1983-03-16

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Marcel Ostiguy (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot):: Madam Speaker, Canada's agricultural industry is one of the major sectors of our economy, in which many billions of dollars are invested. Today, I would like to draw the attention of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), with the co-operation of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), to the fact that during 1981-82, over a thousand farmers had to take out farm loans at 16.75 per cent for periods of from 25 to 29 years.
Since the economic situation seems to have stabilized as far as interest rates are concerned-a fortunate result of the Government's 6 and 5 policy-I would like to see a re-assessment by the Farm Credit Corporation of a procedure that would enable these farmers to continue their farming operations on financial terms that would provide for more equitable interest rates. For instance, in the case of mortgages for a single-family dwelling, at a time when interest rates were rising, loans were contracted for a period not exceeding three years. I would like to see the same conditions apply to loans contracted by farmers with the Farm Credit Corporation.


FINANCE
Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a serious matter facing the Canadian people, that being the high cost of fuel in Canada. Concerning the price of a gallon of gasoline, 66 per cent goes toward government tax, leaving 34 per cent to the industry.


Some Hon. Members:: Provincial!


Leonard J. Gustafson: Let us make no mistake about who is the culprit in causing the high cost of fuel in Canada. The cost of
fuel in the United States is 30 per cent less, operating at world price. The comparison is very plain. The total government tax in the United States is 12 per cent of the cost of the fuel, while the total percentage of tax in Canada is 66 per cent of the cost of a gallon of gasoline.
In the case of the farmers' fuel, the federal tax is 60 cents a gallon. This heavy handed Government tax is having a counterproductive impact on the farming industry in Canada at a time when farmers can least afford it. I call on the Government to remove immediately the federal sales tax on farm fuel, before farmers begin spring seeding.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Wunderbar!
* *
*


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, my statement concerns unemployment insurance and shortterm farm work. January 1, 1983, was a very important day for thousands of short-term farm workers in Canada. It was on that day that these workers officially ceased being second class citizens in the eyes of the Government and were given the same wage insurance rights as other workers in Canada. According to statements made by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) in the House last week, that equity might be short lived.
On March 7 and March 9 the Minister said that he would be drafting new UI regulations which would again force shortterm farm workers to work for the same employer for much longer periods of time than other Canadians before their earnings could be insured. My colleagues and I condemn this latest flip-flop on UI which will deprive short-term workers, who are among the poorest paid workers in all Canada, of decent insurance protection.
As everyone knows, farm workers do backbreaking, insecure, and often very dangerous work. We therefore call upon the Minister of Employment and Immigration to shelve any proposals to create new UI loopholes until he has met with and studied the proposals of the representatives and associations of the farm workers who would be disadvantaged by regressive amendments.

March 16, 1983


OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Madam Speaker, yesterday it was reported in the Ottawa Citizen that the President of the Canadian Olympic Association, Mr. Roger Jackson, is "fed up" with the Progressive Conservative MPs-


Mr. Lewis:: He got hit by an oar.


David Charles Dingwall: -whom he blames for delaying passage of the Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act. As Hon. Members are aware, particularly the 20 Conservative MPs from the Province of Alberta, the Calgary Olympics Games are five short years away. With the announcement of the Sports Pool in 1981, we saw the federal Government making a substantial commitment involving upwards of $200 million. As all Hon. Members are also aware, revenues from this Pool would replace funds previously available from Loto Canada, which the short-lived Conservative Government handed over to the Provinces in 1979.
It is now time to reach an agreement that the legislation be completed in one day.


Philip Derek Lewis: Call it.


David Charles Dingwall: It is deplorable that the Conservatives are trying to make political gain at the expense of amateur athletics and, in particular, at the expense of the Province of Alberta. 1 therefore urge that all Conservatives-


Philip Derek Lewis: Call it.


David Charles Dingwall: -particularly those from the Province of Alberta, halt their political gamesmanship and allow the legislation to be completed in one day.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, I could not believe my eyes this morning when I read in The Globe and Mail the remarks attributed to the President of the CBC, Pierre Juneau. The news story stated that Mr. Juneau shrugged his shoulders and dismissed complaints that the public network is losing viewers, and millions of dollars. Mr. Juneau had an excellent teacher, and he is an apt pupil in the art of shrugging. That is no excuse for his actions.
This year the CBC will receive $820 million from the public purse, an increase of $82.6 million from last year. The dollars go up and the viewers go down. If he is not deterred by this jarring prospect, I am, as are millions of Canadians.
If Mr. Juneau is not interested in ratings and revenues, why not vacate the competitive TV and radio coverage areas altogether, leaving them to the private operators, and concentrate on expanding or improving service in the remote and forgotten areas in this vast country and, in the process, cut drastically the tax dollars required to keep the Corporation afloat.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, the extensive revulsion against the testing of the Cruise missile in Canada is an act of great symbolism. It is symbolic of the apprehension and fear of nuclear annihilation.
This anxiety, this fear, this danger, come not from delivery systems such as trucks, ships, submarines, airplanes, rockets, space ships, short and long-range missiles, or even Cruise missiles, most of which were developed through joint international co-operation. Canada has enjoyed virtually unlimited access to American technology. This fear and anxiety result from nuclear warheads, fission and fusion, which have now multiplied unchecked in an almost crazy, insane, mad progression. This progression must be checked and reversed. Summit level meetings are vital and mandatory.
The Cruise missile is a highly sophisticated delivery system. It represents the dawn of a new age of robotics which will eventually be used in space exploration. This new technology is so vast, and potentially so rewarding, that Canada should not hesitate to join in partnership with the U.S. in its development and testing, and at the same time fulfil our NATO commitments.
The Cruise missile is a means of destruction when it carries a nuclear warhead. The task is to do away with nuclear warheads and their deployment.
All technological development can be used for good or evil, for construction or destruction. The choice is always man's.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


PARLIAMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Madam Speaker, during December, 1982, the Interparliamentary Advisory Council met and expelled the Parliamentarians for World Order as a parliamentary association. They met on that occasion without notice or invitation to the Parliamentarians for World Order, and did not advise them of their decision until February of this year. On that occasion that Advisory Council was made up of eight Members of
March 16, 1983
[Stage Direction]
Parliament and two Senators, none of whom are appointed directly by this House, or mandated by this House, to accept or expel parliamentary associations, or to establish criteria.
The Parliamentarians for World Order is a parliamentary association composed of 85 Members of Parliament and 20 Senators, and exists in several countries around the world. It is dedicated to development issues, disarmament and other peace issues, and has had a very active role here in Parliament for several years. If there is to be a committee to accept and expel parliamentary associations and to set criteria for them, then that committee must be appointed by this House, and report to this House.

Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, Canadians are justifiably proud of their education system. While the Provinces have jurisdiction over education, the Government of Canada long ago recognized that financial support for education was in the national interest. Federal responsibility for education was not only voluntarily assumed, the formula for contribution was enshrined in a Statute of the Parliament of Canada. Now the Government of Canada is abdicating responsibility for education.
The Minister of Finance has announced cutbacks in financial assistance for post secondary education that will cause havoc for Canadian universities. More important, the cutbacks will cause severe hardships for the thousands of students whose hope for the future is the realization of their educational goals. In most cases neither the students nor their families can assume the financial burden that will result from drastic increases in tuition fees.
Specifically, the Minister of Finance has cut the required assistance from the statutory increase of 11.9 per cent to an arbitrary level of less than 7 per cent to comply with the so-called six and five program. This arbitrary cutback will leave a shortfall of at least $100 million in the financial assistance required for post-secondary institutions. No wonder 26,000 university teachers and the 450,000 members of the Canadian Federation of Students are upset. The former Secretary of State promised to apply the six and five formula to limit increases in tuition fees. Instead, the Liberal Government's action will escalate tuition fees beyond the reach of many young Canadians.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, of the Deputy Prime Minister and of the Minister of Finance, I will direct my questions to the Acting Prime Minister. Last night the Prime Minister dined with the provincial Premiers to discuss the economic problems faced by Canadians who have experienced their worst winter in 50 years. Canadians increasingly have the feeling that their Governments cannot or will not help them, or cope with their problems. Can the Acting Prime Minister report to the House the results of these discussions, to allay the fear of Canadians that nothing will be done to help them at this time?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Yes, Madam Speaker. I received a phone call from the Prime Minister a few moments ago. He told me that the meeting with the Premiers on the economic situation had taken place. 1 have a list of the subjects that were discussed. He also told me that no agreement had been reached on a meeting on a federal-provincial basis on the economy, but instructions had been given to prepare such a meeting. In the coming weeks, should it be assessed by the Prime Minister that such a meeting would be beneficial, such a meeting would be held.


REQUEST FOR SPRING MEETING OF FIRST MINISTERS
Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, I will address my supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. The Acting Prime Minister has just told the House that the Government is thinking of holding a meeting with the Premiers. Since the Minister of Finance has not yet set the date for his budget, and since he has emphasized the need to consult with Canadians, is he willing to support a Spring economic summit as the Premiers suggest?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I first want to join the Hon. Member for Mississauga South in wishing the new finance critic well. I hope we will have a long, lasting, and happy experience together-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: -and the same kind of relationship too. I remind the Hon. Member that 1 met with the provincial Ministers of Finance twice already in relation to the budget, once in December and again a couple of weeks ago in Toronto. As she knows, I have had extensive consultations with a number of groups, associations, and economic agents in the country. My counterparts, the Provincial Ministers of Finance,

March 16, 1983
Oral Questions
speak for their Governments just as I am entitled to speak for the Government of Canada on matters having to do with our responsibilities in the economic field.
At these two meetings with the Finance Ministers there were excellent opportunities for exchanges on the proposals, suggestions, and plans of the provincial Governments concerned, just as much as if the meetings had taken place between First Ministers, I would suggest. If the First Ministers decide to have a meeting on economic matters, obviously it is up to them to decide. I am sure the Finance Ministers will be very happy to support their efforts in that regard.


Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, I accept the proposal of the Minister of Finance for a long life. I hope it does not involve the late nights such as we had last night when our committee met until 2 a.m.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Explain.


REQUEST THAT ECONOMIC SUMMIT MEETING BE HELD IMMEDIATELY
Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance may feel that his discussions with his provincial colleagues satisfy his own requirements. Clearly the Premiers of the Provinces feel the need for an economic summit.
There are a half million Canadians who have exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits. The unemployment rate for young Canadians is about 21 per cent, and more than half a million students will be looking for summer jobs. Why wait for this kind of economic summit? Why not have it now?


Marc Lalonde: For a very good reason, Madam Speaker. It seems that the First Ministers themselves have concluded that, if such a meeting were to take place, it should take place only in the context of a well prepared meeting. They may need a few weeks or maybe a few months to prepare for that particular kind of meeting. But, again, one should not be under any particular illusion that a First Ministers' meeting by itself is going to change an economic situation which is dependent on many factors, both domestic and international, and the Hon. Member knows that very well.
As to our late experience last night, I did not find it that unpleasant.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


REQUEST FOR INTRODUCTION OF BUDGET
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Finance who has been in his present portfolio for six months. During that period we have witnessed unemployment rising to its present level,
which is 42 per cent higher than a year ago. A Gallup poll shows that 50 per cent of Canadians believe they are going to be affected by unemployment at some level through their family connections.
Would the Minister indicate why he continues to delay giving an economic over-view to Parliament similar to the over-view of November, 1981? That is the last one we had. Also, why can he not produce a budget to try to relieve the economic malaise which we have in this country? The Conference Board is now predicting unemployment is not going to go down this year, that it is going to go up still higher. If he cannot do the job, why does he not get out?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member could have concluded his question by adding that, since my appointment we have seen a very large decline in interest rates, a very large decline in the inflation rate, housing starts have increased quite significantly, and we have seen the largest trade surplus in Canada's history taking place. We also have a very substantial increase in consumer and business confidence as shown by all surveys.
These are encouraging signs which are with us and my purpose is, indeed, to try to continue those trends and even to speed them up.
I believe one way of speeding up those trends would be for the Opposition to pass the Income Tax Act amendments which are before the House. That would lead to refunds of about $6 billion to Canadians, thereby encouraging those Canadians either to pay those debts they may have at the present time or spend more on consumer goods, which would help the recovery. That is one way whereby the Opposition could help Canadians in contributing to recovery quite quickly.
As far as I am concerned, once these measures have been passed in the House, I will be very happy to bring forward the budget.


INQUIRY RESPECTING MINISTER'S INTENTIONS
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance must know by this time that the Canadian public do not want any more rhetoric. They want some action. The farmers who are fighting for survival, the fishermen and the small businessmen, want some type of action which would indicate that the slump, which The Economist of England says is a self-inflicted slump by the federal Government of Canada, might end. Would the Minister answer my question? Why can he not bring in a suitable budget to relieve this malaise into which his Government has got us?
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I believe that the greatest source of malaise is probably the rhetoric of the Hon. Member. I would remind him that, since June last year, much has been done to improve the situation of small businesses, fishermen, farmers as well as all Canadians
March 16, 1983

generally, thanks to the sharp decline in interest rates which have gone down by more than 8 per cent during that time, 800 points all told. In other words, each Canadian in business, be he a farmer or a mortgage, has benefited from a significant decrease in interest rates in recent months, thanks to the policy of the Canadian Government and that of other industrialized countries, including the United States.
Madam Speaker, those measures have been a factor in the rising number of housing starts in Canada, they have given renewed confidence to businessmen and consumers alike, and they have contributed to the steep decrease in the inflation rate in Canada, as evidenced by the fact that the cost of living went up by only 6 per cent since last June as compared with about 12 per cent in previous months. Such are the concrete measures which we have taken and which have given tangible results for consumers and all Canadians. In any case, the rhetoric of the Hon. Member can hardly be a substitute for those measures we have taken since then.
* *
*


REQUEST THAT PRICES BE ROLLED BACK
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy. I know he was talking about oil prices over lunch, and I would just like to put the following proposition to him. The Canada-Alberta Energy Agreement provides that the price of Canadian oil will not exceed 75 per cent of the world price. In a press release on September 18, 1981, the Ministers of Energy for Canada and Alberta agreed to roll back the price of oil should it exceed 75 per cent of the world price. In the National Energy Program Update, consumers were promised that they would receive the benefit of any rollback in energy prices. We are not asking the Minister to change the agreement unilaterally, we simply want him to live up to it.
Would the Minister agree to give Canadians the rollback in energy prices they are entitled to, S3 a barrel, which will provide the stimulus that the Canadian economy needs now?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, the view held by the Hon. Member about the agreement is the same as mine, but Premier Lougheed of Alberta does not think the same. He says the agreement he signed two years ago was at a time when the pressure on prices was upward and he never intended, in signing the agreement, to have a decline in prices. We are having an honest disagreement with Mr. Lougheed and we have decided to debate it. The Hon. Member says we should not unilaterally break the agreement. I agree with him, and
Oral Questions
that is why I will be discussing this problem with Mr. Zaozirny on Friday.


REQUEST THAT TERMS OF OIL PRICING AGREEMENT BE OBSERVED
Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, the Minister's response seems to indicate that there are going to be meetings on this matter for a period of time. But if the Government cuts the price of oil by $3 a barrel, it would immediately stimulate the Canadian economy by a noninflationary $1.5 billion. B.C. would benefit by $190 million; the Prairies, $340 million; Ontario and Quebec, $930 million; and Atlantic Canada, $200 million.
Would the Minister give this House some assurance that he knows what is going on, and that he will live up to a commitment which says that, in the event of a price decrease, Canadians get a rollback?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I think the Hon. Member can make that statement, but I have to live by his words when he says not to break the agreement unilaterally. There is a disagreement between Alberta and this Government and the Hon. Member would not want me to act unilaterally. He will want me to discuss this matter with the Government of Alberta before reaching a definitive conclusion. That is exactly what I am doing, and 1 am very pleased to see that the Hon. Member does not want me to break the agreement unilaterally.


REQUEST FOR NEW NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY
Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, we are not asking the Minister to break the agreement unilaterally. The agreement is very clear. The press release is very clear. The National Energy Update is very clear. Canadians are entitled to a rollback, and the Minister cannot deny that. But even beyond that is the chaos in our national energy policy. Would the Minister undertake in this House that he will try to give us a third attempt at a national energy policy, something that we can all live by in this country?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: That is exactly what 1 want to do, Madam Speaker, and that is why I think we have to discuss with the provinces if we want to find a rational solution to that problem. In my opinion, the Province of Alberta is not the only one which is arguing that we should not roll back the price of old oil in Canada despite the lower international price, there is also the Premier of Saskatchewan who shares similar views. Strangely enough, even though there is a new Government in Saskatchewan, the position of that province remains the same. However, the Members of the New Democratic Party have changed their position now that they are no longer in Government in Saskatchewan.

March 16, 1983
Oral Questions


THE ECONOMY
Hon. Janies A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. He will know that the Premier of Newfoundland is reported as having said that the Prime Minister and the Premiers agreed that the recovery would be short-lived, 18 to 24 months at best, after which the country would slide back into a prolonged bout of high unemployment and low productivity.
Does the Minister of Finance subscribe to the consensus which has apparently developed among First Ministers and, if so, notwithstanding the position he has taken earlier in the House, is it his intention to try to achieve some kind of consensus with the Provinces on a common strategy to cope with this mounting crisis?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, out of experience I would like to check with the Prime Minister about the consensus arrived at at the meeting rather than rely on the words of Premier Peckford.


Mr. Nielsen:: Write him a letter.


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, that kind of attitude on the part of the Minister of Finance of Canada is hardly helpful in this sort of situation.


PLIGHT OF PEOPLE ON WELFARE
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. Press reports say that 1.8 million Canadians are now on the welfare rolls of the country. That is 1.8 million men, women and children are on welfare, and last year alone 640,000 Canadians were added to the ranks of the poverty stricken of this country. In a survey conducted in January 50 per cent of those surveyed by Gallup said they would be touched directly or indirectly by unemployment. That is the state of this nation today. I want to ask the Minister of Finance, who surely has some responsibility here, what hope he can offer to those on welfare, to the unemployed, and to those forced on to the poverty rolls?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member will surely recall what Premier Peckford used to say about him during the last election campaign. Surely he would not want me to believe a press report on what Premier Peckford said about a possible consensus, after knowing what the Premier had said about the Hon. Member when he was Minister of Fisheries in the former Government.


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, I believe that the House and the country are entitled to a reply from the Minister of Finance to this most serious question. What is left of his reputation is on the line here.


REQUEST FOR MEETING OF FINANCE MINISTERS
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, I am going to ask the Minister of Finance if he intends to meet with his provincial counterparts at least to address the problem of the two million Canadians who are on the welfare rolls, for which the Provinces have to pick up half the tab.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I do not know where the Hon. Member has been lately. I met with my provincial colleagues last December and again two weeks ago, to address those very questions.


TRANSPORT
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. The Minister is no doubt aware of the fact that employees of the CN Express Department in Montreal are very concerned about the possibility of this department being transferred to Toronto. In the interest of these employees who are seriously worried about the future, could the Minister inform the House whether he is aware of CN's plans and what he intends to do about it?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, Madam Speaker, I am aware of CN's intentions. We must look at the facts. Last year, CN Express lost $30 million, and one of the reasons was that they were unable to compete with entrepreneurs in the private sector. That led to a plan to merge CN Express and CN trucking services. A study revealed that the centre of operations, and therefore, what might become CN Headquarters for this sector, should be located in the Toronto area. I was told about this, and I said that it was a subject of considerable concern to the Minister of Transport and the Prime Minister. No decision has been made as yet. I have also asked CN to see whether it would not be possible to achieve a compromise.


Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker-and this also concerns the Minister of Transport-not long ago, the Member for La Prairie, in a paper he drafted, deplored the fact that for ten years Air Canada had been toying with the idea of transferring some of its activities from Montreal or Quebec to Ontario. He also urged the Minister of Transport to force Air Canada to make a statement on this subject. Has the Minister of Transport asked Air Canada to make public, or to comment on, the paper presented by the Member for La Prairie?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the Member for La Prairie and myself have been having a very friendly discussion about this for some weeks now. I maintain that the percentage of Air Canada employees working in Montreal has not changed in ten
March 16, 1983

years, and that Air Canada has invested more in Montreal than it has in Toronto, and there are other examples. However, I seem to be unable to convince my friend, the Member for La Prairie and perhaps others as well. Furthermore, I have suggested several times that the President of Air Canada be invited to appear before the Transport Committee and provide a detailed explanation, so that we would all have a better basis on which to judge this question.


HOUSING
[Stage Direction]
Oral Questions
leading role in this area of social housing. We have been doing our share, and even more.

Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Public Works and deals with social housing. In the City of Montreal 16,000 persons are waiting to get into low-cost units. Last year the City of Montreal was only able to build 400 units, and this year the number has been increased to approximately 450 units. It is anticipated that within the next two or three years 200,000 people in the greater Montreal area will need decent housing. How can the Minister justify cutbacks in social housing at this critical time?


CUT IN FUNDING FOR SOCIAL HOUSING IN ONTARIO
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister responsible for housing. Parliament is in the process of finalizing the adoption of a Bill which will allow the Government to borrow another $19 billion. Under present economic conditions which have created an increase in the number of people who require social housing, why has CMHC slashed funding by 2,500 units? For example, in Ontario 23 per cent of the budget was slashed. What criteria did the Government use for this, and does the Government have to go deeper in the red in order to meet our social requirements?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, I have explained in the House before that the budget was set at 25,000 units some years ago. We were in the position of borrowing from future years. In fact some years we reached the 30,000 level. The Department of Finance, with which we had agreed that these units would eventually be paid back, is now looking at a request I have put forward to delay repayment. I hope that I will soon be able to announce some improvement.
The reality is that we have not cut back; we have adjusted, as we indicated all along. We may decide, in consultation with the Minister of Finance, to delay the repayment of these units.
The Provinces that have been complaining about this issue get off rather lightly from their responsibility for social housing. Some have complained rather bitterly that we have adjusted our expenditures. I have seen very little evidence that many of them have improved on their offers.


POSITION OF MINISTER
Stanley James Korchinski: Madam Speaker, is the Minister suggesting to the Provinces that they should remove the ceiling on rental housing so that the contractors can go to work and start constructing houses? This would have the effect of doubling the rental rates for these units. Is that what he is suggesting?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I suggest that the Provinces should also play a


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, the difficulty with the Hon. Member's rhetoric is that he insists on using a word which I have explained very carefully, that in the last three years we have gone over the budget which was allocated and, in fact, we may decide to put off for another year or two the restoration of the level we had been assigned.
The reality is that the present social housing program we are reviewing is to some extent akin to a lottery. Those who are lucky enough to be in have done very well, but there are many who are waiting. This is why I am reviewing it. I would like to know what will be the Hon. Member's position when in fact we review the program and perhaps try to distribute more fairly the rather large amounts we have assigned to it at present.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: The Minister seems to forget the fact that investment in housing is an investment. For every one job in the housing industry, three other jobs are created. This is not just a humanitarian approach; it makes good business sense.


NON-PROFIT CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Madam Speaker, with a demand in any given year for 10,000 non-profit co-op units in the country, why does the Minister steadfastly refuse, as did his predecessor, to promote low-cost, co-op public housing when it fulfils a very, very important need from coast to coast?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member will really have to make up his mind. If he wants to create jobs, he cannot look only or mainly to the social housing budget. In reality it is a very expensive program for every unit which is constructed. In that sense he will have to decide whether he wants to create jobs and invest in that part of the economy, or whether he wants to multiply the number of co-operative units.
I might say that we have led the way in social housing, and I hope that other partners, including the municipalities, will join
us.

March 16, 1983
Oral Questions


REQUEST THAT MINISTER CONVENE FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE
Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works. Some time ago, in recognition of the problem which exists with respect to social and co-operative housing, and low vacancy rates in the National Capital area and across the country, I asked the Minister whether he intended to convene a federal-provincial conference with respect to housing, and facing these problems. He told me that he would look into the matter. Has he done so? What is his intention with respect to calling together all the partners in providing housing for Canadians?


Hon. Romeo LeBIanc (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, I had a meeting with a number of my colleagues at the HUDAC conference in Vancouver. We discussed whether it would be wise for us to get together before, during, or after the budget period. It was agreed that many provincial housing Ministers would want to know what would be the positions of their Ministers of Finance vis-a-vis housing and that in fact we should let the situation develop normally.


QUERY RESPECTING MINISTER'S INTENTIONS
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, is the Minister telling the House that, in effect, the provincial Ministers have said they will await the budget, that the Minister himself feels that we should await the budget, that the question with respect to a federal-provincial conference on housing is still an open one in terms of the Government, and that that matter is still something which will be considered by the Minister responsible for housing?


Derek Vincent Lee: Madam Speaker, the provincial Ministers of housing have done what I have done. They have had close consultations with their Ministers of Finance. I hope out of that will come progress in the area we are discussing.
I might say to the Hon. Member that his question may mislead the House. The reality is that housing starts have improved quite dramatically. In fact it is one of the positive areas of the economy at this time.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. As part of the $34 million loan guarantee made by the Government to Maislin Trucking, one condition was that there would be a president appointed acceptable to the company and to the Government of Canada. Could the Minister inform the House whether the appointment of Dick,
or R. T. Skillinger, from New Bedford, Massachusetts, formerly of Hemingway Trucking, was acceptable to the Government?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Yes, Madam Speaker.


APPOINTEE'S EXPERIENCE
William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Madam Speaker, it may be because of the need for experience, but could the Minister explain to the House why it was Mr. Skillinger from Hemingway Trucking, a company which has been operating in bankruptcy under Section 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Act since July 28, 1982? Is this person the man they thought they should have, because of his experience in bankruptcy, to continue to lead Maislin?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, obviously Maislin wanted to hire as competent an individual as it could possibly find on the market because it wants the company to survive. We also want the company to survive because that job preservation is very important to the country. Consequently, after a serious search for a president of the corporation, Mr. Skillinger was the individual thought to be the best person available. We also had some of our people interview him and we felt that he had the qualifications based on the applicants available for the job.


PETRO-CANADA REPORTED PURCHASE OF ROMANIAN MANUFACTURED PIPE
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I ask him to respond to a rather disturbing report which I have received from my constituency indicating that Petro-Canada has literally bought miles and miles, truckloads and truckloads of casing pipe and surface pipe from Romania, and that this pipe is even hauled up to northern British Columbia from Texas, I think, by an American trucking company? Would the Minister comment on that? Would he undertake to investigate the matter and to tell the House whether there is any kind of procurement policy to which the people's oil company is required to adhere?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, of course I am not aware of this problem. Certainly I will inquire about it and report to the Hon. Member. I am glad the Hon. Member sees a role in Canadian society for Petro-Canada. Some of the Members of his own Party did not want Petro-Canada at all.
March 16, 1983


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. No doubt the Minister knows that I have some questions on the Order Paper relating to the mortgage portfolio management system. Could he tell the House whether the audit of that program has been completed, what are the costs in ball-park figures, and whether he is satisfied with the program as to its efficiency and general cost effectiveness.


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member will permit me to take this question as notice. I will look into it.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I have given him short notice of it. It refers to the statement which I made on Mr. Norman Cafik yesterday. Two hours ago Mr. Cafik said on television in British Columbia that he was called in to help his company get the $6.7 million DIPP grant. He said, "My job had nothing to do with this sort of thing. I was called in. I used my knowledge of Government to tell them", that is the company, "what to do and how to do it".
Would the Minister agree that that is a clear example of lobbying? Will he also agree to table ail correspondence and minutes of any meetings held between Mr. Cafik and the then responsible Minister, the President of the Treasury Board?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, this morning I had a chance to read the allegations of the Hon. Member in the press and I had a preliminary investigation undertaken. I am advised that our Department dealt with this company long before Mr. Cafik was ever employed by the firm. As a matter of fact it received financial assistance from the Government of Canada through the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce long before Mr. Cafik was employed by the company. I want to also indicate to the Hon. Member that our relations with the company have not changed since Mr. Cafik's employment.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The Minister was not listening to what Mr. Cafik said. He said that he was called in especially to use his knowledge.


ROLE OF FORMER MIN ISTER OF INDUSTRY
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. Given the fact that Mr. Cafik also said that he met personally
Oral Questions
with the present President of Treasury Board before the two-year period was over, that the contract was dated exactly two years after he quit Government, and that in fact he saw the Minister and made representations, would the present Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce not agree that the previous Minister-I am not referring to Mr. Cafik, but to the previous Minister responsible, who is now the President of Treasury Board-breached the guidelines by giving privileged access in this matter? Will he now agree that the Government should in fact refer this matter, the Gillespie matter, and the matter of the conflict of interest guidelines, to a House of Commons Committee for examination?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, with the greatest respect to the Hon. Member, as I understood his preamble, he was getting his information third-hand from the media who allegedly heard it from Mr. Cafik. I will check that out with Mr. Cafik. I want to also remind the Hon. Member that Mr. Cafik was, as I recall, the Minister of Multiculturalism and not the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Regional Economic Expansion. However, I will have a discussion with Mr. Cafik and get back to the Hon. Member.


FUNDING FOR BEAUFORT SEA RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. How does the Minister justify allocating $1.5 billion to the development of resources in the Beaufort Sea while only allocating $40 million for the development of human resources, our greatest human resource being the unemployed youth of our country?
f Translation\


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, quite frankly, I wonder where the Hon. Member got those figures. We now have a general program of incentives for the oil industry which benefits all companies in Canada, especially Canadian companies. The money spent by oil companies in Canada is beneficial to Canadian workers. As the Hon. Member himself has regularly spoken in this House over the last few years about the problems of the oil industry and the resulting unemployment, I am surprised at his rising today to express his concerns over a possible resumption of activity in the oil industry.
Regarding assistance to the unemployed in Canada, Madam Speaker, I remind him that the Canadian government has allocated over $2 billion in its budget to help those who are looking for work through direct job creation programs, not to mention the $8.6 billion paid to the unemployed last year.

March 16, 1983
Oral Questions


Jack Wendele Shields: I am complaining about the insensitivity of the Government to the plight of the young people across the country who are facing unemployment. That is what I am complaining about.


DEVELOPMENT OF ALBERTA OIL SANDS
Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. At a small Liberal meeting held on the weekend in southern Alberta, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce announced that there would be two projects going ahead in northeastern Alberta for the development of the oil sands. Does the Minister know of this new development in his Department and, if so, would he elaborate and tell us where these projects would be developed?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, as I said, there are some negotiations taking place at this time between the industry and the Alberta Government on some projects in Alberta. When we are ready to give more specific information, we will do so. Some announcements might be made quite soon, and others might take some time. Of course the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce knows that the federal Government will do everything possible to make sure that these programs go ahead.


REPORT OF MINISTER'S STATEMENT
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. He was reported as saying in Lethbridge, "New life could be breathed into Alberta heavy oil projects within the year." Can that statement be taken seriously, or was the Minister more inclined to be attempting to breath new life into the Liberal Party of Alberta?
If it is the former case, would he indicate where and what number of jobs will be created, as well as indicating what changes are contemplated in the National Energy Program, since that would give some hope to the many industries associated with the oil industry which clearly have their backs against the wall?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, the question that I was responding to when I was in Alberta was about the two megaprojects, Alsands and Cold Lake. We on this side of the House happen to have more confidence in the future of the economy than hon. colleagues on the other side. I indicated that in major capital projects- and I did not mention only megaprojects specifically-which we categorized as over $100 million, there has been a heightened interest from the principals of many of these projects during the past three or four months.
I and my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, have had several meetings with the principals of some of these projects who are now rethinking their possibilities. Thus we are very confident that in the future some of these projects which have been postponed because of the international economic situation will be undertaken.


REQUEST FOR FORECAST OF POSSIBLE EMPLOYMENT
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, surely it is time to separate the fluff from fact. If the Minister has something positive to say about future development, can he tell us how many jobs will be created, where they will be created, and what kind of changes will be made to the National Energy Program so that these projects can go ahead?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, I was just trying to provide a little bright light out there in Alberta because I know some of the MPs from Alberta who sit here in the House are obviously very negative about the economic future of the country. I was just trying to provide some optimism based on the discussions that my colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and I have had.
1 am surprised that the Member for Vegreville, who is a former businessman, would want me to indicate in public confidential commercial information discussed between business people and the Government of Canada. I am a little amazed at the Hon. Member's request.


HOUSING
Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for housing. Bearing in mind that a number of new Canadian homebuilders would like to receive the $3,000 grant for homes, and that the Government's policy is that the footings have to be in the ground before April 30, and since there is still frost in the ground in much of Canada by April 30, how much longer will the Minister continue Southern Canadian policies whereby northern Canadians cannot live with those policies? Is he intending to send the Minister of Agriculture out to speak Chinook on the building sites, or have the Prime Minister wrestle the foundations into the ground?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I have undertaken to examine this definition of demarkation lines and we are doing so. I hope to come up with a solution. I might say to the Hon. Member that I will not do anything to prevent people from putting in foundations and getting a fair chance, if I can avoid it.
March 16, 1983


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Arnold John Malone: Madam Speaker, I would ask the Minister, bearing in mind that it costs almost as much as the $3,000 to get those footings into the ground, when will the Liberals stop adopting the policy that they will give to those who should get, on the basis that those who have got have to give back that which they got in order to get that which they got, such that that what they got was for nought?
[ Translation]


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I shall check the exact translation of what the Hon. Member has just said. However, I must tell him that this program was designed to promote the construction of residential buildings and that we intend to maintain this policy.


INDUSTRY AND LABOUR ADJUSTMENT PROGRAM
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The Minister will recall that approximately one year ago the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development announced with great fanfare an ILAP grant for the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company. We have seen no results from that as yet, even though there was supposed to be money forthcoming. 1 understand that some problems are now developing. Can the Minister tell us how long it will be before the rationalization process that is to be undertaken can begin? How long will it be before the money will be made available?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, as I understand it, the Firestone Company has already undertaken some of the modernization program that we agreed to when my colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, made the announcement.
We have extended the ILAP application because some of the wording of the agreement is still to be worked out with the company. We expect to resolve this within the next couple of weeks.


MINISTER'S STATEMENT IN ALBERTA
Mr. John Thomson (Calgary South):: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary to an earlier question asked by my colleague from Vegreville regarding the two so-called megaprojects in Alberta. As I read the report in the newspaper, the Minister was quoted as saying that these two projects in excess of $100 million would be on stream before the end of the year.
Petitions
Is that what he said, that they would be on stream before the end of the year?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, I will be happy to provide the Hon. Member with a copy of the tape of that interview. No, I did not even mention those two specific projects at all.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Late last year he told us what his plans were for the taxation of certain northern benefits that had not been taxed before. This created quite a furor. He has received many representations in opposition to those proposals. Could he tell us now whether he has reconsidered these plans and whether he might change them in light of the representations, or preferably get rid of them altogether?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I did in fact announce last year measures concerning the taxation of northern benefits. This was done after consultations and meetings with many organizations and concerned groups. Obviously everyone would rather not pay taxes. However, if we want the country to work and if we want to have some equity in the sharing of responsibilities in Canada, there has to be a distribution of taxes. I announced a decision which will gradually eliminate the inequity of the present system and give some time to the workers involved to negotiate better working conditions with their employers taking into account the adjustment required by the announced tax changes.
I hope that the manner in which this program was announced will allow the workers involved to negotiate better working conditions with their employers and that Canadian taxpayers will no longer be required to finance these benefits to the advantage of employers.


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by two hon. members on Tuesday, March 15, 1983, meet the requirements of the Standing Order as to form.

March 16, 1983
Privilege-Mr. Mackasey


PRIVILEGE
Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Lincoln):: Madam Speaker, in a series of articles beginning last Thursday in the Montreal Gazette, it was repeatedly stated that I owned a numbered company, 109609 Canada Limited, and that I was a paid lobbyist. A Member who is a paid lobbyist, soliciting the Government, is breaking the law and has no right to be sitting in the House of Commons.
I have, of course, and I say this with great satisfaction, spent most of my 20 years in public life lobbying. I have lobbied for the elderly, for the underprivileged and for the unemployed. I have lobbied for businessmen, for companies and for industries from one end of Canada to the other, and so has every Member of the House of Commons. Lobbying for constituents and for other Canadians is very certainly not against the law. It is, in fact, a vital part of the responsibility we have as Members.
But, of course, that is not the issue before the House. That is not the accusation. That, of course, is not why I am standing here at this moment. I am standing here because I have been accused of being a paid lobbyist. If I were a paid lobbyist, I would be in violation of the Senate and House of Commons Act. In short, Madam Speaker, I would be a lawbreaker who has no right to be sitting in this House. That is the accusation, and I wish to deal with it right here and now.
Madam Speaker, do I own or have I ever owned this famous numbered company, 109609? My answer is categorical, and my answer is no.
Did I ever directly or indirectly own any share of 109609? My answer is categorical, and my answer is no.
Madam Speaker, was I ever paid or promised payment to lobby for 109609 or for any other company or companies associated with it? My answer is categorical, and my answer is no.
Finally, did I promise, in exchange for payment, direct or indirect, to lobby at some future time for 109609, for Les Ateliers d'usinage Hall Ltee., or for any other company or companies associated with it? My answer is categorical, and my answer is no.

Did I ever agree to be financially rewarded, directly or indirectly, for lobbying on behalf of a numbered company, 109609 Canada Limited, namely, Les Ateliers d'usinage Hall Ltee, or any company associated with it? The answer is no, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, these false and slanderous accusations in the Montreal Gazette, Quebec's only English daily, have humiliated my family, tarnished my reputation and, if left unchallenged, could even blemish the reputation of this institution and those who serve in it; for as I noted just two
weeks ago in debate, the reputation of the House reflects the individual and collective integrity of its Members.
The privileges of this House, of its Members, are privileges which have been accumulated through the centuries, privileges which we guard jealously in this House. One of those privileges which is mine as a Member is to ask the House, my fellow colleagues from all Parties, to accept my word as an honourable gentleman. That is a privilege which is mine, but it is a privilege which I do not intend to abuse or hide behind. I have too much respect for this institution to abuse its privileges.
To remove the blemish on myself and on my family, and any possible reflection on this institution which I respect so much, which dishonesty on my part could cause, I wish to move the following motion:
That the allegations in the Montreal Gazette on March 10, March 11 and March 12 of 1983 that the Hon. Member for Lincoln owned 109609 Company Canada Limited and, through that company, while being a Member of the House of Commons, was a paid lobbyist, be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections as soon as possible.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey) has been a Member of this House for a good many years-and I was here when he first became a Member-during which time he has established a reputation for fairmindedness and decency, a reputation which all of us can appreciate he would want to preserve.
We have received no notice of his actions today. While we all expected that on the first occasion of his return to the House he would be doing just what he did, we have not had time to consider the terms of reference which he has proposed and which we have heard for the first time today.
I think that he would be the first to agree that it is not only our responsibility but also that of the Chair to consider whether, in the exercise of that responsibility, we can follow our immediate inclination, which would be to accept immediately his motion of reference. However, he has used the word "slanderous", which gives rise to the possibility of court proceedings. That is a question which I believe deserves examination. I am not certain whether or not the bankruptcy proceedings giving rise to the allegations to which he has referred are still ongoing or whether they have been concluded. There may be other investigations, we do not know.
Proceeding with that prudence and in the light of our practices and precedents, there may be an obligation on the part of the Chair to examine that motion and its acceptability. My suggestion to the House would be that we set over until tomorrow the consideration of this motion and, in the meantime, perhaps the Hon. Member would be good enough to provide us with a copy. Perhaps he would also be good enough to speak with me about the circumstances surrounding the areas of concern that I have and that we have with respect to the exercise of the proper responsibilities of Members in dealing, hopefully favourably, with his motion.
March 16, 1983


Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that we in the New Democratic Party have respected the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey) in terms of his service in this House over the years. We have differed seriously from time to time but there has never been on our part any questioning of his integrity or of his practice being anything but in complete accordance with the rules of this House.
Therefore, we were very pleased indeed to hear what the Member had to say, to hear his proposal that he rejects categorically the allegations, which are serious and which, as he points out, reflect on all Members of the House, and that they are not only misleading but totally false, in the Hon. Member's words.
On the surface, we like his proposal that the matter be referred, and having noted what the Leader of the Official Opposition has said and that the Hon. Member for Lincoln himself agrees that we should let this motion stand until tomorrow, I would like to support that proposal so that more informal discussions can take place. This would mean that the intent of what the Hon. Member for Lincoln obviously wants is observed, namely, that there should be a complete airing of this matter, which is serious, here in the one body of this country of ours where this matter should be aired, in the House of Commons.
I want to conclude by saying once again for my colleagues that not only did we listen with care to what the Hon. Member had to say, but we deeply and genuinely believe that everything he has had to say will turn out to be completely true.


Madam Speaker:: I suppose it is clear to the House that the Hon. Member for Lincoln has simply advised of his intention to move the motion. Technically speaking, there is not before the House a motion to refer this matter to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. There would only be a possibility of moving that motion if the Chair finds a prima facie case of privilege which, upon the advice of all those who have intervened, and indeed because the Chair does need some time to consider this matter, I will take under advisement. I am not promising that by tomorrow I will be in a position to rule on it, but 1 will certainly do it as expeditiously as possible.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jim Peterson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Economic Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Madam Speaker, if question No. 4,430 could be made order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.
Order Paper Questions


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 4,430 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


SPIN-OFFS FROM AID TO COUNTRIES FOR OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION
Mr. Mazankowski: For each oil and gas exploration and development foreign aid program financed by Petro-Canada International or CIDA (a) what Canadian goods and services have been purchased by the foreign country and at what cost (b) how many Canadians were hired to assist in the projects (c) what was the total number of person-years of employment to Canadians (d) what was the occupational distribution of the Canadians employed?
Return tabled.


Mr. McKinnon:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he is able to enlighten me as to when I might expect an answer to starred question No. 4,336 which I put on the Order Paper on May 19. It concerns a case of what appears to be discrimination against a former Lieutenant, Geoffrey Wright, who was in the regular army and has been released and denied admission to the Reserve.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Madam Speaker, quite frankly I have absolutely no idea where that question and response thereto stand, but I shall certainly endeavour to find out for the Hon. Member and get back to him as quickly as possible.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As we have a new Acting Parliamentary Secretary I was wondering if I could direct his attention to the fact that question No. 2,042 of January 29, 1981-that is over two years ago-asking the simple question what was the total cost of the Prime Minister's world tour of late 1980-1981, has not been answered. As the Acting Parliamentary Secretary knows, only last evening the Minister of Finance at a committee which he chaired assured us that if we put a question on the Order Paper we would get an answer promptly. I know the Government must be very anxious to answer these questions. Why has this one not been answered?


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Madam Speaker, I regret very much that we are not 100 per cent perfect in answering every question that has been put to us by all Hon. Members opposite. I guess we have to ask ourselves, can we be expected in all circumstances to respond with alacrity, speed and truth to all questions that are posed to us.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: I would like to come back to the fact that to date we have responded to 3,974 questions. This is 83.9 per cent of all questions that have been asked of this Government

March 16, 1983
Private Members' Business
and is not a bad record. All of us realize that responding to these questions requires a great deal of research, study and departmental time. The fact is that 3,974 questions have been answered to date and we all know what an expense that is to the taxpayers.
Having said that, I will certainly endeavour to get back to the Hon. Member as soon as possible.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Acting Parliamentary Secretary says they are perhaps not batting 1,000, but they are batting zero as far as my questions are concerned. There are five other questions, Nos. 3,216, 3,217, 3,218, 3,219 and 3,220, all asking similar questions about the escapades of our Prime Minister in some far away part of the world. When can we get public record information as to what these escapades cost and, in fact, how much of that cost will the public be required to cover?


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Madam Speaker, if the question involves the major premise that these trips are merely escapades, I can understand why he does not even deserve an answer to them. My goodness, is there any Head of State who is not called upon to travel around the world in order to keep in touch with their trading partners, allies, those who are committed to defending the free world, along with Canada? These are important trips and I resent very much the fact that the Hon. Member for York-Peel is calling the trips escapades.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Madam Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for production of papers be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Orders of the day.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS

['Order. Pursuant to Standing Order 24(2) it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings.', "It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 2(1).\nAt 6 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.", 'Thursday, March 17, 1983']
Philip Derek Lewis: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When you, Madam Speaker, called Orders of the Day, if you were to stand all items of Private Members' Business and call
Bill C-653 immediately, I am authorized to give the unanimous consent of the Progressive Conservative Party to immediate passage of Bill C-653 in order that it may go to committee for consideration.
We understand that the NDP Party is also prepared to support the immediate passage of this Bill. 1 have taken the precaution of advising the independent Member of the House for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) of our intention and he advises that he is in agreement with our actions.
[ Translation]


Madam Speaker:: First of all, shall all items listed under Private Members' Public Bills preceeding No. 653 be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



Mr. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex) moved: that Bill C-653, an Act to amend the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.

Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull) moved: that Bill C-661, an Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (Registration of Political Parties), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have had the privilege of presenting Bill C-661, an Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and more specifically as it deals with registration of political parties. My explanations will be brief, Mr. Speaker, because I shall also be highlighting a number of facts to demonstrate that eventually, it will be necessary to change the Canada Elections Act, and perhaps also the Income Tax Act, regarding the deductibility of donations to registered political parties.
In order to preserve the national character of federal political parties, this Bill would limit registration to parties that have the required number of candidates distributed in a majority of the provinces.
I shall now refer to the present text of Sub-sections 13(2) and 13(3) of the Canada Elections Act, which reads as follows:
"(2) Upon receipt of an application for registration of a political party pursuant to subsection (1), the Chief Electoral Officer shall examine the
March 16, 1983

application and determine whether the party can be registered under this section and
(a) where he determines that, on the nomination by the party of fifty candidates in accordance with paragraph (3)(a) or (b), whichever is applicable, the party could be registered, so inform the leader of the party-
I shall stop here, since at this point I would like to see a condition that goes further than the requirement of fifty candidates in order to register a political party.
Paragraph (2)(a) of the amended text, that is, the one I am proposing in my Bill, Mr. Speaker, reads, and I quote:
(a) where he determines that, on the nomination by the party of fifty candidates distributed in a majority of the provinces in accordance with paragraph (3)(a) or (b), whichever is applicable, the party could be registered, so inform the leader of the party;-
That is the whole point, Mr. Speaker. It is easy to understand why a political party, if it wants to operate at the national level, should be obliged to field candidates in a majority of the provinces, that is, in five out of six. These are candidates who will be working on the federal scene-if they are elected, of course. Without this obligation, regional or provincial groups, which I would prefer to qualify as local, will use Parliament as a platform for their own specific interests by disrupting or simply paralyzing the proceedings of the Elouse of Commons. Considering the vulnerability of our Standing Orders, I am sure that if a provincial group representing one or more provinces were to be elected and were to operate on the federal scene, this might cause many problems since these parties would bring the normal activities of this House to a complete standstill.
Mr. Speaker, a number of questions were raised by some observers when I presented this Bill. They said the Bill was aimed at preventing the Parti Quebecois from going federal.
However, when I read Part III of the new Canada Elections Act on the registration of political parties and also the provision regarding election expenses, I wondered, Mr. Speaker, whether the Parti Quebecois was not trying, in a roundabout way, to collect funds from sources other than the voters of the Province of Quebec. Actually, the purpose of registering a national party is simply to be able to collect funds and provide receipts for income tax purposes. Mr. Speaker, when the Parti Quebecois applied for registration to the Chief Electoral Officer, it was because it wanted to operate on the federal scene. This means that the application made by Mr. Levesque, the Leader of the Parti Quebecois, will be approved, provided the conditions for registration as a national political party are met. It means that in the next election, to all intents and purposes, Mr. Levesque will be able to stand for election or field candidates on the federal scene. This also means, Mr. Speaker, that if anyone gives a donation of $100 to the Parti Quebecois it would then have the same status nationally or federally as the Progressive Conservative or Liberal or NDP parties that the donor would get a receipt for $ 100, with which he could then obtain a federal tax rebate of $75. A copy of the receipt would also entitle him to a 50 per cent or $50 rebate on
Canada Elections Act
Quebec provincial income tax, under the Quebec Elections Act.
In other words, to all intents and purposes, a supporter who contributes $100 to the Parti Quebecois once it has been duly registered as a national party will receive from both levels of Government an income tax deduction of $125. That is why something has to be done about the Income Tax Act to change a situation which will indeed create a serious injustice for all Canadians.
Is the Parti Quebecois so hard-pressed that it has to circumvent its own legislation-everybody knows that in the Province of Quebec contributions to political parties are allowed only when made by voters or residents of the Province-and find roundabout ways to go outside the Province of Quebec and raise the funds it needs for its electoral campaigns? Or is it simply trying to take advantage of loopholes in our Income Tax Act once again to fill its election coffers?
I want to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that it is imperative that we plug that loophole in the Canada Elections Act with regard to the representativeness of candidates throughout all of Canada, and the Income Tax Act will have to be amended as well. Otherwise, all Canadians would be financing the elections of the Parti Quebecois! I might add that I am talking about the Parti Quebecois which is seeking national registration because, as far as I know, it is the only provincial party that is doing so. None of the other provincial political parties, whether they are Liberals or NDP, are registered. That would be unfair to the other parties and a flagrant injustice done to all Canadian taxpayers.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I have referred to the Parti Quebecois because it is the only group which is doing this. It may or may not have planned it that way, I do not know, but the fact is that I did notice and I think that others are now aware of that anomaly in the Canada Elections Act. Besides, Mr. Speaker, what is the challenge on the federal scene for those new crusaders who are already breathless as a result of their costly and fratricidal battles for the independence they had promised but were unable to deliver? What would they be accomplishing here other than dying needlessly in a suicidal assault, those supporters of a party whose only legacy to what was once la belle province will be an ephemeral and deceiving pseudovictory which in fact will become nothing more than a passing illusion? Fortunately, I hope that the passage of time will make people soon forget that they even lived through those years. I urge my colleagues to give serious consideration to this huge loophole in the Canada Elections Act and to defend the national interest which must always be the priority of the House of Commons of Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Dauphin (Mr. Lewycky). I believe it is

March 16, 1983
Canada Elections Act
appropriate that the House be informed that there may be a suggested amendment-I say there may be; it is not before the House at the moment-which would withdraw the Bill and refer the subject matter to a committee. I believe the Hon. Member for Dauphin is entitled to know that that kind of consideration is going on in the Chamber at the moment. I can say nothing further in that regard.


Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am glad of the information which you have provided, but I would like to put on the record some of the concerns which we have with respect to Bill C-661. I will perhaps begin there, so that whatever does happen to this Bill, whatever is decided, perhaps some of the concerns we have regarding this Bill will be considered.
I would like to divide my remarks on form and content of this particular Bill. There are some concerns we have with regard to the drafting of the amendment in that there is not necessarily a very clear definition of what is meant by "the majority of the Provinces". I realize a simple majority would be six Provinces, and if that is what we are talking of here, I do have a few questions because there seems to be an omission of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. For our part, we view Canada as including the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, which represents about two-thirds of Canada geographically. This might be one consideration which Hon. Members might want to note when we speak of this amendment in terms of the whole question of "a majority".
In the wording "of a majority of the Provinces", there does not seem to be any amplification. I know that the Hon. Member's intention is to preserve the national character of the federal political Parties, but if we refer to things like the Constitution, there is a requirement that these Provinces would constitute, let us say, 50 per cent of the population. Therefore, if we are talking about a simple majority of the Provinces, one of the considerations would be the population.
If a Party, for example, had candidates in Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, that constitutes six Provinces, but it would represent only 12 per cent to 14 per cent of the population.
So if the intention of the Hon. Member is that the national character of the country be represented, there is some question whether this amendment, as worded, actually does deal with that issue. For example, could we have one candidate in five Provinces and 45 candidates in one Province? Under the strict technical guidelines, would this not constitute a majority of Provinces? Is it still dealing with the intentions of the Hon. Member? We have some questions with regard to the form of this Bill because the complex question of how one divides up the country and how one legitimately apportions these candidates in the country is not covered by this amendment. So we do have several questions, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the form of this amendment, but if, as you suggested, there might be some disposition of the House to refer the matter to committee, 1 am sure the committee will take into consideration
my remarks. I happen to serve on the committee and I would make sure that these matters would be raised.
In addition to the question of form, Mr. Speaker, I would also like, for the benefit of the House, to raise some questions with regard to the content or key elements which are being brought into play here. Now, I know we would probably want to avoid undue extremes in legislation. By that I mean we want to make sure that we do not present any sort of artificial impediments to legitimate Parties which may have regional origins. History shows that Parties like the CCF began on the Prairies, a regional origin, and at the outset may not necessarily have had quite the same sort of national scope envisioned in this Bill. The Progressive Party began in the West. We have various parties with regional beginnings, and I do not know whether this proposed legislation necessarily excludes that; so we would have some questions on the content. On the other hand, I think we are aware that this legislation would permit almost all regionally-based Parties to be registered. I think we appreciate in one sense the intent of the Hon. Member in looking at the question of nationhood, federal Parties and Canada's federal character, but I do want to point out these reservations as to content.
On a sociological basis, Mr. Speaker, we would also want to look at what is done in other countries with regard to registering Parties. For example, I note that the handbook of the House of Commons in Great Britain lists Parties such as the Scottish Nationalist Party, the Official Unionist Party, the United Ulster Unionists and the Ulster Unionist Party. What exactly their status is concerning registration is, of course, something which would require a little bit more research, but if the Mother of Parliament allows, as it were, regional Parties the opportunity to express their concerns and opinions, I am wondering whether we should not be as open-minded.
I know the Hon. Member has expressed some concern about the Pequiste Party in Quebec, but if some of their members were elected to this House, I wonder if rubbing shoulders with people from Manitoba, Saskatchewan or B.C. this would not give them some additional perspective. Before long they might see that some of the perceptions held by other Canadians are valid and some of them might have a change of heart or opinion.
I would like to examine on a philosophical basis whether we want these types of restrictions at this time, Mr. Speaker. We have just come through a very trying period with regard to our Constitution. Included in that Constitution is a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Everyone has the freedom of conscience and religion, the freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media communications, the freedom of peaceful assembly and association. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we could include in freedom of association the question of political association. Would we be placing an unnecessary impediment in the way of people who wish to register a Party?
March 16, 1983

The third section of the Bill of Rights includes the provision that every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of Members of the house of Commons or legislative assemblies and to be qualified for membership therein. If I were to dovetail the freedom of association with those democratic rights, I wonder whether we would be in violation of those freedoms if we were to place these kinds of restrictions in legislation. I mentioned before that one of the most important positions in this land is that of a private citizen with the right to vote. So on a philosophical basis, Mr. Speaker, I do have some questions as to the content of this particular Bill.
In addition to that, I would point out that in some ways Canada is a democratic model for other countries. I think if that is true we ought to be an ideal model, one that no one is afraid to copy, one which gives the greatest expression to democracy through our political Parties. Keeping that in mind, I wonder whether this particular amendment might not be somewhat restrictive. I know that last night, Mr. Speaker, at the Canada-Europe Association we talked about this whole question of having a conference on democracy and Canada's participation. If we want to use our own Elections Act as a model for democracy, then perhaps this amendment is too restrictive at this time. We may want to reconsider it at some other time, but I am just wondering about it at this time.
The Hon. Member who spoke earlier talked about the problem of certain political Parties being able to receive donations provincially and federally. I am sure that if I talk to him more specifically on this, I would appreciate a bit more the particular problem he is raising. However, we do have provincial Elections Acts which allow us to contribute to the provincial Party as well as the federal Party, so that I can and do contribute to the NDP both federally and provincially. We issued tax credit receipts for both political Parties. However, I cannot claim that twice. I think there are ways of dealing with this to make sure that the taxpayer is not penalized and I am sure other Provinces have similar provisions in their Elections Acts.
I have mentioned our concerns about the form of the Bill and the fact that there is no recognition of the Yukon and Northwest Territories which is especially relevant in light of what is happening today at the conference dealing with aboriginal rights. I think that is a serious omission.
We also have questions about the content of the Bill and the difficulty of trying to relate it to the history of the country and to what is happening in other parliaments. We have been trying to understand our democratic role as citizens of Canada. I wonder if the Bill might not be a little too restrictive. I may not be aware of all the problems at this time but we feel that this may not necessarily be the wisest thing to do.
Should Hon. Members choose to have this matter referred to committee, I would be delighted to raise these concerns at that time. I am sure answers will be forthcoming to the questions that I have raised. Perhaps we would all be satisfied to have the matter dealt with expeditiously in that way.
Thank you for the opportunity to share some thoughts on the Bill this afternoon, Mr. Speaker.
Canada Elections Act


Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the discussion on Bill C-661 this afternoon. I want to begin by congratulating the distinguished Hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle) for bringing before the House Bill C-661, an Act to amend the Canada Elections Act in regard to the registration of political Parties. In my view, this is the very essence of the Private Members' hour being used in a productive way.
One observes that there is the possibility of a conflict of interest between the provisions of the Bill and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, particularly Section 2 which guarantees the freedom of association and expression, and Section 15, which prescribes equality of treatment for all. Even if the Bill were compatible with the Charter, and assuming it was adopted by the House, there is no guarantee that it would achieve its purpose because it would be relatively easy to comply with the new requirements.
On the other hand, Party registration is a problem which should be considered at this time, especially as we are faced with a proliferation of political Parties in the country. There are ten official federal political Parties, some of which are not interested in having candidates elected. The cost and administrative difficulties which they may engender force us to reconsider the whole question of registration of political Parties.
I want to recognize the contribution to the debate this afternoon by the Hon. Member for Dauphin (Mr. Lewycky) and express appreciation for the indication that there is a disposition to have the subject matter of the Bill referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. I had a conversation earlier with the Hon. Member for Laval (Mr. Roy) and he pointed out that the Parti Quebecois is only interested in matters within the boundaries of the Province of Quebec, yet it is registered across the country and can take advantage of the provisions of the Income Tax Act. One might even say it is an unfair advantage. That is a classic example of why it is important to try to stop that type of thing from happening.
In form and substance the Bill is very important. In order that the proceedings of the House may not be delayed any longer, I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "that" and substituting the following therefor:
Bill C-661, and Act to amend the Canada Elections Act in respect of registration of political parties, be not now read a second time but that the Order be discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
I hope there is a disposition to have this matter referred to the Committee with dispatch so that it can discuss the subject matter of the Bill and not the Bill itself as presented this afternoon.


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

March 16, 1983
Canada Elections Act


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


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


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Pursuant to Standing Order 24(2), it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this point and to ask for the consent of the House that all orders listed on today's Order Paper under Private Members' Public Bills preceding Order No. 155 be allowed to stand by unanimous consent. Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi) moved: that Bill C-355, to amend the Canada Elections Act (deposit), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is relatively rare that one has the opportunity to debate his own Bill in the House unless one is a Minister of the Crown. I am therefore pleased to have the opportunity to at least debate this Bill this afternoon.
The purpose of the Bill is to increase the deposit of candidates in general elections or by-elections from $200 to $2,000. I suppose many people will ask why this should be done. To my knowledge, the $200 deposit has been in effect since Confederation.
I am sure all of us have noticed that in recent times there has been a vast proliferation of candidates particularly in general elections. In fact, in the last several general elections we have seen the phenomenon of more than one candidate representing the same Party in the same constituency. This is an indication that people are trying to make a farce of free elections.
I do not think, whatever one may think of a Government or a Party, one should have the inexpensive opportunity to poke fun at elections, because free elections are the very basis of democracy. Therefore, candidates should be prepared, if they wish to stand for election to the House of Commons, to demonstrate their sincerity by putting a substantial sum of money on the line. Today $200 is not really a substantial sum of money when it comes to an election deposit. It is not very
difficult for any individual, unless he is a complete loony, to find ten people who will put up $20 each so that he can put his name on the ballot. It should be made much more difficult for people whose only purpose in an election campaign is to obtain some publicity to achieve that rather spurious purpose.
There are other reasons as well. It has become noticeable of late that many fringe candidates-in fact, I would go so far as to call them lunatic candidates-indeed do disrupt election campaigns.


Mr. Blaikie:: You should not talk about Members of your Party that way.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: I might say that this has not happened in the riding I have represented in all three election campaigns in which I participated as a candidate. There were not any of the so-called nuisance candidates. If the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) is not careful, I might describe a certain Party candidate that way.
I believe as well that this causes a considerable amount of confusion to the public. Certainly it would seem to me that under no circumstances should we allow two candidates to use the same Party label. That game is being played in some constituencies by the Rhinoceros Party. In at least one New Brunswick constituency in the last election there were two so-called candidates representing that so-called Party.
Also the proliferation of candidates has a tendency to add to the cost of elections. I am not one of those people who would argue that elections cost the country too much. In fact, I do not believe they do. If we cannot afford elections, certainly we cannot afford democracy; but I do not see any reason for unnecessarily adding to the cost of elections.
Other people will say that every individual has the right to protest the system, protest policy or protest whatever he wishes by seeking election to the House of Commons. I would agree with that, provided the individual were serious enough to show his sincerity by being willing to place at risk a substantial sum of money, which is not required under the present Canada Elections Act.
If a candidate is only looking for an opportunity to protest, there is a simple way of doing it. The simple device would be for the individual to spoil his ballot, and he would not have to go through the rigours of a campaign. Of course, some people will argue that if he spoils his ballot, or particularly if he expresses a personal complaint by writing his name on his ballot, his vote will no longer be secret. This is true, but many of us give up our right, in a sense, to the secrecy of our ballots in election campaigns. It would seem to me that everyone who stands for election indicates how he or she will vote by so doing. Also it would seem to me that those people who participate actively in campaigns and have officials with campaign positions indicate publicly how they will vote. While the ballot is still secret, it is really not any secret how such people will vote.
March 16, 1983

There are others who will argue that this is the wrong way of going about it. I do not want to start mounting a series of arguments that this is the only way to do it because there are other ways. Two things are required today of a candidate in an election. First, the candidate must deposit in legal tender or by certified cheque $200 with the returning officer. Second, he or she must have the signatures of 25 electors on his or her nomination papers. Perhaps an alternative to my proposal would be to increase substantially the number of electors, say from 25 to 500. This would make it somewhat more difficult for the frivolous nuisance candidates to become involved. They would have to think twice if they required 500 signatures.
Therefore, if the House is disposed I would be prepared to have the same thing happen to this Bill as happened to the last one, namely to have the Bill itself withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. I am not moving this as a motion at the moment because I am aware that other Members of the House want to speak on the Bill and it requires unanimous consent of the House. I am not sure whether that unanimous consent would be forthcoming, but I would not want to deprive other Members who have views on the matter of the opportunity to express themselves.
This is one of the reasons for Private Members' Bills, so that the sponsors and other Members will have the opportunity to express themselves on various subjects. I would like to be able to say that the Government supports this Bill, but I am afraid it would be incorrect. At least, I hope the subject matter of the Bill will be discussed and given thought. If the Bill does not receive second reading today, or if the subject matter is not referred to Committee, at least the Chief Electoral Officer in his report, which I understand will be tabled at the beginning of the next session of Parliament, will, I hope, deal with the matter in a way that may find acceptance with the majority of the Members of the House.
[ Translation]


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I listened to what the Hon. Member had to say about a significant change he wishes to make in our electoral system, and although his comments were excellent, I could not resist giving some comments of my own that are very relevant to the foregoing.
Mr. Speaker, it is said that to represent the wishes of the people in Parliament is a noble profession. I believe it should be taken very seriously, and that this Bill reflects that attitude and deserves very serious consideration in view of the proliferation of fringe candidates running in every election. I would be the last person to prevent anyone from running for whatever political group he might choose. And I think that even for candidates who want to run as independants, as I have done, Mr. Speaker-and successfully, I may add-the proposal to raise the deposit from $250 to $2,000 is not excessive.
Some people will claim that we are thereby excluding some candidates who are not as well off financially, but I think that
Canada Elections Act
any serious candidate who takes himself, and is taken, seriously, will have no trouble finding the initial support he needs to obtain those $2,000, which could be raised through donations from friends or supporters. We take politics seriously, and I think all candidates should do the same. In this connection, I would like to point out that there have been a great deal of comments on our democracy, and I think the proposal made this afternoon constitutes an improvement to our democratic system.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would rather not waste too much time, and I shall simply say, in support of this kind of amendment, that I think it is an improvement to our present system. Such a measure would possibly discourage candidates whose attitude is not serious at all and who often make people believe, and they are a minority, I hope, that politics should not be taken seriously. The result is that some people think that politics is not worth the attention we think it deserves. I believe that any measure aimed at giving our parliamentary institutions a more positive character should not be ignored, and that we owe it to ourselves to support changes that will enhance the credibility of our political system.
It is therefore clear that as far as prospective Members of a Parliament or party are concerned, we have a responsibility to ensure that these people are acting in good faith and are prepared to represent their constituents with all due seriousness. I repeat that a deposit of $2,000 is not going to prevent a serious candidate who is taken seriously from running for office. It is also extremely important for a person to be able to run under the colours of his choice, and the deposit would not prevent anyone from running as an independent candidate. However, I believe that too often, things have happened that made people laugh and endangered the credibility that is so necessary in an election campaign. We want serious representatives and the majority of voters would like to see candidates with a sense of duty that will make them deserving of the voters' trust.
As we said before, if people want to protest against certain candidates, they can spoil their ballots, and since this is made public, it is easy to see whether there is a serious protest on the part of a number of individuals who no longer trust the candidate running in a given riding. I believe that this measure which provides for a $2,000 deposit might usefully be adopted in order to prevent people from indulging in these charades for the sake of political history, during an election campaign.
The number of voters who would have to sign the ballot is set at twenty-five. That, of course, is a very low figure. A candidate who canvasses two or three families and some of his neighbours can easily get twenty-five signatures. I think we should seriously consider raising this figure. Five hundred has been suggested, and I must admit that this figure does not worry me, because I would have no trouble finding 500 people to sign my ballot, although it is still a lot of work. However, there will not necessarily be a consensus on this figure. However, if the deposit increases from $200 to $2,000, the number
23842

March 16, 1983
Canada Elections Act
of persons should also be increased up accordingly from 25, if we want to make as serious a comparison as is included in the Hon. Member's motion. Because of this, Mr. Speaker, I hasten to say that I wholeheartedly support the motion now before the House. I believe that its purpose is to improve our political system and give us better and more serious candidates. No one could blame us for committing ourselves to this objective and for wishing, on both sides of this House, to offer our voters more serious and better qualified candidates who would be better equipped to serve our society.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) indicated that he was not making a proposal to amend his own Bill, which he cannot do, but that he would be open and agreeable to any such amendment which would refer the subject matter to Committee.
The Hon. Member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) has now said that he approves of that proposal. The Chair is in some difficulty. I believe that what should be done, if it is the intention of the House to move in that direction, is to have the Bill amended that way. I think it would help Hon. Members to know that there is such an amendment. I leave it to the Hon. Member for Joliette to decide whether he wants to propose such an amendment.

The Hon. Member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) has already indicated his support for the motion of the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) by saying that he would be in favour of referring the subject matter to the committee. If he wants to propose an amendment, he can of course do so.

I have to know whether or not such an amendment is on the floor because Hon. Members perhaps are not certain of where it is going. Of course, it has to be seconded as well.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is distinctly my impression from listening to this debate that both Members expressed a preference for what should happen. To my understanding, it was never couched in terms of an actual amendment-it was a wish. Therefore, I believe that it would be appropriate simply to continue the debate as it exists.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson) is quite correct. This preference has come up and it is sometimes the duty of the Chair to attempt to understand whether an Hon. Member intends to take the proposal and turn it into a procedural matter. I must indicate to the Hon. Member for Willowdale that no distinction will take place as to the procedures, time allotment or anything else. I simply indicate that when I hear Hon. Members referring to what they call a proposal, I believe that I have
to serve them by indicating that proposals should either be converted to amendments or not, as they see fit.

Should I recognize the Hon. Member for Joliette?


Roch La Salle: I want to add, Mr. Speaker, that I have indicated my support for the Hon. Member's suggestion because I had also understood that this subject could be referred to the committee for consideration. It was not my intention to move an amendment. I simply said that I fully agreed with the Hon. Member that this matter could be referred to a committee for further discussion. If such is the wish of this House, I have no objection.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I should explain that everything is quite clear and that there is no amendment. If an Hon. Member wants to move an amendment, he may do so. For the moment, there is only the bill itself.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I very much appreciate your attempts to bring more order out of a slight amount of misunderstanding. Perhaps it would be advisable to let at least the next speaker proceed. We can then see if there are any more negotiations going on in the Chamber.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak in opposition to this Bill. However well intentioned the Bill is, I believe that it would not, in fact, be likely to work in the interest of democracy.
The purpose of the Bill is to restrict the right of a candidate by a financial qualification. An appeal had been made in a previous Bill of this sort in the year 1882, when the deposit was $200. Of course, that was a much greater sum of money then than it is now, relative to an individual's earning power. It is interesting that in 1882, the year which was chosen as the model in the previous debate, at least half of the adults in Canada were disenfranchised.
Leaving aside questions involving Indians and non-European immigrants or northern European settlers, no women of Canada were allowed to vote in those days. I am not saying that they were excluded on property grounds or on the basis of wealth. I am not quite certain what would have been the rationale given by Sir John A. MacDonald and others for excluding all married women, for example. We know that for many years in at least one Province of Canada the laws had restricted the right of women to act in their own names, as adults. It may be that that kind of thinking helped to prevent Canada, in the first decades of its history, from allowing slightly more than half of our population to have the vote.
The idea of restricting the vote according to property or wealth did not die with the nineteenth century. I remember that when I first settled in Toronto with my family in 1954, the
March 16, 1983

municipal vote in Toronto was restricted according to property. If one owned property, real estate, if one was a business tenant, or if one was a residential tenant renting two or more rooms in which one ate and slept, one could vote. If one lived in a rooming house, one was nothing and had no vote.
As well, people in those days could vote as many times as they held separate pieces of property, and this was not only the case in Ontario. In other words, votes went partly with humanity and partly with wealth. They still do in the City of Toronto, but not to such a great degree. People with money and wealth still have more votes than ordinary working people in Ontario's municipal elections, both because there are certain privileges, however limited, given to property owners and because the manner of determining the voters' list from the assessment role is inevitably biased in favour of property owners, business tenants and tenants of large dwellings and against the residents of rooming houses, bachelorette apartment buildings and so on, who are more mobile and who may very well be missed and, from my experience, often are missed in large numbers. Whole buildings have been missed so far as their residential tenants go. Therefore, we still have the hangover of a bias from the old Middle Ages, that the votes should go according to property and wealth; the more dollars, the more votes, and the less dollars the less votes or perhaps no votes.
I think this proposal is a hangover from the Middle Ages which we cannot afford. It certainly seems to infringe on the Charter of Rights. Section 2(b) declares the freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including the freedom of the press and other media of communication. We know that candidates of small Parties or independent candidates, particularly if they are not millionaires, have much less access to the media than candidates of the major Parties who are ordinarily millionaires. Therefore, freedom of the press is in fact limited within this country and is not by any means equally shared by all citizens.
To compound matters, this kind of restriction, if it did not go against the letter of the Charter, will at least go against the spirit of it. In Section 3 the Charter states that every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of Members to the House of Commons or to a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein. It does not say that every citizen of Canada who has $2,000 to spare on an election campaign is qualified for membership therein. It states "every citizen of Canada", and to lay on a requirement of money which might be $2,000 now or which, if the same people have their way later on, might be $20,000, would certainly go against the spirit of Section 3, to my reading of our Charter.
While we are dealing with Charters of Rights, I would simply quote as well the Charter of the United Nations, which states, on this same point, that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. I understand that to mean that a man or woman could be a candidate regardless whether he or she could scrape up a spare $2,000.
It has sometimes been argued that the person could recoup not only the deposit but also other election expenses if he or she received 15 per cent of the vote. That, nevertheless, is still
Canada Elections Act
a strong disincentive toward a person who may in all good faith, as an individual or as a Member of a Party, wish to set out upon the road which everyone here has followed. For instance, a young person who wishes to be a Member of Parliament knows that he or she may not win this election or the next election. I do not know how many people here have run several times before winning. However, it would be unfortunate if we were to now set a barrier in the way of young people who wish to do exactly what many of us have done.
Whatever we may say about this House when we are feeling disgruntled about what some other Party does in the House, I think that most of us are glad that we were able to get here. I might not be equally in favour of all the others who became Members, but I am glad I became one. I have a notion that each Member of the House would have to say as much, that he or she is glad that he or she became a Member. It would be quite unfair to set a barrier in front of other people, many of whom may be acting in full good faith, a barrier which was not placed in front of any of us when we ran and finally succeeded.
The money barrier is really a hangover from the Middle Ages. I want to show Hon. Members how it works in a biased way, because it would certainly bias the standard of choice of candidates. Let me pick the riding of Spadina as an example. I might have given the 1981 statistics for Spadina, but the Government has not seen fit to release them yet. It has been a year and a half since the election but, of course, a Government which cannot even issue its statistics from June of 1981, with reard to income and occupation, almost two years later is not likely to get around to publishing statistics from the 1981 byelections within two years. I regret the Government's lack of respect when it withholds statistics which it has gathered.
However, let me give some of the figures from the 1980 election in Spadina. I will deal with public and private corporations together, not going into more extensive detail. Twenty-eight corporations gave $19,825 to the Conservative candidate in Spadina. To the Liberals, four corporations gave $325. To the NDP, zero corporations gave zero dollars.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: What about the CLC?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Now someone has raised a question about the CLC unions, so let us go to the general-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The Chair is in some difficulty. The Bill proposes a change of deposit for candidates from $200 to $2,000. It may be that I have missed the connecting points that the Hon. Member has made, but I think the Hon. Member may want to explain to the House how his current comments relate to the Bill.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanicb):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I suggest that the Speaker is being irreverent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I have difficulty resisting the impulse to indicate to the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-

March 16, 1983
Canada Elections Act
Saanich (Mr. Munro) that if the Hon. Member for Spadina wants to be irreverent, he is entirely free to do so. Irrelevance, however, is a matter that concerns the Chair.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, if that is the best that the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich can do with either grammar, spelling or humour, I hope he will wait until another Hon. Member speaks before trying it again.
The point that I make is quite relevant to the point at issue. The point that I am making is that the ability of a candidate to spare $2,000, as one of the previous speakers said, in fact the Hon. Member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) said, is partly related to the wealth of his friends. If he has not got it, he can get it from his friends. These are the friends of the Conservative candidate.
I will come to the friends of the Liberal candidate. They can provide that $2,000 very readily, and when people donate as they do to the Liberal Party, not locally but nationally, in the range $15,000, $20,000, or $50,000, that provides no end of $2,000 deposits. It can provide $5,000 deposits.


An Hon. Member:: What about the unions?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: My point is that the ability of a few corporations to fund candidates goes against the principle of equality.
Somebody opposite asked about the unions. You can look through the NDP lists and you will not find such large contributions from any one union as you have from the Bank of Montreal, Canada Packers, Canadian Pacific, and so on, to the Liberal Party, which are the ones that I have just read.
My point, Mr. Speaker, is that to make money qualification the basis for excluding certain candidates means that the candidates with rich friends get in and candidates without rich friends are severely hindered. If what had been proposed was an increase in the number of nominators, 1 would look at the matter much differently. As our ridings have grown, both urban and rural, the number of electors in each has grown, and if it were argued that a candidate, to validate his seriousness, should have more than 25 names, I think most Members of the House would be willing to give that serious consideration. However, it seems that even if this subject is referred to the committee, that will not be the subject matter of consideration. Only the money qualification, as I understand it, would be the subject matter of consideration.
Considering the seriousness and the gravity of the restriction that is being proposed here in this motion, I think it is quite out of proportion as a remedy to the problem that is alleged to exist. I have been in ridings where there were several small candidates, you can call them nuisance candidates, you could call them fun candidates. I think the Rhino has often saved an otherwise tiresome all-candidates meeting from being completely boring. I think it provides a little bit of fun and lightness. In the old days, the fun and lightness in an election campaign were carried on in different ways, the sort of thing that Stephen Leacock wrote about in "Sunshine Sketches of a Little Town". Right now it is done quite well sometimes by the fun candidates. There are other candidates who know that they
will not be elected but they think they have something to say, not by spoiling a ballot but by speaking to interested electors. I think they should have a chance. I do not think they should be excluded on the grounds that neither they nor their friends have $2,000 to lose. Therefore, I and my colleagues will be voting against this Bill.
I was asked, prior to this debate, whether I would favour withdrawal, but that is not what has been put before us now. What has been put before us now is referral. That is a horse of a different colour, and I think it would be best simply to put the matter to a vote.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In view of the Hon. Member's remarks, if he wishes to move an amendment to the Bill, taking out the deposit and substituting the number of signatories on the nomination papers instead, I will be glad to second his amendment.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I wish this suggestion had been made a little earlier. I am not prepared to say, just out of thin air, X number of voters. I think a matter as serious as this deserves more than 30 seconds' consideration. I would be interested to hear a discussion of this subject but I am not prepared at the present time to state a figure in a motion for amendment.


Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity of speaking on this Private Members' Bill. I intend to speak for only a very few minutes.
I agree with the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) and I agree with the Hon. Member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), with one exception. I agree with the $2,000 fee, but I cannot agree with the figure of 500 that the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi threw out for the number of people to sign the nomination papers, because in my riding of Malpeque there are 32,000 people. In other ridings across the country there are as many as 130,000 people. It would be very difficult, in smaller ridings with smaller numbers of people, to come up with 500 names on the list for nomination. I would suggest possibly a percentage of the number of electors on the previous voters' list, let us say 10 per cent. Even that is too high for my riding, when I stop to think about it. But a percentage of the number of people on the electors' list should be required to sign nomination papers, rather than a specified figure of 500 people. As I said earlier, in a small riding 500 names are very difficult to obtain, but in a large riding of 130,000, 500 is a very insignificant number.


Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that this matter has been up for debate on a number of occasions in the House. I guess the first Bill that I have knowledge of is the one put forward by the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), which is Bill C-583. Now we have Bill C-335, which is virtually the same Bill. I guess it is exactly the same Bill, it is couched in the same terms.
March 16, 1983

It is a question, as the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) has suggested, of increasing the deposit from $200 to $2,000. This might be considered as a very large sum of money by almost any standard. Even though $200 does not seem very much in this day and age, certainly $200 at the time it was first put into the Elections Act was a considerable sum of money. I do not know the reason for its being put into the Act at that time. Perhaps it was for no other reason than to limit the number of people who would be running in elections, because there would not be that many people who could afford to put up $200.
Why it has remained in the Elections Act all this period of time is something we will probably never know, but I think some changes should be made in the Elections Act. I am not so sure that what we have before us today, increasing it to $2,000, is really the answer. I think the last Member who spoke had a very good idea when he suggested that it should be a percentage of the number of voters. This might be the way to handle it.
The Elections Act provides that at least 15 per cent of the voters must vote for a candidate or he will lose his deposit. Maybe for a percentage of voters to sign nomination papers would be a good thing in order to indicate the seriousness of the candidate. Also, to be able to get that number of people, say 500 or 1,000, to sign nomination papers might deter a number of candidates who really were not serious about running from in fact running. In the last election I ran in, I believe there were six of us in the running. Frankly, there were only what I considered to be three serious parties, the Conservative, the New Democratic and the Liberal. The other three, the Rhinoceros Party, the Communist Party of Canada and the Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada, were really not serious. They received about 150 votes among the three of them. That is not very many and I would say they were not serious candidates. They tended to take a lot of time from the legitimate candidates on the platform and they did not deal with any issues which were really of concern to most of the people in the constituency. According to Section 23 of the present Canada Elections Act, a candidate to be officially nominated must file with the Returning Officer a nomination paper signed by at least 25 members of the electoral district, and this number, of course, should be increased, as the Hon. Member previously indicated. I do not know whether it should be 500, but certainly there should be more than 25 electors supporting you and signing your paper if you are going to run.
The Canada Elections Act also states that the deposit is $200, and you lose your deposit if you do not get 15 per cent of the votes. This is a very simply procedure, of course, and many, many candidates in the last election, and in the previous election also, did not get the required number of votes in order not to lose their deposits. According to the information I have in 1979 there were 1,427 candidates and of that number 757 lost their deposits. In the election of 1980, there were 1,504 candidates, and of that number 854 lost their deposits. You
Canada Elections Act
can see, therefore, that at least half the number who run in an election are really not serious contenders. In my view, if you get less than 15 per cent of the vote, I do not believe you are a serious candidate.
Another aspect of this which should be considered is that Section 3 of the Canada Charter of Rights and Freedoms declares:
Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote-


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member would permit one brief question.


William Kenneth Robinson: Sure.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: With respect to the $200 deposit, and keeping in mind the Government's six and five program, would the Hon. Member agree that maybe we should increase that amount to $212?


William Kenneth Robinson: That is a very good question, Mr. Speaker, but we do not have to implement the six and five program in the next election since we are not going to have one for some time. I would imagine that the six and five program would be long gone by that time?
I was referring, Mr. Speaker, to Section 3 of the Canada Charter of Rights and Freedoms which declares:
Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.
Therefore, this right to be a candidate is now one of the fundamental democratic rights recognized by the supreme law of the land, and one may wonder if the present $200 deposit is even constitutional. There is nothing in the Act which says that there must be a deposit, and at some stage this matter might be taken to the courts to determine if in fact we can even ask for a $200 deposit from an individual so he can run in an election. As far as a $2,000 deposit is concerned, as I said before, this seems like quite a large amount, and it is a question of whether it is actually reasonable or not. If we could consider the $2,000 as a reasonable amount-and the courts might decide this-then that could be the amount or it could be somewhat greater or somewhat less. In any event, this whole question of reasonableness would have to be determined, and I would suggest that this certainly would not be included in the Charter of Rights.
There is an alternative which might be considered, and it might deter those candidates who are really not serious about actually running in an election. This, I suggest, is the whole question of bonding. We might ask that any candidate who wishes to run in an election must be bonded. I would suggest that the premium for the bond would be very small, only a few dollars. By the same token, it would not deter anyone from their fundamental democratic right to be able to run in an election. Therefore, my suggestion would be that, instead of setting a maximum amount of $2,000 as a deposit, we consider that a bond be obtained. The person who is putting up a deposit in that case would not lose his $2,000 as he would under the Bill before us.

March 16, 1983
Canada Elections Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) or, alternatively, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fisher).


Mr. Fisher:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would love to hear what the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) has to say, so I will wait for him.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I just have a few comments to make on the Bill in order that we could get through this hour and not have this matter go any further. 1 disagree with the whole tenor of the Bill, that somehow we should decide what are frivolous political candidacies and what are non-frivolous political candidacies by employing monetary forms of measurement. I certainly feel, and I think all my colleagues here would agree with me, that that is an inappropriate way to decide what political Parties and what political candidates are to be regarded as frivolous or non-frivolous. That, Mr. Speaker, I would presume, is for the voters to decide on election day.
I believe it is indicative of the way in which our perception of things is coloured by our history that we have this Bill coming forward from a Liberal Member. And if I understand the situation correctly, there is support from the Conservative caucus with respect to having the matter go to committee. These are Parties which have existed since the beginning of Confederation in one form or another, and have, therefore, never had the experience, as our Party has, of starting really from scratch. I am sure that in terms of the monetary requirements this Bill would put on people who wanted to run for office, and the signatures which might also be required, many of the early CCF candidates at the beginning of our Party's history in the 30s would not have met these qualifications.
It is not surprising that we would have this Bill come forward from the Liberal Party, but I must say that it is surprising to me that this Bill comes forward from the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne), with whom I have had the privilege of working on the special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure. I believe that this Bill goes in a direction away from the kind of openness to the House of Commons which many Members want to see, and it is surprising that an Hon. Member who represents a riding in a have-not Province, wants to see these kinds of monetary restrictions placed on candidacy for the House of Commons.
I would like to comment, Mr. Speaker, on the role of so-called frivolous candidates, for instance, the Rhinoceros Party. I must say I was of two minds about that Party. I found it irritating on many occasions because I felt it did detract from the kind of debate I would have liked to have about serious issues. When I would arrive at a town hall meeting, the Rhinoceros fellow would be there. He had a good set of lines. He was funny. It was often hard to keep up what I consider to be an appropriate tone for a political meeting. The candidate from my riding, Honest Don Bergen was his name, always wore a top hat to the meeting. He was good at what he did, which was to make fun of all of us. I think there is a place for
humour in politics. There is a place for making fun of some of the stereotypes and caricatures that develop around political life. However, I must confess that at times I thought it was just nothing short of bothersome when this was done when I was there. I guess I am like everyone else, I appreciate humour about other politicians but I am not so wild about it when it disturbs a meeting at which I and others are trying to make a point. Perhaps I will just say that I will leave it to individual Members of the House to draw whatever conclusions might be drawn from the fact that the people who were bothered the most by the Rhinoceros candidate in my riding were the Marxists-Leninists and the Tories. They seemed to be driven to distraction by the comedy of Honest Don Bergen in my riding. I do not know whether there is some kind of internal psychological similarity between the two of these parties such that they are unable to see themselves critically or humorously, but I had a hard time staying bothered myself because I was so busy being amused by the reaction of the Marxist-Leninists and Tories.
In any case, Mr. Speaker, I think it was up to the people of the riding to decide who were the frivolous candidates. In my riding, they gave more votes to the Rhinoceros Party than they did to either the Marxists-Leninists or the Communist Party candidates. So the Rhinoceros Party was not last, it was second last, and I believe that even if these measures were to be implemented, we would still have Rhinoceros Party candidates. I think they could generate support to meet these conditions.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was wondering if I could ask a question of the Hon. Member. I would like to ask him whether or not he intends-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. First of all let us find out if the Hon. Member accepts a question.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Certainly.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I was just wondering if the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) is talking out this Bill in order that we not be allowed, as Members, to exercise our democratic rights to vote on the measure.


Arnold John Malone: Talk it out.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I will be very surprised if I personally were responsible for this Bill being talked out. In fact, I intended to say that I thought the Rhinoceros Party would meet the conditions that were laid down. What we are really talking about is preserving the possibility and potential of new political options which are as yet unknown. We are preserving the possibility that those kinds of political options might come forward, not because they are able to meet these conditions, but because they might indeed have something to contribute to debate in this country. That is what we want to preserve.
As far as the Rhinoceros Party is concerned, as long as we in this House continue to act in such a way as to deserve some of
March 16, 1983

the humour they have brought to our political campaign, then they will continue to exist as well.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, this is the second opportunity I have had to speak on precisely this kind of a Bill. The last time was when the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) introduced the same motion. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that last night in a committee the Hon. Member for Mississauga South stood up and demanded an election. I said to him: "How can you have an election? Your Party has got to have a leader". He said: "Don't you worry about that, my Party has lots of leaders." Now my question to him is, if he is ready to tolerate some nuisance candidates-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. I should inform the Hon. Member that it is not proper to refer in this House to proceedings in a committee until the report has been received in the House.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Hon. Member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) on a point of order.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I would point out to my colleague that, even without a leader, the Gallup poll still rates us 11 points ahead of the Government.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, the point of my little parable, out of order though it might have been, is that if the Hon. Member for Mississauga South is so willing to tolerate so many nuisance candidates in his own Party, why does he want to cut them off for the general public? I cannot understand. I can tell you that in my riding the people who were categorized as nuisance candidates were very often more impressive than some of the people currently running for the leadership over there.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I must say, to my regret, that I disapprove of this Bill. I do not think it is good enough to disqualify someone because he is considered to be a nuisance by someone else. I also think that openness should be a standard in our democratic process and not some kind of closure and discouragement of voters or candidates. Finally, I would like to say that appearance and reality are both important in the democratic system, and if we appear only to be reducing the number of candidates or favouring the big Parties, then we will just be eroding our own base and credibility as a democracy.
I am curious to know what it is that creates a barrier for someone to run as a candidate. I think the size, geography and population are as important as the system itself. It seems to me that the various regulations that we could have here, the number of dollars that you have to put up and so on, are not as important as the number of people or the quality of debate. I
Arab-Israeli Conflict
would like to emphasize that the quality of debate declines when the number of people in a riding goes up.
So, Mr. Speaker, I have just risen in my place to say that debate in my riding is harmed because my riding is too big, and we have to get redistribution if we want to improve the quality of debate and give every Canadian a full opportunity to be heard. That is all I want to say.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 24(2) it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings. However, before passing to other items of business today, the Chair would once again draw the attention of Hon. Members to Standing Order No. 15(3), which reads:
When a Member is speaking, no Member shall pass between that Member and the Chair-


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Shall all orders listed under Private Members' Notices of Motions preceding No. 67 be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

[ Translation]


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
ARAB-ISRAELI CONFLICT Mr. Ian Watson (Chateauguay) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, as a means to attaining a permanent solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, the government should consider the advisability of promoting, in international forums, a global settlement which would contain the following proposals:
1.	Creation of a sovereign strictly neutral Palestinian state comprising the West Bank and Gaza strip contingent upon
(а)	P.L.O. recognition of Israel and renunciation of all further claims and approval by a majority vote of Palestinians living in the West Bank and Mid-East refugee camps;
(б)	the legal right of Israel to investigate within the new state, in accordance with pre-established procedures, suspected breaches of neutrality and the legal right to intervene militarily if neutrality is found to be breached;
(c)	a monetary settlement of all claims of displaced individuals resulting from the 1948 Arab-Israeli War to be paid out of a special Palestine Refugee Compensation Fund to which the industrialized world would contribute;
(d)	pledges for sufficient aid from the industrialized world and OPEC to raise the standard of living in the new Palestine State to the level of that in Israel within 8 years, contingent upon commitment by the new state to adhere to development plans and programs established by the World Bank;
2.	UN sovereignty over Jerusalem carried out by a permanent UN trusteeship comprising the United States, USSR, China, the United Kingdom, France, Saudi Arabia and Israel, the membership of which could not be changed even by the UN without the unanimous consent of trusteeship
[Stage Direction]
March 16, 1983
Arab-Israeli Conflict
members where rules for administration would be pre-established and not thereafter changeable except by unanimous consent and policing decisions would be by majority vote of the trustees; and
3.	UN sovereignty over the Golan Heights under the trusteeship of the United States, USSR, China, the United Kingdom, France, Syria and Israel with
(а)	a right to Israel to reoccupy temporarily for a breach of neutrality or military threat;
(б)	a monetary settlement to Syria from a specially established international compensation fund.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I should like to explain briefly the background of the drafting of this proposal for a permanent peace solution. It was drafted in the aftermath of the previous Government's ill-fated attempt to move the Canadian Embassy to Jerusalem. This position was so totally against common sense and the even-handed approach which Canada has usually taken to international questions, that I decided to draw up a list of proposals which, if common sense and goodwill were to exist on both sides of the Middle East equation, could provide a reasonable basis for a permanent solution.
The proposals were drafted in the fall of 1979 and sent to the heads of Government of the various countries involved. Most responded with varying degrees of enthusiasm and the responses were generally positive. The response from Prime Minister Barre of France was enthusiastic; the responses from the United States and Great Britain were in the tenor of, "let's wait and see what happens as a result of the Camp David accords"; from the Near East countries, apart from Jordan which showed some interest, offered polite acknowledgements, including one from Israel.
I mention the background in order to explain how, in the light of comments I have received since it was drafted, I would amend my motion somewhat if I were to redraft it now. I might also remind Hon. Members that the basic elements of this proposals are, as far as I know, in accord with Canada's official position of support for a just, lasting and comprehensive peace settlement based on Security Council Resolution 242, as well as earlier UN resolutions relating to this issue which were supported by the Government of Canada and had the approval of all Parties in the House when the Government voted at the United Nations.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the main points and on the four minor changes which I now find necessary to make to the motion as it appears on today's Order Paper. At the outset, I refer to the creation of a sovereign strictly neutral Palestinian state. The idea was to create a state somewhat similar to the situation in Austria. The Russians decided to withdraw from their sector in Austria during the 1950s, but, according to the rules of international law, they still have the right to return to Austria if ever that country ceases to be neutral. I think that the Austrian experience might serve as an example for a final settlement of the conflict in the Middle East.
I should mention as well that I am suggesting in the motion that the UN should have sovereignty over the Golan Heights. I
think that this position is unrealistic because I doubt that Syria will ever agree to that kind of settlement. Perhaps they would accept some sort of trusteeship for a number of years, long enough to restore a climate of confidence, but in the long term I believe we must eliminate for all times the possibility that Syrians might return to that territory.
Third, there is a rather significant omission in the second paragraph where I refer to UN sovereignty over Jerusalem. I failed to mention that the independent Palestinian state should, of course, be a member of that permanent trusteeship.
Mr. Speaker, I drafted the details of that motion in 1979 and it has been on the Order Paper since 1981. What did happen since I prepared my notes? There are many important events of which the public is not aware, I think.
[Stage Direction]
There are a number of events which have occurred since I prepared this motion of which the public is not sufficiently aware. The question is raised as to whether there was a movement toward peace in the years following 1979. There was, and one of the most important moves toward peace came from the Palestinian side. In 1981 a truce was established along the border with Lebanon. While it did not hold perfectly, as the months wore on it progressively reduced the acts of terrorism. Toward the end of that truce there was a situation where, in the months prior to the invasion of Lebanon, the head of the Israeli Settlements Organization in the Galilee area petitioned the Israeli Government for a continuation of the cease-fire agreement because it was working so well.
We have found out that in the month of February or March 1982-I would not put a specific date on it, but it was at least two months before the Lebanese invasion-there was a communication from the PLO to the Israeli Cabinet which offered to the Israeli Government a non-aggression agreement all along the Lebanese frontier. This agreement was transmitted to Israel through unnamed persons in the United States, presumably the U. S. State Department. It was rejected immediately by the Begin Government, at least two months before the invasion.
This particular information was revealed by a source no less competent than Mr. Sharir, the Israeli Minister of Tourism. He tried to retract it the next day, but another Israeli Minister in the meantime confirmed what he said. The Member of Parliament in question was Mr. Beni Shalita. He confirmed that Sharir was correct and said that there was no secret, that the entire Israeli Commission on Foreign Affairs and Defence was told about the offer two months before the Lebanese war.
Then we have a further series of information coming forward which indicated that there were many other attempts to get the information through to the Begin Government and to the American Government that the PLO wanted to talk business about a full-fledged armistice, not just a ceasefire.
March 16, 1983
[Stage Direction]
For example, the Prime Minister of Tunisia acted as a go-between, between the PLO and the United States Government with regard to these overtures in the few months immediately prior to the Lebanese invasion. 1 will not go into the Lebanese invasion because we know what happened.
Again we have revelations coming from the same Israeli Cabinet Minister, that the invasion was not for military purposes, that its principal objective was to crush the PLO for the political reason that hope would no longer be held out by the inhabitants of the occupied West Bank that somehow they could get help from the PLO. It was to crush the hopes for the future of the Arabs living in the occupied West Bank that this operation was carried out.
Yesterday, in the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence of the House of Commons, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) said the following with regard to Israeli settlement policy, "We are deeply concerned over Israeli settlement policy. We regard the establishment of settlements and other actions Israel is taking to extend its control over the occupied territories as contrary to international law and extremely unhelpful to the peace process. We would like to see an end to this activity."
What exactly is happening on the West Bank? In terms of international law, the operative covenant with which we are dealing is the Fourth Geneva Convention, 1949. Article 47 of that Convention forbids the annexation of any lands that are occupied as a result of military action. Article 49 forbids the settlement of any citizen of the occupying country on occupied land and it forbids the deportation of the existing population out of the occupied territory.
The Israeli Government has consistently violated all these provisions since 1967. The settlement of Israeli Jews, and of course Jews coming into Israel from other countries, on West Bank lands is very clearly part of the Government's plan for creating what it calls established facts on the West Bank so that within a period of five years it will be impossible for any authority, no matter how sympathetic it might be to the Palestinians, to disentangle the two populations.
James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was wondering whether the Hon. Member would accept a question.


Mr. Watson:: I would be delighted to do so at the end of my remarks.
Prime Minister Begin has gone on record several times-in an interview in the Wall Street Journal in April 1982, and in a speech to the Knesset in the first week in May 1982, he declared that the aim of the Israeli Government was to bring about the annexation of Judea and Samaria, that is to say the West Bank, along with the Gaza Strip within five years. He is on record as saying so. The Israeli Government has very clearly shown that it will not accept the interference of other Governments forcing it to stop settlement.
There are two current plans in operation for settlement on the West Bank. One is a long-range plan, which was originally accepted by the Labour Government. The second one, which is
Arab-lsraeli Conflict
currently in force, is a medium-range plan drawn up by an official of the World Zionist Organization named Matityahu Drobles in 1978 and implemented by the Government of Israel.
The plan is to create in that period 46 new settlements, bringing into those settlements about 16,000 new households. The cost is in the neighbourhood of $2.5 billion. In addition, 38 existing settlements are to be enlarged. By the end of 1983, 27,000 new households are projected to be planted on the West Bank.
My time is running out. Unfortunately I cannot go into all the details concerning what is happening on the West Bank regarding the actions being taken. For example, Israel is now using a third of the water taken from wells on the West Bank. Arab citizens are seeing Israeli wells drilled around their springs. Their springs are drying up, their crops are perishing, and they are being forced to sell their land at firesale prices.
Finally, as I draw to the end of my remarks, I bring to the attention of the House the fact that we must take cognizance of what is taking place on the West Bank. How much land has been lost so far? It is extremely difficult to say. Like figures on terrorism, there are several conflicting ones. The main reason for this is that Israel is not keen on publishing statistics on how much land is being taken away from the Arab population on the West Bank and in Gaza.
The estimate which has been made on the basis of some Israeli statistics and on the basis of studies conducted by Palestinians is that a little more than 27 per cent of the total land surface of the West Bank has gone into Israeli hands, into the hands of Jewish settlers.
By April 1979 there were 91,000 Jewish settlers on the West Bank. The majority of those were of course in East Jerusalem, and that was only the beginning of their settlement in the countryside. The UN Special Commission on Palestine, along with Palestinian researchers, estimate that the amount of land which has been confiscated is somewhere between 33 per cent and 37 per cent, rather than 27 per cent. Taking the lower figure, the UN Special Commission estimates that 27 per cent of the total surface area represents almost three-quarters of the cultivated land area. We are seeing a fait accompli taking place, one that will be increasingly difficult to disentangle.
It seems to me that a country we could do ourselves justice by promoting the motion that is before the House in international forums. As well, we should be promoting Mr. Stanfield's suggestion, for example, that perhaps one good method of achieving an understanding who should represent the Palestinians on the West Bank would be to hold a referendum, follow a democratic course, and ask the Palestinians there whom they would like to have represent them in future negotiations. This is a proposal that our country should be promoting.
We should also be supporting the Franco-Egyptian proposal before the United Nations Security Council which urges mutual recognition by Israel and the PLO.

March 16, 1983
Arab-Israeli Conflict
Finally, I believe that we must continue to ask Israel and her many friends in Canada why Israel continues to deny to the Palestinians the same right to a national identity and national homeland which are the very goals which Israel has fought to achieve for itself. This is taking place at a time in Israeli and world history when the Arab world has, for the first time, offered the olive branch to Israel. It is an offer which includes mutual recognition between the PLO and Israel, secure boundaries for Israel which are no more and no less than its pre-1967 boundaries, acceptance of guarantees for the security of all the states in the region, including Israel, by the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia and China. This is all documented in the Arab Fez Summit Declaration. A real and lasting peace-not the present militarily imposed lull-is possible if Israel grasps the opportunity and moves now to seize the one moment in her history when there is a real possibility that she can get almost everyone in the Middle East moving in the same direction.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. I regret to inform the Hon. Member that his time has expired.
I see the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary rising, presumably to put a question to the Hon. Member for Chateauguay (Mr. Watson). However, the Hon. Member's time has expired and this could only be done with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, my question is premised by the fact that we all want to see peace in the Middle East. We want to see security for all of those people. But, my goodness, I have never seen more unbalanced approach to going about this.
Is the Hon. Member aware of the fact that the covenant of the PLO, that group which he has been lauding so magnificently today without even looking at the other side of the issue, calls for the annihilation and wiping out of the State of Israel?


Ian Watson: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member talks of unbalance, I am afraid that he has indicated where the unbalance lies. The covenant to which he refers is, without any argument, an albatross around the neck of the Palestinians from a public relations point of view. There is no question there.
The facts are that since 1975 the PLO has moved in its actions well beyond what that particular covenant says and means. In particular, the Fez Summit was held at the initiative of the PLO. They participated as a full partner in the Fez Summit. I do not know if the Hon. Member has taken the trouble to look at the details of the Fez Summit, but I think he should be reminded of some of the main points of the Fez Agreement.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would ask the Hon. Member not to abuse the House by going on at great length in answer to the question. The question has been asked. Answer the question and let us get on with the debate.


Ian Watson: Mr. Speaker, in all fairness, there has been an assertion before the House that I have somehow not been factual in my presentation. I am simply backing up what I am saying with facts. The PLO has moved well beyond this convenant that the Hon. Member has referred to and which, read by itself, is clearly unsettling to any Israeli who is interested in Israel's future.
The proof is shown by what has happened as far as PLO actions and positions are concerned. They have moved well beyond that covenant. As a result of this Fez Agreement, they have indicated that they are prepared to accept the pre-1967 boundaries in Israel. They have agreed to accept UN Security Council guarantees of Israel's boundaries. They have agreed, in effect, to recognize Israel.
If the Hon. Member needs further proof, the Speaker of the parliament-in-exile of the Palestinians, Mr. Fahoum, is quoted in the February 17 Globe and Mail as saying:
'We do not want to destroy any state in the region,'-
If this is not sufficient detail, then I frankly think that the Hon. Member should go back to his sources of information, that well known instrument of Israeli policy in Canada, that arm of the Israeli government in Canada, the Canada-Israel Committee, and ask it for further details on the facts concerning the real situation in the Middle East. However, I do not think he will get them.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I think that the discussion which we have just heard highlights the importance of the theme that I propose to adopt in speaking to this motion. I make a plea for even-handedness and fairness to all concerned. I am aware of the delicacy of the matter that is now before us. It is not my intention, and I am sure not the intention of the Member for Chateauguay (Mr. Watson), to be provocative in the comments that are made. His plea, as I understood it, is similarly for even-handedness and fairness to all concerned. Part of this even-handedness must inevitably rest on dissemination of the relevant and pertinent information on both sides of this matter.
I think you would agree, Mr. Speaker, that there has been a flood of information on one side and a lack of receptivity to much of the information on the other. I implore and plea for the cause of even-handedness in this issue.
For example, resolution 242 of November 22, 1967, had been referred to already. I wonder if the full significance of Resolution 242 is understood. This goes back to an earlier matter, but it is part of the Middle East mosaic. It is not directly related to the invasion of Lebanon by Israel, but the invasion of Lebanon was in defiance of this particular resolution. I would encourage all Hon. Members who have an interest in stability in the Middle East, in stability in the world for that matter, to listen.
The Middle East is a very key area in the world today.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Absolutely.
March 16, 1983


Donald W. Munro: We must have a settlement there. In the documentation that I have seen and in some of the evidence adduced by the Hon. Member for Chateau-guay, there is clearly a willingness to meet the demands and requirements of Israel. As far as I can see, there is less evidence on the part of Israel to meet the requirements of those other elements in that area for a final settlement.
Therefore, I would appeal to all Hon. Members that we should not issue provocative statements or become one-sided in our approach to this matter, even if it begins with Resolution 242 of November 22, 1967. One of its paragraphs calls upon Israel to "withdraw the armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict". That has not happened even yet. Here we are, five and a half or six years later, but that provision of Resolution 242 has not been accepted by one of the parties to the conflict in the Middle East. It also calls for the achievement of a just settlement of the refugee problem. These are not provocative requirements. They are humanitarian requirements and, in the context of the present world situation, they are essential requirements for peace and settlement in the world.
The Hon. Member for Chateauguay mentioned the overtures which were made prior to the invasion of Lebanon, the offer of an armistice on the border of Lebanon in addition to ceasefire. This offer was made prior to the invasion of Lebanon. Recognition of Israel was a portion of this offer. As the Hon. Member for Chateauguay mentioned, it was revealed, perhaps inadvertently, in a speech by the Israeli Minister of Tourism in Paris, and it was rejected by the Israeli authorities. Unfortunately, we do not hear that side of the story, the offers which were made. Such offers are the first step in the direction of reconciliation and settlement. As well, with the consent of the PLO, a step was taken by the Tunisian Prime Minister, acting as an intermediary of the PLO with the State Department, to reach out and seek a peace settlement in the East.
These have been genuine and sincere offers from a people who have been without a home since 1948. These people are now prepared to recognize, however unwillingly, the existence of a state in part of its homeland because an international situation is involved. I cannot help but think that part of the area now in dispute is part of the tradition of most people in this country. Hon. Members know of the man who fell by the wayside on his way to Jerusalem. Who was it that stopped and helped him? The name has gone into the language and the lore of all peoples. It was the Samaritan. We are discussing Samaria, the area in which that act of gentleness, of assistance to someone in distress, was made. How can we today, remembering the story of the Samaritan, which I am sure, all of us heard when we were small children, stand aside and see the people who want to be living there being refused that permission? I therefore plead for a wider dissemination of information on both sides of this dispute.


George Albert Proud: Excellent!


Donald W. Munro: There is one aspect which involves a great deal of controversy, although that is perhaps too strong a word, because we have heard only one side of the
Arab-Israeli Conflict
story. It concerns the alleged provocation which brought the Israeli forces into Lebanon. I want to state for the record the actual source of the documentation which I would urge Hon. Members to consider in light of what actually went on in the months before. I cannot possibly read these documents into the record in full. I disagree with the manner in which they are laid out in that they are heavy and stodgy, but the material is informative. I speak of the report of the Secretary General of the United Nations with respect to the interim force in Lebanon, covering the period June 16 to December 10, 1981. That document is known as S/14789 and is dated December 11, 1981. It is an important, vital document to the understanding of this particular issue.
We have heard so much of the harassment of the settlements on the south side of that border.


George Albert Proud: And the harassment in occupied territory on the West Bank.


Donald W. Munro: I would just like to refer to one paragraph of this report submitted by the Secretary General to the Security Council. He was speaking of the period between June and December of 1981. He said there were violations of Lebanese air space by Israeli aircraft and of Lebanese territorial waters by Israeli naval vessels. UNIFIL observed 205 air violations and 53 sea violations in the second part of June, 1981. There were 200 air violations and 93 sea violations in August, 1981, and 103 air violations and 72 sea violations in September. There were 220 air violations and 56 sea violations in October. There were 209 air violations and 47 sea violations in November, and 80 air violations and 16 sea violations in early December. These were violations of Lebanese air space and sea space.
I think everyone should recognize the fact that across that delicate border, there was a period when there were harassing movements. There was shelling. But this report that I have mentioned, and another one that I must refer to before my time runs out, is document S/15194 dated June 10, 1982. In case I do not reach that, that is the number of the document covering that critical period when the invasion was in progress.
There were breaches of the ceasefire, but these reports will reveal that in October and November there was less harras-ment to the south. That period of quiescence in the harassment of the settlement in Israel is reported in this document, and I plead with those who want to understand the tragic humanitarian problem of that area and the tragedy that could face the world if it is not settled, to read these documents.
I was encouraged yesterday in the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence to hear the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) make remarks in his opening statement that indicate that there is a willingness on the part of the Canadian Government to assist in the process. I find that they are words only, Mr. Speaker, I would like some substance put into these words. I enjoin those of you

March 16, 1983
Arab-Israeli Conflict
who are interested in more documentation to read that. It was a good statement. I would like to read it all, but time does not permit. It is on page 9 of the statement and will be included in the proceedings of that particular Committee. It indicates that the present Canadian Government supports the existence, security and well-being of Israel, and that the Arabs should make clear their willingness to live in peace with Israel. That offer has been made and was rejected. One cannot make an open offer unless one gets something in return. The offer was made; it was rejected because there is enough evidence to suggest that the plans to deal with the PLO were already in hand and there was a determination to do so. That I cannot document, but the evidence here in the report of the Secretary General should be read, because it gives that history.
The Minister went on to say:
We are deeply concerned over Israeli settlement policy. We regard the establishment of settlements, and other actions Israel has taken to extend its control over the occupied territories, as contrary to international law and extremely unhelpful to the peace process. We would like to see an end to this activity.
We recognize that for there to be a just peace, the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people must be realized, including their right to play a full part in negotiations to determine their future and their right to a homeland within a clearly-defined territory, the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
That is the first time that I have seen as clear a proclamation of Canada's intention. But it should be backed up with more than words; there should be activity. I do not agree with every single word of this motion that stands in the name of the Hon. Member for Chateauguay, and neither does he at the moment because it was put forward in November, 1981. At lot has transpired since then. But I think that he is to be congratulated for having given us the groundwork on which we could have an open discussion on this important matter, a matter on which the peace of the world could all too easily depend.
It is a delicate matter there because there is an invading force refusing to leave Lebanon. I knew Lebanon in happier days. I lived there for three years. The people in Lebanon are most open and welcoming. They did not realize that they would have to be welcoming an invasion force, though. I have had word from those who lived there at that time. How they have lived through the holocaust that has descended upon them over these last few months I do not know, but they are still there. I am glad they are there, and they would welcome me, I am sure, as they welcomed me before. I would like to go back to see them but I would find it very difficult. I just could not go back and see the Lebanon that I knew torn into shreds, divided as it is and occupied by a foreign invader.


An Hon. Member:: Including Syria.


Donald W. Munro: Including Syria, I agree. There has to be a withdrawal of all non-Lebanese forces from Lebanon.


George Albert Proud: Everybody should get out.


Donald W. Munro: That is right, of course they should. Lebanon is a peaceful country, a country of
traders, a country from which we derive much of our inheritance. Let us not forget that Byblos which is not far from Beirut-


George Albert Proud: Beautiful.


Donald W. Munro: -is the origin of our word "Bible"; the Roman culture that is there in the Bekaa; the Crusaders who were there. Our history was written in those mountains and in those plains, as it was to the south in Sameria and Judea. That is part of our history too, let us not forget that. But I do not think that we can tolerate the situation any longer. We must take some action to ensure that Lebanon survives as Lebanon, free of the encroachments that have occurred from all sides, able to proceed with its mission of being. Let us remember this, too. It was a haven. It was a Switzerland, in more ways than one, in the Middle East. The Armenians who fled from Turkey, many hundreds and thousands of them settled in Lebanon. They were welcomed there, and here is something that a lot of people do not remember or do not know. There was a very active synagogue right in the centre of Beirut-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but his time has expired.


Donald W. Munro: I was very pleased, Mr. Speaker, to be able to get that last portion in.


George Albert Proud: And I was very pleased to listen to you.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to this motion on behalf of my Party this afternoon I want to begin by reaffirming, as I understand my Leader did earlier today, the commitment of the New Democratic Party to the continued existence and prosperity of the State of Israel within secure borders.
As democratic socialists, our commitment to Israel of course goes beyond our belief in the right of every nation to maintain its already established existence to the natural affinity we feel for the internal democracy characteristic of Israel and for the many social democratic institutions which have been developed there over the years, some of which, like the Histradut, predate the State of Israel itself. Israel's kibbutzim of course have also served as an example to many over the years as to what is possible when human beings determine to live and to work together for the common good. Unfortunately, during recent years it is clear that the present Israeli Government both on the West Bank and in Lebanon have betrayed Israel's democratic traditions, and this is a source of much regret to us.
It is important, therefore, to do more than just reaffirm our traditional support for Israel, and so I would like to inform the House, and through the House all interested Canadians, of some of the internal deliberations which are currently taking place within the NDP, the results of which will be debated at our upcoming federal convention this July in Regina.
March 16, 1983

As you may be aware, NDP Members, and MPs in general, take convention debates very seriously, since it is our conventions which determine our policies and which guide our caucus in Parliament. As you are also aware, there has been a strong tradition within the New Democratic Party, unlike other Parties, I would suggest, to debate in an informed and reflective way controversial international issues. Whether the subject matter is Poland, Central America, or nuclear disarmament, we believe that a national political Party has a moral obligation to address internationally important questions and not to back away from issues, even when they involve criticism of popular perceptions. This we have done over our history as a Party, and we have been willing to pay the political price which doing so has sometimes cost us.
The importance of international issues was reinforced at a recent convention with the decision to establish a permanent international affairs committee of the Party whose priority for the past year, in preparing for this year's convention, is the development and expansion of our policy on the Middle East. As part of this process, draft background paper and policy resolution are now being prepared for circulation within the Party prior to the convention, with the intention of placing these before the convention. As well, it is anticipated that there will be an exceptional number of resolutions on the Middle East from other elements of the Party, including constituency associations.
Because the draft material from our committee is not yet complete, and because I am not myself on the committee, it is difficult for me today to deal in specifics about much of what it might contain. This, of course, is not only because the work is incomplete but also because Party policy, in the end, must be determined by convention. Keeping these points in mind, however, I will try to give some indication, in broad and incomplete strokes, of the kind of issues and concerns which I think the New Democrats will be addressing and some of the principles and perceptions which will likely guide our deliberations.
The NDP will certainly remain firmly committed to our long-standing support for the people of Israel and the right of Israel to exist, and to exist in secure borders. The NDP also remains firmly committed to our call for a permanent, just, negotiated peace in the Middle East, especially that part of the Middle East which includes Israel. The NDP will continue its opposition to both terrorism and to the use of military force as a means of solving political problems. Consistent with our belief in the politial integrity of all States, we will repeat our call for the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Lebanon. We also believe that Canada has an important contribution to make to Middle East affairs because of this country's past role in diplomacy and peacekeeping, and because of the immediate interest of Canadians in peace.
Finally, it is long overdue for Israel's other Arab neighbours to do as Egypt has rightly done and officially recognize and accept Israel's right to exist. It is clear that they must do explictly, what they now seem to do implicitly, and that is, recognize Israel, and this must include explicit PLO recognition of Israel's right to exist. The relationship between the
Arab-lsraeli Conflict
Palestinian people and Israel, obviously, is basic to any comprehensive settlement in the Middle East, and it must be realized by everyone that we are dealing here with more than a question of refugees. We are dealing with the question of the need for a homeland of a long dispersed and suffering people, the Palestinians.
There must be recognition of the legitimate rights and aspirations both of Israel and of the Palestinian people. Ultimately, Israel must be prepared to negotiate with any representatives of the Palestinian people who publicly recognize Israel's right to exist within secure borders. And also, ultimately, the Arab community as a whole must begin to see the Palestinians less as a political football in their grudge match with Israel, and more as a people whose collective and individual needs transcend the politics of any given situation.
As for the NDP, we will continue to recognize and defend the right of Israel to exist and to be secure. We will continue to call for dialogue and negotiations between the Parties. We will continue to condemn both terror and the use of military force as a means of resolving political issues. We will certainly reaffirm our belief in the important role that Canada can play in helping the parties resolve the conflict. And we will continue our tradition of not letting friendship stand in the way of honest and, if need be, vigorous criticism of what our friends sometimes do, whether it be the United States, Israel, Egypt or whoever it happens to be, for it is the constructive criticism which friendly peoples can provide to each other that is one of the mainstays of creative international dialogue.
In this respect I would like to bring up at least two concerns which I and my colleagues have with Israeli foreign policy. The first concern is Israel's relationship with South Africa. We are deeply offended by the collaboration of Israel with one of the world's most racist regimes. The technological, military and commercial links which Israel has with South Africa should be seen by Israelis not as an advantage to Israel, but as a powerful disincentive for Canadians and others to believe that in foreign policy Israel can lay claim to any moral superiority. If international opinion be as important to Israel as I think it should be, then let these links be broken. I believe that Israel's greatest weapon is its integrity. This is true of all nations, but it is an insight which I believe Israel has traditionally been guided by and must now re-emphasize.
A second concern is the recent reports of Israeli military advisers in Honduras, and the visit of Defence Minister Sharon. This, to me, is a profoundly disturbing report, and any aid which the Israeli Government is giving to American efforts to support regimes which terrorize its citizens in that region should be stopped immediately if Israel wants to have any credibility left with those who see American policy in Central America as one gigantic moral and political mistake. And there are many such people, as we all know. This is as disturbing, Mr. Speaker, to those who value the integrity of Israel, as was the bombing of Beirut. A nation whose roots, Mr. Speaker, are in the holocaust, whether it likes it or not, is expected to have higher than average standards.

March 16, 1983
Arab-lsraeli Conflict
In all of these cases, as in others, I know that there are many Israelis who share my concerns. Israel, to its credit, is not a single-minded community. It is a democratic community capable of open, internal self-criticism and, hopefully, always will be. Witness the immediate protests by thousands of Israelis which were instrumental in securing an inquiry into the massacres in Lebanon. It is to those many Israelis, who, living out of the prophetic tradition, want to combine justice for others with justice for Israel, that we must look for the enduring peace which the whole world must truly seek in the Middle East. Likewise, let us look to those Palestinians who seek justice for others as well as for the Palestinian people.


George Albert Proud: Could I ask a question of the Hon. Member?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis rises to put a question to the Hon. Member. Will he accept the question?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I am not sure we have the time, Mr. Speaker, but if he can fit it in, yes.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great attention to the Hon. Member because it is a subject which has been with me for the last 15 years. I would like to ask the Hon. Member, and I repeat again that I listened with absolutely
great interest-it is one of the most remarkable speeches I have heard in my last 19 years in the House on a very difficult subject-I would like to know if the Hon. Member could enlighten us by giving me at long last a definition of "homeland". I would rather say "a country". I have a country. Everyone has a country. But it seems there we are afraid to use the real word, "A country. A passport." What is the definition of "homeland", because even in my own Government we do not agree on the definition of homeland.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, as I understand the word "homeland" it is a word that the Palestinian people themselves, use, and this is something they would want to define presumably, in negotiation with Israel and other people who are concerned.


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

It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 2(1).
At 6 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, March 17, 1983