perceived weakness. The strength of the NATO Alliance holds the key to our quest for peace and our survival as a free society.



NATIONAL UNITY


Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 21, I wish to inform my colleagues in the House of the indignation of Quebec senior citizens following a statement made in Paris by Premier Rene Levesque which I would call the PQ's euthanasia policy. Madam Speaker, I would like to quote from this week's issue of the magazine, Le nouvel observateur:
June 28, 1983

Quebec in the news
Rene Levesque:
"The younger generation will decide-"
Madam Speaker, I would like to quote the interview given by the Premier, appearing in Le nouvel observateur on page 43, and I quote:
In 1980, we lost the referendum on sovereignty. In 1985, however-when the next consultation will probably take place-, hundreds of thousands of voters among those who had been "scared stiff' at the prospect of separation- especially the elderly-will have disappeared, while hundreds of thousands of young people will become eligible to vote.
This is what Premier Levesque had to say about senior citizens. Madam Speaker, it would seem that the PQ has added a new chapter to its catechism on the independence of Quebec, namely, the elimination of senior citizens. Unfortunately for our Premier, his words have merely served to make his dissatisfaction with the present situation known to all Canadians.



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, the funding set aside in the budget for job creation indicates that the Government is attempting to address some of the concerns of the unemployed. However, these programs are far from ideal.
Why must it be that to qualify for grants one must be planning something cute or unusual? It seems that the person with a small manufacturing plant who is not involved in research or promotion is out of luck. Why should money only go to hire people who have exhausted their UIC benefits or who have to qualify in other complicated ways?
The time has come for a simpler program, one that will help small business, and on a permanent basis. Looking at cases which have qualified, it seems that jobs are only being created for periods from a few months to at most one year. After that we are back to square one. What is the point?
It makes sense to me that the money now going to assist in hiring part-time help for make-work programs of questionable value should go to aid businesses in expanding production. These businesses would hire people on a more permanent basis and help our economy to blossom once again. This would be the logical first step to take in removing the mystery from job-creation programs and in helping out the average person on the street.




Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, I am very grateful to you and to many other persons who had something to say about a birthday I celebrated a week or so ago. I really want to say that it has caused me to do a lot of thinking, to realize that I am 75 years of age and that I have been very effectively involved in things in this country for the last 50 or 60 years.
What impresses me is that persons involved in political efforts should be concerned about the real problems of our time. I am conscious of the fact that some of us have worked on pensions, health, housing, and things like that. If we have been a political force, it is because we have been dealing with something urgent and important. Even if there are ten, 20 or 50 years ahead of us, there are terribly important problems facing us right now, and I think of the question of employment. To me this calls not only for finding money for jobs for a million or a million and a half people who do not have jobs. We must also train people to take part in the kinds of new things which are being developed and will create the kind of life we will know in Canada.
What will be our future will depend very much upon what political efforts we make, not only mine and those of my friends, but those of all of us. My plea is that all Parties in the House take note of this terribly important issue, not only as it concerns funds but as it concerns training to educate people, so that we play a part in building the kind of life we want with the things in it which will make life better for the next 30 years or 40 years. That should be our important goal. It is up to us to do that, and I urge all Parties in this Parliament to make that our most important job.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Marcel Dionne (Chicoutimi):: Madam Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to what was said by the Prime Minister of France, Mr. Pierre Mauroy, to his Quebec counterpart, Mr. Rene Levesque, during the latter's official visit to Paris.
Prime Minister Mauroy, speaking on behalf of his country, emphasized that the special relationship between Quebec and France should in no way be allowed to affect the normal relations France wishes to have with Canada, its long time ally and friend.
Mr. Mauroy also indicated to Mr. Levesque that the future of relations between France and Quebec must be economically

June 28, 1983
viable, and I emphasize this economic aspect. I must say that I heartly approve of this new approach taken by the French.
It is true that we must strengthen our trade, technological and industrial relations with France if we want to see French used more often in trade, business and research.
I think that this week, when we are about to celebrate Canada Day, we should rejoice in the new relationship being established between Canada, France and Quebec.



THE ADMINISTRATION


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, the Fiberal Government has become a thorn in the side of the people of Canada. The policies of the Liberals smack of totalitarianism. No longer does the Government even pretend to reflect the thinking of the people of Canada, which any democratic administration should be doing, but rather it continues to tell the people what it considers is good for the people. Let us glance at some of the examples.
Half of the agricultural nation opposed the passage of Canagrex, including practically every agricultural organization in the West, but the Government insisted on passing the Bill just the same. Thousands wanted the buy and sell provisions removed, but the Government said, "No, daddy knows best". Even Canada's national magazine Maclean's called the Bill "a cancerous growth", and the Alberta Report termed it "the big land grab", but the obedient Liberals and their socialist friends passed it just the same.
Then there was the Crow Bill. Almost half of the House of Commons opposed it in its present form, but that did not matter. The Government sneaked in closure, the Liberals passed it and then had the gall to say it was passed by the House of Commons. What about the Holiday Bill changing Dominion Day to Canada Day, passed by 13 Members of Parliament-not even a quorum, a disgraceful way to pass laws, particularly one that destroys some of the wonderful heritage of Canada. We could go on and on.
Any self-respecting Government would say, "The people don't want us, we will resign". But have hope Canada, the PC's under Mr. Mulroney will soon remove the thorn and set Canada free.



TEXTILES AND CLOTHING


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Madam Speaker, in the first five months of 1983, clothing imports in Canada increased 26 per cent compared to 1982. In early March, the Minister of State (International Trade) (Mr. Regan) promised the joint committee of employers and employees in the textile and garment industry that he would soon be giving them an answer to their requests for tighter controls on imports. He repeated this promise on March 30, April 21, May 31, and June 13. Imports are continuing, and layoffs are also continuing in Canadian factories, but the Minister still thinks that silence is golden. Has the Minister forgotten that the industry has over 15,000 jobs that have been affected in the riding of Spadina, 12,000 in Laurier, 6,000 in Brome-Missisquoi, 5,000 in Saint-Hya-cinthe-Bagot, 5,000 in Shefford, 4,000 in Beauharnois-Sala-berry, 4,000 in Sherbrooke, 4,000 in Saint-Jean, 3,000 in Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic, 3,000 in Saint-Leonard-Anjou and
3,000	in Beauce.
What does the Minister intend to do for the workers in these ridings who, because of clothing imports, have been replaced by workers in countries where the hourly wage is 39 cents, 25 cents or even 10 cents?



SHIPBUILDING


Mr. Louis Duclos (Montmorency-Orleans):: Madam
Speaker, within the next few weeks, the Government will have to decide which consortium will draw up detailed specifications for the prototype of the six frigates that will be built as part of a program to modernize Canada's navy.
The Quebec City region is particularly interested in the outcome, since traditionally, shipbuilding has been one of the major industries in this region.
As employment at the Davie shipyards in Lauzon has now reached alarmingly low levels, and since no other major contracts, with the exception of the six frigates, are in the offing, it is absolutely vital for the Quebec region that the Government should retain the services of the Scan-Davie consortium, where it is understood that Davie will build the prototype, thus making this shipyard the leader in this program.
In that case, both the shipyard and its workers could count on having work for many years, because both from the marine technology and shipbuilding point of view, Scan-Davie would be in an excellent position to compete for contracts in NATO countries, where some governments might decide to order the new frigate at some time in the future.
June 28, 1983

I therefore invite the Government to put its trust in the Scan-Davie consortium, whose proposal complies in every way with the standards and conditions set by the Department of National Defence.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. It concerns a matter we have not touched on for a few days. In view of the Transport Committee's decision this morning to postpone Air Canada matters until September 13 when the Chairman and President of Air Canada will be recalled as witnesses, can the Minister tell the House why Michael Pitfield, then Clerk of the Privy Council, wrote to the Minister about the future development of the McGill College Avenue area of Montreal, which was one of the places where Air Canada was considering locating its head office?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I would think it would be normal for Mr. Pitfield in his former capacity to write to me or to other Ministers expressing his views or the views of the Prime Minister on matters of this kind. I do not see anything abnormal in that.


MINISTER'S DISCUSSIONS WITH CHAIRMAN
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that the Minister does not think there is anything unusual about this, is he prepared to table the letter and any other correspondence so that there will be no question of any improper advice?
After the Minister received the letter, and as a result of the letter, did the Minister call in the Chairman of Air Canada, Mr. Rene Amyot, and discuss the contents of the letter with him, especially in view of the fact that the letter appeared to have been influenced by or directed to have been written by the Chairman?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the letter comes under the "advice to the Minister" category and consequently is not one that would be made public. My hon. friend seems to be well informed of the content. It was a suggestion that, if at all needed, I should pay particular attention to the developments taking place in Montreal on the decision with respect to the purchase of a headquarters.
I did much more than was referred to in the letter. I sense that my hon. friend might have seen it. I went to Montreal where I spent a full day with the two main candidates studying
Oral Questions
their plans. I talked extensively to the personnel of Air Canada, the Chairman and the President and I developed my own feelings about the whole subject. Later on the decision was made unanimously by the Board of Air Canada in the way which my hon. friend knows.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: If there is no real problem with the letter, if it could be tabled, it would help to clarify this matter, which has many confusing elements to it. I hope the Minister might see his way clear to do that.


NATURE OF DISCUSSIONS WITH CHAIRMAN
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, the Minister did not quite answer my second question. As a result of the letter, did the Minister call in the Chairman of the Board of Air Canada and discuss the contents of that letter with him? As a result of that conversation did he tell, direct, or suggest to the Chairman of Air Canada that he should have no further discussion with the Clerk of the Privy Council, Michael Pitfield, or the Prime Minister, unless there was a member of the Minister's staff or someone representing the Minister present?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, as I said, I went to Montreal. The Chairman, the President, and staff of Air Canada were there. The two main candidates, Trizec and Quebec Premiere, came there to make representations, with drawings and explanations, and answered questions. The Chairman was there and, as we were going along, I had discussions with him. A few days later there was a meeting of the board of Air Canada at which members made the decision to go the Trizec way. It was unanimous. What else could I have done?


THE DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister I too will direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister.
The Deputy Prime Minister will know that the Special parliamentary Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped recommended the appointment of a Minister of State responsible for the status of disabled persons, some two years ago. I wonder if the Deputy Prime Minister could tell the House whether or not that appointment will be made later this day or in the near future, and if he could further tell us who it is likely to be, and to which Department that person will be attached.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I will try to answer the question not as the Deputy

June 28, 1983
Oral Questions
Prime Minister but as the Acting Prime Minister. There is a great difference between the two.
On behalf of the Prime Minister I am pleased to announce that the Secretary of State who, since 1981 and up until now, had been co-ordinator in this area, will now be the Minister responsible for the status of disabled persons with a mandate to be responsive and to proselytize for their concerns and their needs, both in Government and outside of Government. I am very, very pleased to be the one to announce this.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Luc Pepin: I would like to say two other things if I may, Madam Speaker. I would like to observe the presence in the gallery today of representatives of the handicapped community, and I pay homage to them and to their courage.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Luc Pepin: I would also like to pay tribute to the Special Committee of the House of Commons on the Disabled and Handicapped people. This was of course an all-Party committee. Their report, entitled "Obstacles", has become a classic. I understand the Committee is coming to retirement this year and I would like to pay my respects to all of the Members of the Committee and particularly to the distinguished chairman.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, 1 would like to congratulate the Government for taking a half step forward.


REQUEST THAT PERMANENT COMMITTEE BE APPOINTED
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, I think it was recommended that there be a separate appointment of a Minister of State responsible for handicapped persons. If I understand correctly, the Minister answered my question by saying that this will be an added responsibility for the current Secretary of State. If I am confused about that, I hope the Minister will straighten me out.
Second, 1 would like to follow up on the Minister's praise for the Special Committee and ask him whether or not it is the Government's intention to turn that Special Committee into a permanent standing committee of the House. We on this side of the House would support such an initiative with a great deal of enthusiasm, and I hope there will be a positive response to that request.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend is right. The Secretary of State will add to his responsibilities the one I have indicated, but that is quite normal. The Minister of State for Mines is also responsible for the status of women and, as we all know, she does that job extremely well. The Secretary of State will do likewise.
With respect to half measures, I do not think that this is worth underlining because I do not think it is a fair measure. This afternoon the Secretary of State will table the third report which will indicate once again, as the two previous reports did, the dedication and commitment of the Government to that objective, Third, I do not know and in fact I
doubt if there is any intention of converting the committee to a permanent one.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF ASSISTANT MAYOR OF SAINT-MALO. MR. ALBERT-YVES SAER
Madam Speaker:: The House is aware that next year, we shall be celebrating the 450th anniversary of the first voyage to Canada by the explorer Jacques Cartier, when he took possession of New France on behalf of King Francis I. I am very pleased to draw the attention of the House to the distinguished presence in our gallery of the Assistant Mayor of Saint-Malo, Mr. Albert-Yves Saer, who is in charge of organizing the festivities in that city.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance in anticipation of the Prime Minister's televised statement on the economy tonight.
The Minister might be aware that Bishop Proulx and the Catholic Bishops have said that in our present economic system people are organized to serve the economy rather than the economy serving the people. Would the Minister agree that the six and five program has not led to full employment, and that that is the real failure of the six and five program?
Would the Minister tell Members of the House what we are to say to the 22-year old Canadian who will never find a job, to the middle-aged Canadian woman who has been laid off because of technological change, and finally, to the labourer and carpenter who are working three months out of 12? In other words, what are we to say to the unemployed in Canada, and what does the Government intend to do, aside from the six and five program?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, the New Democratic Party is again showing that it has practically no solutions to offer. They do not even have enough imagination to assume there is a sensible answer to the question they are asking. First of all, I would like to make it clear to the Hon. Member that the purpose of the 6 and 5 program was not to create full employment at a moment's notice. The program was aimed at reducing inflation, the result being that
June 28, 1983

we would be able to reduce interest rates, the economy would recover, investment and economic activity would start up again and employment would rise. The purpose of 6 and 5 was basically the creation of jobs in Canada for Canadians. We never claimed that this would happen immediately, but the fact is that during the past year, since the 6 and 5 program was introduced, we have been able to cut inflation in half. We have brought interest rates down from 20 per cent to about 11 per cent. We have been able to create some 330,000 jobs since last November. Economic growth has been constant during the past six months. Economic recovery has been very strong, and we are, of course, hoping to create as many jobs as possible, as soon as possible, for all Canadians. However, we do not have a magic solution, any more than the New Democratic Party does.


APPLICATION OF PROGRAM
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, 1 would like to direct my supplementary question to the same Minister. Thirty-four years ago almost to the month, the present Prime Minister went before workers in Asbestos, Quebec, and, I am told, spoke with passion about liberty and equality. Would the Minister agree that the six and five program has been unequal in its application to Canadians, and would the Minister agree that the present economic system is unequal, in the sense that there has only been a profit recovery, and no recovery for the workers of Canada? Let the Minister answer the question with some policies.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the six and five program has been unequal in the sense that it has not applied to the poorest of the poor and to the people who are in need in the country. The programs designed to help them, have already been fully indexed, as has been the case with old age pensioners, with recipients of the child tax credit, and with recipients of unemployment insurance. These people have not seen a ceiling imposed on increases in their benefits.
All through this time we have been very careful to make sure that the people in need in the country are not affected by the six and five per cent limit that we have put on. What we have done, particularly in the Public Service, has been to disallow increases of even 6 per cent and 5 per cent for upper income public servants. The Hon. Member knows that, and he should recognize that. As a matter of fact the Canadian public recognizes that much more than Members of the NDP seem to realize.


BANKS AND BANKING
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, the Canadian Bankers' Association tells us that its return on average equity for the first six months of 1983 is more than 15
Oral Questions
per cent. That places it virtually in the most profitable sector of the entire Canadian economy. If this trend continues, 1983 will be the most profitable year in Canadian banking history. My question to the Minister of Finance is a very straightforward one. Would he not agree that the profits now accruing to Canada's chartered banks are being made, by and large, at the expense of Canada's small business sector?


Marc Lalonde: No, Madam Speaker, but I may add that the Hon. Member is speculating on what the banks' incomes will be during the next six months, and I would suggest that he wait for the year-end results before drawing any conclusions. However, I may remind the Hon. Member that the present trend seems to indicate that bank profits are proportionally the same as they were in 1981. So there has been no radical change from the situation in 1981, when a committee of the House made a study of bank profits and reached the conclusion that they were not excessive. Parliamentarians themselves examined bank profits in 1981 and found they were not excessive.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport concerning the last chapter in the sad saga of Cast shipping group. After losing $62 million, and other millions in uncollected accounts, Canadian National has discontinued its negotiations to bail out Cast, and Euro-Canadian Shipholdings Limited has gone into receivership.
Three years after the Minister was warned about the danger of CN investing in Cast, and two and a half years after he said it was a good investment yielding profits, will he acknowledge the error of his ways and admit his mistake and that of Canadian National? More important, will he guarantee to the House of Commons that not one more cent from the public purse will be put into the Cast shipping group for further activities of that defunct organization?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, if my hon. friend and others did not cry wolf in every instance, I might pay some attention to the advice they give me on specific issues, but they are negative to everything so 1 have no choice. They are "Messrs. No". There might be other circumstances than the one my hon. friend has in mind to explain the difficulties of the Cast ventures.
Be that as it may, as my hon. friend knows, the situation is that negotiations are rather dormant at this time. I have left the Order in Council on the table so that if and when, or when

June 28, 1983
Oral Questions
and if, the banks make their move, CN would have a negotiating position. That is the situation now.


Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, the Minister is a hound for punishment. Apparently he is going to keep going.


REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION BY CANADIAN TRANSPORT COMMISSION
Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, in 1981 when the Minister was bragging about the return from Cast shipping to CN of $10 million, Frank Narby, the principal involved, received $26 million from the Cast shipping group. Can the Minister tell us what happened to these funds? Where did they go? Did Mr. Narby pocket the funds so that they are lost to the Canadian people and the Canadian marine transportation industry? More important, will he allow the Canadian Transport Commission to investigate all of these goings on, and make a report? On that headless organization: When is he going to appoint a chairman for the Canadian Transport Commission?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, when I reported that there was a $10 million profit on a $60 million investment I thought that was pretty good for one year. I thought 1 was right in rejoicing at that time.
With respect to the investigation of cast by the CTC, that was supposed to take place in September, but I do not know what the CTC will do now. With respect to not investing one more cent in it, I think that this would have been the case, had the deal been made between Cast and CN, because there was no investment by CN in Cast. Money to operate was all that was contemplated at that time.


CASH ADVANCE PAYMENTS-REQUEST FOR INCREASE
Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Madam Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Transport with regard to cash advances. I have had correspondence and discussions with him on the subject, and I have given him advance notice of the question. Is he in a position to announce an increase in cash advances for the coming crop year, bearing in mind that the last time there was an increase was 1975, and also bearing in mind that there is little likelihood of very much, if any, final payment this year?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the prairie grain advance payment is still before the Committee of the Cabinet. It has strong support from at least three strong men, the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, the Minister of Agriculture, and the Minister of Transport. We are moving, but I do not think we will reach a conclusion before September. My hon. friend can come back in September hoping for good news. With the legislation on the
western rail initiative that will be a good reason for him to come back.


Charles James Mayer: Madam Speaker, I had essentially the same answer from the Minister a year ago.


REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS
Charles James Mayer: Madam Speaker, I would point out to the Minister that for a very small amount of money he could benefit roughly 150,000 farmers in western Canada. 1 would also point out that the Wheat Board borrows at prime minus one-quarter. If the Government is willing to spend $1.4 billion on an aircraft company in Montreal, surely it could find about 1 per cent of that amount to help prairie farmers, in what is going to be a very difficult cash situation this fall.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, 1 think I was sufficiently open for my hon. friend to understand that 1 was in sympathy with his argument. I think there is time for updating that level of payment. In the meantime I am sure my hon. friend, who is an expert on grain, will rejoice with me on the settling of the dispute on the West Coast, and on the indications that this year Canada will again break all records for grain exports 28 million tonnes as opposed to 26.1 million tonnes last year.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of State for International Trade I will put my question to the distinguished Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, so called by the former Minister, regarding the announcement made yesterday about Japanese auto quotas. This new agreement does not include trucks or commercial vehicles, and allows virtually the same number of passenger cars into Canada this year as last year-more than either Ford or Chrysler. In other words, it is another Government stall tactic without getting to the root of the problem, namely, productivity and jobs. Can the Minister tell us honestly and simply how many new Canadian jobs will be created as a result of this new agreement?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, I will be happy to tell the Hon. Member that, if he can tell me how many Canadians will buy North American cars in the coming year.


Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, the Minister knows that as as a result of improved economic conditions in the United States there has been an increase in domestic auto sales, but the fact is that Japanese auto imports still exceed both Ford and
June 28, 1983

Chrysler which contribute to Canada's economy and employment, while the Japanese do not. The Minister should know that quotas and import restrictions alone do not create productivity and jobs in Canada.


REQUEST THAT FOREIGN MANUFACTURERS CREATE JOBS IN CANADA
Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, may I ask the Minister when the Government is going to stop pussyfooting around with unproductive, band-aid solutions such as that announced yesterday and, instead, establish long-term arrangements to encourage offshore manufacturers to produce or even assemble vehicles in this country? This would create jobs and increase productivity in this country. There are solutions. When is the Minister going to start using them?


Edward C. Lumley: First of all, Madam Speaker, I think my colleague, the Minister of State for International Trade, should be complimented on the agreement he negotiated with the Japanese automobile industry, under the circumstances. The fact is that the share of the domestic market for Japanese cars, which is forecast to be less this year than last year, indicates that there will be an increase in the share of the market for North American automobiles, which addresses the question that the Hon. Member raised.


MINES AND MINING
Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Madam Speaker, as the Member for Gaspe, I would like to welcome the Assistant Mayor of Saint-Malo, Mr. Albert-Yves Saer. We expect to have thousands of French people visiting us next year.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Does the Hon. Member have a question? This period is reserved for questions only.


Alexandre Cyr: My question is directed to the Hon. Minister of State (Mines).
Last December, I informed the Minister that Gaspe Mines in Murdochville had suspended operations because of the low price of copper. However, the company wanted to remove overburden in order to provide employment for about 300 to 500 workers in the area.
Recently, the newspaper Le Devoir reported from Quebec City that the Province of Quebec had submitted a program to the Minister for a joint development plan for Murdochville, in order to get the area out of its impasse.
Could the Hon. Minister inform the House whether the Government of Canada has refused to take part in a joint
Oral Questions
project with Quebec for the creation of 500 jobs in Murdochville? And does the Minister intend to provide financial aid-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of State (Mines)):: Madam Speaker, as far as I know, no such request has come forward formally from the Government of Quebec. However, we have had a number of meetings with senior officials from Noranda Mines at Gaspe. Our first meetings took place in December of last year, at which time we explained the programs available to them through the use of Section 38 and NEED. We are at the moment continuing our negotiations with the company, and we have already placed some men through these programs.


FEDERAL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK
Mrs. Jennifer Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Madam Speaker, my question was to be directed to the Minister of State responsible for small businesses and tourism. If he has left the Chamber, perhaps I may address my question to the Minister of Finance. In his April 19 budget the Minister of Finance stated, "The operating mandate of the FBDB-the Federal Business Development Bank-will be expanded to give it a broader role in supporting Canadian small businesses." However, subsequent memos, copies of which 1 do have in my possession, Madam Speaker, from the Vice-President, Financial Services, of FBDB, to the regional offices, clearly outline that the new mandate actually prohibits them from lending money to those small businesses which have turned to the Bank as a last resort. Will the Minister tell the House why more stringent criteria have been applied to approving loans, when we were led to believe quite the opposite?


Hon. William Rompkey (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Madam Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the Hon. Member to repeat the question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bill Rompkey: I only heard the last part of it.


Jennifer Cossitt: Madam Speaker, I can repeat the question. I believe most Members in the Chamber did hear it. I was basically referring to the budget whereby the FBDB was given a broader mandate, and the fact that 1 have memos in my possession whereby the Vice-President of the Federal Business Development Bank is doing the exact opposite. In the eastern Ontario region since the April 19 budget only nine loans have been approved to small businesses through FBDB. Could the Minister explain this if, indeed, the Government is expanding

June 28, 1983
Oral Questions
or giving a broader mandate to the Federal Business Development Bank? Or is it really that the FBDB is going to be phased out, or sold to another financial institution?


Bill Rompkey: No, Madam Speaker, the latter is not true at all. Indeed, the mandate has been expanded. We asked FBDB to stay into term lending and to expand its counselling program, including the very popular CASE program, and, in addition, to get into what we call "merchant banking", which is really the role of the deal maker for a small business. FBDB, of course, is not necessarily putting in its own money. The message in the budget was that the private sector needs to do the job. It needs to be out front. What we are saying to FBDB is that in putting together those deals, it should access capital in the private sector as a first alternative. Therefore, there is an expanded mandate for FBDB. We have requested FBDB to make sure it serves small business, particularly in rural areas of Canada.


TEXTILES AND CLOTHING
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, since the Minister of State (International Trade) is not in the House, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. For three months the Minister of State (International Trade) has been promising that a position would be taken by the Government, while clothing imports have risen by 26 per cent, compared to 1982. Could the Minister inform the Canadian people what he intends to do about the thousands of workers who are losing their jobs because of unacceptable delay on the part of the Minister, and what kind of jobs the Government intends to provide for these workers, since their industry is becoming extinct? Are these workers-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member's question is long enough.


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, the Minister of State (International Trade) is working on the problem.

He hopes to make a report in the next couple of weeks.


CRIMINAL CODE
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice.
The Minister has said that the better way of dealing with pornography broadcasting for which the CRTC has given licences, is to prosecute after the fact, using the obscenity laws. Will the Minister explain to the House how the existing law, or even the amendments which he proposed last week, will suffice for pornography broadcasting? How could the law be used for pornographic programs transmitted by satellite, for example? I refer to complaints I have received of taverns showing pornography broadcasts of vicious gang rapes, which are treated as a spectator sport. Is a TV program a "matter" or "thing", as in his legislation? Would he not agree that the language of Section 159(1) and (2) of the Criminal Code is hopelessly out of date?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: Madam Speaker, I do not recall expressing any opinion that there should not be any special provisions for the broadcasting situation. I certainly have taken the position many times that the existing law on obscenity, and the amendment which I proposed last week, do apply and should apply to the broadcasting area, as to all others.
The Hon. Member asks how this would apply in the situation which she raises. Usually, with an earth satellite station or a cable company, there is no problem in convicting in a case of that kind. In fact one was convicted very recently in this vicinity for showing obscene representations. Nor, Madam Speaker, should there be any problem in the case of an hotel owner or a pub owner who is showing obscene representations. He is responsible and he will be subject to legal liability.
The Hon. Member asks whether such representations are a "matter" or "thing". Whether they are a "matter" or "thing" does not, perhaps, count for so much as the fact that they would be included. The Hon. Member will observe the fact that the Code uses the words "any other thing whatsoever", which is certainly broad enough to include all of the matters which she has raised.


INQUIRY RESPECTING DATE OF CENTRAL NOVA BY-ELECTION
Hon. Erik Nielsen (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Can he inform us whether the Prime Minister has screwed up sufficient courage as yet to announce the date of the byelection in Central Nova?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I do not see the Prime Minister having to muster very much courage to announce that by-election. He said clearly yesterday that it was a matter of a week or two, and that is a short period of time if one looks at Canadian precedents, both federal and provincial, in these matters.
June 28, 1983


PRECEDENT ESTABLISHED IN 1967
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I am glad that the Acting Prime Minister mentioned precedents. I am going to ask him to take to the Prime Minister, when he reports on his activities in the discharge of his duties on this day, the record of a former Prime Minister, the late Right Hon. Mr. Pearson, a gentleman who had a higher degree of respect for the traditions and practices of this place than the present Prime Minister. Will the Minister convey the precedent to the Prime Minister of the resignation on September 18, 1967, of the then sitting Member for Colchester-Hants, Mr. Cyril Kennedy, and on the same day, September 18, 1967, a warrant was issued to the Chief Electoral Officer, and the day after that warrant, the then Prime Minister announced that the writ for the by-election was issued. That will all be found in Hansard for September 25, 1967.


An Hon. Member:: What is your question?


Erik Nielsen: My question is: will the Acting Prime Minister convey that very useful precedent, which was established by a gentleman who was far more familiar with the practices and precedents of this Parliament?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, obviously the Leader of the Opposition is trying to create a tempest in a teapot. I was here yesterday. The Prime Minister mentioned "one or two weeks". He mentioned "soon". I did not see anything particularly alarming in the statements which he made at the time. However, if my hon. friend would like to give me a copy of the note from which he was reading, I will gladly communicate it to the Prime Minister who might be impressed, who might be influenced, and who might not have to do that particular research if someone else already has done it.


VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. On June 21 an article in The Globe and Mail, following last week's conference on Canadian lobbying efforts in Washington, reported as follows:
On the acid rain issue, foreign service officers in our Washington Embassy have worked with U.S. environmentalists and other interest groups, treading the fine line between diplomacy and advocacy.
As the Secretary of State will know, existing regulations here in Canada provide that any Canadian charitable or voluntary agency considered by the Government to be lobbying public opinion can lose its charitable status. The Minister made a commitment in the House to review this issue by a task force-
Oral Questions


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. That question is really going on for quite a long while. 1 will not allow the Hon. Member a supplementary if he goes on any longer.


Walter Franklin McLean: Madam Speaker, in light of this Government precedent, would the Minister not agree that we are at a point where it is mandatory for an early investigation of the definition of "allowable charitable activity"?


Hon. Serge Joyal (Secretary of State):: Madam Speaker, we share the Hon. Member's concern. 1 have said a number of times, both inside and outside the House, that one of the key elements of a comprehensive policy to help charitable organizations in Canada was to ensure that the Canadian tax system and our legislation reflect the concerns of contemporary society. In this connection, my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, is continuing a study of the present tax laws so that if amendments are necessary, they will be tabled in the House and we shall be able to reflect the concerns of Canadian communities in our legislation.


PROPOSED LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS
Walter Franklin McLean: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Minister of Finance and concerns tax changes and the voluntary sector. He will know that in December of 1981 the National Voluntary Organizations presented to his Department a series of proposed amendments to the Income Tax Act concerning allowable charitable activities. Is the Minister now in a position to tell the House when we can expect to see the changes, based on this modern definition of charitable activity of which the Secretary of State speaks?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I am not in a position today to set a date in this respect.


CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General, who will know that in Toronto last night a large rally was held, with such prominent figures as Anglican Primate Ted Scott, retired Justice Emmett Hall, Doris Anderson, and even a former Liberal Solicitor General strongly condemning the Minister's proposed Orwellian security Bill.
In view of these and other widespread criticisms, and in view of the thundering silence of the Minister's own caucus and Cabinet colleagues on this Bill, how can he possibly justify his decision to ask a special Senate committee to study this Bill,

June 28, 1983
Oral Questions
with a four-month deadline, a decision which denies meaningful public input and which is in fact a perversion of the normal democratic process of this Parliament?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, as the House knows, I had hoped there would be a joint committee established to deal with the Bill. I understand that is still possible, although I have been told that Members opposite have indicated they are not willing to sit and listen to representations about the Bill this summer. I understand the Senate may establish a reference to do so. I hope they do, because that will make it possible for all those with objections to and concerns about the Bill to be heard, and will give the public an opportunity for the first time to make up its mind about the Bill.


POSSIBLE VIOLATION OF CIVIL LIBERTIES OF PARTI QUEBECOIS PARTISANS AND MILITANTS
Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is also directed to the Solicitor General. According to the disastrous provisions of this Bill which, in fact, create a police state, any groups or individuals supporting separatism in Quebec in an unconstitutional manner, as, for example, through a unilateral declaration of independence after a referendum, could be investigated by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, which would be allowed to open mail, listen to telephone communications and consult confidential medical records. Since the Parti Quebecois itself could very well support a declaration of this kind, how could the Minister justify a Bill that would condone this extreme violation of the civil liberties of thousands of supporters and militants of the Parti Quebecois?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, perhaps I could suggest to the Parti Quebecois to submit a brief to the Senate committee, if there is one, in order to discuss its reactions to the Bill.


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance who will know that farm income has gone down by 14 per cent this year, that the Farm Credit Corporation ran out of funds within two months of their being allocated, and that it requested permission to borrow an additional $500 million from the private money market. This was refused, and it has only been allowed to borrow $250 million. I ask the Minister why it has not been allowed to borrow the money required to provide adequate farm financing and refinancing?
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I was surprised to hear my colleague mention only $250 million. From what I have heard, a quarter of a million dollars is still a rather substantial sum, when we realize that this is in addition to amounts already borrowed by the organization in question, and that the latter is receiving money each year from loan repayments, which it can then lend again. I would think that in the circumstances, $250 million should be enough to meet requirements in the current year.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Madam Speaker, I am surprised the Minister feels an additional $250 million would be adequate or that it means so much, when he found $200 million, just like that, when he needed it for his photo opportunity, and when he gave $1.4 billion to Canadair without thinking about it.


THE ECONOMY
Gary Michael Gurbin: Madam Speaker, my supplementary to the Minister relates to the six and five program. The Minister has repeatedly said that the economy of this country is dependent on the United States and international economies. Why is the Minister so certain that his six and five program has been responsible for economic recovery in Canada when the U.S., without a six and five program, is doing better in its economic recovery, with a better rate of inflation, less unemployment, and where in the long run they look like they have a happier future?


Marc Lalonde: How come there are so many Americans who would like to move to Canada?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: That is true.


Mr. McDermid:: Name one!


Marc Lalonde: My hon. friend should remind himself that the figures he has mentioned, all those hundreds of millions of dollars, have been used to create jobs in this country. The recovery program, for instance, is going to be used to build infrastructure across the country. Canadians are going to be employed and will benefit from these developments taking place across the country.
As far as the six and five program is concerned, the Government has never said this was the be all and end all of economic policy. We said it was an important instrument in ensuring that there would be a decline in inflation in this country. It has indeed been that. It has indicated a clear leadership by the Government of Canada, which has been followed by the provincial and municipal Governments and the private sector.
June 28, 1983

Surely my hon. friend knows this, and knows the program has had a significant impact on the Canadian economy in terms of lowering inflationary expectations and helping us to reach lower interest rates. We also recognized and indicated all along that it was very important that there be recovery in the rest of the world, particularly in the United States, and we are very happy about what is happening in the U.S. We are benefiting from that, too.


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION
Hon. John Wise (Elgin):: Madam Speaker, this is the second time in a few days we have had some very disappointing news. The first was the response to a question I put to the Minister of Agriculture last week, in which he disclosed publicly that the FCC was out of funds. The second one was today in the response to the question of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Bruce-Grey, where we learned that the request of the FCC for S600 million has indeed been reduced to $250 million.
My supplementary question must be directed to the President of the Treasury Board because he will know there are only two sources for funding for the Farm Credit Corporation, one being from the private side. That has been significantly reduced. The second source, of course, would be from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. In view of the fact that the Minister of Finance has indeed reduced the original request by the Farm Credit Corporation by 60 per cent, has the Minister of Agriculture, on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation, made the appropriate application to Consolidated Revenue Fund for additional funds?


Marc Lalonde: My hon. friend has it all mixed up. I am also responsible for the purse, generally. As my hon. friend was a Minister, he knows that every day all kinds of groups, agencies, and Government Departments, come with requests for large amounts of money. It is the job of the Minister of Finance to make decisions, quite often telling those people who apply that they cannot get everything they want. In this case I indicated that $250 million was adequate, and that is the decision.


PETITION
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Beaches
Point of Order-Mr. Collenette
(Mr. Young) meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


POINT OF ORDER
Madam Speaker:: Since both Hon. Members are in the House today, I would like to rule on the point of order which was raised by the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Collenette) on June 21.1 have not been able to rule before because either one or the other Hon. Member was not in the House. That point of order dealt with the fact that the Hon. Member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart) had allegedly referred to the Royal Family in the context of a partisan statement, contrary to our rules and practices. He quoted Beauchesne and also Erskine May in support of his contention that the Royal Family had been used in order to influence debate.
The Hon. Member's statement, of course, does not constitute debate for the very fact that during that period there was no motion before the House. Therefore technically speaking, the Hon. Member for Simcoe South was not speaking at a time that one could call debate. However, that is just a technical matter.
I would like to stress and caution very strongly that Hon. Members use great discretion in mentioning the Royal Family or, by extension, the Governor General in their statements and in the course of their argumentation. Of course, the practice which has been well honoured in the House is that the names of the Royal Family or the Governor General should not be brought into debate. Had the Hon. Member been speaking in the course of debate, my ruling might have been different, but it was extremely borderline. Therefore, I again caution Hon. Members against this, and I thank the Hon. Member for York East for having raised the matter.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. With respect to the ruling which Your Honour just made, I wonder if 1 might inquire from the Chair whether the Chair had occasion to review the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hudecki), as reported in Hansard on June 20, 1983, when reference was made to the Royal Family. Was that included in the Chair's decision?


Madam Speaker:: Of course not. That matter was not raised and I certainly did not look into it, but will if the Hon. Member is now raising it. Normally, those matters are raised immediately after they happen. However, if the Hon. Member is raising it now, I will consider it and I will rule on it.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, the point that I wanted to make was simply that we did not consider it worthy of raising.


Madam Speaker:: Well, then, it is not raised.

June 28, 1983
Committee Reports


ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT
Madam Speaker:: It is my duty to inform the House that an objection signed by the Hon. Members for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar), Moncton (Mr. McCauley), Welland (Mr. Parent), Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand), Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), Ottawa-Centre (Mr. Evans), Hamilton West (Mr. Hudecki), Etobicoke North (Mr. MacLaren), Abitibi (Mr. Gingras) and Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) 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 Quebec.
If the House agrees, I would suggest that we follow past practice and print the text of these objections as an appendix to Votes and Proceedings. Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


OBJECTION TO REPORT OF COMMISSION FOR THE PROVINCE OF NEWFOUNDLAND
Madam Speaker:: I must inform the House that earlier today an objection signed by certain Hon. Members of the House to the Electoral Boundaries Commission's Report for the Province of Newfoundland was filed with me. Hon. Members will know that there are 30 days in which to file objections, after the tabling of the Report. These particular objections have been filed late. The last date for filing objections would have been June 27. However, with the unanimous consent of the House, I guess we could consider that these objections have been filed today. Is there unanimous consent of the House?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I would like an opportunity to consult my colleagues on the matter and will advise the Chair later whether or not we will grant unanimous consent.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. John Evans (Ottawa Centre):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the twenty-first report of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.}


DISABLED PERSONS
Serge Joyal: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 46(2), I have the great pleasure-

-of tabling in both official languages the third report of the Government of Canada in response to recommendations arising from the International Year of Disabled Persons.


PETITIONS
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, 1 have the honour to present a petition signed by 201 residents of the City of Owen Sound and surrounding areas of the constituency of Grey-Simcoe in the Province of Ontario. The petitioners strongly oppose the testing of Cruise missiles in Canada and, as well, condemn the first use of nuclear weapons for which they claim Cruise missiles are designed. They therefore urge the federal Government to ban the testing of Cruise missiles in our country and fervently hope that their wishes will be acted upon.


Mrs. Celine Hervieux-Payette (Montreal-Mercier):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present to the Honourable House of Commons of Canada, in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of the Municipality of Baie Comeau in the Province of Quebec, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present the following grievance: That the practice of adding lead to gasoline is the main cause of high levels of lead in the atmosphere.
That it is a recognized fact that exposure to even minimal quantities of lead is dangerous to human health, and especially to children and the unborn, since it can affect the development of the brain and the child's mental capacity, and can cause behavioral disorders.
Therefore your petitioners humbly pray the Government of Canada will enact legislation that will put an end to the practice of adding lead to gasoline in Canada and provide that existing alternative solutions will be used.
And as in duty bound your petitioners ever pray.



June 28, 1983


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker,
I have the honour to table before the assembled Members of Canada's House of Commons a petition on behalf of the undersigned residents of British Columbia, who urge a ban on the importation and capture of killer whales for display at aquariums across Canada. At present, killer whales die and are replaced at a frightening rate for entertainment and profit. The petitioners request the House to revoke existing permits for their importation and capture and to cease immediately the issuance of further permits.
Finally, the petitioners urge the House to reject the killer whales' forced role as circus performers and encourage us all to direct our attention and energy toward their protection in a natural environment.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of 622 Canadians from Manitoba, British Columbia and Ontario who are all members of the National Survival Institute and note that the practice of adding lead to gasoline is the leading source of high levels of lead in the Canadian environment and that exposure to lead in all but very small amounts is known to be hazardous to human health, especially in young children and in the unborn child, affecting brain development and intelligence and causing behavioural disturbance. Therefore, the petitioners call upon the House to provide legislation which calls for the total elimination of lead additives to gasoline in Canada and to ensure that safe, economic alternatives which are known to exist are provided.


Jennifer Cossitt: Madam Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present a petition to the House of Commons in Parliament assembled. The petition of the 398 undersigned students and teachers of South Grenville District High School in my constituency of Leeds-Grenville, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your Honourable House will therefore provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that those persons who distribute pornographic material should meet their legal responsibility and also ensure that they obey the laws concerning the selling of pornographic material to young people.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, as in duty bound humbly pray.
Order Paper Questions



THE DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker,
I wish to raise a question of privilege. During the Question Period, the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Pepin) raised the matter of the access of handicapped people to the House. He did so by pointing out there were handicapped people in the gallery. This is largely due to the efforts of the Speaker in the Thirty-first Parliament-


Madam Speaker:: Order. That is not a question of privilege and the Hon. Member knows that. If he wants to make a statement on these matters he can use the 15-minute segment before the Question Period. This is certainly not a question of privilege; it is simply continuing debate.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I simply wanted to thank him, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: Thank yous are not in order either.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4,644, 4,750, 4,821, 4,828, 4,844, 4,845, 4,865, 4,871, 4,905 and 4,957.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	How many person-years were approved for the Department of Finance in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year 1982-83 and what is the direct cost to the taxpayer attributable to those person-years?
2.	Were increases in (a) person-years (b) costs attributable to increases in person-years approved in Supplementary Estimates during the fiscal year 198283 and, if so (i) what were such increases (ii) for what reason did the Minister of Finance feel such additional assistance was needed by him in a time of restraint?
3.	Were any advisors who were responsible for the November, 1981 budget released by the Department and, if so, how many?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of State (Finance)):: 1.
Seven hundred and ten person-years were approved for the Department of Finance in the 1982-83 Main Estimates, salaries and wages and employee benefit plans attributable to these person-years totalled $27,977,000.
2. (i) A total increase of 48 person-years was approved in Supplementary Estimates, 1982-83. Costs attributable to these person-years totalled $1,697,000.
(ii)	Of the 48 person-years included in Supplementary Estimates, three person-years were required to establish a small

June 28, 1983
Order Paper Questions
secretariat to handle departmental involvement in Industrial and Labour Adjustment Program related activities.
Fifteen person-years were necessary to develop a pool of expertise in the fields of corporate and public finance so as to determine the budgetary and economic impacts of private sector assistance in response to financial distress situations.
Thirty person-years were required to permit increased emphasis on economic research in the area of tax policy and legislation. These person-years will also permit a concentrated effort to be placed into the dissemination of public information and consultation with the private sector.
3.	No, the Department did not release any advisors involved in the November, 1981 budget.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	From what sources does the Canadian Human Rights Commission get its list of persons appointed to tribunals?
2.	What counsel are used and authorized by the Commission in court actions across the country?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. The
Canadian Human Rights Commission chooses its members for Human Rights Tribunals from a panel of prospective members established and maintained by the Governor in Council on recommendation from the Minister of Justice.
2. The following are the firms and city of counsel used and authorized by the Commission in court actions across the country since March 1978.
Rivest, Castiglio, Castiglio, Montreal
Scott & Aylen, Ottawa
Silver-Dranoff & Associates, Toronto
Shumiatcher-Fox, Regina
Gowling & Henderson, Ottawa
Herridge, Tolmie, Ottawa
Cameron, Brewin & Scott, Toronto
Gardiner, Roberts, Toronto
Hoyt, Mockler, Allen & Dixon, Fredericton
Wright, Davies, London
Noel, Decary, Aubry, Hull
McTaggart, Ellis, Vancouver
McMaster & Meighen, Toronto
Farris, Vaughan, Wills & Murphy, Vancouver
Murtha & Associates, Lower Sackville, N.S.
Stanley & Levesque, Fredericton


Mr. Neil: Was there a write-off of income tax owing by the Saskatchewan Darius Leut Hutterian Church colony of (a) Arm River (b) Downey Lake (c) Estuary (d)
Fort Pitt (e) Hillcrest (f) Hillsvale (g) Hodgeville (h) Lakeview (/) Leask (j) Ponteix (k) Riverview (1) Simmie (m) West Bench and, if so, in what amount?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: There was no write-off of income tax owing by the Saskatchewan Darius Leut Hutterite Church Colonies cited in the question.
A remission of federal income tax was approved by the Treasury Board of Canada under the authority of Section 17 of the Financial Administration Act, to the Darius Leut Group of Hutterite colonies. The amounts were remitted under order in council P.C. 1981-767, dated March 19, 1981 and promulgated in the Canada Gazette, Part II, Vol. 115, No. 7, Registration S1/81-56 dated April 8, 1981. The order implemented a negotiated settlement with the colonies of the Darius Leut Group and remitted federal income tax payable for the 1967 to 1976 taxation years by the colonies of that Group.
The amount of the remission in respect of colony represented the difference between the amounts of income tax assessed that colony for the taxation years 1967 to 1976 and the amount of income tax that would have been payable by the colony for the taxation years 1967 to 1976 if the tax had been assessed against each member of that colony on the basis that the income of the colony was the aggregate personal income of all the members of the colony.
The amounts remitted for the colonies cited in the question are:
Name of Colony
Tax & Interest Remitted Taxation Years 1967 to 1976
(a)	Arm River
(b)	Downey Lake
(c)	Estuary
(d)	Fort Pitt
(e)	Hillcrest
(f)	Hillsvale
(g)	Hodgeville
(h)	Lakeview
(i)	Leask
(j)	Ponteix
(k)	Riverview
(l)	Simmie
(m)	West Bench


Mr. Fretz: Does a new aid and development organization exist which offers technical assistance to third World Countries and is sponsored by the Department of External Affairs and, if so (a) what is it called (b) what are its detailed aims and objectives (c) what is its budget (d) was adequate legislation passed to authorize its creation?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: A new aid and
development organization offering technical assistance to Third World countries and sponsored by the Department of External Affairs, does not exist, (a), (b), (c) and (d) Not applicable.
June 28, 1983


Mr. Howie: Within the current fiscal year, have any permanent civilian positions been (a) added (b) deleted from the organization at CFB Gagetown, New Brunswick and, if so, how many?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: (a) and (b) No.


Mr. Howie: 1.	Are there any permanent civilian positions at CFB Gagetown being deleted from the organization within the next year and, if so, how many?
2.	What would be the total annual payment in salaries for these positions in the next year, if they had been maintained?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: 1. No. 2. Not applicable.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	Is the Defence Research Board spending $83,148 to study the fate of certain chemicals in rats, dogs and swine and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Are the chemicals already in the rats, dogs and swine and (a) if so, how did they get there (b) if not, how is it planned to get them there and for what purpose?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: 1. Yes. The Department of National Defence has given a contract for $83,148 to McGill University to carry out metabolic studies on the oxime HI-6 using mice, rats and swine.
2. The oxime Hl-6 is almost the only compound discovered to date that shows promise for use in the treatment of the refractory nerve agent SOMAN as well as other nerve agent poisoning. The compound will be administered via intermuscular injection at doses approximating the therapeutic level. The intent is to prove that when HI-6 is metabolized no undesirable side effects are produced. No toxic or incapacitive effects are anticipated.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	Is there an import duty on closed-captioning decoders coming into Canada and, if so, what is the rate of duty?
2.	Is there federal sales tax on closed-captioning decoders and, if so, what is the rate of tax?


Pierre Bussières: 1.
Tariff item 48200-1 provides for "closed-captioning devices for attachment to television receiving sets", free of duty under all tariffs.
2. Closed-captioning decoders are subject to federal sales tax at the rate of 9 per cent. This tax is imposed on the manufacturer's sale price if the goods are manufactured in Canada or on the duty paid value if the goods are imported.
Order Paper Questions FOREST RESEARCH CENTRE, VICTORIA, B.C.


Mr. Miller: 1.	Did the Minister of State for Economic Development receive communication from the Council of the City of Port Alberni, British Columbia, on May 3, 1983 or thereabouts requesting consideration of their city as a viable site for the proposed Forest Research Centre for Vancouver Island and, if so, was this request given due consideration in choosing a site for this facility?
2.	Was the dire economic plight and traditional affiliation with the forest industry of such areas as Port Alberni given due consideration in the choice of location for the proposed expansion of forest research facilities on Vancouver Island?


Mr. Jim Peterson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Economic Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: In so far as the Ministry of State for Economic Development is concerned:
1 and 2. A telegram was received April 28, 1983; a reply acknowledging its receipt was forwarded May 5. No specific location needed to be considered as this project of $14 million to be undertaken under the Special Recovery Projects Program is only to expand and upgrade the existing research facilities of the Canadian Forestry Service's Pacific Research Centre in Victoria.


Mr. Blenkarn: 1.	In (a) 1976 (b) 1977 (c) 1978 (d) 1979 (e) 1980 (0 1981 (g) 1982, what was the dollar value of aid given by the Government through the Canadian International Development Agency to Sri Lanka?
2.	What major projects did Canada undertake through Cl DA for and on behalf of Sri Lanka during this period?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. See tables below.
2. Major projects undertaken in Sri Lanka during the period 1976-1982 comprise the following:
(i)	Rainfed Agriculture: A $1.5 million grant to strengthen applied research and extension capability in the chena (shifting slash/burn/cultivation) area of the dryzone of Sri Lanka using Canadian technical assistance from Agriculture Canada. Duration is 1978-83.
(ii)	Agriculture sector loan: A $10 million loan to increase agricultural production through a line of credit to provide Canadian equipment, materiel, and commodities. It included a $6 million allocation to the Mahaweli Irrigation and Land Settlement Scheme. Duration is 1977-83.
(iii)	Maduru Oya reservoir complex: A loan of up to $77.1 million to assist Sri Lanka in the construction by a consortium of Canadian contractors of a rock fill dam and transbasin link canal designed to store sufficient water to irrigate 50,000 hectares of land. Duration is 1980-83. Canadian engineering services are provided for design and construction supervision under a grant of $8.5 million.
(iv)	Project Preparation Units I and II: A grant of $5.5 million to provide Sri Lanka with appropriate Canadian exper-

June 28, 1983
Order Paper Questions
tise to develop identified projects to a feasibility stage for international donor financing. Examples of such studies include: preparation of the Lower Uva Regional Development Master Plan; preparation of the Tea Master Plan; and advisory services to the ministries of Mahaweli Development, Industries, Housing, and Fisheries. Duration was 1978-83.
(v)	Embilipitiya Paper Mill: A grant of $1.75 million to provide Canadian technical assistance to train mill management and staff in the management, operation, and maintenance of the National Paper Corporation's mill at Embilipitiya. Duration was 1976-80.
(vi)	Commodities/fertilizer loan: A loan of $20 million for the provision of Canadian industrial raw materials and fertilizer to support agricultural and industrial production. Duration was 1978-82.
(vii)	Potash grant: A grant of $30.5 million for the provision of Canadian potash fertilizer, and technical assistance for potash research. Duration 1981-84.
Disbursements made by CIDA on a Bilateral Basis to the Government of Sri Lanka
Fiscal Year	Disbursements	($000's)	Fiscal Year	Disbursements ($000's)	Grants	Loans	Food Aid	Total	Grants	Loans	Food Aid	Total1975-76	602	2,986	4,778	8,366	1980-81	2,557	35,456	0	38,0131976-77	1,214	8,067	9,564	18,845	1981-82	12,211	24,567	5,880	42,6581977-	78 1978-	79	875 2,108	7,037 13,130	9,123 14,950	17,035 30,188	1982-83*	7,916	28,516	10,000	46.4321979-80	2,095	10,087	3,980	16,162	Final disbursement figures	not yet available for FY 82-83.	Special Progra	ms Branch	Disbursements to Sri Lanka	Divisions	1976-77	1977-78	1978-79	1979-80	1980-81	1981-82	1982-83Non-governmental organizations	264,135	175,573	222,177	156,672	202,681	66,209	255,738Institutional co-operation and development services	-	-	-	-	154,000	441,727	254,003Industrial co-operation	-	-	-	-	109,242	218,158	65,959Management for change	-	-	-	-	-	International non-governmental organizations	-	-	-	-	-	100,000	Voluntary agricultural development aid	-	-	-	-	-	-	-


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, if questions Nos. 4,788 and 4,849 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that questions Nos. 4,788 and 4,849 be deemed to have been made orders for return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
2. For the same period, by year, what amount was given to each provincial Government under the transfer and equalization payment programs?
Return tabled.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, 1 ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
[ Text]


Mr. Howie: For (a) 1981 (b) 1982 (c) 1983 to date, what amount was paid to each theatre for the performing arts or resident company in Canada?
Return tabled.


Mr. Howie: I. During each of the past five years, what amount, identified by program, was sent directly to the Province of New Brunswick?



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, June 27, 1983, consideration of Bill C-95, an Act to provide for Government operated pool systems on combinations of athletic contests and events and to amend the Criminal Code and the Income Tax Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture; and Motion No. 3 (Mr. Reid, St. Catharines).
June 28, 1983
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, in resuming the few remarks that I began to make yesterday evening, perhaps I could first remind Hon. Members of what the Secretary of State (Mr. Joyal) actually said at the conclusion of his remarks when introducing this Bill. He stated: "We already have many lotteries in the country and this is a very harmless one of entertainment for a worth while cause".
I wish to expand on those three items in considering Motion No. 3 that is before us and which, of course, relates to the possibility of specifically indicating that some funds will be devoted toward aiding the Olympic Games in the City of Calgary.
As the Minister indicated in his introductory remarks, there are many gambling or lottery-type functions in the country at the present time. I would only suggest that instead of the federal Government recklessly going ahead with the type of legislation that is now before us, it is time it reviewed what the functions of some of the lotteries really are.
Since the Minister has indicated that it is a harmless type of entertainment for a worth-while cause, let us see who actually buys these various forms of lottery tickets in the country today. Statistics show that two-thirds of those who participate in lotteries come from a group that would generally be regarded as the lower income group in our society. I categorically state that more than two-thirds of the total public buying lottery tickets come from families who have a household income of from zero to $30,000.
The Minister stated in his introductory remarks that the amount which these people pay out is comparatively small. He did state that one-third of 1 per cent of their total income is going into lotteries at the present time. It does not take long to determine that one-third of 1 per cent from a household income of $30,000 means $100 a year or $2 a week that a family is spending for virtually a worthless activity, the buying of lottery or other type of draw tickets. If we consider a household income of $20,000, they are then spending $66 per year on average.
One might ask about the worth-while cause. It should be made categorically clear that if it is a question of the federal Government providing a one-third contribution to help Calgary hold the Olympics, I do not believe there are many Members of the House who would oppose that aid. However, what Hon. Members and certainly my caucus is trying to indicate is that this approach is not the proper one to take. If the federal Government wishes to contribute roughly $125 million as one-third of the ongoing capital expenditure for the Calgary Olympics, then let us clearly identify that amount.
In regard to this type of sports pool, we must not lose sight of the fact that it requires an average of $100 million of primarily poor people's money at roughly $50 to $100 a year in order to produce a grant of $30 million. It does not take long to discover the ramifications of this legislation. The Minister has admitted that there are many lotteries, which means that there is a lot of competition. He does not admit, however, that rather than make money, this sports pool will probably lose
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
colossal amounts of money when it comes on stream in an attempt to persuade the public to shift from whatever they are presently buying to buying this.


Mr. Paproski:: $55 million.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: My colleague for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski) indicates that the cost may be $55 million just to enter this field.
My main point is that assuming this sports pool is conducted correctly, which would truly be unique for the Government, it will have to sell almost $500 million worth of sports' pool tickets before it can produce the one-third amount that it wants to give to the Calgary Olympics. What an unbelievably costly and unfair way to raise money. Since my time is limited,
I wish to emphasize the fact that the Government is, in truth, following the path that has been repeatedly followed in history, that is, toward more and more irresponsibility.
For example, a book entitled "The Itch for Play" was published in 1962. It reviews the history of gambling in the world. It points out that in 1695 gambling in England became a tremendous craze. People from all over that country were attempting to get into some form of gambling. As we know, this eventually led to the South Sea Bubble where the Government set up, under the South Sea Act, a company that was designed to take over the entire national debt. In short, an utter disaster occurred in England during that period as a result of the Government aiding and abetting the gambling fever that was taking over the country. As we know, it eventually got so out of control that the Government had to pass criminal legislation preventing gambling in the future.
It was not until this Government, under the present emperor, that this trend was reversed and we began to legitimize gambling once again and encourage the frenzy that we are now perhaps witnessing in the country. What I am saying is that gambling is something that I do not feel is a desirable thing to be encouraging in our nation. In short, this federal Government should not be getting into the field.
If I may, I might conclude by putting on the record what the author of this book that I have in my hand defined as gambling:
Gambling is an enchanting witchery. It is a disease of humankind requiring medical attention. It is an incorrigible evil in man. In short, it must be controlled.


Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I would ike to continue the general thrust and tone of comments offered by my hon. colleague, the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens). I shall explain why it is that Members of this Party will not be supporting Bill C-95 in any form whatever pending a major change in the basic thrust of this legislation. This, of course, would invalidate the proposal.
At the same time we are today speaking to Motion No. 3, an amendment proposed by my colleague, the Hon. Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid), which would ensure that, should the sports pool go ahead, the funds will be clearly and solely

June 28, 1983
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
earmarked for the purposes of offsetting any projected deficit arising from the Calgary Olympics, as was the original intention of Loto Canada when it was established in 1976. It was established solely to meet any liability arising from the Olympics in Montreal which we know now approached a cost of $ 1 billion.
From my point of view I must say that I share the views expressed by many Members of this House that this Government appears to be bankrupt, not only financially but morally. I do not want to get into a debate of chance taking per se. I guess it is an accepted position in our country and it is part of our heritage that people have tossed for lots and taken chances in various types of games and taken chances in terms of advancing their own station in life through what we in this Party advocate, namely the free enterprise system.
I am not opposed to chance taking by individuals operating in a free society where they can afford to take such chances with their own money. But I am certainly opposed to a government which advocates and encourages chance taking by those in society who can least afford to. In that respect the thrust of this proposed legislation and the long-term consequences, far beyond the time when the Calgary Olympics are over and forgotten, of implementing the kind of legislation which says that by changing the Criminal Code the federal Government can essentially violate the law by all traditional standards, yet no one else can, reveals the moral bankruptcy of the Government opposite.
The Government talks about raising something like SI00 million a year net for the purposes set out in the legislation. Four items to which these revenues are directed are fitness and amateur sport, arts and culture, medical and health research, and finally-and it is interesting that this is the final priority according to the order of items as set out in the legislation- support for the Calgary Olympics. One wonders why it is that the Calgary Olympics were not the sole purpose of presenting this legislation.
I have to suspect, as other Members in this House do, that the Government's game plan, in a manner of speaking, extends far beyond any suggestion that the Calgary Olympics might require a little help. The focus on helping to offset the cost of the Calgary Olympics is merely a red herring, a form of blackmail of this House, in order to justify a major change and is an example of more stupidity on the part of this Government. In fact, it will be disruptive of and counter to the whole social support system that we have established in this country.
From where does the Government think this $100 million a year is going to come, Mr. Speaker? The Government knows full well this money will come from the pockets of ordinary Canadians, largely speaking those who have been down and out most of their lives and are looking for that one chance in a lifetime to make it big. Those are the people having trouble putting food on the table for their children, meeting mortgage payments and so on. They are faced with unemployment, their businesses are going bankrupt, they are desperate. Yet they are the ones who will buy a football lottery ticket condoned by the federal Government. That just reveals the degree of moral bankruptcy which is so evident to so many Canadians when a
government goes to great lengths to evolve a progressive income tax system with all kinds of deductions, exemptions and tax credits for those who need help the most, single parents, old age pensioners, people unemployed and those living on the welfare system.
Where do you think these people will go with their welfare cheques, Mr. Speaker, if every time they walk into a shopping centre, go to a sporting event or turn on a television set they are bombarded with a pitch for the new Canada sports pool promoted by our friend, the Hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Regan), who thinks it is such a great idea? Where do you think the money is going to come from, Mr. Speaker? It will come from the pockets of those who need it. In that respect it is just merely a form of veiled and regressive taxation against the poor and down trodden in our society.
Where will the money go, Mr. Speaker? We know that no more than 30 per cent of it will go to the so-called good works which the Government has been advocating. I might add there are many other ways to raise money for these good works. Many of them should be legitimately funded but not by some phony windfall mechanism called a sport lottery.
In referring back to the record of Loto Canada for a moment, it is interesting to note that in the year 1977 Loto Canada took in $225 million of revenue of which only $3.7 million, or 1.6 per cent, went to promote fitness and amateur sport. Of the balance, $25 million went to advertising and promotion. The remainder went to wholesalers' commissions, prize money and the Olympic debt. If the prize money only amounts to about 30 per cent, it is obvious that a lot of this money will go down the tube in the form of unnecessary advertising, contracts and commissions to friends of the Liberal Party, nothing more. Let us be honest about it, it is nothing more than a blatant instrument of patronage.
Mr. Ian Howard, who was a great friend of the former Member for Skeena, happened to become chairman of the Loto Canada Corporation because of his Liberal connections. There is no other reason. He went around the country letting contracts to commission salesmen, to various companies, squandering public money merely as a means of exercising and administering patronage and leverage over many organizations and individuals in Canadian society and to reward those who had done favours for and served the Liberal Party. I make that statement as an allegation.
I suggest that what the Government is attempting to do here is to strip away the limited resources poor people have. This totally contradicts and invalidates the Family Allowance Program, the Child Tax Credit, welfare, UIC, and all of those programs of benefit to those Canadians who need them. The Government will grab the money and collect it in the form of a multimillion dollar fund which the Government calls just a mere game, a little fun on the side for Canadians. It will be promoted with red and white flags and stands and little Canadian Liberal logos in the corner of every piece of literature. Canadians are getting sick and tired of this kind of display, just as some Canadians will be sickened by that big,
June 28, 1983

ugly, garish display outside our Parliament buildings being put on as a big July 1 promotion merely to advance the causes of the Liberal Party.
It is high time Canadians realized what this is all about; it is a big political boondoggle on the part of the Liberal Government. It will not help Canadians by setting up yet another pool and by changing the Criminal Code to legalize gambling, while at the same time the RCMP will be entering into the gaming houses of the Chinese, who like to play fan-tan now and again, raiding church bingos and things like that. The Government abides by a double standard-one standard for the Government and another for the rest of us. It can do whatever it darn well pleases. The Government can advertise its lottery, doll it up and try to ram it down the throats of Canadians for its own selfish benefit. It is high time we put a stop to this.
What is wrong with encouraging volunteer organizations and medical causes to solicit funds under an income tax system which would allow Canadians the choice either to send money to the federal Government or to make contributions with a very healthy tax credit being extended to worthy causes? What is wrong with financing amateur sport, culture and medical research by getting people involved in direct participation, not by buying lottery tickets?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the Hon. Member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail) on a point of order.


Mr. Harquail:: Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker made reference to Canada Day. I wonder if he could clarify for the House-


Gordon Edward Taylor: That is not a point of order.


Maurice James Harquail: Are you prepared to answer a question?


Thomas Edward Siddon: I will answer a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. That was not a point of order. There are occasions on which the Chair will recognize an Hon. Member who seeks unanimous consent of the House in order to put a question. Is there unanimous consent for the Hon. Member for Restigouche to put a question?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Maurice James Harquail: Mr. Speaker, in his excitement and rhetoric the Hon. Member made reference to the Canada Day celebration taking place only in Ottawa. I wonder whether he would like to clarify that Canadians in British Columbia, the Province which he represents, will be acknowledging and celebrating Canada Day on July 1 in the usual manner in which we all celebrate this important occasion?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, when I was much younger I used to attend parades, stand with pride at attention when our national anthem, "O Canada", was played, and watch the
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
bands marching by. There were many functions put on by community organizations. They continue to sponsor such activities. In my constituency this year I will be riding in a parade with my children. The local community association will be putting on these functions. But it is a sign of the decadence in the country when the federal Government feels that the only way we can promote a sense of national pride is by throwing millions and millions of dollars worth of fireworks up in the air and by building grandiose backdrops in front of the Houses of Parliament. Indeed they are garish and contrary to the nature of our surroundings here.
To answer the Hon. Member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail), Canadian identity and the celebration on July 1, whether we call it Canada Day or Dominion Day, is something which comes from the hearts and roots of Canadians. It is not something the Liberal Party can buy with any amount of money or grand displays.


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Mr. Speaker, I want to participate in this particular stage of the proceedings because I think the amendment of the Hon. Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid) allows us to target in one of the important issues in this piece of legislation.
It has been maintained by spokespeople on behalf of the Government that this legislation is absolutely essential for the Calgary Winter Olympics which will be held in 1988 and that without this legislation federal funding will not be forthcoming. That is the essence of the position taken by the Government. It calls, that tune with a sense of deja vu in terms of the last time we were called upon to establish a lottery or gambling in the name of the federal Government to deal with the Montreal Olympics.
Therefore I think the motion of my colleague is a very appropriate one. He is giving the Government the opportunity to establish its little lottery or game on a national front, with all the signals it will send out to the people of the country, particularly our youth. It allows the Government to bankroll the Calgary Olympics and specifically indicates that when the Olympics have been dealt with and the contribution of the federal Government to the Olympics has been completed, the lottery will be null and void and have no further consequences. What could be more reasonable than that proposition?
I would like to ask rhetorically what kind of priorities there are in a government which, in the dying days of this part of the session, brings forward a Bill to deal with sports pools? When we have unprecedented unemployment and unemployment among youth and students of the country has reached record proportions, what kind of political philosophy would be behind a government which sets as its priority a Bill to create a national lottery? We have to ask ourselves these questions. If all the energy, attention and dedication of the Government were directed toward job creation for the youth of Canada, what would be the result? They are now resigned to holding demonstrations in cities and towns across the country.

June 28, 1983
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
When I return to Saskatoon for the summer recess, the students of the University of Saskatchewan are dedicating a full day on July 6 to the problems of employable students who are unable to find work to sustain themselves and to pay their tuition fees. What will I say to these young people who are really hurting? Will I be able to say that in the last days before the recess Parliament tried to grapple with their problems? No, I will have to say that the Government's priority was to set up a form of lottery or sports pool to ensure that Martin O'Connell, executive assistant to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and former Minister of Labour, a well known Liberal, receives a very substantial fee. He will not have any worry with respect to employment; he will be doing quite all right. What about Goldfarb Associates, well known Liberal pollsters? This outfit will receive an enormous amount of money. There will be no unemployment worries for the people who work for that Liberal advertising agency. What can I say to the students of Saskatoon?
I see some Ministers sitting in the Chamber this afternoon who have responsibility to give answers respecting the policy of the Government. I ask them what I should say when I return to my constituency. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) in particular should understand my dilemma. The Government is so devoid of policy that it brings in a piece of legislation which in effect puts a tax on the poor of the country, those people who can least afford to pay. This is what a lottery is all about.
1 do not want to wear my morals on my sleeve or take a sanctimonious approach. Those of us who are interested in politics and serve in the House of Commons know, in terms of an absolute political principle, that what is being done on a national level-granted, it was the Government of which I had the honour to be a part that got out of the lottery business-is that Canadians are being told it is okay to tax the poor of the nation. They are the ones who will be paying the sum and substance of the Bill. Hon. Members on the Government side know this. In their heart of hearts they know that these people will put more money, in proportion to their incomes, into this kind of investment and cannot afford it. It is an absoluely reprehensible position for the Government to take.
What are the figures? Ticket purchasing in Canada averages $42 per year for every man, woman and child. As a nation we pay out $1 billion annually for the chance to win.


John Leslie Evans: Tell your Premier.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I live in the riding of the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) when I am here. Let me tell him that I am disappointed with him. Of course I will tell Premier Grant Devine. That is a position I take, no matter whether it is the federal Government or the provincial Government. I do not need any lecture from the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre, who has changed his position in anticipation of a Cabinet post. He will stand in his place, representing an area where there is high unemployment, and in order to get a Cabinet position he would say "Ready, aye, ready". He is not prepared to question something which is morally wrong. That is what is wrong with
this Bill. If he would rise in his place and make a speech on this, we might be able to decide what his position is.
This is a very serious question I want to pose. I want to bring out some logic for Government backbenchers who know in their heart of hearts, to quote their philosophical hero, Senator Barry Goldwater, that this legislation is wrongheaded. Quite frankly, it gives the people of Canada very little expectation in return. The best odds in a national lottery in Canada are something like 600,000 to 1. That is the best odds a Canadian has in winning a lottery. This gives some idea of the expectations some people have.
We can spend our money and dream our dreams. Those buying lottery tickets are entitled to do that. I acknowledge that the Provinces have enough lotteries. The Provinces now have the jurisdiction, so why is the federal Government getting into this? What is the crying need that the federal Government sees whereby it must spend valuable time at end of June to bring forward as its priority a sports lottery Bill? I cannot understand it.
Yesterday I pointed out that in another forum, the Superior Court of Quebec, the Attorney General, speaking on behalf of the Government, made representations for an injunction to prevent the Hockey Select program from going forward in Quebec. What was the rationale? By taking this action the provincial Government was undermining the morals of the people of the Province of Quebec because it was carrying on functions clearly prohibited under our criminal law. Why does the Government take that position in one forum, the Province of Quebec, and then come here and tell us this is one of its priorities?
I want to address this Bill again. I will have another opportunity to do so. I have not yet had the opportunity to get my full message across. However, I do want to say one thing. The real irony of this particular enterprise-I am making my prognostication now, and I will give you ten to one, Mr. Speaker-is that this project is going to fail. Look what happened to Hockey Select. It has been pointed out that in the Province of Quebec it started off on November 30, 1982 with a high of $136,144 on a weekly gross, dropped to $70,000 in January and $40,000 in February. It is going downhill. People are not buying this kind of version of a sports pool which is very similar to what is being presented to us as a sports pool for all of Canada. It will fail. They young people of Canada want to know about jobs. They want to know about their future. They want to know what they can expect in this country. Therefore, we should be ashamed of ourselves for spending these last few valuable hours debating the creation of a sports pool. The Ministers of the Crown should be the most ashamed of all.


Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to follow my colleague for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn). He spoke eloquently on this matter. With regard to motion No. 3 and Bill C-95, I want to tell the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) that his laughter and
June 28, 1983

comments about the previous speaker's words suggest to me that an allegation I have heard before about some Members of the Liberal Party, that they want to be the defenders of the rich, may be true. To suggest that the poor do not pay for the lotteries, to laugh at that suggestion when the facts speak clearly, particularly a Member who prides himself on facts, indicates that the Member wants to be part of a lot of political hypocrisy, trying to pretend that something is being done for Canadians when what is being done through this Bill to Canadians is something dreadful.
I am going to speak very briefly on the evidence that was placed before the committee when we dealt with this proposal. 1 noted in reading yesterday's Hansard that the Minister who was then responsible for this matter at one point interjected and asked an Hon. Member from Edmonton a question. He asked whether Members knew that the commitment to this pool was a condition of Olympics approval, a condition of going to Baden-Baden and asking them to approve the Calgary Olympics. That was the utter and total misrepresentation of the facts.
The simplest way to say that to Canadians is to ask whether anyone on an international Olympics committee would have approved awarding the Games to a country if that country had said to the committee it would only assist if it could get a lottery approved in its House of Commons. Would anybody internationally have believed that? The fact is we made no such claim. We said that the Olympics were important to Canada, and they are. We said we wanted them in Canada, and we do. We said we would finance them out of our existing arrangements. That is what we said. That is precisely the arrangement that Members opposite know was made in order to get the federal Government out of the lottery business and produce revenues for the federal Government.
Let me also say in response to the interjections of the Hon. Member opposite exactly the same thing which the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West said. What is reprehensible about lotteries run by governments is that they are run by governments. It does not matter whether the government is provincial or federal. What is reprehensible is not that someone is asked to buy a ticket or take a chance, but that a government of this country would say to Canadians that the way to do well is to gamble on a get-rich-quick scheme on which the odds are 100 times higher than being struck by lightning.
That is the philosophy of "getting ahead" which the Government of Canada proposes to reintroduce to the citizens of Canada as the means to succeed. It is not to work hard, to struggle or save but to buy a ticket on a government-run lottery. That proposal is what underlies all of the advertising of Loto Canada and all of the advertising behind provincially-run lotteries. It is the morality of saying to Canadians that the way to succeed is to take a 600,000 to one chance with that $10 ticket. That puts into the heads of Canadians that that is the way to succeed. The very suggestion that we should espouse that view is wrong.
The Government says it is only doing this for Calgary. It says it is absolutely essential if we are going to support the
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
Olympics we all want. It is not going to honour the commitment made in the beginning, but it has a new commitment called the athletic contests Bill.
The reason for motion No. 3 is quite simply that the Ministers responsible for this Bill have used that argument across the breadth of this land. If that is the argument for this Bill in the mind of this Government, then let the Government by its vote say that the purpose of this Bill is to fund the Calgary Olympics. The Bill itself does not say that. It says the revenues will be raised any darn way the Government wants through whatever amendments, regulations or orders in councils it wants, and ultimately will be spent on anything the Government wants. That is what the Bill says. It does not say anywhere that the moneys are restricted to the Calgary Olympics. The Government gives an undertaking that it will consider spending some of the money.
When we asked in committee what happened to the share of the moneys now coming to the Government from lotteries, 50 per cent of which were to go to amateur sports and fitness and 50 per cent to culture, when we asked what had the 50 per cent support been and what had it been spent on, the answers were: "We have no idea, we don't know". That was the defence of the moneys that the poor have already contributed through lotteries to amateur sports. No one knew. Now, we as Parliamentarians are being asked to tell Canadians, "Just trust us. We will do it right just as we did with Canadair and de Havilland and, so far as the people opposite are concerned, just as we have done everything right."
Let us be clear, Mr. Speaker, that what we are dealing with is the Calgary Olympics. A great number of volunteers are being used by the Government of Canada to justify having the Government of Canada get back into Government-run gaming. That is what is happening. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that if someone came into the House and said to the Government of Canada: "I will give you $200 million to fund the Calgary Olympics," the Government of Canada would say: "Thank you, but we still need this Bill and we will now say that we need the money for the other things that are in the Bill". It would then use medical research or cultural communities as its whipping boys because it is not the purpose of the Government, Mr. Speaker, to pay for those things. It is the purpose of the Government of Canada to tax the poor in order to have more money to give away to its friends.
As everybody who has studied lotteries knows, something less than one-third of the funds that are raised through lotteries ever find their way to the charities they are supposed to help. That was the evidence that was presented to the committee which the Liberal Members chose to ignore.
Some day I hope to be able to stand in my place and say; "Thank God, finally every government in the country has stopped trying to skim taxes through lotteries." I do not know whether I will ever be able to say that, but I hope and pray that I will, Mr. Speaker. The reason I hope that is not only because there is an incredible amount of hypocrisy and, in my

June 28, 1983
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
view, untruths being told about the purposes behind this Bill. The reason, Mr. Speaker, is because it must be clear to all Members, particularly to the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre who prides himself on being an economist, that the whole idea of raising taxes through lotteries and through corporations that are not accountable to the Auditor General is wrong. The whole idea of creating spending programs that Paliament never sees in order to create situations for responsible officials to say to Parliamentarians "We do not know where the money went", is wrong. Surely the Member for Ottawa Centre and his backbench colleagues know that every single principle of decency and of good government indicates that the whole idea behind this Bill is wrong.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: May I point out to Hon. Members that debate is still continuing on motion No. 3, and of course there remains the matter of debate on motion No. 4 which the House will wish to dispose of. The Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman) on motion No. 3.


Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, we are speaking today about the distribution of funds. We are speaking about those who in fact will benefit from the funds and those who in fact will pay for the funds. In speaking to this particular motion, I think it is appropriate at this stage to remember that an idea has been presented in the form of the entire Bill and its individual parts. It has been discussed and debated in principle and in detail in committee, and now today we are discussing the beneficiary section.
I know from my experience of previous Olympics and from my political experience that the naming of beneficiaries in this Clause is only the broad title. The real beneficiaries of this Bill will be public relations companies and the media. We can be sure that a large portion of any moneys raised and given to this body or other bodies for this particular event will go to public relations firms and the media.
Another big chunk of the money will go to contractors, and again another big chunk of the money will go to bureaucracies. Another big chunk of the money will perhaps be used to exchange moneys from one level of government to another, because if this particular Bill is not passed, it means that a grant of some kind will have to be provided by the federal Government to the Government of Alberta as its share of the cost. It is another way of raising money to be transferred from one Government to another.
Hopefully there will be another beneficiary. A small pittance, perhaps, will in fact reach the level of the athlete who will perform and participate in the Olympics. Unfortunately, the first to deserve will probably be the last to receive, and probably the last to receive will receive the least, and that is in fact those same athletes.
Clause 3 of this Bill, Mr. Speaker, talks about the funding of the Olympics in Calgary. What are the Olympics in Calgary? I hope that we are directing this particular funding and perhaps additional funding from other levels of government to the Calgary Olympics for more than just buildings, contractors, bureaucracies and administration. I think a test of this
Bill is whether or not a good chunk of this money will be directed toward upholding the spirit of the Olympics.
In the spirit of the Olympics, I would hope to see some of this money transferred directly to the athletes.
What are the Olympics? The Olympics are athletes in the pursuit of excellence. Because it is a competitive pursuit of excellence, our athletes will be measured against those of other nations. We will not be measured by the size of the buildings. We will not be measured by the nature of the contracts. Canada's spirit and pursuit of excellence will be measured instead by the quality and the performance of our athletes and the relationship between our athletes and the athletes of the world.
This money needs to be directed not only to Calgary, to buildings, to contractors, but also to people, to individuals who are and will be the athletes. It is, of course, too late for that now because one does not travel across the country and identify an athlete this week and tell him that next month he will participate in the Olympics. The identification process is a process that is beginning now for the next Olympics that Canada will participate in, and not only the next Olympics but the Olympics after that. It is beginning not only with the Summer Olympics but the Winter Olympics and ail of the Olympics. To create a body of sport in Canada, we must begin now to identify those who can pursue this excellence and represent our country. They must be identified at an early age.
I have heard no talk of money set aside for the identification of athletes. I hope that when the Minister stands up to speak on this Bill, he will talk about athletes, how this measure will affect athletes and how the money will help in the identification of athletes. For too many years we have failed to identify our athletes early enough to begin the training that is needed to instil in them the desire for the pursuit of excellence that will find them successful. Their success, the symbol and example of Canadian youth, strength and courage, will establish the desire of other young Canadians to pursue and obtain success and to represent their nation in this and other competitions that will come in the future.
These athletes must be identified at a very young, formative stage as muscles and minds are growing. So often people see competing at the Olympics as simply a physical activity. Competing at the Olympics is a physical activity, a mental activity, a nationalistic activity, and to be successful, a strong development of all of faculties is needed.
Those who strive for this excellence are not only striving for some physical achievement. By the time they reach the Olympics or that standard of training, it is a matter of the training of mind over body-mind and body united in a desire to find excellence, to be the best in Canada, the best in the world, to uphold our country and its image abroad. This requires not just an attitude of physical and mental competititon but an attitude of friendship that is developed throughout the competition.
June 28, 1983

Athletes do not compete just once, in Calgary. They compete through a development stage. Unfortunately, in Canada that will not occur because we will direct very little money in that direction. We are not going to identify athletes, let alone begin a development program. How can you have a development program if you have no coach, no professional who can travel around? If you identify a coach but leave him sitting in Ottawa instead of travelling around the country to schools and track meets, swim meets or whatever to find and develop athletes, the development program will not take place.
This is a chicken and egg argument. There is the identification and then the development of the athlete. Not only do you have development of the athlete but there is the maintenance of the athlete. They cannot be maintained for just the three months of the competition. Ahtletes have to be maintained over a period of 15 or 20 years if we are to achieve the excellence for which we strive.
I do not think the Bill is going to do this, Mr. Speaker, and I do not think the House of Commons is going to do it. I have not heard the spirit of the Olympics mentioned in this debate. I have not heard the Minister express his concern that Canada has the capacity for excellence. We have the young athletes with the desire, the talent and the ability, but they are starving, living together in welfare clutches. Yet they are called upon to produce excellence of spirit and mind and body. None of these things has been developed, Mr. Speaker. Like everyone else, these young atheietes need jobs. They need jobs that are flexible and that will allow them to travel.
I feel very strongly about this subject, Mr. Speaker. I have lived through this with athletes. I know they have to make sacrifices of mind, body, spirit-and financial sacrifices. They give their country more than they receive and it is about time they were supported properly and financially, not by a lottery but by a commitment of the Government of Canada.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Pursuant to Standing Order 79, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines) moved:: Motion No. 4.
That Bill C-95, An Act to provide for Government operated pool systems on combinations of athletic contests and events and to amend the Criminal Code and the Income Tax Act, be amended in Clause 21 by striking out lines 15 to 43 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"each year by the Auditor General of Canada."
He said: Mr. Speaker, "Some of you may wonder", the Minister said in committee, "how the Canadian Sports Pool Corporation will be accountable". That is the subject of this motion. He went on to point out that the operations of the Canadian Sports Pool would be monitored, and that it would have to submit to the Minister responsible and to the Governor in Council a plan of corporate and fiscal activities.
Hon. Members are all well aware of the scandals that plagued Loto Canada's life. The Canadian public will never know the half of what porkbarrel purposes their money was put to. Yet Loto Canada was subject to monitoring by the Minister responsible, and it was subject to audits of sorts.
Recently in this House we discussed at length the involvement of four Ministers of the Crown in connection with the Gillespie affair. We have the report as contained in the Richmond News as early as September 23, 1981, of the interest of another Liberal put out to pasture by the electorate of B.C. who thinks he will have the inside track for the supply and delivery of the hard computer equipment necessary. The name is Cafik and it was included in the press report.
The name of the biggest game in town so far as this Government is concerned is patronage, and Loto Canada gave full opportunity for much of that. To give some credibility to a game of chance, we propose that the books of this Crown corporation be subject to an annual audit by the Auditor General of Canada. The Auditor General might then review the systems of control and accountability, and provide some check on the ticket distribution and the revenue returns. The Auditor General himself in a recent statement has emphasized that the 306 Crown corporations form a sort of sub-parliamentary group with parliamentary scrutiny ranging from sporadic to none at all.
This has been the experience with respect to Crown corporations already in existence. We have been opposed to the introduction of more Crown corporations but this Bill proposes to establish another Crown corporation to run a gambling game. This is the history of monitoring by the Minister responsible and the kind of accountability that has been put in place by this Government. With this kind of track record and with the kind of corporation that could lend itself to abuse, we should do all we can to protect the gambling dollars of Canadians. The odds against them are bad enough without making those odds worse by human abuse and error.

June 28, 1983
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
In moving this motion, seconded by the Hon, Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid), this Party recognizes the desirability of engaging a competent, responsible auditor who will be required to report to the House, someone who has done so with a great deal of honesty, clarity, conciseness and sincerity. That is the only kind of auditor we should have for a games corporation as envisaged by this Bill, and we urge the passage of this motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Appolloni):: The Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid).


John Horton McDermid: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and congratulations on your lofty promotion to the Chair!
I wish to participate in this part of the debate to express the concern which we in the backbenches have as we are examining costs and expenditures of various departments and, in particular, Crown corporations. We are time after time frustrated in our examination of expenditures of Crown corporations in their business dealings. I remember the time I was at a committee where we were examining the expenditures of Petro-Canada. Its then executive vice-president, Joel Bell, was in attendance, together with the president, Mr. Hopper. They answered the questions they wanted to answer. They would not answer questions that perhaps touched on sensitive issues which might expose the corporation, and what it was up to in some of the areas which were questionable at best.
Therefore, we feel very strongly that if we are going to set up a "numbers racket" game, it must be examined very carefully. We cannot think of anyone who is better qualified, who will level with the Canadian people more, than the Auditor General. Unfortunately, the experience of auditing firms over the last few months has been disappointing. One firm which audited the books of Canadair somewhere along the line missed some of the expenditures. That is a shame because that casts a bad light on the accounting profession. Certainly, these people being human, Madam Speaker, mistakes are made. However, in dealing with money which is being used for gambling purposes, we want to ensure that if the Government rams this ill-conceived idea through this House, in fact this corporation is audited very carefully by the Auditor General. We can then take a look at the types of expenditures which are being made.
We were given a list of people who have already received money, but we have no idea on what they spent the money. The only reference is to "research". What kind of research was done? Was it research to find out who buys lottery tickets, or where the money comes from? Was polling done to find out if a numbers game is the most popular type of game? Would a numbers game sell in this country? Would the public buy the tickets? Would anyone have won the other night if this type of ticket was sold on a baseball game? Who would have ever guessed that the Toronto Blue Jays would have won 19-7? There is no way under the sun that anyone would have guessed who would win that game.
According to the list, there is money spent for ticket design and production. Three organizations received money for ticket design and production. We have not seen any of this, although I must say that my colleague, the Hon. Member from Oakville, one day magically produced a "numbers racket" ticket which the Minister denied he had anything to do with. However, we found out later on it was in fact from a group of people who were working on the sports pool development.
We would like to know, for example, where Loto Canada spent the $10.4 million in 1977-78 on advertising. Of course, one of those fine Liberal advertising firms picked themselves up a cool $1.5 million that year. The next year they picked themselves up a cool $1.8 million on $13,139,000 spent on advertising. We want to know the breakdown of that advertising expenditure. Why, for example, would $40 million be spent in advertising promotion and administration in order to give away $123 million? The financing on this is horrendous. Why would it one year cost $3 million to print tickets and the next year $8 million to print tickets, and the net receipts went down from the year before? It just does not make sense. Why does it cost in year two of full operation of a lottery twice as much for furniture as it did in year one? We do not receive these answers. Why does market research in year two cost twice as much as it does in year one? Why are net expenses of draws three times as much in the second year as in the complete year one? Why did salaries increase from $2.5 million to $3.3 million year over year? We do not know these answers. They have not been explained to us. We want to make sure that an auditor does examine expenses such as this and reports to the House of Commons so that we will be able intelligently to question the Minister responsible for this particular Crown corporation when his or her estimates come before the committee.
I must say, Madam Speaker, that I am very disappointed in the Government, which has not seen fit over the last two days of debate in the report stage to put up one speaker. It puts up the odd heckler like the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans), but it does not put up one speaker in the entire debate. That is a shameful display of the responsibility of Liberal Members of Parliament. I know that many of them, in speaking to them privately, feel exactly the same way we do on this side of the House. They are very concerned about the set up of this corporation and about the accountability of these people responsible for the administration of those funds to Members of Parliament. Therefore my colleague, the Hon. Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid), has moved, and I am very proud to second, a motion to change that particular clause in Bill C-95, Clause 21, by striking out lines 15 to 43, which go through a great deal of rigmarole as to who can and who cannot audit the books. That will make it very simple. It will simplify the legislation. I know the Canadian people themselves would have far more confidence if in fact this particular motion was accepted by all present. Each year the Auditor General of Canada would do the audit and present that audit to the House of Commons.
June 28, 1983

Therefore, it is with great pleasure that 1 second the motion and request that the Government support motion No. 4.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make a few comments on Bill C-95 in respect to the sports pool and motion No. 4 moved by my colleague in respect to the Auditor General taking over the accountability of this sports pool program. In fact, I would hope that Parliament would see fit to study the possibility of the Auditor General being accountable to this House for all Government agencies and Crown corporations, and therefore to the Canadian public.
At the outset, I would like to say that this sports pool is nothing more than an indirect taxation by devious ways and means. It is an underhanded way of collecting money from the Canadian public because the Government has failed in its responsibility time and time again to collect it by normal means. I would like to mention three examples of the devious ways in which this Government has handled the situation from the outset. On June 26, 1981 I asked a question of the then Minister responsible for fitness and amateur sport, and I will quote my whole question because it puts this whole sports pool into perspective. I said:
Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the minister of fitness and amateur sport. When the original Olympic lottery was introduced in order to defray the costs of the Montreal Olympics, the Liberal Government at that time gave Canadians and the House its assurances that no further lotteries or gambling operations would be initiated. That promise, as the minister knows, has already been broken. It has now come to my attention that the minister is well on his way to extending federal gambling programs to what is known as all-sports betting, in other words, reducing the Government to the status of bookies for betting on hockey games, football games and so on. Without once again copping out by giving a stock answer blaming the previous Government, can the minister confirm or deny whether his Government is contemplating such action?
The Minister's response was:
I would inform the Hon. Member that the Government has no such plans. We do not contemplate any such scheme as the Hon. Member has mentioned.
Three days later, Mr. Speaker, I produced a sample of a sports pool ticket in this House and showed it to the Minister. He had to agree that they were studying some form of gambling operation but he was not sure whether that was it and he in fact had not seen that ticket. So the Minister was either deliberately misleading the House three days earlier, or he was totally ignorant of what went on in his own Department.
To show you the devious ways and means this Government has used to handle this situation from the beginning, less than three months later, on September 14, that same Minister announced very proudly that the federal Government, the Liberals, were going to introduce a sports pool betting scheme along the lines I suggested he was planning less than three months earlier when he denied it. That is why I call it devious ways and means.
Point number two, Mr. Speaker, is advertising. We have talked about the cost of advertising sports pools and gambling operations by this Government, but there is also misleading advertising. I take you back to December 6, 1976, when I informed the then Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
Affairs, Mr. Abbott, that the ads for Loto Canada at that time were so misleading that a Canadian is twice as likely to be hit by lightning than he is to win $1 million in that gambling operation. The Minister said that he agreed there was excessive and misleading use of advertising. He said it was exaggerated optimism. He also said that he did not plan to get tough about the ads even though he considered them inappropriate, unfair and in bad taste. He said that while he did not think the ads were misleading, they tend to raise expectations in the public mind which are unjustified. He was then removed from that position and we never heard any further about any changes made in that regard. Again, an example of devious ways and means of promoting federal gambling operations.
A third point, which is probably the most important and comes to the root of this whole problem, is that lottery operations were agreed to by Parliament to defray the cost of the Montreal Olympics in 1976. There was a lot of debate about this and we received all kinds of assurances from the Liberal Government that once those costs were defrayed there would no longer be any attempt by the Liberal administration or Parliament to bring in gambling operations under sports pools or lotteries or any such nonsense. Those were outright lies by the Government at that time because, as you know, Mr. Speaker, the lottery defrayed the cost of the Montreal Olympics but then the name was changed to Loto Canada and the rest is history.
When Hon. Members opposite say that we on this side do not care about helping the arts and amateur athletes, that is the furthest from the truth. As a former athlete I support anything which can be done to help amateur athletes in this country. But certainly not by establishing the phony, sleazy programs the Government is talking about which would be taking advantage primarily of the poor people of this nation, and then misleading them with false and misleading advertising.
There are other ways to help amateur athletes in this country other than through lotteries and sports pools or indeed even large Government grants. First we should try to expand sponsorship by the private sector of amateur sports programs and the arts. We could expand the development fees which the NHL is now paying towards the development of junior hockey players. That makes sense. But we are not going far enough. What about figure skaters, as I once was? I spent all my time learning that sport in this country. Today the federal Government is subsidizing Sports Canada, rightly so, for the development of figure skaters and other sports, but then the cream of the figure skaters are taken away by foreign professional ice shows which do not give anything back to the taxpayer in this country to develop figure skaters. Surely there is a golden opportunity for this Parliament to go to the Ice Capades, Holiday on Ice and Ice Follies and say that every time they hire one of our skaters trained here in Canada, surely they must pay something back. The same thing is true in tennis and other professional sports.

June 28, 1983
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
These are just some of the ways and means of correcting the existing problem, whether it is on an ongoing basis for fitness and amateur sports, or specifically, as motion No. 3 stated, that there should be funding for the Calgary Olympics.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I just want to reiterate my total opposition to any type of lottery or sports pool. I think it is degrading, downgrading and certainly not in the spirit of athletic sports and the Olympics. If I had more time I could expand on the many recommendations available to this Parliament and the Government in order to assist the arts and amateur sports in general.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I will try and keep my comments fairly brief, but I cannot help but get involved to a certain extent in this debate. It is important because it involves one of the most important activities in this country, the field of Olympic athletics. I cannot help but recall that it was not too long ago that one of the Ministers on that side of the House got up and was trying to tell Members on this side of the House that this proposed sports pool had something to do with skill. I cannot recall quite how he put it but he was trying to tell us that there was some kind of skill involved in winning these sports pools.


Charles James Mayer: Anything that the Liberals do does not involve skill.


James Ross Fulton: Let me make it quite clear that I find the whole Bill quite immoral and improper, and I am confident all Members on this side, and I would hope a few on that side, will vote against it. To try and mix this legislation with the kind of ahtletics we are talking about here, which involve skills-it takes a whole lifetime to try and become an Olympic athlete- with the sort of Las Vegas type atmosphere which is associated with this legislation, I think is quite wrong.
Let me deal for a moment with Clause 21 of this Bill, which I think all Members of this House have to reflect on carefully and support; that is, to have the Auditor General do an annual audit of the books of this kind of operation. If Government Members see fit to vote it through, the morality of the legislation rests on the Government side alone because I think most Canadians will recognize it is not appropriate legislation for the Olympics or anything else.
On top of all that, for Government Members to get up and vote against an annual audit is wrong. I think the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans), after wagging his tongue behind the curtains for so long, has the duty to Parliament to get up and give a speech on the points being raised in this House and as to why the Government feels so strongly that this legislation should go through. For example, Consolidated Computers, just one company, lost $125 million down the chute. The Government is trying to convince us and Canadians generally that it is responsible enough in setting up various Crown corporations. We all recognize that it cannot even run the computer side of it, and the sports pool is going to involve the use of computers. Therefore, we have a certain degree of
alarm that another $100 million or more will be lost just on the computer side.
However, to go further-and other Hon. Members have touched on this-what about the amount of money which will be going into advertising? Are we discussing $1 million, $5 million or $10 million? It is very important that Hon. Members be apprised of this through the good offices of the Auditor General, who can dig into the books and ferret out, in a comprehensive way for the Members of the House, where the money is really going.
It is clear that all of us on this side of the House do not agree with the Bill to begin with, but we are requesting one of the very basic tenets. There is a responsibility on the Government side, that of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne) or one of the other Government Members who are here, to rise and tell us why they do not think an amendment such as this should be carried in the House. Why should there not be an audit? Why should the Canadian public not know whether only 10 cents or 15 cents out of every dollar is actually getting back to pay for what has been proposed, whether the Calgary Olympics, Olympic activities associated with it, or the training or transportation of athletes and coaches? There is a real responsibility which is being let down day after day in this particular Parliament.
Hon. Members on the Government side will rise and vote against amendments that I think would be supported by any Canadian who is stopped on the street and told: "Bill C-95 is the Sports Pool Bill. We do not know whether you agree with it or not but, in terms of just this one principle, do you think it should be audited by an accounting system that is approved by the Parliament of Canada, and that is through the Auditor General?" I am confident that all Canadians would agree with that.
Another point which has been touched on many times, one which Government Members must sit down for a moment to reflect upon, concerns where the money is coming from. It is easy enough to put up billboards and say: "We are setting up a sports pool to obtain money for athletes, for the Calgary Olympics and for other reasons". However, Hon. Members to my right have pointed out that studies not only in Canada but also in Japan and other areas of the world where there are lotteries and gambling of this type have proven time after time that to an overwhelming extent the money comes from poor people who are attempting to sort of bet against the odds of their lives. They are hoping that at some point $1 million or $500,000 or $100,000 will suddenly come to them. I think we all know that that is not how the world works. The Hon. Member who spoke previously pointed out that one is more likely to be struck by lightning riding a bicycle-


Charles James Mayer: Twice!


James Ross Fulton: -twice likely to be struck by lightning riding a bicycle across the Prairies, or for that matter standing here in
June 28, 1983

the Chamber, as one is likely to win $1 million in Loto Canada. I would encourage some Hon. Member from the Government side to rise now and tell us why, in terms of the present amendment to Clause 21 of Bill C-95, there should not be an annual audit by the Auditor General of Canada. I would like to hear why the Government would oppose that.


John Horton McDermid: There's not one person over there who can do it.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Minister, can you answer for the Government?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, if the Government will not take up the challenge to explain to the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), who made a very valid point, I will do my level best. I will put myself-


Mr. Cullen:: Same old gang.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: -in the position, pardon the expression- and 1 get choked up whenever I think of the prospect-of being a supporter of the Liberal Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: 1 will try to put my mind into that of the backbencher and of the Government Member to try to explain to the Hon. Member for Skeena why the Government does not want this amendment to pass. It is a very simple proposition. It is because the Auditor General has a record and a history of disclosing expenditures which, in his estimation and according to the guidelines given to him as a person who reports directly to Parliament, constitute misuse of public funds.
A private accounting firm will not necessarily have that mandate. What will Price Waterhouse or Peat Marwick or any of these companies do in a normal audit? They will simply give a balance sheet to demonstrate what moneys have been received, what has been expended by way of expenses, without elaboration necessarily of the type of expenditure. For example-the Auditor General and Government Members will not like this because they will not think it very funny politically- the Auditor General will give an illustration, by way of expenditure, of the way in which the chairman of the sports pool organization conducts himself or herself in terms of personal amenities in that responsibility. He will undoubtedly point out that the chairman will have a chauffeur-driven, large automobile at his or her disposal while in Ottawa. He will point out that there will be a permanently paid up suite in an expensive Ottawa hotel available not only to the chairman but also to the members who are on the board.


James Ross Fulton: And all across the country.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I do not pull these examples out of the air; I give an example of what transpired with Loto Canada. That was the lifestyle to which the people who were looking after the money extracted from the poor of our country, those who could not afford it, became accustomed and to which they felt they were entitled. When we came into Government and appointed Mr. Hamilton as chairman of Loto Canada, let me
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
tell the House that he was met on his arrival in Ottawa by a chauffeur-driven Cadillac-


Charles James Mayer: A chauffeur in uniform.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: -in uniform, who also carried on responsibilities in a suite at a prominent local downtown hotel, permanently paid up. Those are the kinds of expenditures that would very likely be offensive. It would not sit well with Liberal supporters because it would be an awful thing if we had to bring this out into the public arena.
What else would we find out? We would possibly find out, by way of the Auditor General, that there are other expenditures which are offensive, such as the mode by which these people are travelling across the country. We would find out the precise percentage of money that is being expended from these funds for administrative purposes, quite contrary to the idea that we are supposed to be supporting out of the proceeds of these moneys worth-while, often charitable purposes, and admirable purposes, by way of seducing the people of Canada to support this lottery that is now coming forward, this gaming endeavour of the federal Government.
I was pleased to hear the representative of the New Democratic Party speaking out on behalf of his Party. I was concerned that the NDP was silent on the issue. As its Members come to meet and to redo the Regina manifesto, I think it is about time that they started thinking about their moral position with respect to the issues in this country. It is damn well time, and the people of Canada will be watching with some interest as they gather in Regina to rewrite and rethink their philosophy which has brought them to the heady level they now occupy today in the Gallup poll. However, I want to return to the subject.
When I was practising law, I had an opportunity to represent people who, to use the vernacular, were bookies. I had many clients who were in that trade, "turning book" as we say. I am concerned. I support this particular motion because I think the Government will give these people who turn book in Canada a bad name and lower their reputation. Damon Runyon of Canada could write stories and talk about these people. They were a very interesting group and basically nice people. However, they were breaking the law. Of course, that would not worry the Government of Canada; it is getting right in there.


Mr. Masters:: Didn't worry you, did it?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It will be going full steam ahead, breaking the law, moving ahead, changing the law. Let the Government of Canada do what these poor fellows who are trying to make an honourable living cannot do. They were a great bunch, actually very entertaining, nice people; but they were breaking the law and they needed the best defence they could get, so they consulted me. They had a number of devices. One of them was known as flashpaper. When they took down bets they used a type of paper which had an amazing capacity for incendiary activity on the slightest provocation. All of a sudden, if there were any visitors, such as officers of the law, who would come

June 28, 1983
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
on to the premises, this evidence would automatically disappear and be disposed of in what we called the toilet. What I am concerned about is that if the Government opposes the proposition put forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid), we will have an accounting system which will be totally reliant on flashpaper.
The Auditor General will not be able to conduct a meaningful investigation of the expenditures and the kind of patronage games that might be played. On the basis of this legislation, the Government is entering into flash paper accounting. It is giving bookies a bad name, it will give the bookie, someone who is shunned in society, the wrong idea. Not only will they make money from booking, which is criminally wrong, but they will also avoid their income tax responsibilities because the Government would not worry about proper accounting to any official or to Parliament. That is the issue we face today.
1 say this in almost a jocular fashion but I have a serious message that I want to leave with those backbenchers of the Government Party to whom I am particularly addressing my remarks. What can be wrong with the proposition put forward by my colleague from St. Catharines, so admirably seconded by the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDer-mid), that the Auditor General should audit the books? Money is being taken from people in Canada, very often the poor, and they are entitled to have the best possible accounting system to ensure that the money is properly spent in the final analysis. What is wrong with fairness in the operation of this particular activity? What does the Government have to hide by not allowing this amendment to go through?
1 remember when my colleague for Halton (Mr. Jelinek) raised questions a long time ago to which he received denials by the then Minister responsible and now by the Secretary of State for International Trade (Mr. Regan). I remember sitting in the House and being absolutely amazed that the Minister could stand and deny that their sports pool proposition was coming forward. At the same time we had evidence of that being the case; the Hon. Member for Halton had it in his hand. Yet the Government continued to deny that it had any intention of entering into a sports pool proposition.
If you were buying a used car from a man like the Minister of State for International Trade and he dealt with you in that way, Mr. Speaker, would you be very secure in accepting his word that it would be run properly and the car would be all right? I would not even kick the tire for fear of it falling on my foot. But that is the type of attitude which the Government takes. It has been an attitude of deceit, of prevarication of speaking with a forked tongue, one of stating that which is contrary to the truth. I cannot think of enough ways to describe what is happening here without being thrown out of the House by the Speaker.
That has been the record of the Government and that is why it is so important for us to fight this particular proposal and to vote against it. That is what I intend to do.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise to support motion No. 4 which was moved by my colleague from St. Catharines (Mr. Reid). I cannot understand why the Government or anyone would not want to vote for this amendment. It will be interesting to see how backbenchers opposite will vote.
Not only is the manner of raising this money questionable but, as has been pointed out many times, the way money has been spent from similar lotteries in the past is very questionable. One manner of ensuring the proper expenditure of this money, if there is a proper way to spend money raised in this fashion, would surely be to give the Auditor General the opportunity to review those expenditures.
Let me go back and deal with Loto Canada. From 1977-78 to 1978-79, expenditures on furniture alone went from $273,000 to $402,000. This is an example of what the Auditor General could examine to determine if such expenditures were proper.
Given the fact that the Government will push this legislation through, I do not understand why it does not want to let the Auditor General review the expenditures of this new Crown corporation unless it wants to use it as a slush fund to look after some of its supporters. If that is not the case, then let the Auditor General look at it. I do not believe it can make any logical argument that the Auditor General should not look at the books of this new Crown corporation which will be established.
Aside from that I find it absolutely incredible at the end of this session, during extended hours, at a time when there are two millions unemployed in this country, that we are debating a measure as foolish and nonsensical as establishing another lottery in this country. It boggles the mind how any Government which would call itself responsible would be using this time at the end of June during extended hours to deal with this kind of nonsense. It reminds me of what my father said about people who did not make sense; he said people like that had about as much sense as a sucking goose. In many ways it is a reflection of what the Government is doing when establishing its priorities. It certainly makes no sense to me.
We should be dealing with piece of legislation which would help provide jobs and increase productivity in the country. Why are we not talking about increased cash advances for western farmers? Why not discuss some of the issues concerning the voluntary sector which were raised last night by the Hon. Member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean)? The voluntary sector is in great need of some consideration by the Government. If the Government were to give priority consideration to this sector, we could pass legislation that would encourage people to become involved in the voluntary sector and provide services to two million unemployed in their time of need. It is only logical that the Government should consider legislation such as that.
However, we are debating legislation seeking to allow the Government to act legally but immorally. We all know that the Government is financially, morally and intellectually
June 28, 1983

bankrupt, but we did not realize it had reached the stage where we must consider legislation such as we are faced with today.
Let me deal with gambling and the chance of winning. This country is relatively young. Many towns, villages and agricultural societies in my area are celebrating their one hundredth anniversaries this summer. People came to this country 100 years ago with a sense of hope and opportunity that if they worked hard they could actually acquire something. I feel very sad about what has happened in this country in the last 15 years. The Government, through its bankrupt policies, has eliminated the opportunity many people had to realize their dreams. The Government has replaced those opportunities with lotteries.
As was pointed out, the best odds one has to win is 600,000 to one. If those who got off the boat to come here to make a living for their families faced those kinds of odds, I suspect that they would not have got on the boat in the first place. If they came here and saw the odds which they faced, they probably would have returned home. I am very sad that our country had degenerated to the point where the Government coerces people not physically but mentally. In some says that is even more insidious than physical coercion. A1 Capone used to run a numbers racket by kneecapping people and threatening physical violence. Instead, this Government is threatening emotional and intellectual violence. It is coercing people into buying lottery tickets with the admonitition that they will help the arts, athletes and medical research. That is absolute nonsense because these programs are worthy of support without coercing people with these admonitions of the good they will do by taking a chance at spending a dollar. I find it incredible that we must continually rise to point out facts to the Government which are obvious to any normal person.
If we are to have this legislation, since it appears that the Government will crush the legitimate opposition to it which we have on this side, surely it can let the people know that the money it will collect will be spent in a sane fashion. This can be done by allowing the Auditor General to examine the books. I suspect that the Auditor General believes he should look at the books. I also believe that those who would benefit from this lottery, such as those in medical research, would also like to see the books audited by the Auditor General as well.
This would eliminate the use of chauffeur driven limousines and fancy hotel suites, as pointed out by my colleague for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn). It was also pointed out that the Government's idea of restraint is to have the chauffeur also act as the bartender. I suggest that is the Government's definition of restraint, because not much care is taken about how other people's money is spent. The adoption of this motion would allow the Auditor General, while after the fact, at least to point out that those purported expenses for advertising and
Adjournment Motion
overhead actually represent a slush fund for the Government to look after its supporters. Therefore I would ask the backbenchers of the Liberal Party, both of them in the House today, to talk to their colleagues. We appreciate that they are here to listen. I would suspect that if they did want to get up and respond, the would have to agree with many of the points we are making in terms of this amendment. I see an Hon. Member on the other side shaking his head. I would like to know why he disagrees. I think all of us on this side would like to see him get up and explain his reason for disagreeing with this amendment. Then we would know why he is shaking his head or if he understands the amendment.
I think anybody who is concerned about public funds, and all of us are elected to represent people, should be concerned about the way they will be spent. I do not think anybody would be against the Auditor General looking at these books. That is precisely what motion No. 4 provides. Let me put it on the record; the amendment is: "each year by the Auditor General of Canada". That simply means that each year the books should be looked at by the Auditor General. It is a very simple and straight-forward amendment.
As 1 have said, I suspect everybody connected with this lottery would be in favour of having the Auditor General look at the books. If the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Masters) wants to rise, we would be polite because we would like to hear why he is shaking his head.
I will certainly vote in favour of this amendment because it is a very worth-while one; but I would like to hear why Members on the other side are going to vote against it.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen)-Freedom of Information-(a) McBride Commission Report, (b) Government policy; the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor)-Veterans Affairs-Request that commemorative medal be struck to honour Dieppe veterans; the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer)-Grain- (a) Cash advance payments-Request for increase, (b) Request for assistance to farmers.
26880

June 28, 1983
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-95, an Act to provide for Government operated pool systems on combination of athletic contests and events and to amend the Criminal Code and the Income Tax Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture; and motion No. 4 (Mr. Reid, St. Catharines).
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Section (11) of Standing Order 79, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Hon. John Roberts (for the Minister of State (International Trade)) moved:: That Bill C-95, An Act to provide for government operated pool systems on combinations of athletic contests and events and to amend the Criminal Code and the Income Tax Act. be amended in Clause 24 of the English version by striking out line 33 at page 10 and substituting the following therefor:
"its three following financial years."


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I find it absolutely disgraceful that the Government has a motion on the Order Paper yet the Minister is not here to debate it. His Parliamentary Secretary is not here to debate it. In fact, there is not one person on the Government side to debate this motion so as to tell us what it is all about and why the Government is presenting it. I find it absolutely disgraceful. Tht is the interest the Liberal Government has in the parliamentary system and in a Bill that is before this House. I find it absolutely unforgiving that the Government presents motions and has no one in the House to handle them. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne) and the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) are here but neither of them knows what we are debating in the House; they do not have a clue. There is no one here, not even a Parliamentary Secretary, to discuss this Bill. I find it appalling.
We are debating a Bill which is an atrocious piece of legislation in the first place. It should not be before the House. To have no one from the Government side stand up and present the motion speaks of the Liberal Government, of the tired, old bunch that are over there. I know that the Canadian
people, whenever the Liberals get enough guts to call an election, will rid the country of this terrible outfit that has been trying to administer this country for the last 15 years.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, 1 just wanted to say a few words because I feel as concerned as the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid) is that the Government has demonstrated a sort of cynicism with respect to this legislation that cannot go unnoticed. The Government is not prepared to stand up and tell us exactly why it feels this legislation should have priority.
It has been pointed out by myself and by my colleagues that there are in excess of two million Canadians unemployed, there are serious social and economic problems facing the nation, and with precious time in the House the Liberals' priorities seem to be to create a sports pool to give themselves an exception under the Criminal Code of Canada to get back into the sports gaming lottery business by virtue of this device. This is the nature of the Government's priorities. I think it is necessary for us to stand up and reiterate the reason the Government is doing this.
I want to conclude my few remarks by saying that those of us on this side of the House look forward with some substantial pride to the coming of the Winter Olympics in Calgary. I will be there, I am sure with hundreds of thousands of other Canadians, to cheer our Canadian Olympic team. I suggest that our national Government has a role to give financial assistance to this worth-while project, and I would support that. There is no question the Winter Olympics will be an event which will promote one of the most beautiful and challenging areas for recreation and athletic events that will be performed at the Olympics. But what this is all about and what this debate has been all about, before we get to the final vote, is really to question-and Parliament is a forum for questioning-the legislation of the Government to which there has been no response. It has been a pitiful display on the part of the Government. When an attempt has been made to have a dialogue and to get answers to what I think are legitimate answers, the Government sits mute, refusing to respond. It lets the matter go through by process of attrition because the fundamental question is the method and the means upon which the Government has chosen to raise $200 million to give to the organizing committee.
When the Minister responsible for fitness and amateur sport accepted that responsibility, this particular sports pool was no part of the commitment on behalf of the people of Canada. I think all of us who watched the application made on behalf of Canada at Baden Baden were supportive and felt that the Government-I do not want to spend a lot of time commending the Government-was speaking on behalf of the people of Canada and saying that yes, the Government was prepared to support and important region of our country in its application to hold the Winter Olympics. But it now comes forward with this legislation, which is not restricted to supporting this
June 28, 1983

particular project but sets into place until such time as it is revoked, which 1 suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, will be after the next election, the enormous cost of setting up an elaborate gaming operation on behalf of the federal Government.
This will be available for a variety of purposes in terms of paying off many friends of the Liberal Government. Examples have been given. This will be done without response on the part of Government Members and its supporters. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) sits mute. They will have to answer to the people of Canada later on in terms of their moral, legal and ethical positions in supporting this piece of legislation without the amendment suggested by my colleague. 1 think it is a sorry day for Canada that we have to end this part of the session with this sorry Government, pitiful as it is, relying upon a sports pool in order to raise tax money to support medical research, the improvement of our athletic position and the Calgary Winter Olympics.


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I had not anticipated that there would be extensive debate on this particular amendment. In the event Hon. Members opposite are opposed to this amendment, 1 advise the House that I would be prepared to seek its consent to withdraw motion No. 5. Since it was originally put on the Order Paper, it has been concluded that it is really not necessary. It is fine if it goes through, but I do not think it is necessary to engage in lengthy debate on it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David P. Smith: I am just trying to accommodate Hon. Members opposite. If they are opposed to it, rather than force them to go through a debate on it, I would be prepared to seek the consent of the House to withdraw it.


Charles James Mayer: Tell us why.


David P. Smith: Because it is not necessary.


Joseph Lloyd Reid: Mr. Speaker, before the debate continues too far and before any strong positions are taken by the Government side, I would like to indicate, in the absence of the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Regan), that originally that particular section of the Act required the Crown corporation to provide to the Minister responsible for the approval of the Governor in Council a corporate plan for its two following years. The executive directors charged with the responsibility of preparing, organizing and developing programs for both fitness and amateur sport raised a question of concern. They indicated that the original two-year period was far too short, too short a period for good term planning or even long-term planning. They wanted an extension so as to provide better long-range planning, particularly in instances of major sports events.
It was argued in committee that it was an acceptable practice for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) and for the Government of Canada, in the presentation of budgets, to file financial forecasts of five years. This was generally accepted
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
by Departments in making submissions to their respective Ministers. Government Departments and Crown corporations should, if they are to do their job properly, plan ahead for at least a period of five years.
Accordingly, in committee the Opposition recommended that the time period be changed and that this Crown corporation be required to submit a fiscal corporate plan for a period of five years. This was not acceptable to the Minister. A compromise arrangement was reached, and hence Motion No. 5 is before the House.
We support this motion which sets out a requirement that the fiscal corporate plan should be submitted to the Minister responsible for a period of its three following years. We in the Opposition are prepared to support that position.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried on division.
Motion No. 5 agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions on the Bill. Call in the Members.


Madam Speaker:: The motion is lost.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I believe there might be a disposition to have the same division recorded for the rest of the motions. However, I would ask the unanimous consent of the House to add to the votes cast by this Party the names of the Hon. Member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse), the Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell) and the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby). If that were done, the same division could be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. Otherwise, we shall have to go through a recorded division again. I believe it might save the time of the House.


Madam Speaker:: Does the House agree that the recorded vote for Motion No. 2 should be applied to the other motions, Nos. 3 and 4, and that the names mentioned by the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) be added, since they came into the House once the vote had started?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: The House agrees.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, since that courtesy has been accorded, I suggest that the Hon. Member on the Government side who just came into the House may wish the same treatment. If he does, we would certainly agree on this side.


Madam Speaker:: For the benefit of the Chair, would the Hon. Member who came late to vote identify himself to the Chair? The Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid).


Hon. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Madam Speaker, I was here for the vote. I merely left my chair to speak to my colleague, the Hon. Member from Scarborough, and then returned to my chair. I was here for the vote.


Madam Speaker:: You were here for the vote but you did not vote?


John Mercer Reid: Yes, I did vote. I was here.


Madam Speaker:: I see.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Fair enough.


Serge Joyal: that the Bill as amended be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Madam Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the third time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

June 28, 1983
Judges Act


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, I have had consultations with my Opposition colleagues, and the order of business in the House has been modified as follows: As of now, we shall first proceed with consideration of two Bills which concern the judges and the Federal Court. Since both Bills will have to go to a committee of the whole and a number of amendments are possible, Hon. Members should judge for themselves and decide whether it is important to stay in the House or not. After the judges legislation, we shall quickly dispose of Bill S-24, since we have an agreement that only one speaker per party will be heard, followed by Bill C-119, where we also have an agreement for having only one speaker per party. As soon as these four Bills have been disposed of, whenever that may be, we shall adjourn until 11 o'clock tomorrow morning.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, that is in essence the agreement we have reached. I would ask that the Judges Bill, which we insisted be split, be called separately. On that understanding we are in agreement.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous agreement to the order of business just now enumerated by the Hon. President of the Privy Council.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent that the House shall adjourn when that order of business is completed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Is there unanimous consent for the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) to introduce two Bills arising out of the Judges Act?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


JUDGES ACT-FEDERAL COURT ACT MEASURE TO AMEND
Mark R. MacGuigan: for leave to introduce Bill C-166, An Act to amend the Judges Act and the Federal Court Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the second time? Later this day?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


AN ACT RESPECTING THE TAX COURT OF CANADA AND TO AMEND THE FEDERAL COURT ACT, THE JUDGES ACT AND THE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT, 1971 MEASURE TO ESTABLISH AND TO AMEND
Mark R. MacGuigan: for leave to introduce Bill C-167, An Act respecting the Tax Court of Canada, and to amend the Federal Court Act, the Judges Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the second time? Later this day?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


JUDGES ACT-FEDERAL COURT ACT MEASURE TO AMEND
Mark R. MacGuigan: that Bill C-166, An Act to amend the Judges Act and the Federal Court Act, be read the second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would first of all like to thank the Leaders and Members of both Opposition Parties for their cooperation in allowing this Bill and its companion Bill to come before us and to receive speedy passage. We are accommodating a good number of Provinces in putting this legislation through.
Bill C-166, Mr. Speaker, is an Act to amend the Judges Act and the Federal Court Act. Since it naturally falls into two segments, I will deal with each of those in turn. First, with respect to the Federal Court Act, I would point out that the Bill provides for an increase of four judges at the Federal Court of Appeal level, and two judges at the Trial Division level. Increases in the number of judges have been requested for some time by the Chief Justice and Associate Chief Justice of the Federal Court, I might add, Mr. Speaker, with a great deal of pressing and persistence on their part. This increase in the number of judges takes into account the present case load as well as the projected increase in the next few years and the desirability of reducing the reliance, to a very substantial extent, on deputy judges.
Deputy judges, Mr. Speaker, are in practice judges of the provincial Superior Courts who have retired on account of age. The Bill will correct an anomaly by extending to a judge of the federal Court of Canada the right to elect to be a supernumerary judge on the same basis as, for example, judges of the Superior Courts of the Provinces.

Mr. Speaker, the proposed amendments to the judges Bill are mainly of an administrative and technical nature. As Hon.

June 28, 1983

Members are aware, under the Constitution, the Parliament of Canada appoints the judges of superior courts and district and county courts in the provinces and provides for their salaries. In order to meet the demand in many provinces which have recently created additional positions for judges in superior and county courts or which have informed us of their intention to do so in the near future, the Government is proposing amendments to the judges Bill, authorizing salaries for the additional judges.

In other words, Mr. Speaker, we try to make some provision in advance for the Provinces by bringing the law up to date and by including the immediately pending modifications of which we have been notified by various Provinces. For example, a major reorganization is to take place this fall in the Province of Manitoba, where a new division of the Supreme Court will be created to deal with Family Court matters and where, I also understand, the County Courts and Supreme Courts will be merged. We have received advance notice of that change on the part of the Province, and so the legislation allows for that. It also allows, through the pool arrangement, for some small increase in the number of judges throughout the country at the Superior, County and District Court levels over the next few years. For these reasons, the actual net increase in the number of judges that the Bill would give us authority to appoint immediately is very much smaller than would be immediately apparent from the Bill itself.
I have already mentioned that with the reorganization four judges would be appointed to the Federal Court of Appeal and two to the Trial Division. There would also be two Supreme Court judges appointed in British Columbia and the Chief Judge of the County Courts in Manitoba. There would be five additional Queen's Bench judges and an associate Chief Justice and also an additional County Court position. There would be four Queen's Bench positions in New Brunswick, that is, for the Family Court in that Province. In Nova Scotia, there would be an additional Appeal Court Judge, two Trial Court judges and a Chief Judge of the County Courts. In Ontario, there would be two additions to the High Court and three to the County Courts as well as an acting Chief Judge. The largest number of new judgeships would be created in the Province of Quebec which has requested us to enable the appointment of nine new judges of the Superior Court level.
I might just add in conclusion that the Bill also makes technical changes and removes language in some parts of the Judges Act that may be considered sexist. These comments summarize the essential elements of the Bill and, if my colleague opposite is ready to proceed, I can sit down at this point and allow him to have the floor.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the benefit of hearing the remarks of the Minister with respect to the split portion of the Bill. I am pleased to be able to join in the debate today dealing with changes to the Judges Act and, subsequently, to deal with a Bill which will, in effect, create a new court in Canada, referred to as a tax court.
Judges Act
As the House will have noticed, the Bill was split into two portions at the insistence of my Party. There was an agreement that was finally reached prior to the introduction of the two Bills, by unanimous consent. This was because of fundamental concern expressed by Members of my Party with respect to the precedent which has been growing in the past on the part of the Government in terms of bringing in so-called omnibus legislation which purports bring in all types of amendments to a particular piece of legislation. This particular instance concerns the expansion of provincial courts at the request of the Provinces, expansion of the Federal Court at the request of the Federal Court and the creation of a new court.
We will support both of these Bills. We are not speaking against them. However, in terms of the precedent that would be established of bringing in one piece of legislation containing all of these portions, we think it is significant to stand up on each occasion ans ask-indeed, insist-that the Government bring in separate pieces of legislation with separate topics. The reason is very simple. It involves the apples and oranges concept in terms of legislation before the House.
When we are dealing with diverse, totally unrelated matters in one piece of legislation, it might well be the case, and often is the case, that Hon. Members in the House may support one portion of the Bill and oppose other provisions. As a result, we are not able to deal intelligently or responsibly with the legislation brought forward by the Government because we are dealing with a diverse number of problems. In order to make our point with respect to parts of the Bill to which we may take exception, we must vote against all the provisions of the Bill. That is simply an unacceptable way of proceeding legislatively. That is why we have insisted on the splitting of the Bill.
I think the Government is to be commended to accept what I would term as being our constructive suggestion in terms of this legislation. It has facilitated the passage of these pieces of legislation. It has allowed us to deal with them seriatim and to deal with the prinicples involved. We do support the provisions and changes to the Judges Act.
The Minister just referred to the amendments to the Judges Act. I should say at the outset that we are a little upset about the length of time it has taken for the Minister to come up with these particular amendments. Many of the Provinces involved in the Federal Court have been experiencing substantial backlogs in connection with cases coming before them and in provision of judicial services. It is clearly undesirable. The House should note the willingness of our Party to rectify the situation as quickly as possible.
There has been representation received from representatives of the Canadian Bar Association and, indeed, from representatives of provincial bars across the country, concerning the difficulties being experienced in bringing cases before various judicial bodies in each of the Provinces. The old legal axiom, which the professor who now occupies the position of Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) will understand, is that "Justice delayed is justice denied". However, I wanted to take this
COMMONS DEBATES___________ June 28, 1983
Judges Act
opportunity to address, in very few words, the new and expanding role of judges in general.
Since we are increasing the number of judges, this is an opportunity for those of us who are concerned with justice and legal affairs to consider the role of judges in our society today. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms has, of course, greatly expanded the impact of judges on our society today. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms has, of course, greatly expanded the impact of judges on our society, particularly as they relate to the criminal justice system. Opinions vary as to how great an impact there will be. Some Crown prosecutors and some police officers feel that the exclusionary rule will appear in Canada and that, as a result, we will see a host of technical acquittals and a resultant increase in crimes which go unpunished before our courts in Canada from this time on. To date, I think it is fair to say that this has not proven to be true with respect to those cases which have come before our lower courts. Flowever, many people feel that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is full of loopholes.
A suggestion exists that Clause 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms will severely restrict the force and effect of the Charter and that as a result, the evidentiary rules made by the Warren Court in the United States will not have a home in Canada.
In the United States, the United States Supreme Court has developed the exclusionary rule through decisions such as Mapp and Miranda preventing the use of evidence that has been collected in derogation of a person's legal rights under the Constitution. Whether Canadian courts will develop similar rules to protect citizens' rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is open to question. All indications to date suggest that Canadian courts will maintain their small "c" conservative leanings, although there are a number of exceptions, and particularly one reported in the Ottawa press, where a local provincial court judge excluded evidence collected through a faulty search warrant.
The American Supreme Court has been openly interventionist in its rulings on the criminal law and on other matters. Its rulings on capital punishment, abortion, busing and the environment, to name only a few, have had profound political and sociological implications.


O 0810)
[Stage Direction]
Indeed, the traditions of the decision-making process within the U.S. courts have been different from those of our judges. American judges have shown in recent years a willingness to take an active position on political and sociological issues. The Anglo-Canadian tradition has been for the judges to confine themselves to the issue between the litigants before them, using precedent as their guide and to avoid making sweeping decisions with political implications.
It is arguable that in enacting a Charter of Rights we have only gone part way in reforming our legal system. My point is essentially that we have developed in this country a Charter of Rights that will take years to interpret. The existence of the Charter substantially increases the power of the final court of appeal in our country, the Supreme Court of Canada, to define
and delineate the rights of individual citizens. Those judges who will make these determinations are, in effect, appointed by one person, the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister ultimately determines the competence of the nominees and makes an assessment of their political, social and philosophical beliefs. Indeed, the Supreme Court of this country has, from time to time, been accused of being centralist at one time and decentralist at others. I believe the opportunity now exists for a Prime Minister to shape the day-to-day practice of rights and freedoms in this country, even to the extent of their encroachment on provincial jurisdiction. This is something that causes me major concern.
As most Members will know, United States judges are appointed to the Supreme Court by the President. But the judiciary committee of the Senate then interviews the nominees and makes a recommendation on ratification to the full Senate who then may, by simple majority, accept or reject a nomination. Fifteen presidents have seen 26 of their nominees for the Supreme Court fail to win Senate confirmation out of 139 appointments.
I would suggest to the House and to the Minister that in light of the enactment of our new Charter of Rights, we may have cause to consider what provisions we may adopt in our own country to allow elected representatives-possibly Members of Parliament or other elected officials representing various regions of our country-the opportunity of considering the social, philosophical or other views held by those nominees before their appointment to the highest court in our land is made final. Another opportunity we may consider at this time is that it may be desirable to have the Governor in Council make the nominations, at which time an appropriate committee of the House can be given the opportunity to interview and make recommendations on the appropriateness of the nomination to the Supreme Court of Canada. Indeed, the House of Commons may even be given an opportunity to vote on nominations made to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Without casting any reflection upon the competence of the Members of our Supreme Court at the present time, who are eminent and distinguished jurists, I believe that we are enter ing into a new judicial age in our country which therefore could make it the appropriate time to consider this type of investigation. Indeed, I have informally discussed this matter with more than one Member of the existing Supreme Court who have found no fault in the suggestion I have made. Furthermore, one judge was rather supportive of what I am now saying, that there should be no difficulty with an investigation not only of the qualifications and competence of nominees to the Supreme Court of Canada when a person takes that position, knowing the powers that will be vested in the Supreme Court of Canada, but to find out where they stand and have stood on issues and their attitude toward issues arising in the House.
I admit that some practical problems will exist with this method since our system involves Party disciplines and the lack of separation between the executive and legislative branches of
June 28, 1983
[Stage Direction]
Government. However, a process such as the one suggested would allow an appropriate committee of the House at least to interview the nominee and discuss that nominee's qualifications and political, social and philosophical views.
Other alternatives are certainly available and have been suggested by responsible people in our country from time to time. For example, the Task Force on National Unity recommended nomination by Governor in Council following consultation with the respective Attorneys General of the Provinces. Nomination would then be ratified by the appropriate committee of the proposed council of the federation, a body which represented the Provinces at the federal level. Perhaps the Senate Reform Committee will have further recommendations with respect to the role of a reformed Senate in terms of judicial appointments in our country with regard to the enactment of the Charter of Rights.
Whatever the method, I think the important point is that it is necessary to develop a system of judicial appointments to the Supreme Court that in effect allows people who are elected the opportunity of having some input into these nominations. Again, without casting any reflection on any particular incumbent in the position of Prime Minister, I believe it is important for these decisions to be made by more than simply one person, even if that one person is the Prime Minister of our country. In developing a Charter of Rights we have only come part of the way to enhancing the rights and freedoms of Canadians. We must work as hard as we can to ensure that these rights and freedoms will be dealt with by the courts in a fair and independent fashion. Furthermore, we must ensure that they appear to be dealt with in such a fashion.
Finally, in dealing with this Bill which increases the complement of judges in various courts across our country, as the Minister pointed out, 1 want to express my concern over a matter which has received some attention recently in the public press. It concerns the whole question of the independence of the judiciary and the ability of members of the court to speak out on current political issues. I fully understand some of the frustrations felt by members of our judiciary over the traditional way in which they must deal with important political issues facing our country. Traditionally, judges simply do not speak out publicly on political issues. There is a legitimate and valid reason for this which has developed through tradition. It is that justice should not only appear to be impartial but should actually be impartial. Any suggestion that the judges have a preconceived view of the various political issues in our country cannot in any way be allowed to continue to the jeopardy of a citizen who has litigation before a court.
While there may be great sympathy for a position enunciated by members of the judiciary in this country from time to time outside the sphere of their consideration of cases before them, and while their positions may be indeed meritorious and dictate the support of people across Canada, I make the simple observation and proposition to the House that judges, by so acting, put themselves in a position where a litigant may feel he is not receiving a truly impartial hearing while pleading his case before the court if it relates to a matter on which a judge has spoken.
Judges Act
I agree with Chief Justice Laskin of the Supreme Court that the decision has to be made by those who occupy a position of judge of any of our superior courts in Canada that the only way they may address any issue is by dealing with the matter through the courts. Any other conclusion, I think, would be very seriously detrimental to our judicial system. I say to people who consider appointments to the courts that in accepting the appointment they receive some very substantial protection for their independence. They are not able to be removed arbitrarily or by any government. The only way to remove a judge of a superior court in this country is by an address by both Houses of Parliament, a resolution passed by both Houses, a very substantial protection for the judge in dealing independently with the issues before him or her without any concern for political pressure which may be imposed upon them. But by the same token, because they have that unique and unusual protection, they also have the responsibility, indeed the constraint upon them not to involve themselves in political issues from day to day.
I sometimes find it quite difficult to understand the rationale of those who speak out on the floor of the House of Commons in support of a particular judge having the ability to become involved in active debate on political issues, no matter how meritorious. I ask the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), at one time the justice critic for the New Democratic Party who represented as he did at one time Mr. Justice Berger, the rhetorical question whether in supporting Mr. Justice Berger in his right to speak out, he would feel compelled to support another judge who may speak out condemning the policies of the New Democratic Party and feel very legitimately and seriously that he was doing a public service in making a pronouncement on the policies of the New Democratic Party. I think the Hon. Member for Burnaby, or indeed the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Keeper), or indeed the distinguished Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), or indeed the current justice critic, the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald), would be the first ones to stand up and say that a judge has no right to criticize the policies of the New Democratic Party, that he is wrong. I am sure they would say that there is no place for a judge in this country to involve himself in that kind of debate. When I hear from colleagues in the House of Commons to my left taking that position, it causes me a great deal of concern. It makes me wonder whether they fully understand the principles upon which judicial independence in our system is based.
I have spoken a little longer than I intended, Mr. Speaker. But this is one of the few opportunities that one has to talk about judges. I do not want to cast any reflection on the Minister or the Government by saying that we in the Opposition are not often consulted about judicial appointments. We hear about them. Press releases come across our desks. From time to time I know that judges appointed by this Government have had some past affiliation with the governing Party. It is
[Stage Direction]
June 28, 1983
Judges Act
not an unheard of proposition that that is the case, I simply say to the Minister that I hope after the next election when we are in government we will take a far broader view with respect to the responsibilities and try to be as apolitical as we can. Mind you, as has been pointed out by our new Leader there are many highly qualified people who at one time or another supported the Conservative Party who are still available for judicial appointments, and I would not want to deny them that responsibility. Therefore, I do not want to tie myself down too closely by saying that we would not appoint any Conservatives because that would be wrong-headed and unfortunate. I simply say to the Minister that while we petition him to develop the process, there has been some progress with respect to the whole process of judicial selection of judges in Canada. An attempt has been made for greater consultation with various provincial bars and the Canadian Bar Association, and I think this is an admirable development concerning judicial appointments in our country.
With the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and for a variety of reasons, the role of the judiciary in our country is expanding in importance. Judges are becoming involved, as they are in many issues, in the interpretations they bring down which affect the daily lives of Canadians, and it is important that we deal with these matters in terms of getting the best people possible appointed to the bench. We should be tireless in our efforts and supportive of each other as much as possible on a non-partisan basis to get the best people possible to serve as judges in the courts of our land.
With those few remarks I conclude my observations with respect to this Bill, but again I wish to assure the Minister of the position we have taken. We are prepared to let this Bill go through all stages today in order to relieve somewhat the pressure on the courts across the country with respect to the workload they experience.
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, most of the matters which are dealt with in the legislation before us are technical. They are not controversial, they are not partisan. I presume the Minister of Justice (Mr. Mac-Guigan), in consultation with his provincial counterparts, decided that a certain number of judges is needed in each Province and there is good reason for this. Likewise, for the reorganization into the tax court there is good reason for it and it is something we can all support.
I want to make a couple of comments about judicial appointments, although my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Keeper), will be making a few more.
I do recall, apropos of a few remarks of the previous speaker, that in making representations to the last Conservative Prime Minister about judicial appointments, I pointed out that those appointments would all be going to the Conservative Party after years of going all to the Liberal Party and I suggested that appointments might be based relative to population. I suggested that we might concede that a certain number of eligible people would have no political affiliation and that the other appointments should be distributed roughly according to representation in popular vote. 1 did not get anywhere with this
proposal. The former Prime Minister did not think that such a reasonable proposal was worth considering.
The Minister of Justice has made reference to improving some of the sexist language in the Judges Act. I want to commend him for that. However, I want to point out that it is a very minor change he has made so far and it is far from the most important one. The language is still framed in the masculine. The judges are all "he". Of course, this is largely true. Most judges are men, but clearly this is one of the points we want to address. Women should be well represented in the judiciary and so far they are not.
The one change the Minister did make concerns pensions. The phrase now, instead of being "widow's pension", is "pension for the surviving spouse". It is an important principle that widowers be treated on the same basis as widows. Let us not be foolish about this and think that this will address any dire social need. I doubt whether there is any widower of a woman judge who is in desperate need of the pension, and 1 doubt any injustice would have continued by keeping the old language. What we need is a much more comprehensive change to nonsexist language throughout. I would refer the Minister to the guidelines established by the status of women in Canada which were released very recently. These were prepared for what was called federal Government communications. They were not directed toward legislation. But the same principle holds. They are very good guidelines. I would suggest they be consulted and in the future the Ministry of Justice phrase its legislation in non-sexist terms. This is not just a matter of symbols, Mr. Speaker. Symbols themselves are important. But judges make decisions regarding people's lives. We have had disastrous decisions in the past regarding women. There has been a long series of women's equality cases. They have gone through the courts all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada has a disastrous record in dealing with women's equality right back to the old Persons case. Women were not persons within the lifetime of many Members of this House. In the Judges Act, women are still not persons. They are nobodies. I think we have to assume this affects judges' thinking.
I plan to bring in some amendments at Committee of the Whole stage, but 1 would like to comment briefly on the rationale behind them. There are two amendments concerning pensions. First, there is a section which eliminates the widow's pension, or what will be called the surviving spouse's pension when the legislation is passed, if the widow or surviving spouse remarries. Clearly there is the idea of a widow being a dependent, and the pension is only for the time that the widow is a dependent. This is a very false idea.
We have a notion that marriage is a partnership of equals. In the case where the judge has a homemaker spouse who did not go into the paid labour force, that person is dependent on the judge and the judge's pension, but that person has also made a contribution. For example, that person has probably raised children over a number of years and done a great deal of
June 28, 1983

work for the couple. That is normally recognized by having a pension as a result, but we do not see this; the person does not get a pension in her own name if her husband dies and she remarries. She loses the pension, which is extremely unfair to her. It may mean that some women in these circumstances who would like to remarry will not remarry because they cannot afford to lose that pension for which they have worked and to which they have contributed for many, many years by their work in the marriage.
The other pension amendment concerns the pension of the judge being split between the two spouses when the spouse reaches the age of 65. This is a proposal which is being considered for many pension plans including the Canada Pension Plan. It is in the green paper and has been discussed wherever pensions were under discussion. This amendment recognizes that a couple is a partnership of equals. They each work, they each contribute, and they should each benefit. Clearly it would not be fair if the spouse did not split her or his pension in the circumstances, but it would be eminently fair in the case of the homemaker spouse for whom there is no pension at all, or a spouse who is in the paid labour force and splits her or his pension at the same time.
I think they are very reasonable and very important amendments. Judges should have a model pension scheme. They make decisions about pensions which affect all other Canadian men and women. They have made bad decisions in the past. Why did we have the cases of Murdoch, Leatherdale and Rathwell? Why did we have these cases where the contribution of women was not understood and was underestimated? Judges' own pensions underestimate the contribution of women. We only have to look at their own scheme, which Parliament provided, to see that women are not equal beings. It is very important in the area of pensions that the provisions for judges be the best possible ones in our society, that they really be just and fair.
I will be introducing these amendments when the Bill is being considered in Committee of the Whole. I do not want to continue any further now. We will be supporting the Bill. As I said, most of its provisions are non-controversial. I hope to obtain the support of the Conservative Party and, indeed, of the Government on the two amendments that I will introduce.


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues in the Conservative Party and in the Liberal Party for allowing me the courtesy of making a few short remarks in this debate without in any way whatsoever delaying the movement of the legislation.
What I want to comment upon concerns the process of appointing judges in the country. As I understand it, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) appoints judges and there is no public process through which the suitability of judges for the bench is examined before he makes appointments. While this may have been appropriate throughout our judicial practice in the past, I would suggest that, with the introduction of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution which will now
Judges Act
contain provisions with regard to aboriginal rights, it is important that there be an opportunity for a full and open exploration of the views and attitudes of judges before they are appointed, simply because of the fact that indeed they are independent, as they should be, after their appointment.
I must say as well that the provisions in the Constitution with regard to sexual equality demand a full exploration of the views of possible appointees to the bench before they are appointed.
It is crucial that all Canadians understand that when they go before the courts they will be treated fairly and will be seen to be treated fairly. I want to give an example by referring to a recent event that pointed to the need to examine the whole question of how we appoint judges in Canada. I am thinking of the comments in the last few months of Mr. Justice Monnin in the Province of Manitoba. He was reported in the newspapers as having said something to the effect that if he had to throw out of court all the evidence of drunken Indians there would be nothing left. Of course the native community reacted to these comments with anger and dismay, quite rightly so.
I do not want to comment with regard to the quoted statements of Justice Monnin, but I want to say that they point to the need for a full and open process of appointing judges so that all citizens can have full confidence in the judiciary. After these comments were reported, a complaint was made to the judicial council; of course no action was taken. After that the Prime Minister, with no public input, appointed the same Justice as Chief Justice for the Province of Manitoba, to the surprise and dismay of many residents of that Province.
It is time for an open and public process for the appointment of judges. It is important that all citizens feel and know that they will be treated fairly when they enter the courts of the land. This is particularly important now that we have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and there will be provisions in the Constitution with regard to aboriginal rights.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Francis in the Chair.
Cyril Lloyd Francis: The House in Committee of the Whole on what is now Bill C-166.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Chairman, I talked on the wrong Bill.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I believe the Hon. Member spoke to the correct Bill, but I am trying to bring to the attention of the Committee certain difficulties with regard to numbering which I hope have finally been resolved.
Clauses 1 to 12 inclusive agreed to. On Clause 13-

June 28, 1983
Judges Act


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Chairman, I wish to introduce an amendment at this point. I move:
That the Act be amended by substituting the following for Section 13(3):
"Section 26(3) of the Judges Act is repealed."


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion negatived on division.
Motion (Ms. McDonald) negatived.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Chairman, I have another amendment.
I move:
That the Judges Act be amended by adding a new Section 23 (4):
"Where a judge is in receipt of a pension pursuant to the provisions of the
Judges Act and his or her spouse reaches the age of 65, the pension shall be
split equally between the two, provided that the spouse is not in receipt of a
pension that is not also equally split".
This is on the same page as the previous amendment that was sent forward.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Chairman, I might just say a word to indicate why, despite our sympathy for the kind of consideration that is being raised, it is difficult for the Government to go along with it.
First, the whole area of pensions is under active consideration by the Government at the present time in the context of the national pension plan reform. Second, it would be unfair to proceed on a piecemeal basis which would be the effect of the amendment here. It would provide special treatment for the spouses or surviving spouses of judges. There are many other statutes dealing with pensions, such as those governing Members of Parliament, the RCMP, public servants and so on. These groups would all have to be put on the same footing. I do not think one could apply such a provision only to the category of spouses and surviving spouses of judges.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Chairman, it is certainly true that numerous other people have pensions which do not provide for pension splitting and have these other anomalies of being cancelled on remarriage. It is particularly important forjudges to have reasonable and equitable pensions because they make so many other decisions. While I would certainly be in agreement that all of these other pension schemes be changed, I think judges should come first. I wonder if the Minister would give us some information as to where he stands on this. Is he
prepared to recommend very firmly that in future discussion on pensions the anomaly of cutting pensions be eliminated and that there be a splitting of the pension in recognition of the partnership that is entailed in marriage?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to propose that it be considered very seriously during the study of the matter.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Those in favour of the amendment please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: In my opinion, the nays have it. I declare the motion negatived on division.
Motion (Ms. McDonald) negatived.
Clauses 13 to 19 inclusive agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Before we move to the next Bill, I have consulted the other House Leaders and it is agreed that we will give unanimous consent to allow the Hon. Member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier), the Chairman of the Committee on Regional Development, to table the report on Bill C-165. I can assure my colleagues that I have talked to the House Leaders and we have agreed to the tabling.
I would seize this opportunity to confirm the business for tomorrow. The first item tomorrow morning will be report stage and third reading of Bill C-165, which will be reported in a moment, followed by third reading debate on Bill C-95. Further to the House Order earlier this week or last week, at four o'clock we will move to deal with the resolution in relation to aboriginal rights. I understand that no later than 5.45 this resolution will have to be disposed of. Following that, if need be, we will resume debate on Bill C-95, followed by Bill C-152. That is the business for tomorrow. I seek unanimous consent to allow the Hon. Member for Sherbrooke to table the report.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to revert to presenting reports from Standing and Special Committees?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
June 28, 1983



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Irenee Pelletier (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Regional Economic Expansion which has examined Bill C-165.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see todays, Votes and Proceedings.]


ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty to inform the House that a number of objections to the Electoral Boundaries Commission reports have been filed with the Speaker. Since they are numerous, if the House agrees, the texts of the objections will be printed as appendices to the Votes and Proceedings. Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mark R. MacGuigan: that Bill C-167, An Act respecting the Tax Court of Canada and to amend the Federal Court Act, the Judges Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, be read the second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very conscious of the importance of not detaining the House very long. However, I think I should outline very briefly the salient points of Bill C-167 and the reasons for the changes introduced by that Bill.
First, the Tax Review Board is continued under the name of the Tax Court of Canada as a court of record. We believe that such a change in the name of this tribunal will improve the perception by the general public of its nature. The Tax Review Board has been considered by many taxpayers as an arm of the Department of National Revenue or of the Government of Canada. The present name of the Tax Review Board is known to have given the mistaken impression that the Board had an interest in the outcome of actions before it.
Tax Court of Canada
This change will also reflect the exclusively judicial nature of this tribunal. It is inappropriate to maintain an impression that it is an agency or a board of the federal Government rather than a court of law.
The conversion of this Board into a court of law had been recommended by the Canadian Bar Association to the Royal Commission on Taxation (the Carter Commission). In turn, the latter commission, among its many recommendations which gave rise to the 1972 tax reform, proposed the creation of a tax court. More recently, the Canadian Bar Association was consulted by my predecessor and that association fully endorsed the proposal regarding the change in name and status of the Board.
I stress, however, that the Government does not want to make more difficult the taxpayers' access to this tribunal, nor does it want to introduce formality in the conduct of the board's proceedings-quite the contrary. It is provided in subclause 14(1) of the Bill that an appeal to the Tax Court of Canada does not require any special form of pleadings. Subclause 14(2) sets out that the Court is not bound by the technical rules of evidence. The same Subclause goes even further and states that all appeals are to be dealt with by the courts as informally and expeditiously as circumstances and considerations of fairness permit.
From Clause 15, it is apparent that the taxpayer may appeal to the Court in person or may be represented by a lawyer, friend or any other person of his choice. The Court cannot award costs on the disposition of an appeal. The substance of all these provisions is now found in the Tax Review Board Act.
A second change proposed by the Bill has to do with certain amendments to Part IV of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971. It should be recalled that Part IV of the latter statute is, at the present time, administered by the Department of National Revenue. Appeals under that part are now heard by umpires who, in practice, are the judges of the Trial Division of the Federal Court of Canada.
The transfer of jurisdiction to the Tax Court of Canada is desirable on account of the fact that the handling of UI appeals on the coverage side more properly fits a court like this tribunal than a court of superior jurisdiction like the Federal Court of Canada.
The appeal system against a decision of the tribunal of first instance in appeals under Part IV of the Act will be simplified in that all decisions of the Tax Court of Canada will be the subject matter of a single review under Section 28 of the Federal Court Act. At the present time, the decision of an umpire with regard to an appeal under Part IV of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, can be appealed pursuant to Section 86 of the latter Act to the Pensions Appeal Board with leave of that Board in respect of a question of law involving

June 28, 1983
Tax Court of Canada
Section 3 of that Act and can be subject as well to an application for review under Section 28 of the Federal Court Act on all other questions involved in that decision. It is to be noted that there is no change in the appeal system regarding benefit cases.
Part III of the Judges Act is also amended so as to entrust the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs with the management of the affairs of this tribunal. The considerations which prompted the Government a few years ago to transfer the administrative duties and functions relative to the staff of the Federal Court of Canada from the Department of Justice to the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs are equally valid in this case. This is done with a view to further enhancing the independence of the judiciary in Canada and ensuring to the greatest possible extent, consistent with the principles of the ministerial responsibility of a parliamentary system of Government, that the administration of judicial affairs is to be separate and apart from the administration of the affairs of the executive branch of the Government.

Finally, the Government is proposing to increase the number of members of this tribunal from seven to twelve. The rapid increase in appeals from income tax payments and the new jurisdiction of this court with respect to appeals under Part IV of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, are ample justification for this increase. In this respect, I would like to note that the number of members has remained the same since the Act was passed in December 1970.

Mr. Speaker, I commend this Bill to the support of the House, and again I express my gratitude to the Members of the Opposition for their co-operation and for being prepared to consider this Bill at all stages today.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate being afforded the opportunity to show the spirit of co-operation for which I and my Party are known, by zooming through this legislation with dispatch. Nonetheless, we do take these pieces of legislation very seriously. I know that the kind of co-operation I have demonstrated today will be reflected by the Government House Leader tomorrow when I introduce a Private Members' Bill which will ask for unanimous consent of the House. I simply enter into my remarks on that basis so that he will understand the import of my imprecations.
1 would like to talk about the creation of a Tax Court in Canada as contemplated by this Bill. It was stated by the Minister in a press release of May 25, 1983, that the Tax Review Board is to be designated as a court of law and the board members are to be made judges so as to dispel "the impression that it is merely an agency of the federal Government with an interest in the outcome of the actions that are brought before it."
On the basis of my experience, Mr. Speaker, I must agree, and I am sure Members of the House of Commons will understand, with the move which is now being made because of the growing number of appeals of income tax and other tax related cases. The litigants involved in these cases want to have
at least the impression that there will be an impartial adjudication of their problems.
The quasi-judicial or administrative board approach of the Tax Review Board, while again being served by distinguished Canadians, has lent itself to the unfortunate perception that the Board has been an extension of the Department of National Revenue. Indeed, there is some basis upon which the litigant might have some apprehensions in this regard, because dealing with a quasi-judicial or administrative tribunal is not the same as dealing with a court of record.
In a court of record, the judge has very substantial independence in terms of tenure and there is very little possibility of Government influence under normal circumstances. I say in the spirit of co-operation that it should not be possible to influence judges of a court of record even by a telephone call from a member of the Treasury Branch or a Minister of the Crown. The idea is that a judicial member of a court of record does have independence in terms of that kind of political pressure which, from time to time, might in some circumstances be attempted to be exercised on that person.
In the case of an administrative tribunal, there are considerations of reappointment and of benefits. Indeed there has been some litigation with respect to the independence of the courts in Canada in recent months that has challenged whether or not provincially appointed judges are truly independent because of the fact that matters of benefits and income, of determination of their circuits and workload, are in fact regulated by a Civil Servant or a member of the Department of Justice in a particular Province.
We are then asked to create a new court to dispel the impression that the Tax Review Board was not a truly independent tribunal. How does this Bill seek to achieve that objective? First, all current members of the Tax Review Board will continue in office as judges of the Tax Court. The current chairman will be renamed as Chief Judge of the Court and the assistant chairman who is, incidentally, a former associate Deputy Attorney General and was appointed on June 6 of this year, will be renamed and appointed as Associate Chief Judge of the Court.
Second, the Bill establishes the qualifications for appointment to the Court. One must be or have been a judge of a Superior, County or District Court in Canada or be a barrister or advocate of at least ten years' standing in the Bar of any of the Provinces. Yet in Section 24 of the Bill it is stated that all Tax Review Board members would continue in office despite any of the Bill's provisions such as the varied qualifications required of a Tax Court Judge.
While I understand the fact that there must be a transition period, initially the same crowd will continue on under new appointments. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, Tax Review Board members are exempted from the residency requirements of the Bill. Judges must reside within the National Capital Region or within 40 kilometres of it. This exemption did not appear in the omnibus Bill C-159, but it has been slipped into the new split Bill.
June 28, 1983

What of the procedures that will be followed by the new court? Will they change the impression that judges are merely extensions of the Government or departments of the Government? At the present time the Board is not bound by any legal or technical rules of evidence in its hearings. Further, its empowering statute states that it must dispose of all appeals informally and expeditiously, keeping in mind considerations of fairness and the circumstances of the case.
The new tax court will hold hearings on appeals under the same set of rules as those which govern the Board. Indeed, Clause 14(2) of the Bill is identical in every respect with Section 9(2) of the Tax Review Board Act. We are, therefore, creating a court of law which will not be bound by legal and technical rules of evidence.
It is interesting to note as well that Clause 18 of the Bill precludes the tax court from awarding costs on the disposition of an appeal.
The point is, Mr. Speaker, that the Government cannot have it both ways. I want to make this observation for the consideration of the Minister. On the one hand the Minister claims to be dispelling an impression that the Tax Review Board is an agency of the Government. He is attempting to do this through the creation of a tax court. On the other hand, we find that all Board members will continue as judges, that they need not meet the qualifications of judges and that they need not meet the residency requirements of judges.
Further, the rights of litigants before the court in terms of the rules of evidence and the awarding of costs in appropriate circumstances, are cast aside. Clearly the Minister is merely changing the name of the Tax Review Board, cloaking it with the distinguished character of a court while in many respects leaving it substantially unchanged. This reflects not only on the legitimacy of the tax court but, it seems to me, the Government is relying more on form than on substance with respect to this Bill. I have serious concern about the legitimacy of the tax court but I am also concerned that a move like this might affect the operation of that court.
In our system if a court is to be a court of record with judges appointed, there is protection in terms of the independence of the judges and, therefore, a very dramatic and substantial effort has to be undertaken if a member of any court in this country has to be removed from the bench. By the same token, when there is that kind of protection the judges of the court are normally obliged to abide by certain rules of evidence and procedure. This protection is not provided for lawyers or any elite group; it is there so there are clearly defined rules to ensure that a litigant's case will receive proper and impartial consideration. That is the purpose of rules of evidence. They are not there to accommodate lawyers or judges so that they can develop their own jargon.
There is a good reason for rules of evidence, Mr. Speaker, and I want to draw my observation to the attention of the Minister. I understand the necessity for informality at the Tax Review Board so that people who appear without counsel are
Tax Court of Canada
not intimidated. But I wonder whether, going the court route, we should not give serious consideration to monitoring the operation of that court. Perhaps we should reconsider the question of whether that informality is appropriate for a court of record.
I make that observation without drawing any conclusion. When I read the Bill it occurred to me that if we are going the court route we should go the whole way. There may be some places where we will need rules of evidence. I know the Canada Evidence Act is before the Senate at the present time and debate is going on there with respect to rules of evidence and the way judicial proceedings should be conducted. I think that is the appropriate place to have a full and proper consideration of the way the court would be conducted rather than changing the Tax Review Board to a tax court and leaving it with its own informal procedures and technical rules of operation.
If a situation should occur where a judge of that court, due to lack of confidence or some other reason, were to abuse his or her position, the old remedies are not available to the Department of Justice or the Department of National Revenue, or whoever administers the Tax Review Board, to deal with that problem. These will be independent judges, free from interference by the Department of Justice or the Department of National Revenue. I am somewhat concerned about going part way on the rules of evidence and technical requirements of the new tax court.
I know the Minister is giving serious consideration to judicial appointments and my remarks apply to the previous Bill which dealt with the expansion of Superior Courts and the Federal Court as well as to this Bill. The Minister will be supported in any move to increase the number of women appointed to the bench. I think that is a nonpartisan issue in the House. All Parties are in favour of increasing the number of women in the courts of the country. I have lectured at the College of Law at the University of Saskatchewan and have been amazed to see the transformation that has taken place. The number of women enrolled in colleges of law in this country has grown to the point where there are as many women as men. Generally speaking, they do exceptionally well; only a few do approximately as well as I did when I went through law school. Most women are very determined, dedicated and outstanding students.
In my own City and indeed, in my own firm, I have been amazed at the transformation that has taken place in the way that women have become leading counsel and solicitors. When my sister graduated in law in the late 1960s there was still resistance to women lawyers in law offices. If a client was asked to see a woman lawyer in the firm it was almost like asking them if they would like a case of the flu. You could see them shrug and move away. That kind of stereo-typing has gone. Women are actively, effectively and aggressively participating as members of the Bar. But only 4 per cent of our judges are women, Mr. Speaker.
I want to point out to the Minister that this Party would be very supportive of the appointment of more women to the

June 28, 1983
Tax Court of Canada
bench. The Minister will find that there now is a larger body of women to choose from because the increase in the number of women graduates from law school means there are many with ten or 15 years experience at the Bar who can meet the 10-year requirement for appointment to the Superior Court.
I wanted to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, some of my concerns about some aspects of the Bill. We are prepared to support the Bill and see it passed, however, I would hope that the Minister, on behalf of the Government, would state that it will be monitoring the operation of this new tax court for the purpose of determining whether or not the informality and the appropriateness of that kind of informality for which the Tax Revenue Board is known will be considered, in light of the new status of the Court as a court of record.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: May I indicate to the House that I apologize for the lack of uniform. I had misunderstood the expectation as to whether or not the House would be sitting over the dinner hour.


Mr. Beatty:: Mr. Speaker, that's your summer uniform.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I want to assure the Hon. Member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) that if the House would provide the occupants of the chair with summer uniforms we would be very grateful.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Blaker in the Chair.
Roderick Blaker: Order. House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-167, an Act respecting the Tax Court of Canada and to Amend the Federal Court Act, the Judges Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971.
May I indicate to the House that there are 59 Clauses to this Bill. Perhaps it is the mood of the House to put them all through at once. I intend to call all Clauses at once. Of course,
I will recognize any Hon. Member who may wish to speak on any Clause.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make one comment in reply to the Hon. Member opposite with respect to the rules of evidence applied by the Court. I would just like to draw to the attention of the House that Clause 14(2) leaves to the discretion of the Court how formally or informally it shall apply the rules. For instance, if the taxpayer is represented by a lawyer the Court may decide to apply the rules of evidence. That subsection states:
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Act under which an appeal is made, the Court is not bound by any legal or technical rules of evidence in conducting a hearing for the purposes of that Act, and all appeals shall be dealt with by the Court as informally and expeditiously as the circumstances and considerations of fairness permit.
Of course, as the Hon. Member suggests, we will monitor the operation of the Court to see how this does work in practice.
I wonder if Hon. Members of the other Parties have any particular points they wish to raise? I realize that the New Democratic Party would wish to raise the same amendments again with respect to this Act, Mr. Chairman, but 1 do not know whether it will be satisfied by the fact that they have already been negatived on the first Bill. Perhaps we might have an indication as to whether we can proceed and take ail the Clauses together without moving the separate Clauses?


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Chairman, I am agreeable to dealing with the Clauses all together. I believe my points apply to this Bill. However, since they have been voted down, I believe I will simply accept that the point has been made and I hope there will be further consideration.


Roderick Blaker: In that case, I will put to the House the question as to whether or not Clauses 2 through 59 shall carry.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clauses 2 to 59 inclusive agreed to.


Roderick Blaker: Shall the Schedule carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Roderick Blaker: Shall Clause 1 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 1 agreed to.


Roderick Blaker: Shall the title carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Roderick Blaker: Shall the Bill carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


CANADA-GERMANY TAX AGREEMENT ACT, 1982 MEASURE TO AVOID DOUBLE TAXATION
Paul James Cosgrove: that Bill S-24, an Act to implement an agreement between Canada and the Federal Republic of Germany for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to taxes on income and certain other taxes, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am mindful of the wish of the House to have the time of remarks kept to a minimum. I do have a few brief remarks and I understand there are one or two Hon. Members as well who would like to make comment.
June 28, 1983

The purpose of Bill S-24, Mr. Speaker, is to implement an agreement between Canada and the Federal Republic of Germany for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to taxes on income and certain other taxes. In addition, the Bill provides that the Governor in Council may, subject to resolution of Parliament, give effect by Order in Council to any supplementary agreement.
On this latter point, Mr. Speaker, Bill S-24, as passed by the Senate, is different from that before us, and introduced by the Government, and I will have a few comments to make on that point.
When in force, the proposed agreement will replace the 1956 agreement between the two countries. The agreement with Germany follows the pattern of similar agreements concluded by Canada over the past several years. I believe there are 32 such agreements with other countries.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for Mississauga North (Mr. Fisher) for assisting the Minister in preparation of the form of this Bill here before us. There are a number of changes which had to be reviewed. The Senate material had to be reviewed and the work which he gave in preparation to getting to this point has to be commended. In addition, I would at the same time like to commend the efforts of the Hon. Member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) who, as Hon. Members know, has taken an interest in this subject and has been of assistance to the Government in seeing that the legislation has reached this point for conclusion.
This agreement, Mr. Speaker, generally provides that dividends can be taxed in the country of source at a maximum rate of 15 per cent. A general rate of 15 per cent is also provided in the case of interest arising from one country and paid to a resident of another country. However, there is an exemption for certain types of interest such as that paid on Government bonds or to the Export Development Corporation, or the German equivalent of same. Patent royalties and technical know-how payments are subject to a maximum tax of 10 per cent in the source country, and copyright royalties in respect of literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works are exempt. Capital gains from disposition of real property or business assets and of shares in companies, the assets of which consist principally of real estate, may be taxed in the country in which the property is situate. Pensions and annuities arising in one country and paid to a resident of the other country may generally be taxed in the country in which they arise. However, war veterans' pensions and benefits under the social securities legislation in the country will be taxable only in that country. I can understand, Mr. Speaker, therefore, the interest and the consent of Hon. Members in seeing this legislation passed. It should be noted that this provision will be applicable from 1978, and it will be of benefit to several thousand residents of German origin. The agreement also contains the usual provisions concerning relief from double taxation, non-discrimination, mutual agreement procedure and exchange of information.
Canada-Germany Tax Agreement Act, 1982
I want to go back now, Mr. Speaker, to the question of supplementary agreements. The Bill introduced in the Senate on February 2, 1982, contained clauses designed to ensure that the agreement can be kept up to date as a result of changes in the tax systems of Canada or Germany. These clauses ere in line with those approved by Parliament in the past with some 32 countries. But during the Senate proceedings, the Senators made a number of amendments to the Bill. They were primarily concerned with the power of the Government to amend the agreement by means of a supplementary agreement made by order of the Governor in Council. In order to limit the power given to the executive by the Bill to modify or amend the Canada-Germany Taxation Agreement, they made the following change by amending Clause 5(1) to provide that a supplementary agreement:
-shall not, in any manner, impose a greater tax burden on any person than the one to which such person might be subject, but for this Act, as may be amended from time to time-
The second change was to amend the provisions of Clause 6 relating to the negative resolution procedure that applied to the supplementary agreement inter alia through reducing the number of Members in both the House and the Senate who could initiate the procedure I just referred to.
The first mentioned amendment, Mr. Speaker, is not acceptable in that it carries the clear implication that a double taxation treaty can impose taxes, whereas it is generally recognized and accepted by the courts that such a treaty can only reduce or relieve taxes. While I would be quite prepared to accept the addition of some language to Clause 5(1) that would meet the legitimate concern of the Senators, by qualifying the power of the executive to revoke existing agreements, the specific language passed by the Senate is not acceptable to the Government and must be removed.
With respect to the amendment moved in the Senate concerning the negative resolution, I see some merit in keeping them as they represent an improvement over the one previously agreed to by Parliament. The only difficulty I have is with the reduction from 50 and 20 to 20 and 10 in the number of Members or Senators respectively required to file a motion. The Government has proposed a compromise, which I understand is acceptable to Members of the House. So I am suggesting a compromise solution of 30 and 15 respectively.
Germany has been ready for some time to ratify the agreement and is anxious to put it into force, as are we. The amendments introduced by the Senate have to be considered by law officers of the Crown. Department officials and I have reviewed them, assisted by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fisher), and we believe that it is now time to have this Bill passed and the agreement put into force.
I will conclude by thanking the Hon. Members for their support of this legislation as it will help a considerable number of Canadians. At the appropriate stage in Committee of the Whole I will move two amendments which Members have seen.

June 28, 1983
Canada-Germany Tax Agreement Act, 1982


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I will join in this great spirit of co-operation in which the House finds itself this evening and make my brief comments with respect to this important measure and landmark agreement between Canada and the Federal Republic of Germany.
The Minister has given a fair assessment of what the Bill is intended to do. He has also given a fair assessment of the difficulty associated with bringing this Bill before the House for ratification, and a fair assessment of the amendments he thought, and indeed, I agree, were necessary to improve the Bill so that it can receive the ratification of the House. Indeed, the Minister has given a fair assessment of my involvement with the Bill and I thank him very much for making reference to that.
It was on July 17, 1981, Mr. Speaker, during the Summit Conference held here in Ottawa that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) of Canada and the Prime Minister of the Federal Republic of Germany signed this agreement which, in the opinion of many, was long overdue. Canada already has, as the Minister says, about 32 agreements like this. Indeed, there was a previous agreement with the Federal Republic of Germany dating back to 1956. However, there was one serious flaw or shortcoming in that agreement which has been corrected in Article 18, the most important Article in this Bill, dealing with the double taxation of pensions.
There are roughly 1.5 million people in this country who are Canadian citizens of German ancestry, many of whom have earned certain pension rights in the old country and are entitled to benefits. There are also German nationals living out their declining years with their relatives here in our country.
The Bill was introduced in the Senate on February 2, 1982, which was about the same time or shortly after the Parliament of the Federal Republic of Germany ratified the agreement. On July 7, 1982, the Senate passed the Bill but, as the Minister pointed out, it had certain flaws. It took until now to correct those flaws and get the Bill before this House.
For some of the people who have written and telephoned me over the last two years it is difficult to understand why it should take so long. Indeed, some of them suspected ill intent by the Government and accused us of discrimination against German nationals because of all the agreements we have with other countries. I can assure these people today that there was no ill intent. The Bill had some real difficulties.
It is particularly difficult for German nationals to understand this because many of them left Germany to escape bureaucracy and over-regulation. They came to this country because there is greater freedom and control over one's own personal life. They have now experienced bureaucracy in Canada. It can be equally insensitive to the real needs of people as other bureaucracies.
As the Minister has outlined, the Bill affects capital, taxes on total income, total capital, or elements of income or capital, including taxes on capital gains, taxes on the total amount of wages or salaries paid by enterprises as well as taxes on capital appreciation. Because all of these things fall under the Income Tax Act in our own country, that would be the only Act which
will be effective. In the Federal Republic of Germany it will be the income tax or the Einkommensteuer provision, the corporation tax of Koerperschaftsteuer, the capital tax or the Vermoegensteuer, and finally the trade tax or Gewerbesteuer, with which German nationals are familiar.
Even though this measure is long overdue, I am delighted to be able to participate this afternoon in the passage of this Bill through all stages, and to report tomorrow to the many people who have written to me and many of my colleagues on both sides of the House that this matter has finally been dealt with and ratified.
Incidentally, in the case of the double taxation of pensions, the measure is retroactive to 1978. So, many people affected by this Bill will indeed get a sizeable refund on taxes they have paid over the years. I am sure the Minister will join me in wishing these people many happy years during which they can spend those hard-earned dollars.
Let me just close by thanking my colleagues on this side of the House, our House Leader and the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) for making this special accommodation this afternoon, one day before recess, to assure that this matter will be dealt with in this tax year. I give my particular thanks to the Minister for his assistance in making this accommodation.


Cyril Keeper: I have just a few brief words to say in joining in the spirit of co-operation in the House today. We in the New Democratic Party welcome this agreement between Germany and Canada which will avoid double taxation. Obviously, taxation of any form is burdensome to carry these days, let alone double taxation. There are some 1.5 million people of German ancestry in this country. The legislation will avoid double taxation as it affects pensions in particular, retroactive to 1978. While the legislation is long overdue, I am sure that the people who are affected, those who have been writing to us all and calling for changes in the legislation, all citizens of German ancestry in Canada, would simply say "Danke" to this Chamber.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say a sentence or two and express my appreciation that the measure has been dealt with now and take this opportunity to point out to the Minister that many Canadians are concerned about the impending agreement with the United States, a reciprocity agreement on tax measures. There are many self-employed people in Canada who are facing double taxation as a result of the present tax structure with the United States and there are many Canadians in the United States who suffer that way. I would ask the Minister, when he is responding to the Bill in its later stages, whether he would speak to that issue and give us some clarification as to the position we are now in and give us some hope that perhaps the legislation dealing with the agreement with the United States may be passed very shortly.
June 28, 1983


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Blaker in the Chair.
Roderick Blaker: House in Committee of the Whole on Bill S-24, which apparently consists of seven clauses. As previously ruled, I will be pleased to recognize Hon. Members or Ministers who may wish to address themselves to these clauses. 1 understand that there may be some amendments. I am informed that there may be three of them.
Accordingly, shall Clauses 2 through 7 carry? I will recognize the Hon. Minister of State for Finance.


Paul James Cosgrove: Mr. Chairman, I indicated that there were three amendments and I indicated the areas in the Bill. I could quickly outline the first amendment. I move:
That sub-clause 5(1) of Bill S-24 be amended by striking out lines 10 to 19 on page 2 and substituting the following:
-"supplementary agreement relating to the avoidance of double taxation with respect to taxes on income and on capital between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany intended to alter, revoke, replace or add to the Agreement is approved by Canada, and, when the"-
I made reference to the Senate comments, and this is a compromise amendment. While I am on my feet, I think it would be useful to the House if I indicated my intention to move a second amendment as follows:
That sub-clause 6(2) of Bill S-24 be amended by striking out lines 6 to 8 on page 3 and substituting the following:
-"thirty members of the House of Commons in the case of a motion for the consideration of the House and by not less than fifteen"-
I also indicated that that originated as a result of the amendments moved by the Senate.
Finally, I would move a technical amendment as follows:
That the French version of sub-clause 6(3) of Bill S-24 be amended by striking out line 8 on page 3 and substituting the following:
"jours de seance suivant sa remise, sauf si i'autre Chambre a deja etudie et adopte une motion visant la meme fin."
I move those three amendments. Mr. Chairman, I would simply conclude by responding to the Hon. Member who inquired as to the status of the similar agreement with the United States of America. That agreement has been signed, but it is not in force. I am pleased, however, to report to Hon. Members that work has proceeded between Canada and the United States in terms of actually putting that agreement into force.
As a matter of fact, last week in Ottawa the Minister of Finance signed a protocol with the Ambassador for the United
Miscellaneous Statute Repeal Act
States, clearing away, we think, all of the remaining items that would be a bar to the actual implementation of the agreement.
One difficulty does remain, however, and it rests with the United States of America. I understand that the Senate is reviewing some of the provisions of the agreement, the agreement having been signed a number of years ago. With changes in administration and in Government, there have been some questions. However, we are hopeful that, with the signing of the protocol last week, there should be speedy consideration by the Senate and, we are hopeful, a successful one. The information with which we have been provided is that it will be done in the very near future.


Roderick Blaker: I think the House will recognize that it is not in the usual form to have several amendments placed at the same time. However, I am under the impression that Hon. Members are agreeable to that procedure.
Accordingly, what I will do now is to proceed, clause by clause, and mention the amendments suggested by the Minister.
Clauses 2 to 4 inclusive agreed to.
Amendment to Clause 5(1) agreed to.
Clause 5 (as amended) agreed to.
Amendment to Clause 6(2) agreed to.
Amendment to Clause 6(3) agreed to.
Clause 6 (as amended) agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Schedule I agreed to.
Schedule II agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported and read the third time and passed.

Mark R. MacGuigan: that Bill C-119, an Act to repeal certain Statutes that have ceased to be in force or have become unnecessary, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mark R. MacGuigan: that the Bill be read the third time and do pass.


Mr. Peter Lang (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, this is basically a housekeeping Bill to repeal 124 statutes that are obsolete.

June 28, 1983
Miscellaneous Statute Repeal Act
Since the Bill has been debated fully in second reading and at committee stage, I do not propose to take the time of the House to detail the Bill.
By repealing all the known obsolete statutes through this Bill, demands on limited time of Parliament will not be unnecessarily multiplied. Of course, further work on legislative housecleaning will be necessary. This project is ongoing and most Departments have already begun the task of reviewing the regulations in order to identify further obsolete provisions.
In conclusion, passage of the Miscellaneous Statute Repeal Act following publication of the first edition of the regulatory agendas on May 31, 1983, is further confirmation of the Government's commitment toward regulatory reform and improving communication and consultation with the private sector.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, if any Member of the House had any doubt as to whether or not there was such a thing as eternal life, one need only look at some of the programs and statutes that have found their way into the books of Canada. Certainly during my ten and one-half years in Parliament, there have been very few instances when Parliament has actually acted to reduce the encumbrances that have been hoisted on the Canadian people by passive Parliaments or that have been added in the terms of new costly programs.
To the extent to which anything is being done this evening in repealing statutes which are obsolete and no longer used, some progress is being made. However there should be no confusion between what is before us today and any substantive meaningful attempt at regulatory reform. Indeed, to the extent to which the Government is trying to sell this Bill before us tonight as regulatory reform by proposing that this in some way meets the demands for regulatory reform from Canadian people at the present time, it is misleading Canadians and putting something before the Parliament of Canada which does not achieve the purpose which it has been discussing. When the Minister spoke to this Bill at second reading, he spoke as if the initiative had begun in the fall of 1980. In fact, the initiative for an omnibus repeal Bill began under the Clark Government. I was the Minister responsible for regulatory reform and, in conjunction with Senator Flynn, who was the Minister of Justice at the time, it was our intention to introduce an omnibus repeal Bill which would sweep away many of the statutes which had become obsolete and no longer used. Unfortunately, we were prevented from doing that by the election.
That was only to be one very minor part of regulatory reform. There were far more substantive issues to be addressed. I might add that there are far more substantive things that remain to be done today, some four years later.
During the tenure of our Government we proposed to Parliament a sunset Bill which would restore to Members of Parliament the right and responsibility of reviewing programs and statutes which had been put in place in order to determine whether they were still needed and still provided the best
vehicle to serve the needs that Canadians had expressed. Nothing has been done by the Government to put sunset legislation into place. That initiative simply died with the death of the Clark Government.
There are other initiatives that were intended as well. We had expected that a major program of regulatory reform would be undertaken in many instances to streamline and make more fair and efficient the process of regulations.
I want to express my disappointment tonight, as chairman of the Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments, that notwithstanding the fact that the committee's fourth report was introduced some years ago in which we made major recommendations for improvements to the process of regulations in Canada that would be more fair to permit Parliament to discharge its responsibility to the people of Canada, virtually nothing has been done by the Government to act on that report. Indeed, when I moved concurrence in that report, the Government voted to prevent the matter from even being debated. We simply have not heard of it since that time.
We had also intended to undertake a program of deregulation to return to the market place and to individual Canadians the right to determine in so many instances what the policies would be and how they would live their lives. With the election of this Liberal Government we have found that that initiative has faltered. We have found vast new amounts of Government regulation, Government spending and vast intrusion by the Government into the day-to-day lives of Canadians.
What has the Government done. It has taken one positive step. It has proposed a regulatory calendar, which again is an idea of which we approved. It would give some notice to Canadians of proposed regulatory initiatives by the Government over the course of a year. It is a sensible move and it is hard to understand why the Government would take so long to act upon it.
It has proposed this measure which would do away with some obsolete statutes which have been long since forgotten. 1 understand that some parliamentarians would show concern about repealing an Act for the control and extrapolation of foot and mouth disease. I am relieved, from reading the notes, that the provisions of this Act have been incorporated into the Animal Disease and Protection Act and that Parliament is safe from having these provisions simply stripped away from us.
No doubt Members will be disappointed to discover that the Volunteer Bounty Act of 1908 is being swept away. According to the notes, the purpose of this Act was to grant volunteers who served with the British Forces in South Africa during the Boer War between 1899 and 1902 domicile in Canada, or with the Canadian Corps, two adjoining quarter sections of Dominion lands or $160 in script in lieu of the land.
There are other Acts which I am sure Members will be astonished to discover are being swept away. For instance, there is the Gold Clauses Act. There is the Hemp Bounties Act of 1923. It is an Act which authorized the payment out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of bounties for hemp grown,
June 28, 1983

manufactured and sold in Canada. Because these bounties were payable only during 1926 and 1933, the Act is considered spent. There are apparently no outstanding claims for bounties.
It will come as a shock to Members that all of these measures are being swept away, when I know that so many of us have mentioned support for these measures in our brochures at election time. We will have to tell our constituents that with this Government, so vigilant and anxious to regulate and propose programs, if any gaps are found it will quickly move into the void and provide the services which Canadians did not realize were being provided previously by these programs.
What else have the Liberals done? They have changed the jargon. We heard before about deregulation. The jargon was then changed to regulatory reform. I think that was the expression we used in our tenure in Government; it made sense. They have two new buzzwords. Regulatory reform has been dropped, and now the in-jargon is managing regulation. One can speculate on what that really means. There is a better one; re-regulation. I believe I heard the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) use that expression the other day. It may seem that the difference is only semantic or an exchange of euphemisms, but in fact the difference is more profound than that. It goes to the philosophy of the Parties in power.
We were determined to do two things during our term in office. The first was to make more fair and more effective the process of regulation and to plug Parliament back into the picture to ensure that Members of Parliament would do the job they were sent down here to do. The second thing, one which was at least as important, was to begin to roll back some of the regulatory intrusion into the day-to-day lives of Canadians and to return to the efficiency of the marketplace for making many of the decisions which are now made by the Government. That is what deregulation means. It has to do with one's philosophy, whether one feels that Government is too big, too costly and too intrusive into the day-to-day lives of Canadians. That was our feeling and it remains our feeling. It would be a priority of a Progressive Conservative Government to begin the work of deregulation.
We now hear about managing regulation or about reregulation. We have a Government in power with the philosophy that perhaps it will tinker in the periphery. It is prepared to act boldly to abolish statutes which are long since obsolete and which no Member of Parliament even remembered were on the books. It will act boldly in that area. It is prepared to talk and to commission a task force on regulatory reform- which has come and gone with very little to show for it. It is prepared to talk about processes, but it is not prepared to act. Most important, it is not prepared to take action to reduce the size of Government.
The other measure the Liberals undertook which would be of some value to Canadians was the measure to shorten the period during which individuals or corporations would have to retain records. That is helpful. Nobody quarrels with that, but
Miscellaneous Statute Repeal Act
it was not a great blow being struck for the people of Canada to have a sensible measure like that initiated.
If we want to determine whether or not there has been any progress in the past three and a half years in the whole issue of regulatory reform I suppose the best way would be to ask ourselves to remember what Canada was like three and a half years ago. If we left the country then and returned this summer, would we find a country which is more encumbered by regulation or less encumbered? Would we find a Parliament that is more able to do its job of holding the Government to account or less able? Would we find a Government that is extended even further into the day-to-day lives of people, making decisions which people should be making for themselves, or would we find a Government that is smaller? Would we find a Government that is more costly and that has confiscated more of our national wealth, or would we find a Government in which spending has been brought under control and has begun to lead by example instead of by simply preaching the virtues of restraint?
In each of those criteria we would find that we have a Government which has grown in size, in cost and in intrusiveness, at the expense of the wealth and the liberty of the people of Canada; at the expense as well of Members of Parliament who believe that it is their responsibility to hold the Government to account, to examine Government proposals, to sweep away from time to time measures which have long since outlived their usefulness, and to protect the civil liberties of Canadians. The simple honest truth is that we have not done our job in this Parliament; we have allowed the Government to usurp unto itself more power, more of the national wealth.
What is the reason for that? Will regulatory reform, regulatory management, or whatever jargon, succeed? Will this program succeed under the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) and under this Government? I fear it will not. I fear that the next time we will see any bold initiative taken for regulatory reform, it will be with a change in Government. What we have in this Minister and what we have in this Government is an administration that believes in increasing the size of Government and in increasing its own power at the expense of ordinary Canadians.
All the incentives, all the rewards and all the momentum in Government is for Government to become more intrusive, not less intrusive; to spend more, not less; to become more bureaucratic, not less bureaucratic. As politicians, the rewards received are for proposing new programs, not for taking programs away. Bureaucrats are judged on the strength and the size of their budgets, the size of the complement working for them and the extent of their responsibilities. Ministers are judged in much the same way. All the rewards in our system are for increasing the size and cost of Government.
The only way we could hope to reverse that momentum and get Government moving in the other direction would be to have the political will, where politicians exert their control on the machinery, where they demonstrate that they believe it is time to swing the pendulum away from Government and back toward the people of Canada, and that it is time to reduce the

June 28, 1983
Miscellaneous Statute Repeal Act
size of Government and enhance the power and prestige of ordinary Canadians. Until there is an administration in office in Ottawa which believes that and is prepared to fight for it, and to show leadership to Canadians, any proposals for regulatory reform are simply housekeeping, such as this measure is today.
As Members of Parliament we should recognize that our responsibilities are similar to tending a garden. In order for there to be benefits, we have to fertilize and water; but just as importantly we have to weed and to prune. There is no shortage of fertilizer in the House of Commons.


Paul James Cosgrove: Or hot air.


Henry Perrin Beatty: As the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Cosgrove) aptly points out from his seat, there is no shortage of hot air, as he knows. There is no shortage of water, but there is a shortage of people who are prepared to cut back on the size of Government and to do the weeding and pruning which is essential from time to time. There is a shortage of will on the part of Ministers of the Government to restore to Parliament its right and responsibility to review programs.
It is bizarre; the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Bussieres) shakes his head, yet he is the Minister presiding over the Canada Development Investment Corporation. One of its sudsidiaries, Canadair, had the largest corporate loss in the history of Canada, a $1.4 billion loss, yet that Minister systematically refuses to be candid with Parliament. He systematically refuses even to allow the Auditor General of Canada, Parliament's Auditor, to audit the books of CDIC.


Pierre Bussières: You do not know what you are saying.


Henry Perrin Beatty: He shakes his head when I say that the Liberals are anxious to retain power to themselves, not to share it with others.


Pierre Bussières: What did you do when you were in office? You did nothing.


Henry Perrin Beatty: I am hearing from a guilty conscience on the other side. The Minister is determined to bypass Parliament to put in place the largest and most costly holding company anywhere in Canada. He refuses to allow Parliament to have proper access to its books. In addition, he refuses to allow the Auditor General of Canada to do his job.


Pierre Bussières: Oh, oh!


Henry Perrin Beatty: The Minister who is trying to drown me out from his seat has the temerity to say that the Government has a willingness to share power with Parliament and with the people of Canada. Ultimately leadership is leadership by example, not by lecture. If the Minister were prepared to rise in the House, instead of talking from his seat, he would demonstrate that he is prepared to bring in reforms and to bring controls to Crown corporations which would begin to open up Government.
The Government could begin with sunset legislation to allow Parliament to review programs which have been put in place.
It could begin the process of deregulation, for example, in the communications field where the Government still believes it is its job to decide what Canadians will be able to see and to hear, rather than give Canadians the right to decide for themselves. If the Minister would demonstrate that he had given up on the philosophy that mother Government knows better than individual Canadians what is in their best interests, then I would think he had the right to say that the Government was prepared to share with Parliament or to take initiatives in regulatory reform. Instead, what we get is cosmetics. The people of Canada demand better than that. If the Government is not prepared to give better than that to the people of Canada, let it call an election. Canadians recognize that there is an option, and they recognize that following that election we could begin the work of pruning back Government and restoring to individual Canadians a sense of dignity, a sense of worth and the ability to run their own lives free of the dead hand of Government.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, keeping to the Bill before us, I want first to commend and congratulate the committee on the work it has done, going through the legislation and determining, as anyone reading would conclude, that the legislation now being done away with is indeed obsolete.
I am listening to the arguments across the floor of the House. They should have been on the committee together. They could have worked. It may be an important thing for the Parliament of Canada, in as much as we may be doing something today that is more relevant than much of what we have done over the course of the last two years. We are actually getting rid of some legislation.
It might be a useful exercise if we now take on the task of simplifying much of the legislation that average individuals in the country have to deal with on a day-to-day basis. We have legislation that is written in such a way that by far the vast majority of Canadians are unable to understand it. We have made it almost impossible for Canadian families and individuals, even those of considerable intelligence, to pick a law, read it and understand what it says and how it will or at least ought to be applied.
For many years I have believed that one of the roles of Parliament surely must be to try to find ways to simplify the language used in legislation, not only as this Bill does, eliminating legislation that is redundant or obsolete, making it possible for people to understand not only the Income Tax Act, which is the most obvious, but other Acts that apply to individuals and families. We should devote some time and put some committees to work looking at the words used in legislation that we pass to see if there is an easier or more simple word, a word with more relevance to the day-to-day language of people in order that they cannot only see that we have done
June 28, 1983

something, but perhaps understand what it is that we have done.
I suggest to the Government that as part of the ongoing process, it not only look at legislation to determine whether it is still applicable and therefore necessary, but make an attempt to look at the language of legislation with an eye to finding new phrases, new ways of saying what we say so that the people who are affected by the laws that we produce will be able to read and understand them without having to pay out substantial sums for legal advice. It may be that they may need the advice in any event, but at least they might, in the process be able to understand why they are seeking the advice rather than follow the process they now go through.
As I said earlier, the committee has done a good job. There is a lot more to be done. Quite clearly there is even yet the requirement on all of us not only to cull out the hundreds of Acts that still exist of which the relevance is no longer apparent, but there is also the important work to be done here in the House of Commons on an ongoing basis of trying to ensure that new legislation brought in not only does what we intend it to do, but does it in a way that will provide for those who must use it the highest degree of confidence. I do not think we have been able to accomplish that.
I do not want to enter into a partisan argument about the relative merits of the Government. I think the Government by now understands that I do not agree with much of what it does. However, whether it be a Liberal or a Conservative Government, or at some point in time and NDP Government-that may be hard to picture-we have to start looking at the way we draft the laws we draft.
From my point of view, having spent 16 years of my life working with them, I find that trying to understand them is trying to understand the impossible. We do no one a service by writing laws the way we now write them. In any event, this Bill should pass hastily. We should get on to other pieces of legislation that are of importance for the future.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
House of Commons


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: My understanding is that Hon. Members may have reached some agreement, the effect of which is that we should now adjourn until 11 o'clock tomorrow morning. I have no official message to that effect.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It sounds as though that is agreed.
I see that the Parliamentary Secretary rises on a point of order.


Peter Joseph Lang: Just on a point of clarification, Mr. Speaker. Am I to understand that the Bill has been given third reading?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: That is correct, the Bill has been given third reading.


TRIBUTE TO THE HON. ELMER MacKAY


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I have an understanding to the effect that the previous Hon. Member for Central Nova is being honoured with a dinner this evening. As one of his colleagues in the House, and I hope that Members from all Parties will join me, I think we might send to him at his dinner our very best respects. If I may add a personal touch, I believe the Hon. Elmer MacKay was a Member who not only served his riding well, but in the best of parliamentary traditions he served his country well.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In that case, let Hansard indicate that Hon. Members have agreed with that sentiment.
Accordingly, pursuant to order made earlier today, this House stands adjourned until 11 o'clock tomorrow morning.
At 8.07 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday, June 29, 1983