1983-11-23

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, 24 hours ago marked a very important and historic day for the whole world. 1 had intended to recognize and pay homage to the thirty-fifth President of the United States, the late John F. Kennedy, and to request that all of us in this House who, I am sure, remember quite vividly and with sadness the assassination that took place 20 years ago, do so also. Considering all the negotiations that go on between this country and our friends, our neighbours south of the border, some 225 million Americans, 1 would like to transmit a special message of condolence, not only to the President and to the citizens who live in the United States of America, but also to the Kennedy family.
If it is at all in order, Mr. Speaker, I would request and seek unanimous consent that we send such a message from this Chamber to the President of the United States and to the American people and, in particular, a special message of condolence to the Kennedy family, marking that recognition-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member's time has expired. The Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen).


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Mr. Speaker, a year ago in September the world was shocked by the news of the terrible massacre in the refugee camps at Sabra and Chatila. All of us were unnerved by the heinousness of that massacre. Headlines in the world's newspapers were vividly describing what was going on. There were headlines such as, "Reprisal for Gemayel death was horrible, indiscriminate". There were placards that read, "Down With Begin's Blood-shedding Government". All of this was accompanied
with the clinical scrutiny of the cameras as to the brutality of that massacre in those camps, all of the scrutiny necessary, and all of it deserved.
Now another massacre is occurring. It is the conflict between the PLO forces in Lebanon, and again it is the true refugees who are suffering. The women and the children and the Lebanese nationals who have absolutely no interest in that conflict at all are suffering the most. But there is this difference, Mr. Speaker, the difference of the deafening silence on the part of the world's media on the agony being suffered by those refugees and Lebanese nationals. Where are the cameras now to examine the agony of the women and the children in those refugee camps? Where is the condemnation of the warring factions using refugee camps as armed camps rather than refugee camps?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member's time has expired.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mr. Jack Burghardt (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, two years ago today the women of Canada won a resounding victory in their battle for equality. After an 18-day endeavour, Section 28 of the Canadian Constitution was amended to guarantee equality of the sexes. On that historic day, the House of Commons was informed that the Government had been able to obtain agreement from all those Provinces party to the accord that Section 28, on the equality of men and women, would apply without the override clause.
The Minister responsible for the status of women has pointed out that during these past two years there have been many important initiatives in the area of women's rights. These initiatives include Canada's ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women; Treasury Board guidelines concerning personal harrassment and sex-stereotyping in government communications and the first federal-provincial-territorial conference of Ministers responsible for the status of women.
There was also the appointment of Bertha Wilson as the first woman on the Supreme Court of Canada, and of Constance Glube, appointed first Chief Justice in the Province of New Brunswick.
The child care expense deduction has been doubled to $2,000 per child. Amendments have been made to the Unem-

November 23, 1983
ployment Insurance Act to improve maternity benefits and, for the first time, payments will be available to adoptive parents.
While serious problems remain to be addressed and there is still much to be done, all women should feel both proud and encouraged by the initiatives already taken by this Government.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada (Mr. MacGuigan) said in the House on Friday, in answer to a question of mine, that as far as the Government was concerned the Hambleton spy case was closed. How can the Minister take such a stand when the account of that espionage operation on behalf of the KGB, which lasted some 30 years, as set out in Leo Heap's recent book, entitled quite simply "Hugh Hambleton, Spy", outlines a number of unresolved issues?
For instance, was the Canadian Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) correct in denying that an offer of immunity from prosecution was ever made to Hambleton by Canadian author-ites, when evidence that such an offer had been made is on the record of the trial in Britain, as brought out by the British Attorney General who was prosecuting the case? Or was the Canadian Solicitor General suggesting that the British Attorney General was dealing with tainted, or even falsified, evidence?
Here is another unresolved issue. Why did the Government not bring this case to trial in Canada under a law similar to the one under which Hambleton was tried in Britain? Who, in this Government, was sheltering a spy? Who was it that warned Hambleton, not once but twice, not to go to Britain or, having gone there, to turn around and fly back to Canada? Who did that, and why? Who is responsible for bungling this espionage case involving-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time is up.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, ten Canadian residents of Polish origin have been outside the Polish consulate in Toronto for 17 days on a hunger strike. They are all week, anxious, and tired, but remain determined to achieve their objective-reunification with their families. They have applied for family reunification under the joint Canadian-Polish program, and the families of four of these men have received negative replies for exit visas from Polish
authorities. Our Department of External Affairs had promised these individuals some action by Monday or Tuesday of this week, causing some additional anxiety as these days slipped by without movement on the part of the Department of External Affairs or the Polish Government.
It is with deep regret that I must express my disappointment and that of my Party, the New Democratic Party, at the continued violation by the Polish Government of one of the most basic human rights-freedom of movement. With calculated cynicism some Polish citizens are virtually blackmailed into leaving their homeland, while others are held to ransom. 1 hope the Polish Government will rectify this state of affairs in the future, and I urge that the Department of External Affairs redouble its efforts and press its representations to the Polish Government on this very tragic human drama.


FOOTWEAR INDUSTRY
Mr. Normand Lapointe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, the ministers concerned, are certainly aware that import quotas in the shoe manufacturing industry will be lifted as of November 1984. This industry plays a major role in the economy of my riding, because of the great many jobs it provides for both men and women. Several plant owners are already worrying about what will become of them after the quotas are lifted.
On behalf of this industry which is a major source of revenues for Canada, I wish to make Cabinet ministers aware of this situation and ask them to meet with the representatives of the Canadian shoe manufacturing industry and listen to what they have to say concerning shoe imports. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues will certainly agree with me that we had better act quickly to avert the problems we experienced two years ago.


NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, permit me to cite a proclamation made by the President of the United States of America in the first month of 1983. I read the President's words:
Now therefore, I, Ronald Reagan, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim Thursday, May 5, 1983, "National Day of Prayer". 1 call upon every citizen of this great nation to gather together on that day in homes and places of worship to pray, each after his or her own manner, for unity of the hearts of all mankind.
November 23, 1983

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this 27th day of January, in the year of Our Lord, 1983, and of the Independence of the United States of America the 207th.
Canada did not follow the President's example in 1983. However, may I suggest that this Parliament proclaim a day of prayer in Canada in early 1984, a day on which we might all pray for world peace and brotherhood.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Brian Mulroney (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Last Friday, the Minister said that the Liberal caucus unanimously supported Bill S-31. Is that still the case and does the Minister intend to proceed with consideration of this Bill?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs will be here in a few minutes, but I can inform the Leader of the Opposition that the caucus has examined this matter and has made suggestions to Cabinet. Bill S-31 is now before the Senate, and since the House intends to adjourn shortly, it stands to reason we will not be able to consider and pass this Bill before the end of this session. The caucus-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: I wonder why my hon. colleagues opposite are so surprised, because they know perfectly well we intend to start a new session very shortly, and that this Bill, like so many other Bills that are before the Senate or before the House, may not be considered by the House before the end of this session. Regarding the legislative program for the next session, the Leader of the Opposition will have to wait until the program is announced. However, as the Hon. Leader of the Opposition is aware, Members of the Quebec caucus have suggested that before proceeding with a new Bill during the next session, there should be further consultation with business and the Provinces.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I assume, Mr. Speaker, the Minister meant to say no.
Since the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is now in the House, as far as Bill S-31 is concerned, the
Oral Questions
Member for Longueuil said this morning, and I quote: "Bill S-31 is already dead."
Considering this very straightforward statement, does the Minister intend to let the Bill die on the Senate Order Paper or does she intend to proceed with this legislation?


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the normal course of events, of course, will unfold, and as to the future of S-31, 1 would say to the Leader of the Oppsition, and I am terribly pleased that we have the head organ grinder asking the question today, S-31 will be thoroughly discussed with the business community. If the House prorogues, the normal course of events will follow and the bill will die. This Government, and I might add this caucus, even those members of the Quebec caucus who issued a statement this morning, approve in principle the intent of S-31.
[ Translation]


OPPOSITION OF CERTAIN QUEBEC INDUSTRIAL LEADERS- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the Minister, twenty-one Quebec industrial leaders, all of whom .. . , the Minister is being coached by the Minister of Finance, perhaps I can wait for a while. . . , all of whom are reasonable and respected citizens, twenty-one industrial leaders wrote to the Minister ... I know this hurts the Liberal Members from Quebec, I know it does. They are busy changing their position, and I can guarantee we are going to see them all do that. Mr. Speaker, my question is as follows: twenty-one Quebec industrial leaders wrote to the Minister this morning, if I am not mistaken, stating their fierce opposition to the Bill. Does the Minister intend to take into consideration the views being expressed by reasonable and serious minded Quebecers, in her decision concerning Bill S-31.


Judith A. Erola: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reply to the Leader of the Opposition in this manner: if he is going to quote and use numbers, I shall also use the same technique.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Judith A. Erola: The supporters of this Bill within the Province of Quebec are numerous. If the Leader of the Opposition and Members of his caucus have followed events carefully, they will know that The Gazette said that "the truth is that this Bill, or something very much like it, is in the interest of

November 23, 1983
Oral Questions
Quebecers as well as all other Canadians". It is reported in Le Devoir:

Mr. Campeau, in his arguments, is acting more like an irrational alarmist, instead of being logically persuasive.

Those are only two of the opinions, Mr. Speaker. May 1 add that within the Leader of the Official Opposition's own caucus there is considerable support for Bill S-31.
I would like to indicate that a Conservative Member, the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall), said in 1977:
Good laws should be applied to the interprovincial and international movement of goods and passengers. This is necessary for the sake of the industry as a whole and the proper and good order of the development of the movement of passengers and goods interprovincially and internationally.. . The intent of the Bill is clear. It is a good one and one we are prepared to let pass.
Those comments were made by one of the members of the Conservative caucus.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Last supplementary.


INQUIRY WHETHER GOVERNMENT WILL ALLOW BILL TO DIE IN SENATE
Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister is having some trouble with this problem, the Chairman of the Liberal caucus is not-

Given the genius of the Quebec Liberal Party for solving difficult problems, we have heard this morning that the Quebec Liberal caucus will recommend that this thorny matter be submitted to the Macdonald Royal Commission for resolution. Now, there is a stroke of genius for you, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Did the chairman of the Quebec Liberal caucus charge $800 a day for that opinion?

Mr. Speaker, we just want to know whether the Minister intends to withdraw her Bill, yes or no? This Bill is becoming increasingly obsolete, and we would like to know whether the Minister, considering the objections to the Bill voiced by Liberal Members, intends to let the Bill die on the Senate Order Paper.

Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated to the Leader of the Official Opposition how I think events will unfold. However, 1 would like to reassure him that the future of Bill S-31, or similar legislation, is still a principle to which the Government adheres. I would suggest to him that he wait until
the new Session begins to see when and if a version of Bill S-31 is introduced.
[ Translation]


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: I am pleased to see that the other side can still generate enthusiasm for something, because after the general retreat we have witnessed here in the House, there is certainly no great enthusiasm for this Bill.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


ENFORCEMENT OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION'S PROVISIONS
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has just admitted the political collapse of Bill S-31. I would like to ask some questions about legality and propriety. Will the Minister confirm that, even though this Bill has not been received or approved by the House of Commons of Canada, it is already being enforced as the law of Canada? If that is the case, will she tell us on what authority she is enforcing a law which the House of Commons of Canada has not received, let alone approved?


Judith A. Erola: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the second hitter. There has been no attempt to enforce this Bill but we will, of course, be getting legal opinions.


PARLIAMENTARY PRACTICE
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have a letter signed by the predecessor of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs which is addressed to Canavia Transit Inc. indicating, and 1 quote: "However, I feel that an exemption to the Corporate Shareholding Limitation Act", that is Bill S-31, "-would be inappropriate and in many ways unnecessary." In other words, the Government is acting on a Bill which has not been received here in the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, this is a dramatic breach of the practices of this Parliament. It is objectionable enough that budget measures should be administered before they are approved by the House of Commons, but at least budget measures must be introduced in this House. This Bill was not even introduced in the House of Commons. It was introduced in the Senate of Canada. This is an entirely new dimension in the breach of the privileges of this Parliament.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: On what authority is the Government of Canada entering into this brand new breach of the rules of Parliament? Will the Minister give us her undertaking

*
November 23, 1983

right now that this practice of enforcing this Bill stop immediately, at 2.27 p.m. this afternoon?
Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr, Speaker, I would like to remind the Member for Yellowhead that the Senate is a part of Parliament. It is not unusual to introduce legislation in Parliament. There has been no attempt to enforce this Bill. There has been no need to enforce this Bill. I can assure the Hon. Member that the Bill, of course, would not become law until it has passed through both Chambers.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER CITE PRECEDENT
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister cite one example, in the whole history of Parliament, where this has been done before?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has some concern about questions that involve an interpretation or a level of detail.


Some Hon. Members:: She needs all the help she can get.
Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that a number of Bills have been brought in.with effective dates which do reflect a certain amount of retroactivity. 1 will undertake to find all of the precedents and bring them to the attention of the Member.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday the Chairman of the Economic Council of Canada, the Government's own economic advisory body, while appearing before the Labour Committee of the House of Commons suggested that unemployment could be cut in half if the Government of Canada possessed the political will to accomplish that. Do the Minister and his Government have the political will to cut unemployment in Canada in half within the 1980s?


Marc Lalonde: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT SET UNEMPLOYMENT TARGET
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, considering the strategies that the Minister of Finance has raised in this House, that answer is completely unacceptable. The Minister's colleague, sitting behind him, who is the Minister of State for Economic Development, while appearing before the Macdonald Commission, as well as before the Finance Committee last night, indicated that it was absolutely
Oral Questions
necessary for the Government to set performance targets in order to measure its performance.
The Government has set targets for research and development. It has set targets for inflation. It has set targets for the growth of the Gross National Product. However, there is one obvious and glaring omission. The Government has failed to set a target for reducing the level of unemployment. Will the Minister now continue on in that tradition, support the vision of his Cabinet colleague, and set a target for unemployment in this country so that we will have something to shoot for in the months ahead?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I shall consider the Hon. Member's question as a suggestion and take it under advisement. I may remind the Hon. Member that under the 6 and 5 program, the Government set a target, and that we were able to meet this target and even to go beyond it, that is, we have succeeded in bringing inflation in this country down to even lower levels.
Regarding specific projections for inflation, unemployment and so forth, I would remind my hon. colleague that in my last budget I gave a number of projections covering a period of five years, if and when a budget is brought down in 1984, I should be pleased to revise these projections, and the Hon. Member will be advised of such revisions at the same time they are announced to the Canadian public.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr, Speaker, I believe we are all encouraged to hear that the Minister will now consider setting a target for unemployment.


THE ECONOMY
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister be prepared to consider one other item? With the huge balance of payments surplus now, a number of analysts have suggested that the Canadian dollar will remain firm if real interest rates were reduced. A number of organizations and agencies have suggested to the Minister of Finance that the best step he could take to bring consumer and investor confidence back would be to reduce the real interest rates in this country. Will the Minister consider approaching the Governor of the Bank of Canada and directing that real interest rates be reduced, to allow more investment and consumer spending in an effort-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member is going beyond a supplementary at this point.

November 23, 1983
Oral Questions


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I remind my hon. friend that the consumer confidence to which he refers stands at an 18-year high. This is the highest level of consumer confidence we have known in 18 years. I remind the Hon. Member that today inflation is at its lowest level since August, 1972. I remind him that personal loan rates at the present time are at their lowest level in ten years. These are quite significant factors happening in the economy at the present time.


Nelson Andrew Riis: What about investment?


Marc Lalonde: With respect to the specific question raised by the Hon. Member, 1 do not intend to give such a directive to the Governor of the Bank. The Canadian dollar has been floating over the last ten years. I believe that policy has served our country well. I do not believe that an artificial directive would be something which would instill more confidence in the Canadian economy, either among investors or consumers. I believe that the policy which has been followed by the Government in the monetary field over the last year has been very successful, and we should continue to pursue it.


CORPORATE SHAREHOLDING LIMITATION ACT
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Last Friday, Mr. Speaker, you were in the chair when the Minister told us that there were no objections from her Quebec colleagues to Bill S-31. I am not saying that she deliberately lied to the House, for I think she was quite misinformed about the opposition taking place, and she knows that today, she knows now that several Quebec Members have come to the conclusion that it is a bad piece of legislation. She was received a letter from about twenty Quebec businessmen who are not separatists and who are urging her to shelve the Bill.
In light of such strong opposition, why does the Minister refuse to announce today that she will drop the Bill which is unacceptable to a French-speaking group that is entitled to voice its opinion about Canada's economy?

Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct the impression which the Hon. Member has that there is no support for Bill S-31 among the Quebec caucus. Au contraire, the Quebec caucus this morning stated explicitly that it was committed to the principle of Bill S-31 but felt perhaps there should be a change in tactics. No more, no less.


TEN PER CENT LIMIT ON INVESTMENT BY CAISSE DE DEPOT ET PLACEMENT OF QUEBEC-INQUIRY AS TO CONSEQUENCES OF BILL DYING IN SENATE
Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, here is my supplementary question: since the Minister refuses to tell the House that she is prepared to forget that Bill-indeed, it is obvious that the Government will let the Bill die in the Senate-under the circumstances, can the Minister, honest as she is, I admit, tell us whether the moment this Bill dies on the Senate Order Paper, the 10 per cent ceiling on investments by Quebec's Caisse de depot et placement will be automatically lifted and that this institution, like all others, will be free to expand on a country-wide scale?


Judith A. Erola: Mr. Speaker, of course if there is no legislation in place, as I said earlier, in the normal course of events it would die. However, as to the future of a similar Bill, or a commitment to the principles of Bill S-31, I would like again to reiterate that this Government is committed to those principles. The Hon. Member will just have to wait and see what happens in the Speech from the Throne.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport in regard to wheat quotas on the Prairies. According to "Grain Update", the export of wheat and grain from the Prairies is up 29 per cent while at the same time farm deliveries are down 19 per cent as of October 19. Considering the cash flow problems which farmers are facing, will the Minister look into the problems of quotas? At this time last year the quota for the delivery of grain was nine bushels. Today it is three bushels. Or is it the Minister's intention to play into the hands of the railroads with regard to Bill C-155?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that the purpose of Bill C-155 is to expand substantially the capacity of the railway system so that farmers can grow more grain, sell more grain, and export more grain. That is the purpose of Bill C-155. 1 will certainly take note of the Hon. Member's concern about the present quota system and raise it with my colleague, the Minister of State. We will try to have an answer for the Hon. Member as soon as those consultations are completed.


CASH FLOW POSITION OF FARMERS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Leonard J. Gustafson: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. If the Minister would check with the grain elevators across the
November 23, 1983

Prairies he would find that many of them are empty and have no grain to ship, while others are possibly half full. The Minister said earlier, in terms of cash flow and so on, that he would move at a time when it was prudent. Is the Minister playing politics with the cash flow of farmers, waiting for a prudent time?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I think the question of the Hon. Member once again demonstrates how essential and vital Bill C-155 was, so that we could have in place a new system for allocating and organizing the transportation system.
As far as the second part of the Hon. Member's question is concerned, Mr. Speaker, I continue to exercise my prudence.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Jacques Olivier (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour, and as a preamble I would like to stress, with respect to the Leader of the Opposition's attempts at rationalizing my quotes, that there is one which he overlooked, namely that I will never have the opportunity to suggest that the Progressive Conservative party is already dead, because it has never existed and will never exist in Quebec, especially his leadership.
So, Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour concerning the Tele-Metropole strike or lockout in Montreal, where workers have for quite a long time been affected by a labour dispute. Some weeks ago, the Minister called upon both parties to state whether they agreed on having a special mediator appointed. Will the Minister now report to the House that both parties are in agreement as to having a special mediator appointed, and if so, when does he expect to appoint one?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have indeed received a formal request from both parties for the appointment of a special mediator in this dispute. This morning, I informed both parties that Mr. Raymond Leboeuf, from Verdun, had been appointed mediator under Section 195 of the Canadian Labour Code. Hopefully, this development will get both parties closer together and lead to a satisfactory arrangement. I am sure that with the help of Mr. Leboeuf who is an experienced mediator, this long standing dispute should be resolved for the benefit of both parties and the general public without further delay.
Oral Questions


CORPORATE SHAREHOLDING LIMITATION ACT
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the distinguished Senator for Nickel Belt. Last Friday, the Minister told me that the Canadian Labour Board lacked the authority needed to regulate in the area of interprovincial and international transportation. In view of the statement made yesterday by prominent Quebec businessmen that the Board has all the authority it needed, can the Minister explain exactly what are those essential powers needed by the Board to regulate in the national interest in that area, and why she did not introduce any amendment to the National Transportation Act if the current powers are not adequate?


Judith A. Erola: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear that on February 22, 1977, in the case of Pacific Western Airlines, the Supreme Court of Canada, in a unanimous decision, found that Her Majesty in right of the Province is not subject to the jurisdiction of the Canadian Transport Commission. I do not think I have the time now, but I will be very pleased to provide the Hon. Member with the complete written decision which states very clearly that the CTC does not have the power we need in Bill S-31 which we are presenting in the Senate.


CONSEQUENCES FOR QUEBEC
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is very much aware that Quebec's Caisse de depot et placements is not an agent of Her Majesty. So that is ridiculous! Despite the statement made by the Minister that all the Members from Quebec support the principle of Bill S-31, the Liberal Member for Longueuil had this to say yesterday, and I quote:
The people of Quebec and the Quebec caucus are against Bill S-31.
Given the opposition from the Quebec Liberal caucus and that of even the unanimous Progressive Conservative caucus from Quebec, how can the Minister insist on reintroducing in the forthcoming session of Parliament that Bill which has stolen millions of dollars from the Quebec taxpayers?


Judith A. Erola: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has made some charges which I think he must substantiate, because this is not a Bill which is robbing millions of dollars from the people of Quebec. Indeed, it protects the investments of millions of Quebecers. I would like to make it very clear that the Bill grandfathers those voting shares owned by the caisse popu-laire. I would also like to make it very clear that the caisse

November 23, 1983
Oral Questions
populaire is an agent of the Crown. 1 would like the Hon. Member to substantiate those charges, and 1 would be very happy to provide information which will prove to him that Quebecers are winners, not losers, in S-31.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport who answers for the Wheat Board. Presently there is complete chaos in the pricing and movement of feed grains in western Canada because of barley quota manipulation, a large differentiation in the barley and other bases, and a low initial board price for barley and other feed grains. Will the Minister immediately cause an investigation to take place to eliminate the reasons for this totally unacceptable situation?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, again I think it would be prudent to take the description of chaos by the Hon. Member with some degree of skepticism. We are examining the question. I think he would recognize that the Government did advance payments on feed grains, particularly barley, because of the substantial increase in world prices of some 30 odd per cent over the last two or three months. We are providing a much stronger cash flow to the farmers in this area. If, however, he has some evidence of problems he is encountering in his area, 1 would certainly be very glad to look into it.


INITIAL GRAIN PRICES
Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Mr. Speaker, the off board quota is traditionally seven bushels higher than the board quota, and those quotas are now the same. The price of board grain is $15 lower than off board grain. Farmers are sitting on their grain, the Wheat Board does not have sufficient quantities to deliver for export, and barley sales are being deferred. While the Minister is partying over the death of the Crow tonight, will he look at immediately increasing the initial prices for board grain, and also ask the Wheat Board to increase the off board quota so that some semblance of a system can be put back in place in the West?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, when we honour this evening the proclamation of the railway expansion act which will bring major benefits to western Canada, we will also give some time to consideration of the situation in the feed grain area. As the Hon. Member knows, we have had a very volatile market in feed grains over the past two or three months, which has caused some of the disparities he mentioned. We are attempting to look at it, and I would have to do this in consultation with my colleague, the Minister of State. We will undertake those discussions and try to have a report back to this House as soon as possible.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board who has the responsibility for regulations safeguarding the privacy of Canadians. Was his Parliamentary Secretary, the Hon. Member for Kitchener, speaking on behalf of the President of the Treasury Board in an interview with the Kitchener-Waterloo Record, in which he condemned the attempt by the Department of Revenue to plug into municipal data banks and said he was "convinced that the request was inappropriate and 1 am making representations to ensure that similar requests are not made in future of Kitchener or any other municipality"? Was his Parliamentary Secretary speaking for the President of the Treasury Board?


Hon. Herb Gray (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, my Parliamentary Secretary was speaking in his capacity as Member for Kitchener. In that capacity he was and is doing a very good job for his constituents.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER END PRACTICE
Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, perhaps we will see how effective he is. The Hon. Member said that, in addition to lobbying the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Justice, he sent a letter to the Minister of National Revenue condemning this and asking for a change. He also gave an interview in which he said this is not the way things are done in a parliamentary democracy.
In light of the growing opposition, both within his own Caucus and among Canadians as a whole, to this outrageous request, is the Minister of National Revenue now prepared to put an end to this odious practice, to admit the request should never have been made to the City of Kitchener, and give a guarantee to Canadians that similar requests will not be made to other municipalities, as has been suggested by the Hon. Member for Kitchener?
[ Translation]


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, 1 believe that this whole question should be clarified. The Hon. Member and everyone else in this House will recall that when 1 replied to his question last week, I did state that it was not our practice to ask for all the information and data stored in the date banks of a city or municipality. What we wanted to get was specific data concerning certain information which in any case are available to the public, and this is what we are doing. If the letter sent by a departmental official to the City of Kitchener gave the impression that something else was required, it is a wrong impression which does not reflect the policy of the Department.
November 23, 1983


SOCIAL WELFARE
Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. This morning, the Minister met her Quebec counterpart, Mr. Marois, who is responsible for social development policies in Quebec. This meeting followed a recent announcement by the Premier that the welfare policies would be changed in Quebec to provide work for young people.
Since the federal Government pays at least 50 per cent of the cost of Quebec welfare programs and even more because of equalization, I would like to ask the Minister what resulted from her meeting with Mr. Marois this morning, and what are these major initiatives which the Quebec Premier did not mention when he announced the new social welfare policy for Quebec?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I will let Minister Marois announce himself, since he so wishes, the details of the projects which he discussed in general terms with me this morning. I can confirm that I told him after this meeting, where he showed a very good spirit of co-operation, which was a pleasant surprise, that we indeed pay 50 per cent of every dollar spent for welfare assistance, and that, whatever means Quebec wants to take to help people on welfare, as long, and this seems to be the case, as the rights of welfare recipients are respected, and that everything is done on a voluntary basis, that all the usual rules apply and that no cheap labour is created, we shall be very happy to continue to pay 50 per cent of the costs of the Quebec social welfare plan.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. It concerns the tragic breakdown yesterday of the Geneva talks. He has said repeatedly in the House that the problem in Geneva was not a lack of proposals but the lack of a good political climate. Of course, now that political climate has taken a turn for the worse.
Would the Minister not agree with George Kennan, the former U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union, that a dramatic move is needed to break the stalemate? Would the Minister not make that dramatic move himself and help us get off of the nuclear treadmill in this world, by announcing, for exam-
Oral Questions
pie, that Canada will not test the Cruise missile in our country?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that that suggestion, if it were implemented, would have the effect that the Hon. Member desires. The negotiations have broken off in Geneva, and that is very regrettable. However, the Soviet Union has known for four years now that, if an agreement was not reached at the talks, deployment would take place. That is what is about to happen.
The Soviet Union has taken the view at the Geneva talks that it ought to have a monopoly of land based intermediate missiles in Europe. Since the beginning of the negotiations, the Soviet Union itself has deployed 100 SS-20s in Europe. It seems to me that for Canada to say at this stage that we will not test the Cruise would have no effect and would likely confirm the Soviet Union's view that it ought to have a monopoly of land based intermediate missiles in Europe. It wishes to deploy all of these missiles and give the U.S. nothing. Therefore, the Hon. Member ought to understand that that problem has to be tackled, and it would not be helped very much but by what I would consider not only useless but dangerous gestures by Canada at the present time.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Halton.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Halton.


TOURISM
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. I am sure that he knows that there have been over 70,000 jobs lost in the tourist industry in Canada in the first six months of this year alone. This is primarily due to the Government's taxation policies, which have virtually been pricing this vital sector out of business.
Instead of taking initiatives by way of tax rebates and other positive measures, why has he resorted to counterproductive protectionist tactics, such as a recently implemented 9 per cent tax on American material destined for Canadian markets? Can he justify the creation of this latest obstacle to the tourist industry in Canada?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Hon. Member could care to be more specific about the 9 per cent tax to which he is referring. I would

November 23, 1983
Oral Questions
remind him that with a $31 billion deficit, the Government is not putting an undue burden on taxpayers, and that we have taken all kinds of measures to stimulate the tourist industry, and 1 hope that in the months to come, we shall also be able to announce further measures to encourage the tourist industry in Canada.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER WITHDRAW SALES TAX
Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, the Minister should know that, as a result of his Government's action, the United States is now retaliating by taxing Canadian promotional tourist material, to be specific, that is destined for the United States. Since Canada sends far more material to the United States as a result of its larger market, the clear loser in this area is the Canadian tourist industry. Therefore I ask the Minister, very clearly and specifically, as a result of this negative obstacle to the tourist industry in Canada, is he prepared, in fairness to the industry, to withdraw this detrimental 9 per cent sales tax on U.S. tourist material?


Marc Lalonde: No, Mr. Speaker, for the simple reason that the Hon. Member ought to know that we also want to encourage employment in Canada, and that insofar as this kind of work for the tourist industry can be done by Canadian printers, we are prepared to support this measure rather than stimulate employment in the United States, at the expense of Canadian workers.


PENITENTIARIES
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. In 1977 a parliamentary subcommittee on the penitentiary system, of which the Minister was the chairman, reported that prison guard Bernard Evans uttered statements that precipitated the riot at Millhaven Penitentiary. After a lengthy judicial procedure, the Public Service Appeal Board ruled yesterday that Bernard Evans did not make the remarks attributed to him by the subcommittee.
Given the injustice that has been perpetrated, and the negative impact that this has had on Mr. Evans' career, what steps is the Minister prepared to take to see that the stigma that has been attached to Bernard Evans no longer exists?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, this is not a question which is addressed to me in my capacity as Minister of Justice but, I gather in a former capacity, and since the Speaker has allowed the Hon. Member to ask the question, I guess 1 may be allowed to reply.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Speaker does not attempt to determine which Minister, but the question should be asked of the Solicitor General.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I can only say at this time that the Correctional Service of Canada is reviewing and seeking legal advice on the decision which was handed down yesterday to see whether anything can be done within its terms of reference in relation to the findings of that Board.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: This is hardly good enough, Mr. Speaker. 1 was seeking legal advice from the Minister of Justice, and that is to whom I directed my question. What I am saying is that-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect, legal advice is not permitted. If the Hon. Member wishes to ask a question involving the operation of the Solicitor General's Department, then that is in order.


Mr. Nielsen:: That is up to the Minister.


REQUEST THAT APOLOGY BE EXTENDED
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, it is not good enough that the House of Commons, or a Minister of the Crown, cops out on this question. A serious mistake has been made, a serious mistake by Parliament. If we in Parliament cannot admit to our mistakes and take methods to correct them, how can people expect justice here-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member please ask her supplementary question?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister at least arrange for an apology to be extended to Bernard Evans for the wrong that has been done to him?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, the wrong to which the Hon. Member refers was not done by the Correctional Service of Canada. The wrong to which I gather she is referring is the unanimous report of a parliamentary committee. I do not think that a Minister of the Crown should be called upon to take steps in relation to a report of a committee.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Some time ago, when speaking to an Ottawa Valley audience, the Hon. Member for Mississauga South was questioned by the audience on how long it would take a PC Government to turn the Canadian economy around. That great fountain of
November 23, 1983

accurate news, The Renfrew Mercury, reported that the MP said it would take-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has considerable concern about the nature of this question within the rules. The Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. When the Minister checks into the conditions that were referred to by my colleagues from Assiniboia and Wetaskiwin he will find out there is a serious problem. When he is checking into it, I would ask him to see what he could do to rectify the situation so that it does not happen again. Producers are being hurt. We should not have to raise these kinds of issues in the House of Commons. They should be looked after before getting to that state of affairs.
One of the suggestions I would make to the Minister, if he is looking for remedies so the situation does not happen again, is that the Canadian Wheat Board be more open in its policies of setting quotas so that producers know when a quota is going to come and, if the quota is not coming, the reasons for it not coming.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, 1 never thought there was anything particularly wrong about the Chamber of the House of Commons being used to raise a variety of concerns and issues of constituents. That is what the forum is for. However, as I say, we will be taking a look at that aspect. The Canadian Wheat Board is one that has commissioners on it who are chosen and who do reflect a pretty broad base of interests. We will be reviewing that situation as it now exists to determine to what extent the problem exists, and how we might solve it.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. When the Resource Development Impacts Funding Program for Indian people expired last March, the Minister said that other funds would be found. However, this has not happened. What help would the Minister give to people like the Carrier-Sekani Tribal Council which faces massive impact from such projects as the Northeast Coal and the Kemano II project? Does the Minister have any help for them, apart from writing nice letters to Gulf Canada and
Oral Questions
other corporations asking them to be considerate? What real help is there to aid these people face these impacts?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I would tell the Hon. Member that we do have moneys, not nearly as many as last fiscal year-the Hon. Member is quite right-to fund Indian people for social impact studies. If the group of Indians in British Columbia, for whom the Hon. Member is speaking, are short of money, I hope to be able to address that this year. I am taking matters up now-I have not got a decision-but I am taking matters up now with the purpose of getting additional moneys for that very objective. I hope to have a decision very shortly.


POSSIBLE PARTICIPATION OF YUKON INDIANS IN KING POINT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have a short supplementary for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Is the Minister or his Government considering a proposal by the Council of Yukon Indians for the advance of a repayable loan of $80 million, or of any sum, to enable the CYI to participate in the King Point development with the proponent of that development? If so, is that proposal being considered favourably with a view to the Minister reconsidering his freezing of the project, to the lasting benefit of the economy and the unemployed in the Yukon?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, knowing the Hon. Member for Yukon to be such an authority on House rules, I view his question with some humour as to how he could piggy-back that on as a supplementary to a question about impact funds for Indians adversely affected by development.


An Hon. Member:: Answer the question.


John Carr Munro: Nevertheless, let me say this. Yes, I think that proposal, prior to my rejection of the application of Keiwit, was under consideration by my colleague, the Minister responsible for industry. I would suggest that when the Minister is back in the House the Hon. Member for Yukon address the question to him.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Presenting reports from special and standing committees.


Erik Nielsen: I have a short supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have gone beyond the normal hour for Question Period and I did extend a supplementary to some one else's question to the Hon. Member for Yukon, a courtesy not always extended. I will allow a short supplementary, but could it be short?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

November 23, 1983
Point of Order-Miss MacDonald MINISTER'S POSITION ON KING POINT PROJECT


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I am acting on the assumption that the application by CY1 will be approved. Will the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development then reconsider his refusal to allow the King Point development to go ahead, and give a green light to that project?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, one thing I have learned from watching the behaviour of the Hon. Member for Yukon over the years is that I know enough now not to answer hypothetical questions of that kind.


Some Hon. Members:: A short supplementary.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Presenting reports from special and standing committees. The Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark).


POINTS OF ORDER
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs indicated by her answers today in relation to Bill S-31 that the Government may be intending to carry on a practice of enforcing a law which has not been received or approved by this Parliament. I am rising simply to reserve my right over the next few days to regard the propriety of this and perhaps-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think the Hon. Member has made his point. It is not a point of order strictly. He has made his observation.


Erik Nielsen: He is the Right Hon. Member.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Presenting reports from special and standing committees.
MISS MacDONALD-INDICTMENT OF BERNARD EVANS IN REPORT OF PARLIAMENTARY SUBCOMMITTEE


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to the questions I raised during Question Period which have to do with a report of a parliamentary subcommittee on the penitentiary system. In this report a person by the name of Bernard Evans was indicted, which indictment has subsequently been proven incorrect. That has, as a result, had a very adverse impact on the life and career of that individual. This report was issued by a subcommittee of this Parliament.
1 am seeking your advice, Sir, as to how 1 should now proceed to have this situation corrected since neither the
Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) nor the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan), when I asked them the question, would undertake to address this matter or to have that very serious grievance rectified. Therefore, I would like to know how something that has been done by Parliament itself, which is incorrect and unjust, can now be corrected?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair cannot direct a committee to reconsider anything.


Erik Nielsen: Parliament can.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair cannot give instructions to committees of the House. However, the Chair will examine the matter raised. I have one observation, however. There is the device of a motion available to the Hon. Member which she may well wish to consider.


THE LATE JOHN F. KENNEDY ANNIVERSARY OF ASSASSINATION OF UNITED STATES PRESIDENT
Maurice James Harquail: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think that if you seek it, you may find unanimous consent with reference to a statement made under the provisions of Standing Order 21 this afternoon on a very special matter relating to a request of the House to transmit a message through the Acting Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) to the American people and the Kennedy family on the assassination of the President, the late John F. Kennedy, the thirty-fifth President of the United States of America.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member have the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member present his motion?


Maurice James Harquail: Mr. Speaker, I refer to my statement under the provisions of Standing Order 21, which sets out-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member has been given leave to introduce a motion. Will he present his motion?


Maurice James Harquail: Yes, Mr. Speaker. 1 move:
That the Acting Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs on behalf of all Members of this House and Canadians transmit and express our condolence on the occasion on the twentieth anniversary of the assassination of the thirty-fifth President of the United States, the late John F. Kennedy.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen).


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I believe we share the sympathy expressed by the Hon. Member. Let me make that clear. But since what he is requesting is that the feelings of all Members
November 23, 1983

of this House be conveyed to the Kennedy family, 1 think it would be much more appropriate if that sentiment were conveyed by yourself on behalf of us all.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there agreement that on behalf of Madam Speaker, I convey such a sentiment to the representative of the United States of America in Canada?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Maurice James Harquail: Mr. Speaker, I certainly would endorse unanimously and agree that this message be transmitted through the Chair.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
miss Macdonald-indictment of Bernard evans in

Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) in her question and subsequently on her point of order seemed to leave an implication that there was a question to which I should have responded. The document to which she was referring was a report of a parliamentary committee representing Members of all Parties. It was an unanimous report. All of the Members of that committee have equal responsibility for it and none have more than others. It is not a matter on which I can pronounce in my present position. I said publicly recently in the Hon. Member's city of Kingston, that it did appear, in the light of the coming forward of another gentleman, the words would not be to take credit-, but to admit to responsibility for having uttered the words to which the report referred, that we had indeed made an error in our attribution. I presume all other members of the subcommittee would feel the same way. I do not know any way a subcommittee, which no longer exists and has not existed since 1977, can now make amends. I am certainly prepared to endorse any move which would have the effect of doing that on behalf of the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has indicated that it will take the matter under advisement. Does the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) have something which he wants to add to this point?


Erik Nielsen: Yes, 1 do, Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) has been allowed to do so. Since he was chairman of that subcommittee, he knows that it was set up primarily due to my own personal instigation. I was one of those on the subcommittee who provided part of that unanimity in the report, but 1 am also one of the first to say that we made a dreadful mistake in the conclusions that the subcommittee reached with respect to Mr. Evans.
Point of Order-Miss MacDonald
Notwithstanding the fact that the Minister avers that he should not in his official position now be taking a position on the matter, I agree totally with the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) that Parliament, having set up the subcommittee and being responsible for the deleterious effects on Mr. Evans, now has the responsibility to undo the wrong it has caused him.
I urge the Government and the Minister, particularly as past chairman of the subcommittee and as part of the present Government, to urge his Cabinet colleagues to take the matter under advisement for the purpose of finding some solution which will restore Mr. Evans to his previously respected position in the Public Service.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has previously indicated that it will take the matter under advisement. The Chair, however, made a suggestion that the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) may wish to consider putting forward a motion on the matter. That is something the Hon. Member may well want to consider.


Erik Nielsen: The Government should act.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: It should be the Government.


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make one very brief comment on this matter. I think the point is being missed, quite frankly. An apology is one thing; it is about all we can do on this side of the House because we do not have the ability to introduce any motion which would involve compensation or the expenditure of public funds.
I think the point my House Leader made is a very appropriate one. It is the responsibility of a Government Member, a Member on the Treasury benches, to bring forward a proposal that would in fact compensate Mr. Evans for the loss he has suffered as a result of a very unfortunate occurrence in the subcommittee. Mr. Evans was precluded, for whatever reason, from giving evidence as to his side of the case. Only one side was heard, and that was the allegation made against him. My point in brief is that it is the obligation of the Government to come forward in terms of compensation for Mr. Evans in this very unfortunate incident.


Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Rosemont):: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Rosemont (Mr. Lachance), on the same point of order.


Claude-André Lachance: Mr. Speaker, yes, as a Member of the Sub-Committee, I would like to point out that it bothers me a little that Hon. Members are trying to turn this into a matter of one side of the House against the other side. If we are to seek an equitable solution, we should do so, but then as Members of this House and not as a Party or as the Govern-

November 23, 1983
Petitions
merit, and I would urge the Minister to consider the matter in this light.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, i have the honour to present a petition signed by approximately 5,000 residents of the Province of Ontario who ask the House to provide a remedy for the problem of toxic chemicals posing a serious threat to the potable waters of this Province. They indicate that presently there is no legislation to guarantee the safety and healthfulness of those waters and that Canada's neighbour, the United States of America, has legislation entitled, "The Safe Drinking Water Act, 1974".
Wherefore we, the undersigned, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to enact the safe drinking water Act which will protect and enhance drinking water quality in all areas of Canada. This petition was circulated under the auspices of Pollution Probe.


Mr. Bill Domra (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition protesting increased Bell Canada rates in townships in the northern part of Peterborough County, namely the Townships of Smith, Dummer, Harvey and Burleigh-Anstruther. These townships now have to effect price increases, in some cases for telephones just across the road, when dealing with municipalities of fewer than 3,000 people.
I humbly request the consideration of both the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) and the House in reviewing the petition to see if anything might be done to provide corrective measures for the hundreds of constituents who are petitioning the House in terms of increases in these extremely rural areas of Peterborough County effective November 15.



CANADA SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT


Neil Young: for leave to introduce Bill C-697, an Act to protect and enhance the quality of drinking water in Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Explain.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce Bill C-697, an Act to protect and enhance the quality of drinking water in Canada. This Act would provide opportunities for public involvement in the making of regulations to set maximum permissible levels for contaminants and other substances in drinking water. It would also provide that it would be an offence for the operator of a public water system to provide water which contravenes the regulation or to fail to comply with monitoring and notice requirements.


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

Mark R. MacGuigan: for leave to introduce Bill C-171, an Act to amend the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act.


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


André Ouellet: for leave to introduce Bill C-172, an Act to amend the Labour Adjustment Benefits Act and to authorize certain payments in relation thereto.


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


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-698, an Act to change the name of the electoral district of Hull.
November 23, 1983


Some Hon. Members:: Explain.


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this public Bill which concerns the district of Hull is to add the name of Aylmer after the present name.
The new federal riding of Hull has regrouped the constituents of just two towns, Hull and Aylmer. It would therefore be logical and reasonable to identify the district in which these constituents are located in such way that the name reflects their location, namely, as the district of Hull-Aylmer.
Mr. Speaker, that is the gist of my presentation on this Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I have leave to dispense with the reading of the motions?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
 * *


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Douglas Fisher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4,931 and 4,981.


Mr. Anguish: Is the Department of National Revenue taking any steps to ensure that Canadian Indians can enjoy freedom of trade with their American counterparts across the border, which is a basic aboriginal right guaranteed in the new Canadian Constitution?


Pierre Bussières: The
Department of National Revenue, Customs and Excise is responsible for the day-to-day administration of various legislative provisions which regulate the movement of persons and goods into and out of Canada. In the case of goods, the Customs Tariff Act, Excise Act and Excise Tax Act provide the statutory basis under which rates of duty and other taxes are established and assessed. The provisions of these acts fall under the purview of the Department of Finance, while the administration of them remains a Customs responsibility.
There are no special or unique provisions in Customs legislation which apply specifically to North American Indians. However, in response to representations from Indian groups. Customs is currently participating in discussions with Finance regarding the possibility of introducing new tariff provisions dealing with personal exemptions for Indians returning to Canada and the importation of Indian handicrafts.
For several years now, Customs has been addressing Indian concerns on an ongoing basis through departmental represen-
Order Paper Questions
tation at Indian conferences and meetings, task force participation, and by special training programs for Customs personnel.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What is the composition of the Board of Directors of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and what is the address and occupation of each individual?
2.	What is the compensation and what are all the benefits paid to the chairperson, directors, president and vice-presidents of the Corporation?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works):: I am
informed by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows:
1.	Current members of the CMHC Board of Directors, including occupations and business addresses are shown on the list below.
2.	Up to June 30, 1983, directors will be paid $159 per day while attending Board meetings; as of July 1, 1983, the fee will be $166. Salaries for the Acting President and Vice-Presidents of CMHC range from $55,978 to $88,610.
In addition to regular CMHC benefits for which the Corporation's share is valued at $8,800 to $10,000 per individual, the Acting President and Vice-Presidents are eligible for the following: a leased car, considered a taxable benefit to the employee under the Income Tax Act, is provided on request; business club memberships paid by the Corporation on request (five official are in receipt of these benefits for a total of $4,495 in 1983); one Vice-President was offered a preferential rate second mortgage as temporary financing when he relocated to Ottawa; and senior officials who are employees of CMHC can voluntarily participate in a deferred compensation plan. This is more of a service than a benefit per se since the Corporation does not contribute to this plan, and except for a minimal amount of bookkeeping, no costs are incurred.
Members of the Board of Directors
Appointee
Mr. Raymond J. Boivin
Mr. Gerard L. Veilleux
Mr. Jean T. Fournier
Mr. Frank J. Callaghan
Mrs. Christine D. McKee
Occupation and Business Address Acting President and
Senior Vice-President, Program Operations Canada Mortgage & Housing Corporation Montreal Road OTTAWA, Ont., K1A0P7
Secretary to the Cabinet for Federal/Provincial Relations and Deputy Clerk of the Privy Council Post Office Building 59 Sparks Street, Room 309 OTTAWA, Ont.
Assistant Deputy Minister
Federal/Provincial Relations and
Social Policy Branch
Department of Finance
26th Floor North, Place Bell Canada
160 Elgin Street
OTTAWA, Ont , K1A0G5
President
D B. & J. (1971) Inc.
P.O. Box 188


[Stage Direction]
University Ombudsman University Centre, Rooms 111 /111A University of Manitoba Fort Garry
WINNIPEG, Man., R3T 2N2
[Stage Direction]
November 23, 1983
Business of the House
Mr. R. Jacques Plante	President
Perspective Travail Inc.
2 Place Quebec, Suite 340 QUEBEC, P.Q., G1R 2B5
Mrs. Sylvia J. Sutherland	TV-RADIO Broadcaster
CHEX Television Television Road
PETERBOROUGH, Ont., K9J 6Z9
Vacancies:	Chairman
President
British Columbia representative
Mr. Forrestall:: Mr. Speaker, I rise once again to ask for information with respect to Question No. 5,038 placed on the Order Paper on September 21 of this year, over two months ago. This question happens to be a starred question. The information in response to it is rather important in determining certain actions this House might take with respect to matters before it. I wonder if the Hon. Member for Mississauga North (Mr. Fisher) could be any more helpful than his colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Evans). Perhaps he may be able to enlighten me as to when 1 will get an answer to this question.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, 1 shall be quite happy to refer the matter to my colleague, the President of the Privy Council.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall all notices of motions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Cullen:: Mr. Speaker, with respect to Orders of the Day, I have had discussions with the House Leader for the Opposition, the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), the
House Leader for the New Democratic Party and my own House Leader. I think that if we had a motion to put Bill C-96 on Business of the Day and to complete all stages today it would be found acceptable to the House.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, those discussions have indeed been held. 1 still need to have an opportunity to finalize my consultations. We are having a House Leaders' meeting tomorrow morning. It will be raised there.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There does not appear to be unanimous consent to proceed.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall all orders listed under Private Members' Public Bills preceding Order No. 50 be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


DIVORCE ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, February 10, 1981, consideration of the motion of Mr. Huntington that Bill C-250, to amend the Divorce Act (alimony and maintenance orders) be read the second time and be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, allow me to read the first sentence of the explanatory notes that accompany this Bill just to inform Members of what is contained here in substance. 1 quote:
The purpose of this Bill is to propose a scheme ... whereby maintenance and other money orders made pursuant to the Divorce Act could be enforced by the courts making the orders.
The initiative before us today is not a stranger to this House, the subject having first been discussed here in 1972. The Hon. Barney Danson, before he became a Minister of the Crown, placed this Bill, then Bill C-377, on the Order Paper in the Twenty-ninth Parliament. In the second session of the Thirtieth Parliament, the principle was carried forth by the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) in Bill C-203, later in the third session as Bill C-302 and then yet another time in the fourth session as Bill C-350.
1 had the honour of carrying on the battle on behalf of the Hon. Member for Capilano in the Thirty-first Parliament when the Hon. Member was a Cabinet Minister. I prepared for the debate on the Bill, but I was requested to allow the Bill to remain in the draw because the then Minister of Justice
November 23, 1983

assured me that the Government was vitally interested in the issue and was going to take action on it. Unfortunately, because of the short life of that Government, this did not occur.
In this Parliament the Hon. Member for Capilano once again submitted the Bill, this time as Bill C-250. It came up for debate on February 10, 1981 and was talked out by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, also the former Member for Broadview-Greenwood, and the Hon. Member for Montreal-Mercier, the present Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mrs. Hervieux-Payette). It is interesting that the Liberal and NDP Members who profess to care so much about suffering have seen fit to impede the passage of this legislation.
One notes that the present Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport, the same Member who talked out Bill C-250 in 1981, put a similar Bill, C-364, on the Order Paper. Ironically, she thought so highly of the Bill before us today that she incorporated two of its clauses, clauses 15 and 15.1, into her Bill. When her Bill C-364 came up for debate on March 23 of this year, the Member had the good fortune of having an amendment adopted that referred the subject matter of the Bill to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. What has happened since then, according to what I can ascertain, is noting. What is the use of having the subject matter of Bills referred to committee if nothing is to happen? It is a farce.
I should add too that on October 15, 1979 another Liberal Member, the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mrs. Appolloni) moved a Standing Order 43 requesting that the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs consider an immediate review of the history of default and consider the advisability of instituting public means of enforcement. This also resulted in no action.
On February 25, 1983, the Conservative Member for Vancouver Centre (Mrs. Carney) raised this issue under Standing Order 21, thereby demonstrating her support for the principle of enforcing maintenance orders.
For over eight years, the Hon. Member for Capilano has been attempting to have this legislation approved by the House. He deserves the praise of all Members for his tenacity in this long struggle. 1 have briefly outlined the sad history of a number of initiatives that have come before this House in an attempt to enforce maintenance payments to divorced spouses. Everyone appears to agree that there is injustice and indignity being perpetrated on divorced spouses by a system which tolerates default in maintenance and support payments. I have talked to many Hon. Members in the House who belong to all Parties and have found no one who is against the substance of this legislation.
The Law Reform Commission reports that as many as 75 per cent of maintenance payments are not being made to deserted or divorced spouses and their children. That is a national disgrace and a black mark upon a court system which
Alimony and Maintenance
brings down maintenance orders and then allows them to go unpaid. It is a shameful situation and one which obviously begs for correction.
This correction must be made here in the House, and the fact that this legislation has been stalled and stonewalled for 11 years is a clear indication of how desperately we require the reform of this institution. That this legislation, which is so clearly and urgently needed, has been tangled in a political and bureaucratic web for over ten years should shame every Member of the House. Perhaps there is hope for this Bill today because the powers that be have now seen fit to allow it to be debated for a second time in Parliament.
The subject of family law has been under continual study in the country for years and improvements have been slow in coming. There is no doubt that the passage of the Bill C-38 on June 18, 1982, by the House was a step in the right direction. That legislation now permits the garnishment of salaries paid to federal employees for court order payments. However, that is only a very small part of the answer to the ongoing and growing problem of unpaid maintenance orders.
With divorce rates continuing to reach new highs according to every published set of statistics, it is urgent, it is mandatory that the matter before us here today be properly addressed. If nothing else, surely we have an obligation to the children who are innocently caught up in the stressful and tragic experience of broken marriages and homes.
Another point to consider in this debate is the submission made by the Hon. Member for Montreal-Mercier in defence of Bill C-364. She stated, and I quote from Hansard of March 23, 1983:
-hundreds of millions of dollars are still being paid through the welfare system because the spouse has moved to another Province and cannot be reached.
This point has also been mentioned in every speech concerning this Bill that has been made by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Capilano. One would think that this fact alone would spur Governments to action, seeing how hungry they are for revenue these days.
I could go on and list more reasons why this legislation should be adopted. It has all been said far too many times before. Surely Government Members can see the need for this legislation. The Hon. Member for Capilano, when debating this same Bill on February 10, 1981, over two years ago, stated:
My hope is that the Government will see fit to have the Bill withdrawn and send its subject matter to committee where we can bring in the experts of the land and where we could probably start debate on an amendment to Section 15 of the Divorce Act, as is outlined in the Bill.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, that hope must be the same hope of any reasonable, compassionate and conscientious Member of Parliament.


Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to commend the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) for taking the initiative to bring this Bill before the House. I submit that in doing so, he does a service to all of us who are concerned about this issue and especially

November 23, 1983
Alimony and Maintenance
to the many victims of the inadequacies of the current enforcement of maintenance and custody orders relating to divorce. I would also like to draw to the attention of the House the remarks that have just been made by the Hon. Member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway). He encapsulated very well and quite graphically, I thought, the gravity of the problem which this Bill seeks to address.
The enforcement of financial support orders continues to be one of the major problem areas in family law in the country. Indeed, it is a problem not only in this country but in other jurisdictions as well. Jurisdictions both here in Canada at the provincial and federal levels as well as jurisdictions outside of the country are seeking to develop new and more effective methods of enforcing these monetary obligations in an attempt to promote the welfare of the family and respect for the legal system.
The current process for enforcing maintenance orders obtained pursuant to divorce is uniform across Canada and is found in Sections 14 and 15 of the Divorce Act. Section 14 reads as follows:
A decree of divorce granted under this Act or an order made under Sections 10 or 11 has legal effect throughout Canada.
Section 15 reads as follows:
An order made under Sections 10 or 11 by any court may be registered in any other superior court in Canada and may be enforced in like manner as an order of that superior court or in such other manner as is provided for by any rules of court or regulations made under Section 19.
By virtue of these sections of the Divorce Act, each maintenance creditor, in whichever Province of Canada he or she may live, under Section 10 interim maintenance order under the Divorce Act, wherever in Canada that order is made, automatically has available to him or her all superior court remedies of every Province for enforcement. These include, for example, the remedy of garnishment proceedings. It is worth noting that today, in the last half hour, the House took an action on the first reading of a Bill relating to garnishment of wages, a Bill standing in the name of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada (Mr. MacGuigan). Other such remedies include equitable receivership, examination as a judgment debtor, attachment of debts and bank accounts, seizure of personal property, execution against land and proceedings for commital.
In addition, in most Provinces of the country, provincial legislation permits the filing of superior court maintenance orders in provincial Family Courts to make available the enforcement procedures of that court. These procedures include traditional show cause hearings whereby the defaulting debtor must explain his default or face imprisonment on summary conviction and continuing attachment of wages.
Indirectly in this way, maintenance orders made pursuant to the Divorce Act in a superior court of one Province may be enforced by the Family Court of either that Province or of any other Province in the country. Enforcement by the provincial Family Courts is becoming increasingly more productive through the development of automatic systems of enforcement under which enforcement is processed by the court with money
being paid directly into court to the benefit of the dependent family members.
In certain Provinces, orders made for maintenance upon a divorce are programmed into a computerized monetary system within the Province. In some Provinces, the superior court maintenance orders may also be filed in small claims courts so that summary enforcement mechanisms which are peculiar to these courts, such as judgment summonses and summary garnishments, may be used.
Enforcement procedures under the Divorce Act nevertheless have not been without some difficulties. A number of proposals have been suggested for changes to the Divorce Act to improve enforcement of orders. One of these proposals is to use the Federal Court of Canada as an enforcement mechanism. Maintenance orders differ from other civil judgments in that they tend to create continuing liability based on the means of the debtor and the needs of the creditor, and are subject to variation because of the circumstances of the parties may change. It is suggested that new Federal Court rules could provide for garnishment orders which would effect collection and minimize cost and effort for the creditor while, at the same time, avoiding any injustice to the debtor. Like most garnishment orders, the order could be obtained ex parte and payment could be made directly to the creditor. This is not unlike the proposal contained in the Bill before us now which has been put down by the Hon. Member for Capilano. Both of these concepts are being studied within Government with a view to determining their implications.
Mr. Speaker, much of the difficulty in enforcement of maintenance orders arises as a result of inability to locate the delinquent debtor. The current Divorce Act does not deal with the problems relating to the tracing of a person in order to obtain or enforce a maintenance order. The only federal law which partly deals with support and enforcement of custody orders is the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act. That Act provides that provincial laws will apply to procedures taken under the Act. There is a specific provision indicating that where any inconsistency or conflict exists between a provincial garnishment law and any Act or regulation of the Parliament of Canada, the federal law will prevail. Therefore, in proceedings against federal employees, provisions in federal laws, such as income tax laws, unemployment insurance, or the Canada Pension Plan, that secure the confidentiality of records will prevail over tracing provisions of any provincial garnishment law.
Certain Provinces have passed legislation requiring their government offices to release address particulars or information which could lead to the determination of the whereabouts of those debtors. The federal Government is now canvassing a number of options for development of a tracing mechanism within the federal data bank system. Federal statutes, such as the Income Tax Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act, which prohibit access to federal data banks, are being reviewed with a view to possible amendments. The Government is also
November 23, 1983

interested in exploring with the provincial Governments the possibility of a central agency which might have a national computerized system for tracing such individuals. There is a suggestion that such a tracing system involving release of information raises questions of invasion of privacy. And so they do. The issue, Mr. Speaker, simply stated is; when should the public interest protecting information supplied to the federal Government yield to the public interest in ensuring compliance of maintainance orders?
The current Access to Information Act which has recently passed in Parliament does allow all members of the public access to Government materials requested by them. But it specifically does not permit disclosure of personal information. Address and employment particulars are, of course, of this nature. In addition, the Privacy Act prohibits the disclosure and use of all personal information, including address particulars, under the control of a Government institution, without the consent of the individual to whom it relates. The policy of the Privacy Act is to protect the confidentiality of information given by individuals. This policy is implemented by prohibiting release of information concerning an individual, except where it is specifically authorized as an exception to the general rule.
In this context, the Government is now proceeding to consult human rights and other interest groups across Canada regarding ways to balance enforcement of maintenance and custody orders with protection of privacy. The results of these consultations will contribute largely to the establishment of a federal position on the release of information.
The concerns covered in this particular Bill, Mr. Speaker, are concerns which have been the concerns of several jurisdictions in Canada for many years. In 1981, a federal-provincial committee was established on the enforcement of maintenance and custody orders. That committee had a twofold mandate. Its first mandate was to canvas the existing range of enforcement remedies across the country. Flowing from that, it was to identify and suggest to Government means of improvement of enforcement. That committee did a fair amount of work under the aegis of the Attorney General of Canada (Mr. Mac-Guigan) and the Attorneys General of the ten Provinces. It submitted a report which identified three areas for action. These were areas within provincial jurisdiction, federal jurisdiction and areas that have some joint federal and provincial jurisdictional connotations. The committee was asked to look at the third category again. The attorneys general themselves have also looked at it. I understand that the results of the work of that committee are now at the point where the various jurisdictions are contemplating what can be done in a regulatory and legislative way at the provincial levels, the federal level and jointly, as the case may be, to effect something nearer a resolution to the problem that we are talking about this afternoon.
I believe everybody in this House, Mr. Speaker, is very sympathetic to the concerns which are embodied in this Bill. At the same time, if the proposals contained in this Bill are legislated they would have certain implications. It is for that reason that I would support the fullest possible discussion and
Alimony and Maintenance
airing of the concerns that are involved. At the same time, 1 would not want to see this Bill come to a vote this afternoon. The many matters relating to enforcement of maintenance and custody orders are under active review by the federal-provincial committee to which I previously made reference. It is only fair that we not in any way short circuit the very good work which is being done by the Attorneys General and their respective staffs across this country.
The problem is one that begs solution. The gentleman for Cariboo-Chilcotin used words like "delaying and stonewalling over a 10 or 11 year period". It is a good phrase, but 1 do not think it appllies in this situation. I do not think anyone in this country, barring the few people who are keeping their whereabouts secret to avoid the enforcement of those maintenance orders, wants to stonewall this particular issue. I find that many people in every jurisdiction would like to find a solution to the problem. I find that many people would like the legislators and those who write the regulations to find an effective way to ensure more complete enforcement of those maintenance and custody orders. I do not believe it is a fair suggestion that anyone has been stonewalling. As soon as we talk about stonewalling we must say why we think they are stonewalling and what purpose, what motive, can be served.


Lorne Everett Greenaway: Indifference.


Roger Simmons: The Hon. Member for Cariboo-Chilcotin says "indifference".


Mr. Huntington:: And apathy.


Roger Simmons: These are possible motives. I do not believe they are realistic under the circumstances because so many of us, as legislators and as individuals, are affected by the inadequacies of the present system. I believe that there is indifference and apathy about many things in this country. I do not believe this is an issue about which there is indifference. There is a concern by Attorneys General to find a solution, not a half solution which will create more problems than it solves.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Tell us about those problems.


Roger Simmons: I will tell the Hon. Member for Capilano about the problems. I mentioned a moment ago the problem of squaring the requirements of privacy considerations with the requirements for information to better enforce those maintenance orders. That is one of the problems. If the Hon. Member has a short answer to that problem, he ought to give it to the House. There are concerns on both sides and somewhere we have to strike a balance.
I have given an undertaking this afternoon on behalf of the Government that once the issue has been fully canvassed-and it is being canvassed pretty actively right now-this Government will indicate to the House its position on that particular issue. If the Hon. Member is asking if all the problems are solved, the answer is, clearly, no. If he is asking, do we support the spirit of what he is proposing, the answer is an unqualified
29132

November 23, 1983
Alimony and Maintenance
yes. If he is asking if there is apathy, the answer is no. If he is asking if there is indifference, the answer is, categorically, no. It has nothing to do with indifference or with apathy. 1 know it is easy to characterize it in that particular way, but it serves no useful purpose. This is not an issue which ought to have any partisan connotations. It is an issue which affects many of us as legislators and many of us and our friends as individuals. I believe there is a willingness to get on with the job, but let us get on with the job in the right direction. Let us not create more problems than we solve by a half-baked solution. I am not suggesting that the gentleman-


Arthur Ronald Huntington: 1 rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think I would like to caution the Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Simmons). When he says it is a half-baked solution, I would like him to know that two lawyers in the Parliamentary Counsel's office worked for over three weeks, night and day, and a Family Court lawyer in Vancouver worked for some six months, putting this issue into a form which would allow-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. The Chair has heard the Hon. Member for Capilano. However, this is hardly a point of order. It is a contribution to debate. The Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's has one minute left.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, had my good friend from Capilano listened, not only to my second to last sentence but to my last one as well, he would have heard in my last sentence, when he was drafting his point of order, that I am not suggesting this Bill is a half-baked solution. I do not for a moment suggest that. In my opening remarks 1 commended him for allowing the House to air this particular issue again. 1 know the Hon. Member is very committed to this issue. 1 am very committed to this issue as well. The Hon. Member does not have the waterfront fenced off on this particular issue. It is an issue we are all concerned about, and the sooner we express our concern in a non-partisan fashion, the better we will serve the victims of the present inadequacies of the system.


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am very pleased this afternoon to take part in this debate on maintenance. It is an extremely important matter and one which the women's movement of Canada has been concerned about for years, and on which it has been making proposals.
Bill C-250 which is before us today is one solution to the problem, but it is a solution which shows the constraints on a private Member's Bill. This is a matter in which we need more than a Private Member's Bill, clearly, but it certainly lays before us the problem and does give us an opportunity to address it, so I welcome that opportunity and I commend the Hon. Member for giving us at least one reasonable solution to the problem.
The object is the automatic enforcement of maintenance orders, fast and efficient enforcement without costly and prolonged effort on the part of the dependent spouse who needs the money. Overwhelmingly, that is a woman with dependent children who is in desperate need. The facts are only too well
known. Back in 1971-1972, an Ontario study showed that only 58 per cent of maintenance orders were paid. Since then, the figures have become even worse. A Calgary study more recently showed that 85 per cent of maintenance orders were in default to some degree or other. Of these orders, 50 per cent were in substantial default. Current estimates over-all show that 75 per cent of maintenance orders are in default to some degree or other. Overwhelmingly, maintenance orders are not being respected. We know that this means large numbers of mainly women and children living below the poverty line.
At the same time, we know that improved methods of enforcement do work. Manitoba has instituted a system of automatic enforcement with a computer as back-up. In the first ten months of operation, the enforcement of maintenance orders was improved by 70 per cent. 1 believe this is an extremely interesting figure which shows this kind of improvement. That was in 1980. And we can expect further improvement as the system has more time to evolve. Quebec has improved its system of enforcement of maintenance orders as well.
1 believe this puts a different face on the contention in previous debates on the subject that the reason that so many maintenance orders were not respected was a lack of money on the part of the person against whom the order was issued. The then Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice on the last day this Bill was debated actually said that in 50 per cent of the cases there simply was not any money to collect. Clearly this is false. A 70 per cent improvement shows there is a lot of money out there which is not being collected because there has not been the will to do it and the mechanisms have not been put in place. When the Parliamentary Secretary made that remark, he had no evidence. It was just an excuse for complacency, and we have had more examples of that complacency this afternoon on the part of the previous speaker.
We know that on average, women earn 60 per cent of what men do for full-time work. A woman raising children is more likely to be working only part-time and earning even less than 60 per cent. Therefore, if maintenance orders are not paid, this puts an enormous burden on people who have much less opportunity to bring home the income to pay for the family. The male breadwinner in the situation has a far better opportunity and certainly has the obligation to pay that maintenance money.
Let me comment specifically on what is wrong with the Bill before us this afternoon. Bill C-250 would keep the enforcement of maintenance orders at the level of superior courts. Unfortunately, the superior courts of the Provinces are the worst courts to have this responsibility because their procedures are cumbersome, there is a long waiting list and the costs are higher. It is faster and much less costly for maintenance orders to be dealt with at the provincial Family Court level.
This Bill at least puts the impetus where it should be, that it is up to the court to act, not the individual. The Law Reform
November 23, 1983

Commission in its paper on enforcement of maintenance orders back in 1976 said that the courts must in future assume the leading role in the enforcement of maintenance orders in Canada. Nothing is more obvious than that the traditional methods of enforcing judgment debts are singularly ineffective when it comes to maintenance orders. That was a number of years ago and we have not had adequate action since.
We have to ask the question: is going the Superior Court route the best way? 1 suggest not. We must have consultation with the Provinces and agreement on how to handle enforcement of maintenance orders. This is not something to be imposed by Parliament on the Provinces. Unilateral action by the federal Parliament is not good federalism. Further, there would be confusion in areas, such as Saskatchewan and Hamilton, where there are unified Family Courts. There divorces are handled not by a Superior Court but by a unified Family Court and it makes sense to continue those provisions.
I suggest that better provisions for handling this matter have been proposed by the federal-provincial Committee on the Enforcement of Maintenance and Custody Orders in Canada. Just last summer this committee made a large number of recommendations for federal and provincial, and in some cases joint, action. I want to go over some of those which are relevant to our subject this afternoon.
One recommendation is to amend Section 15 of the Divorce Act to enable ancillary maintenance and custody orders to be registered in any court designated by the Provinces in addition to or instead of the Superior Court. This would give much greater flexibility, lower costs and much greater access. It would permit direct, one step registration of federal orders in Family Courts without the need to register in a Superior Court or use the reciprocal provincial legislation. Once registered, the order would have the same effect as if it had been issued by that court originally. That is a very practical solution and one I certainly commend.
This same committee made a number of other recommendations which are worth citing here. The introduction of a computerized system for monitoring maintenance payments as opposed to a manual system was suggested. A lot of our problem here is simply technological. We have the technology to solve much of the problem, which Manitoba and Quebec have shown. This means state-initiated enforcement, not individual initiated. We also need prompt enforcement without requiring the person to return to court to re-litigate. It should be understood that once the order is issued, it can be treated and enforced as any other court order without the requirement of the person returning to seek further enforcement measures.
Other recommendations would require provincial and federal bodies to release information required to locate persons defaulting on maintenance payments or, for that matter, in custody matters. Clearly, this is a very important matter and it should be pursued.
The previous speaker gave the excuse that there are issues of privacy at stake and he mused as to what the answer was. Is there a short answer? I suggest there is. Privacy is important but not more important than the sustenance of a family.
Alimony and Maintenance
Privacy is not more important than having an adequate amount of food on the table and the ability to pay the rent. We have too often taken the view that the person who earns the income in a family somehow has the right to spend it himself. This is clearly inappropriate. When a couple start a family there is, if not a written contract, an implied contract that the person who does not go into the labour force but looks after the children has a claim on maintenance. We simply cannot allow the breadwinner to stand on his high-horse and say, "Privacy about my financial affairs is more important that your having food on the table". There is an implied responsibility for maintenance, and that should be respected.
Another measure we need is to abolish the one-year time limit on maintenance orders. There should not be any limit. Sometimes defaults go on for a very long time and the courts have not allowed people to collect for maintenance which is more than one year overdue. There may be some instances when full recovery would be unfair and these could be looked after, but there is no reason to have an arbitrary limit on maintenance defaults.
There should be the opportunity for changes in orders to be made by a court other than the court which issued the order. This could be done in cases of mutual consent. If one party leaves the Province, there may be very good reasons for allowing another court to alter the arrangement. Legislation is also required to permit lump sum maintenance payments. This has been thrown into some ambiguity as a result of a recent court case, and we need to make it clear that in some cases this would be a very effective solution to a family's problem and we should be able to facilitate this. We need greater flexibility and we need the legislation to facilitate it.
We need legislation to provide access to other moneys of the defaulter, for example, income tax refunds, unemployment insurance and pension benefits. These are all part of the regular wage or salary, either a deferred wage or a payment in the case of unemployment insurance which is like a wage. Clearly the same principle holds, that the people dependent on the breadwinner have a real, legitimate claim on that money. Right now our laws forbid access.
Together the federal and provincial Governments must develop uniform divorce rules under the Divorce Act for the enforcement of maintenance and custody orders. We need federal-provincial co-operation to work out a flexible and efficient system.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) has indicated he will be bringing in a new divorce Act. We have some indication as to what will be in it from a report released this summer regarding no-fault divorce. This is relevant to the issue of maintenance because it is partly as a result of the adversial system which couples must go through in getting a divorce that maintenance payments are not made. One spouse must sue the other for divorce, lay blame, and this means the other spouse has to reply and find blame on the other side. In other words, our current laws on divorce create a climate of hostility and acrimony, and clearly this does not facilitate practical measures for the ongoing support of the children. The parents need

November 23, 1983
Alimony and Maintenance
to be able to work together to bring about a settlement which will be good for the entire family. Thus divorce reform in the direction of no-fault divorce would be a considerable step toward getting maintenance payments actually paid on time.
I do not want to say that I am in agreement with all aspects of the proposals the Minister indicated in the case of divorce reform, but the general lines are certainly very good and healthy ones and would certainly be relevant to the subject before us this afternoon.
Before closing I would like to mention another loophole, that is the garnishment of wages of federal Public Servants. This was passed recently but, as we found out all too sadly, there were a number of loopholes. Members of Parliament, Senators and staff on the Hill were exempted, and it is not clear as to the coverage of judges. Thus 1 welcome the introduction of a Bill by the Minister of Justice today to close those loopholes. I will certainly support the amendments that he is proposing.
I wish to make a few comments on the remarks made by the previous speaker. They do reflect some complacency. This matter has been before us for a very long time and the Hon. Member said there was no instance of stonewalling. He wondered why this issue was raised, and we heard some remarks to the effect that there was a lack of purpose in aggressively pursuing constructive proposals to improve the enforcement of maintenance orders.
I suggest that if the Hon. Member is correct and it has simply taken some time to address this, and that the provincial Attorneys General and federal authorities are working on it, the test of the sincerity of the federal Government will be if it brings in its own legislation promptly which better meets the needs of families. It should be doing this very promptly.
A Government Bill on this issue is needed since a Private Member's Bill cannot address all of the matters that come before us. However, we cannot wait year after year for this is not the solution and many of the problems could be regulated very quickly, it is not necessary, for instance, to make a false issue of the problem of privacy. Therefore, the test of sincerity is new legislation. While the Divorce Act must be part of it, we must see follow-up measures to the proposals of the federal-provincial Committee on Maintenance and Custody. We must have the Government's response to these very concrete proposals which were made and we need legislation along those lines. Federal-provincial agreements are necessary, including dates and times, so that we can proceed with this promptly.
In closing I say that I certainly support the intent of this Bill. If the Government is going to talk it out, I would challenge it to be very clear in its indication as to what better legislation it will bring in in its place, and when.


Mr. Jim Schroder (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate. I believe that the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. MacDonald) very clearly stated the reasons for this Bill. Its intent is laudable and the Hon.
Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) is again to be congratulated for giving us an opportunity to debate this Bill. However, I suggest that a Government Bill which gives strong legislation and achieves what everyone this afternoon has suggested should be the intent of such legislation will eventually be part of the Government's Bill.
Enforcement of maintenance and custody orders both prior to and upon divorce has traditionally been perceived as falling within the general rubric of property and civil rights; subjects which, as a matter of constitutional law, are determined by provincial Governments and legislatures. While Parliament, under constitutional authority for marriage and divorce, has passed laws governing the award of support and custody orders, both pending the divorce hearing and upon the granting of a decree, these orders once awarded are enforced by the courts within each Province. Section 15 of the Divorce Act is authority for this proposition and states as follows:
An order made under Section 10 or 11 by any court may be registered in any other superior court in Canada and may be enforced in like manner as an order of that superior court or in such other manner as is provided for by any rules of court or regulations made under Section 19.
As there have been no such regulations enacted by the Governor in Council pursuant to Section 19, the rules of court in each Province provide for the registration and enforcement of orders made under the Divorce Act. The role of the federal Government, as a result, remains largely a facilitative one, assisting in the enforcement of orders as far as it is able to do so with respect to matters within federal jurisdiction.
It has been estimated that approximately 75 per cent of maintenance orders in Canada are not enforced. This poses a considerable problem for financially dependent family members and creates disrespect for the administration of justice. In addition, because separated and divorced spouses are extremely mobile, difficulties arise with respect to enforcement of these orders across interprovincial boundaries. The federal Government has undertaken a review of a number of initiatives designed to improve the enforcement of maintenance orders in Canada.
One proposal which has been advanced is to amend the Divorce Act by adding a provision that specifically provides for garnishment orders. This proposal is rather akin to that set out in the Private Members' Bill. The Bill of the Hon. Member for Capilano suggests that the wages and salaries of Public Servants should be subject to garnishment. This is a proposition with which the Government has agreed for some time and it introduced legislation in Parliament in May, 1978 to meet the problem. On March 11 of this year, Part I of the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act came into force. This Act permits, under provincial law, the garnishment or attachment of wages of federal employees for the purpose of enforcing civil orders and judgments including maintenance orders. Part II of the Act, when in force, will permit the diversion of superannuation benefits of retired federal employees for the purpose of enforcing family support orders although not to satisfy ordinary debts.
November 23, 1983

The justification under law for the old immunity was founded on the ancient concept of the Royal Prerogative which holds that since a court cannot make a binding order against Her Majesty's moneys and properties, a garnishment order may not be made in respect of a debt due by the Crown to a third person. As a consequence of this immunity of the Crown's purse, the salaries of civil servants and others who receive payment from the Crown have traditionally been exempt from garnishment or attachment. One of the most serious effects of this has been in the enforcement of maintenance orders where it has been very difficult until now to require a federal public servant to pay family support in cases of desertion, separation or divorce.
Most of the Provinces have now enacted legislation enabling the salaries of civil servants to be garnisheed. These legislative initiatives have received wide support and will assist in the enforcement of maintenance orders against those who receive their pay or benefits from the federal or provincial Crown.
The procedure under the federal law is designed to generate effective results as quickly as possible. If a person is owed family support payments and has a valid and enforceable family support order from a Canadian court, there are two possible ways in which the Act can assist. If the spouse or a former spouse owing the payment is a federal employee, the Act allows his or her salary to be garnisheed. To effect a garnishee, the person must have obtained a valid court order to judgment ordering the employee to pay money for family support or another type of debt. The person must ensure that the court order or judgment can be enforced under provincial laws. The next step is to send a notice of intent to the Department of Justice or one of its agents, as set out in the regulations. The notice includes the employee's name, employing department, place of work and other information that will locate him. There is then only a 30-day waiting period after which an application may be made to the court to have a garnishee summons issued, presuming, of course, the person is employed. The garnishment order is served by registered mail for personal service at the same place as the original notice of intent. The federal Government pays the money into court and the court will then make the appropriate payments. If the spouse or former spouse receives a pension from the federal Government, the Act may allow a portion of that pension to be taken. However, the Act does not apply to all federal pensions. For example, it does not affect veterans' pensions, old age security, Canada Pension Plan benefits or disability allowances. It also does not apply to unemployment insurance benefits or income tax refunds. To get a pension diversion the person must also have obtained a valid family support order from a Canadian court and ensure that it is enforceable under provincial law.
Another proposal which has recently been studied by the Government is of especial interest in the context of the Hon. Member for Capilano's Bill relating to variations of a divorce maintenance order.
Alimony and Maintenance
Currently, Section 11(2) of the Divorce Act reads as follows:
An order made pursuant to this Section may be varied from time to time or rescinded by the court that made the order if it thinks it is fit and just to do so having regard tro the conduct of the parties since the making of the order or any change in the condition, means or other circumstances of cither of them.
Section 11 (2) has been interpreted so as to prevent variation of a maintenance order by any court other than the originating court. Due to the mobility of the Canadian population, particularly after divorce, this interpretation has caused considerable difficulty for the applicant seeking a variation. It requires returning to the previous Province of residence, often entailing lengthy trips with attendant cost and delay. If the section could be amended or at least clarified, considerable savings in terms of time and money for both the applicant and the family members could be realized.
I hope 1 have added something to the debate which indicates there is need for further study before this Bill is enacted.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I like the basic thrust of the amendments. One of the propositions that I put forward is that what we are talking about here is money. It struck me that what we should be looking to and asking the Ministers of Justice for the federal and provincial Governments to do is to establish a federal-provincial revolving fund. All payments made under Family Court decisions, whether they are made in British Columbia or Ontario, should be paid into a revolving fund. Where an individual is delinquent in making payments-in most cases it is his payments rather than hers-then it would be the court that would go after the individual who was delinquent. But the woman looking after herself and her children would not have to be waiting and wondering about filing judgment summonses, show cause summonses, getting a new court order or getting an amendment of an order. She would have the assurance that the money would be coming in on a regular monthly or weekly basis, according to whatever the terms of the particular divorce decree were.
In dealing with this matter as 1 did in my own law practice, I found that the vast majority of individuals required to pay do, in fact, pay. It is those few who abscond or leave a particular jurisdiction who do not make their payments. In order to get those payments you have to get another Province to recognize your court order. Then you have to get a judgment summons issued. The court makes an order that the person shall pay. Then, if they do not pay, the individual comes up on a show cause summons. All of this sounds very simple but it can take months to get this kind of an operation rolling.
It strikes me that what we are looking at here is to assure a person who already has a court order, who is entitled to rely on that court order, that he or she will be receiving funds on a regular scheduled basis. They cannot do that at the present time. Why should Ministers of Justice, federal and provincial, not get together, set up this fund and have the people know they are going to have regular payments coming in to them? If there is an application made to vary a court order, that can be done. If an individual is laid off and cannot keep up the

November 23, 1983
Municipal Grants Act
payments, an application can be made to the court to vary the order as it is done at the present time. But the person who is suffering will not be suffering if we have a federal-provincial fund that will say to the deserted wife or the deserted wife and children, or the person who has not been economically deserted until there is a missed payment, that the individual can now rely on the court order, that a cheque will be issued on a regular basis.
This procedure would also give the opportunity to have people hired by the court or hired by whatever Crown corporation to follow an individual and make certain that individual does keep up his payments.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
The Acting Speaker (Mir. Corbin):: Order, please. Shall all orders listed under Notices of Motions preceding Order No. 95 be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

[ Translation)


MUNICIPAL GRANTS ACT, 1980 AMENDMENT TO SECTION 2(2)(F)
Mr. Gaston Gourde (Levis) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of amending Section 2.(2)(/) of the Municipal Grants Act, 1980, in order to include paragraphs 3 and 4 of Schedule II dealing with docks, wharves, piers, piles, dolphins, floats, breakwaters, retaining walls, jetties and drydocks which should be taken into account in the determination of grants to be paid to municipalities in lieu of taxes.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as you just indicated, I have tabled a motion for the purpose of amending Bill C-4 which was passed by the House on July 15, 1980. The purpose of this motion is to amend, and this may seem somewhat complicated, Section 2(2)(/) in order to include paragraphs 3 and 4 of Schedule II, and so forth. The House will recall that at the beginning of this session, on July 15, 1980, as I said earlier, a Bill was passed, with the unanimous consent of all Parties of this House, and I think that is very important, a Bill known as the Municipal Grants Act, the official title being: An Act respecting grants to municipalities, provinces and other bodies exercising functions of local government that levy real property taxes.
This Bill, of course, dealt with the problem of relations that exist or ought to exist between the Government of Canada and
Quebec municipalities. The issue has been raised several times in recent months by PQ politicians who touched on various questions which, I feel, should be analyzed in the light of the motion I have tabled which concerns more specifically the inclusion, in the determination of grants in lieu of taxes for instance, in the riding of Levis, of dry docks that belong to the federal Government, and in Lauzon, of dry docks located within the area occupied by Davie Shipbuilding, a company that is well-known in the Quebec City area.
In adopting Bill C-4, the Government of Canada saw itself as a taxpayer with the same obligations as all citizens of this country. The Bill is an important piece of legislation for the Government because it sets the conditions under which the Government determines the grants to be paid to municipalities in return for the benefits it enjoys at the local level. Through this legislation, the Canadian Government has agreed to act as a responsible citizen who understands that the services he receives must be paid for by all residents of a municipality, since otherwise municipal costs are not shared equitably.
It is in the interests of senior levels of Government to ensure that municipal and urban structures are sufficiently sound for municipalities to fulfil their role adequately. Our Constitution recognizes the exclusive authority of the Provinces to legislate with respect to municipal institutions and on other matters of a local and private nature. A municipality owes its existence to the province, it has no inherent jurisdiction and it can only exercise such functions and powers as may have been delegated by the province. The Canadian Government acknowledges those characteristics of the Canadian Constitution.
Section 125 of that Constitution prescribes that Crown property is not liable to taxation. That section notwithstanding, over the years the higher levels of both federal and provincial Governments grew to the extent that they account for a sizeable share of landed property. At the municipal level, taxation geared to benefits received improves the quality of local democratic life and the efficiency of services, in short it makes the local Governments more stable and more responsible. One must admit that, with respect to most municipal services, it is difficult, if not impossible, to put an exact cost on services rendered to a given citizen. In Lauzon, for instance, it is difficult to identify the cost of services rendered by the city to the Canadian Government with respect to drydocks, for example.
A tax load sharing mechanism based on a fair index of benefits received in the form of unspecified collective services must be used. Traditionally, it has been considered that the real value of taxable landed property is indeed a fair index of benefits received. The recording of the real value is done on the basis of the same concept, the concept of market value which is the basic value used for many decades in real estate assessment and which has often been generally accepted in the field of jurisprudence in Quebec and in the other Canadian provinces. Tax equity calls for the integrity of the tax basis
November 23, 1983

and each owner of landed property belongs to a local community and benefits from available services. It is only fair therefore that he should pay his share of the costs calculated on the basis of the sharing index which has been accepted.
In that context, any exception to the rule under which the real value of landed property is assessed distorts cost sharing and is unfair to the other ratepayers. Understandably, many exceptions have already been accepted, either because of tradition or jurisprudence. For instance, exceptions are made with respect to mines, oil fields and, in certain cases, highway corridors.
Such particular situations result in changes to the distribution of real costs and in the preferential treatment of certain ratepayers at the expense of others. For constitutional considerations, the higher levels of Governments do not look upon themselves as being ordinary ratepayers, but that should not be an excuse to disregard the general rules under which the costs of municipal services is shared among landed property owners.
When I say higher levels of Governments, I do include both the Government of Quebec-1 happen to represent a Quebec riding-and the Government of Canada. 1 think that neither level of Government can teach us a lesson in that respect. They too have to consider themselves as being full-fledged ratepayers, but they have not always done so, although in recent years particularly, as a result of Bill C-4, they have shown good will.
Schedule II of Bill C-4 includes drydocks, among other things, which means that the value of that real property cannot be a factor when assessing the value to determine the grant to be paid to the municipality involved. According to generally accepted real estate assessment principles, it seems that such structures or facilities should be included in the books of the municipality which expects to collect money from owners of landed property. In the case of the City of Lauzon, the inclusion of Lome and Champlain drydocks changes the calculations altogether. For instance, in the City of Lauzon, on the basis of the data provided and of the 1982 rates, the properties belonging to the Government of Canada should be assessed at some $22 million. According to the 1982 rates, the assessment in this one city should be $22 million.
But, if the drydocks are excluded, the assessment of these properties would be ten times smaller. The fact is that dry-docks are of great value and also that there are not many drydocks which belong to the Government of Canada. I agree that this is a local and specific case, but following representations by officials of the City of Lauzon, we felt it was quite proper for us to move this motion, so that the government understand that although this legislation was adopted by all the parties in the House, there might be cases where exemptions would prove detrimental to the people of a city in particular.
Municipal Grants Act
I hope that the leaders and members of all parties will take note of the exemption which I referred to as far as drydocks are concerned.
When raising the problem of grants paid in lieu of taxes to municipalities, 1 think that it is difficult for us not to point out the position of the Quebec government. It cannot be overlooked since we want to assess the attitude of the Government of Canada compared with that of the Quebec government towards the municipalities. It would be advisable for the purposes of this debate to show for example what the intervention of the Quebec and Ottawa governments means in the case of the City of Lauzon. We have heard lately the star performers of the PQ government systematically spread rumours among the Canadian people saying that the government of Canada does not always act like a good taxpayer. I admit that, in this case, there may be minor difficulties but when you want to accuse a neighbour, you have to be faultless. The Quebec government is often like the pot calling the kettle black.
Let me give an example. In the same City of Lauzon, the municipal taxation system put into effect by the Quebec government meant a loss of revenue of $235,132. And this is due to the assessment of buildings and properties belonging to the Quebec government such as the schools, the CEGEP and the social affairs buildings. According to the figures provided to us, an amount of $235,132 which would normally have been paid to the taxpayers of the City of Lauzon in the past years was not paid because of the Quebec legislation.
Recently, another bill was tabled in the National Assembly.
1 refer to Bill 38, also dealing with grants paid to municipalities and more particularly grants coming from the federal government. The ostensible purpose of Bill 38 as restated by Mr. Levesque during the weekend, is to prevent municipalities from accepting any federal grant. But, strangely enough, the first lines of the bill make it quite clear that federal grants in lieu of taxes are not covered by this bill.
There are two ways for the federal Government to help municipalities. In the case of taxes, the Quebec Government says that Ottawa can make grants in lieu of taxes. In the case of other subsidies, for instance to create jobs, the Quebec Government says: "No, you cannot accept subsidies; if you do, there will be certain penalties, such as reductions in the amounts that we owe you under the Quebec taxation system." This would mean for instance that, in the case of the City of Lauzon-and 1 shall come back to that later as I have a very good example in this regard-if this city had directly or indirectly, at the discretion of the Quebec Government, accepted any amount, such as $100,000, from the federal Government for a job-creation program, next year, the Quebec Government might decide that these $100,000 would be subtracted from the amount of taxes payable to the municipality of Lauzon, because the province does not want the Government of Canada to be in contact with the municipalities.

November 23, 1983
Municipal Grants Act
As a matter of fact, I learned a few days ago that the Canadian Government had granted to the Lauzon Skiing Centre the amount of $100,000 to provide ski lifts, snow-making machines and lights so that the skiers of the Lauzon region could practice their sport over a longer period, in the evenings, and also in somewhat better conditions. However, officials of the Quebec Department of Municipal Affairs, and Mr. Leonard, as well as the officials of the Levis region very likely got in touch with the Quebec Government, an investigation was launched and we shall probably never be able to give to the Lauzon Skiing Centre the $100,000 we had announced. In fact, we shall probably have to get this money back because it has been decided that Bill 38, which has not yet been passed, still applies. Because of this, yesterday, or rather Monday, Mr. Leonard told the owners of the skiing centre that they would have to look somewhere else and could not count on these $100,000. Under the circumstances, I can understand why the mayor, the councillors and the officials of the City of Lauzon have said no, because this would disrupt their budget for next year as they were given a very clear warning: "If you receive one cent from the federal Government, it will be taken away or there will be an attempt to take it away some other way". I do not think that anyone administering a budget at a local level such as a municipality, can hold on if someone tells him that, in six months, X dollars may be deducted from the amount that municipality would have otherwise received under the taxation system.
We have to look at the whole context. What I am asking today is that Bill C-4 be amended so that we may include dry docks when calculating the amount of grants in lieu of taxes in the future. 1 know that this would meet a very local need, but I believe that it would show that the Canadian Government is an even better citizen than the Quebec Government, which can only complain even though it is much more often at fault than the Canadian Government, and I am sure that, in this case, this amendment would be useful to the officials of the City of lauzon, who are extremely important officials in our democracy and if they have all the money they need to administer their municipality, they can certainly be more independent towards the present Quebec Government and resist its efforts to take away their autonomy. In view of the circumstances, I therefore ask this House to support my motion.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I want to take advantage of this opportunity to make a few comments on the motion tabled by the Member for Levis (Mr. Gourde). We are of course well aware of the fact that the federal Government ought to behave like a good citizen and pay taxes according to the properties it owns in various areas in our country, not only in Lauzon but across Canada. I quite agree with the principle of the recommendation made by the Member for Levis today.
I shall comment later on some remarks which had no connection with his actual recommendation. The fact remains that facilities similar or identical to those in Lauzon also exist, for
instance, in Selkirk, Manitoba and Esquimalt, British Columbia. I think the Member for Levis will agree that his proposal should have extended beyond his riding and included all facilities similar to the ones he wishes to protect, and the municipalities, and I think that if the Government is going to do something for a municipality to correct a situation where the federal presence is not paying a reasonable amount of taxes, 1 think it should do the same for any municipality with similar facilities across Canada. I think that logic and the law oblige us to speak for all municipalities that might be concerned by this recommendation, namely, the federal Government should pay a normal amount of taxes.
The House is aware that since 1980, Bill C-4 has been providing such protection and ensures that municipalities receive grants in lieu of taxes. The federal Government uses the word grants, and 1 must object very strenuously when the Member for Levis makes a comparison between the Government of Quebec and the federal Government in connection with the grants the federal Government is prepared to pay in the riding of Levis or other municipalities, and I am still referring to certain facilities, and when he makes a comparison between grants and draws or infers certain conclusions with respect to Quebec Bill 38 which has not yet been adopted. Just the same, where the Canadian Government is concerned, there is no need for Quebec to say that the Canadian Government pays its taxes, that it behaves like a good citizen and that it subsidizes the people of Quebec. The grant we are discussing here is nothing but a property tax paid by the Canadian Government. Then this is not the kind of grant often referred to by Quebec, namely for employment programs, programs that can generate work for community services. At this stage, 1 have serious reservations with respect to the Hon. Member for Levis, namely that on both sides there is a lack of adjustments with regard to the agreements and a lack of co-operation, and I understand that Quebec is once again in the process of negotiating possible agreements with the Canadian government, and 1 would appreciate it if the Canadian government were to respond as quickly as possible, and if Quebec were to do its share also in seeking solutions that would of course be acceptable to the Quebecers, who are Canadians as much as you and I, Mr. Speaker.
In the circumstances, 1 feel that the Hon. Member for Levis has very poorly substantiated his point when he simply suggested that his proposal could be held as evidence that the Canadian government is a better citizen than Quebec. I do not think this could impress many of us here, Mr. Speaker. That is not the issue. The Hon. Member for Levis is making a suggestion. He is advising the Government, his own Government in the first place, to pay its taxes to the City of Levis. Nothing could be more legitimate. Although I have nothing to do with the constituency of Levis, I agree that of course the Canadian Government should pay its taxes to the City of
November 23, 1983

Levis. The legislation excluded the dry docks two years ago, nearly three years ago. The Hon. Member for Levis is a Government Member, so let it be known to the people of the constituency of Levis that we of the Progressive Conservative Party, are not preventing the City of Levis from receiving increased taxes. Therefore, 1 say right now, on behalf of my party, that we are not going to prevent the City of Lauzon from collecting extra taxes in respect of federal facilities that seem to have been ignored or excluded in good faith.


An Hon. Member:: This was agreed upon unanimously.


Roch La Salle: It was agreed upon unanimously, but the dry docks are not included in the-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please! The Hon. Member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) has the floor. He should not be interrupted.


Roch La Salle: You are absolutely right, Mr. Speaker. I did listen religiously and respectfully when the Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Gourde) was speaking. Yes, I listened to him. He is asking his Government, which means-and it is important that the voters in Levis should know about it-that for the past three years, he has been, I would assume, making representations to this Minister, the Ministers involved, the Cabinet, but to no avail, so today he has to resort to this procedure which enables us to put forward motions and proposals under the heading of Private Bills. Has the Hon. Member for Levis failed to influence his own Government into supporting such a change? If his Minister were to come in this House and introduce such a measure, we would say yes, the same way we are saying yes today to the Hon. Member for Levis. But the Hon. Member for Levis knows one thing, and this is important and rather sly in this case, as I say, the Hon. Member for Levis knows one thing: he is going to make his point, he is going to take this opportunity to blame the Quebec Government for not being as good a citizen as the Canadian Government. This is not very relevant to the principle he his advocating today. One thing he knows, there is a good chance that his own colleagues will kill his motion today by talking it out in the House of Commons. You know the system.
So the Hon. Member for Levis would very much like to tell his constituents: 1 asked very strongly for extra taxes for the City of Levis, but the House of Commons said no. It will not be the House of Commons, it will be his own Government who will block that, his colleagues with whom he has been working for some years now. And that is important, for the House should not mislead the people of the Levis riding, or of any riding for that matter. We know the system. Indeed we do share the concerns of the Hon. Member for Levis, and we want the city of Lauzon as well as other municipalities with similar or identical facilities to receive additional taxes, 1 mean, grants. However, we are quite aware that this is not the best way to raise this issue. We, the opposition have no other choice
Municipal Grants Act
when the government is adamant than introducing private bills to let the public know that we really want the government to heed our proposals. Although he would not admit it, the Hon. Member for Levis knows that he will have to confess to his constituents his miserable failure at his own caucus and before the Cabinet. He is moving this motion in the House today to convince his constituents that he strongly and honestly defends their position, knowing as well as I do-dare I be presumptuous too-that his own colleagues will kill his motion. I should like his Levis constituents to know that the Progressive Conservative Party supports the principle he has put forward. The Liberal Party alone will have to assume the responsibility for denying the request of the Hon. Member who knew what was coming the very moment he stood up in the House today, Mr. Speaker.
So, we support his motion. We understand his strategy, and hope that the Government will be in favour of grants in lieu of the taxes which the Government of Canada is paying on its properties in various municipalities throughout Canada. Once again, I want to speak for those municipalities which are in the same situation as Lauzon, and I would be most pleased if the Government's answer was positive, but I have grave doubts on that score. I want to say at the outset that we on this side, Mr. Speaker-and I will not go any further, but I could not sit down without upbraiding the Hon. Member for Levis for playing petty politics at the expense of the Quebec provincial Government about a matter which is essentially a federal one and for neglecting to make a distinction between grants which are a kind of federal tax payable to municipalities and grants which may be paid to municipalities under programs established by the federal Government in the area of job creation, industrial incentives or development. There is quite a difference! One should not mix up apples and oranges, Mr. Speaker, either in this Parliament or elsewhere.
The question under consideration today concerns the federal Government. The Quebec Government has nothing whatsoever to do with it. It is not involved. However, has the federal Government carried out its duty? Does the federal Government meet the qualification of good citizen mentioned a moment ago by the Hon. Member for Levis? If that is not the case, if the federal Government is considered a bad citizen by the Hon. Member for Levis, then the Hon. Member should do his duty by bringing pressure to bear on his colleagues who are in office for the time being. As for us, hopefully, Mr. Speaker, in a few months down the road we will be able to prove that the federal Government behaves as a good citizen towards every municipality in Canada.


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to enter this debate. The Private Member's motion which is before us today is a good motion even though it is very limited in its impact other than within

November 23, 1983
Municipal Grants Act
the riding of the Hon. Member who proposed the motion. However, it does have merit.
As I understand it, Mr. Speaker, the motion basically proposes that the federal Government be required to pay taxes as they affect certain docks, wharves, piers, piles, dolphins-1 am not sure why dolphins are on the list but they are there- floats, breakwaters, retaining walls, jetties and drydocks. This motion is an attempt to point out a limitation contained within the Municipal Grants Act which was passed by the House on July 15, 1980.
In effect, the motion indicates that there are certain federal works and federal Government properties within local municipalities for which the federal Government does not have to pay taxes. Presumably, if the land upon which these works were situated were to be occupied by other works not owned by the federal Government, then the owners of those works would have to pay taxes. This is only one very small limitation but a very real limitation contained within the Municipal Grants Act and there are other limitations within that Act.
The most fundamental limitation within the Municipal Grants Act is that the Act operates on the basis of the principles of a grant system. In other words, when the federal Government pays taxes to a municipality, it is not really paying taxes but is making a grant to the local municipality.
When this legislation was passed by the House in 1980, the Canadian Federation of Municipalities criticized it on the basis of the need of municipalities across the country for a taxation system rather than a grant system. In other words, the Federation felt that when the federal Government finds itself situated within a municipality, it would have to pay local taxes and be subject to the local authority without being above that authority and paying for its presence there by way of a grant system.
While 1 welcome this Private Member's motion which attempts to make some positive changes to this legislation, what is needed is a complete overhaul of the Municipal Grants Act. We need to have a Municipal Grants Act, Mr. Speaker, that recognizes that when the federal Government is within a municipality, it is a taxpayer like any one else and should not have special privileges or be able to exempt itself from the taxes which would have to be paid by any other citizen.
Another weakness of the Municipal Grants Act which needs to be pointed out is that the federal Government exempts itself from commercial taxes within a local riding. If a private entrepreneur were to locate within a municipality, he would have to pay commercial taxes. The federal Government has exempted itself from the local taxation, when it locates within a municipality. In 1980 the dollars involved were something like $75 million across Canada. It is a significant amount of money.


Mr. Evans:: We pay grants in lieu of taxes.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, the Member across the way says that the federal Government pays grants in lieu of taxes. Certainly it does, but it continues to exempt itself from certain aspects of taxation. One of the aspects that it exempts itself from is the commercial tax. Prince Edward Island is the only Province in the country in which they pay that commercial tax. That is because they have a special regime there which does not apply to other Provinces. That situation continues.


John Leslie Evans: Whoever heard of one Government taxing another?


Cyril Keeper: The Member across the way, Mr. Speaker, raises the question whether one Government should tax another Government. We should look at it from the point of view of the local municipalities. The local municipalities cannot afford to give up a part of their tax base just because the federal Government occupies that land.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: You are just using a lot of semantics here.


Cyril Keeper: 

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am surprised that a Member of the Government cannot get the support of his colleagues for such a good amendment. Why are the Liberal Members not supporting these measures? The people in Levis want to know.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I would like to give a very short and positive report on the uses in my own city of the program that we are discussing today. In 1983, the City of Mississauga and the region of Peel will receive over $5 million in grants in lieu of taxes from the federal Government. I am very pleased with that participation by the federal Government in my municipality. It represents great co-operation between the two levels of Government. The city and the federal Government in my area have co-operated on a broad range of different activities. The funding represents the close binding and the intelligent use of taxpayers' money which my citizens expect from all of us.
The $5 million will be split between the City of Mississauga, the regional government of Peel, and the Peel region Board of Education. The money is calculated and comes from both the industrial and residential levies that are normally applied across the municipality. It represents a payment in lieu of property taxes and it will go to both the municipality and the educational system. The federal properties in my city are extensive. 1 draw the Member's attention to the Toronto International Airport which is the largest aviation facility in Canada. We also have the Gateway postal station which is the largest postal facility in Canada. As the Member for Levis (Mr. Gourde) pointed out, we have a small harbours branch in Mississauga, in Port Credit, where the small harbours officials act as both-


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, it is not usual to hear this outline of the number of credits when we are talking about Schedule A of the Municipal Grants Act which definitely excludes certain things. Airports are not excluded. It is Schedule A we are talking about. 1 suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon. Member is talking beyond the meaning of this particular motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I do not believe the Hon. Member has a point of order. If the Hon. Member chooses to enter into the debate and reply to the argument of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fisher), it is perfectly in order for him to do so, but I hardly believe it is a point of order.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your guidance on this matter. I think the Hon. Member's intervention was quite rude. He has a hard time drawing a straight line let alone a straight line of thought. 1 do not think he is one to tell me what is relevant.
I was mentioning that the federal Government has acted in our city to provide parks through the small harbours branch of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and has helped the
Municipal Grants Act
yacht club to set up its facilities on some of our lands at the mouth of the Credit River.
1 think it is appropriate at this time for me to thank the City of Mississauga and the region of Peel on behalf of the federal civil servants and the people of Canada. Our city provides outstanding services to these federal facilities and we are grateful for the help that the municipality provides. It is also appropriate for me to say at this time that the city and the region have indeed given us good service for the money through the work of their outstanding staff. The social services, engineering services and the other services in those two Governments are regularly providing our officials with close liaison and close advice. As a result, we are able to avoid friction between the two Governments. We are able to combine the facilities and give an extra impact for our tax dollars. The regional and city councils send along representations and advice to me on a regular basis, which 1 appreciate. I receive specific advice about taxpayers' specific problems from municipal departments.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the $5 million which the people of Canada are investing in Mississauga annually is money well spent. My local government is certainly helping us to maintain high levels of service, helping out by giving us good advice for the improvement of our activities in that city.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, the intervention I made was merely to keep the Hon. Member from Mississauga north, south, east or west within the ambit of this particular motion. This motion is specifically directed toward, I would say, an amendment to Schedule II of what was known in this particular Parliament as Bill C-4.
1 am in favour of this motion which has been put forward by the Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Gourde) and I want him to know it. I feel he should have spoken to the hon. gentleman from Mississauga and put him straight. That Hon. Member was just taking the occasion to praise the Government for having contributed largely to his constituency, and that is what I was objecting to, Mr. Speaker.
The Hon. Member for Levis was worried that the Government is not contributing because of the provisions of this law. I agree with him. I believe it would be useful just to remind ourselves what is in the law with which the Hon. Member disagrees. It was passed by the House of Commons on July 15, 1980. In its definition it talks about federal property, because federal property comes up in that section where the Minister may make a grant in respect of federal property.
In the definitions section there is a list of things which it does not include, and these are the exceptions with which the Hon. Member for Levis was taking issue, and 1 agree with him. "Federal property" does not include any structure, work, machinery or equipment included in Schedule II. Schedule II is very important. It applies directly to my riding as well because, as the Hon. Member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) mentioned, Esquimalt does have drydocks and a naval installa-

November 23, 1983
Municipal Grants Act
tion. There are other parts of my constituency, however, whose municipality does not receive grants in lieu of taxes.
The exclusions under Schedule II are worth putting on the record. First, canal structures. What about Smiths Falls? Right in the middle of Smiths Falls there is a canal. Does the municipality derive any grant for that? It does not, because canal structures-falls and locks-are excluded. Second, conveyor belts, conveyance systems and so on; third, docks, wharves, piers, piles, dolphins, floats and so on, which are specifically mentioned in this motion, along with drydocks, gasoline pumps and gun butts; there is a range in my riding for practising. I am sure the municipality covering that area, which has been blocked off by the federal Government for that particular practice range, does not receive a grant in lieu of taxes.
The list goes on. It goes on to include monuments, penitentiary walls and fencing, pole lines, transmission lines, light standards and so on, reservoirs, storage tanks, roads, sidewalks, aircraft runways, snowsheds, tunnels, bridges, water mains and sewer mains. These are matters over which the municipality has some jurisdiction. The municipality cannot derive taxes from those works as if there were private houses built on them, for example. This is federal property. It has a purpose certainly, and there is provision in the law for grants to reach the municipalities in lieu of the taxes they might otherwise gather for these areas.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I question, as did my friend, the Hon. Member for Joliette, the Hon. Member raising this issue in the House when he could just as easily have raised it in caucus with even more success. He obviously had some television time in view. Therefore, I question the motives of the Hon. Member, although I do not question the substance of his motion. 1 believe we will not know, until just at the last moment before this debate runs out, whether this has been a planted motion-and it could be-or perhaps it is just an expression of frustration on the part of the Hon. Member who really wants to have this matter resolved for his own community. We will see if it is talked out.


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak on the motion introduced by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Gourde). First of all, I believe that everyone will agree that he should be congratulated for his excellent job in defending the interests of his constituents. In spite of what the Hon. Member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) said, I believe that without the support, effective work and devotion of the Hon. Member for Fevis, a contract of $120 million for the CN Marine ferry would perhaps not have been granted as quickly as it was.
In addition, I do not agree with the Hon. Member for Joliette about the opinions expressed by my colleague for Levis on Quebec Bill 38 because, just like the Hon. Member for Joliette, my colleague for Levis is a Quebecer, and as the
representative of his constituents, he is entitled to oppose a motion or a Bill introduced by the Quebec Government which robs of job opportunities men and women in his constituency. Indeed, the City of Levis is losing a grant of $100,000 to create jobs in Lauzon. I therefore believe that my colleague must be congratulated. He was elected to protect the interests of his constituents and I think that he is doing a great job.
I also want to say that I do not understand the attitude of the NDP Members when they ask the Canadian Government to be a good citizen, which it already is,-and I know that for a fact-and when they say that Ottawa should pay property taxes like any other citizen. As for the Members of the Progressive Conservative Party, I do not understand them either. They formed the Government and did not introduce legislation in this regard, and in all the provinces with a Conservative of NDP Government, there are no policies as generous as those of the federal Government towards municipalities.
As for Quebec, having been a Member of the National Assembly in that province, I believe that it is important to recall that the Parti Quebecois has exchanged one tax, namely property taxes, for the sales tax which used to belong to the municipalities. This means that the Quebec Government did not have to use supplementary funds to give to the municipalities. It simply took back the sales taxes paid to municipalities, and in exchange, it paid them what are call property taxes. On the other hand, the Quebec Government also makes exceptions to its own laws. I understand that the City of Montreal does not receive property taxes on the Olympic Stadium. Heaven knows that Montrealers have paid a lot of money for that stadium and not only Montrealers, but all Quebecers benefit from it. 1 therefore believe, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon. Member for Joliette, who is losing control, was wrong to blame my colleague for doing his job.


Roch La Salle: Do your own!


Jean-Claude Malépart: Do not worry, I do my work. If my colleague who was minister during the short period when his party was in power had looked after the matter, it could perhaps have been implemented.
Mr. Speaker, more specifically about the motion, some of our colleagues have mentioned that the motion of the Hon. Member for Levis deals only with one area or location. It should be pointed out that the exemption provided in the bill does not apply, as stated earlier, solely to the Levis or Lauzon shipyard. It also refers to monuments, wharves, breakwaters, locks, drydocks, storage tanks, bridges, dams, walls, penitentiary gates, paving and production equipment since the provinces do not pay property taxes any more than the federal government does. It effectively restricts grants to lands and buildings.
November 23, 1983

Mr. Speaker, exemptions for such works were maintained in the 1980 legislation which was unanimously passed by the House because they generate a very low demand for local services and because they do not provide shelter. We know that local services are related to individuals and are provided for workers. However, a structure such as a breakwater hardly needs local services, if any. It should be mentioned that grants for some kinds of structures such as locks, landing strips, basins and breakwaters, would be very costly and 1 do not think that my colleagues as well as the members of the parties opposite would like the government of Canada to increase taxes in order to pay grants to municipalities.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is advisable to consider amendments as a whole instead of dealing only with part of a legislation providing grants in lieu of taxes. 1 think it is important to remind the House that the Government of Canada has paid $400 million to municipalities elsewhere in Canada and $80 million to Quebec municipalities in lieu of taxes.
Following the consultations-there were indeed consultations concerning this bill, contrary to what one of our colleagues claimed earlier-the matter was examined by a Parliamentary Committee. Various municipalities, as well as provincial governments and organizations, came and expressed their views, and the Minister of Public Works finally announced that at the request of a number of municipalities, a committee chaired by Mr. Jacques Roy would look into grants to municipalities. This committee would act as an appeal board if a problem arose between a municipality and the Government of Canada in connection with a particular project.
1 think it is important to remind the House of the reason which prompted the Government of Canada to introduce this bill in 1980. It was simply to behave as a good and responsible government. If we figure out the amount of taxes paid by the Government-I gave some figures earlier, $400 million in Canada and $80 million in the Province of Quebec-if we include the cost of indirect taxes paid by the Government for the floor space it leases in privately owned buildings throughout the country, and if we take into account the economic fallout in a municipality, a province or a region when the Government builds an airport or introduces a new service, I think it is important to keep all those benefits in mind. I was a member of the parliamentary committee on the Bill, and I recall that none of the people of the region where Dorval or Mirabel airport is located said: If you do not pay real estate taxes like everybody else, you can have your airport. They knew, of course, that all Canadian Government investments would have significant economic fallout in the municipality. And when the Government pays-with the provincial Government when it comes to education-50 per cent of health costs, it includes as well the real estate taxes which the Government of Quebec gives to the municipalities, but we know that the
Excise Tax
Government of Quebec did not pay 100 per cent of the real estate taxes on behalf of school commissions and hospitals.
Mr. Speaker, 1 think I ought to repeat my opening remarks and congratulate the Hon. Member for Levis for defending the interests of his constituents. In my opinion, it is quite normal that each Member should seek to get more money for the taxpayers of his riding. 1 referred earlier to only one case, the CN Marine ferry, which brought in additional funds and made it possible to create jobs. 1 repeat, even though the Hon. Member for Joliette was not happy with Bill 38 in Quebec, that I share his view that both levels of government should find solutions to allow for job creation. However, I think it was really the duty of the Hon. Member for Levis to further as he seemed fit the interests of his constituents, to the same extent that we let the Hon. Member for Joliette defend his own constituents the way he deems appropriate.
It is also important to remember that the setting up of a committee to examine grants to municipalities as announced yesterday by the Hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. LeBlanc) was indeed the result of a decision. That decision was made further to the recommendations submitted by a task force chaired by Mr. Pollack and it will be remembered that the Pollack Committee was established as a result of representations made by various groups, including the municipalities, the Provinces and the federal Government, requesting that a panel be set up to reconsider decisions that will be made as to the assessed value of specific buildings in specific areas or municipalities, where a municipality would decide on a certain assessment value and where the Government would come up with a different one. Before the decision was made by the Minister, municipalities had no recourse. As a good citizen, the Government has assumed its responsibilities in that area.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 25(2), it is my duty to interrupt proceedings.

Shall all items listed under Private Members' Notices of Motions preceding item No. 22 be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


EXCISE TAX
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, January 19, 1981, consideration of the motion of Mr. Halliday:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of remitting the excise tax levied on building materials used in the course of repairing and/or replacing building and other losses as a result of major natural disasters so deemed by provincial authorities.
Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to resume debate on the motion tabled by my col-

November 23, 1983
Excise Tax
league and neighbour, the Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday). In doing so, I support the fundamental principle in the motion, that of the collective response of our communities to human need, and, in specific cases, to emergency situations.
As Members of the House and the public will recall, the motion arises out of the situation of August 7, 1979, when disaster struck southwestern Ontario in the form of two tornadoes. The result was a loss of some $13.5 million, of which only $5.7 was covered by insurance, leaving a shortfall for the community to cover of some $7.8 million.
The federal riding of Waterloo adjoins Oxford and 1 know a great number of the citizens, particularly out of Wilmot Township, Wellesley and other areas, gave of their time voluntarily, led by the example of the Mennonite tradition of self-help and community input, in the repair and restoration of the communities affected by this particular disaster.
The motion before the House is not binding but calls upon the Government to give consideration to the fact that it will be seen to be identifying with the best aspirations of our communities-to assist one another and to rebuild. One would have thought that the Hon. Member for Kent (Mr. Bossy) would have wished to have been here because that kind of initiative, even if the Government feels there is another alternative, not only affects this area but other areas as well. I believe the Member for Kent would agree that this has caused a community trauma.
The motion before us focuses on the excise tax of 5 per cent on building materials. However, since this motion deals with the ethics or morality of taking tax from people who have fallen victim to natural disasters, 1 suggest that the motion is not locked into considering that as the best vehicle. If there are other suggestions, as has been suggested by Members opposite during informal discussions and in previous debate, this would be a signal to those caught in this sort of circumstance.
1 am pleased to encourage positive consideration of this motion by the House and I support my colleague for Oxford (Mr. Halliday). The root question in this motion is the role of the Government in protecting people from those things from which they cannot protect themselves, particularly when there is not adequate protection to encourage the best instincts for sharing and self-help across the communities.
Members of the House will be aware that the Government of Canada does have a disaster relief program in place but in most cases it is insufficient and attains a low level of recognition among most Canadians. I believe it is apparent that the rebate as proposed in the motion would not pose a technical problem vis-a-vis federal and provincial jurisdiction. The federal Government already gives rebates in relation to schools and hospitals, so that technically this could be done.
If this is not the particular way to give the signal, I think the subject could be opened up for discussion. As 1 understand the remarks made in the debate earlier, the Government's position is that the administrative problems for this proposal would be considerable and it would therefore not wish-as we would not
wish-more paperwork or burden of this kind to be put on the taxpayers.
The problem is that the tax as proposed would be assessed on the value of goods shipped by the manufacturer of the building materials. By the time these goods pass through the hands of wholesalers and retailers for their ultimate use, the tax would have long since been paid and become imbedded in the price of the materials. For this reason, the Government maintains that it is difficult to ascertain how the refund can be made or to determine the amount that should be refunded.
Instead of a tax refund, it suggests that expenditure programs are preferable. Again, we could debate this in terms of philosophy but it could be noted that many expenditure programs are more costly and administratively complex than tax rebates.
The philosophical question to be raised and addressed is what is wiser in terms of community help than leaving resources in the hands of the people, that they finally understand what their priority needs are and be in the best position to address their time and energy in that area. If these needs are not appropriately addressed, there is a sharing of the responsibility with the people so that all the blame does not fall on the Government's shoulders if remedies do not fully meet their expectations.
Therefore, I view the motion in front of us as one which involves providing incentives by the best motivation in our community, which is caring and accepting responsibility for our community and its life. 1 see it as a motion which seeks to undergird citizenship and the best sense of citizenship by using the resources that are available, giving oneself to others who are in need and having a sense of pride.
I also compare this motion to others which have been before the House in terms of being an affirmation of voluntary action. Some weeks ago, a Bill which I presented to the House, C-233 in support of the voluntary sector, called upon the Government to give signals to those who were prepared to give of themselves in and through voluntary groups. This is another illustration of the importance and the signal of that motivation.
With this in mind, and since there is a division of opinion within the Government as to how best to do this, I would like to move, and I encourage Members of the House to consider, the following motion in order that the substance and purpose of the motion presented by the Hon. Member for Oxford could be considered in the context of the Government's discussion paper on charitable activity. This is in relation to the discussions about the give and take tax proposals which are an incentive. It may be that there is another incentive method that could be applied in certain circumstances like this.
Therefore 1 would move:
That the motion be withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
I believe the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) is prepared to second this motion.
November 23, 1983


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Such a motion at this stage would need the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, 1 presume it would need unanimous consent to be debated, or would it need unanimous consent to be passed?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It would need unanimous consent to be presented to the House at this time for debate.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Then I would certainly agree with that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) rising on a point of order?


Mr. Hovdebo:: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Unanimous consent usually requires the courtesy of asking the third Party in the House for unanimous consent. This was not done. Under those circumstances I am very loth to give unanimous consent.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There does not appear to be unanimous consent. Certainly it is the understanding of the Chair that such a motion could not be put without unanimous consent. Is the Hon. Member for Prince Albert standing his ground and refusing unanimous consent or has he had second thoughts?


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking on this motion and 1 was quite willing to speak in favour of it. 1 just required the courtesy of being asked for unanimous consent in a case like this. That consent was not asked for and I was just making that point. 1 will give the unanimous consent provided I am given the opportunity to speak to the motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair is asking for unanimous consent. The Chair obviously cannot be responsible for private negotiations that might or might not have taken place. But in this case there is unanimous consent for the Hon. Member for Waterloo (Mr. MacLean), seconded by the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington), to move that the motion be withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to thank the Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday) for bringing forward this motion. In doing so he has opened up the whole area of the treatment of disasters in the country as well as another area which may be more important, namely the whole issue of tax concessions.
From reading the Member's motion and listening to the debate so far, I recognize that he did not intend to be too confining in his motion. The Hon. Member made the suggestion that it related to buildings and would only extend to repair and replacement of buildings. He did so by having the relief attached only to the excise tax levied on building materials. That makes it a very narrow approach and, as are many taxes and remission of taxes, it would also be regressive in that often the person most able to pay would benefit the most from this remission-the individual who may not have needed the help.
Excise Tax
Granted, most natural disasters will do the greatest damage to the most expensive houses, if you wish, but that does not mean the owner should get the most help.
Possibly to overcome that criticism the remission should be taxable, but Members earlier in this debate, particularly on the Government side, indicated that such a process of even having a remission of taxes would be bureaucratically very difficult. Of course, if you were to have it taxable as well you would increase the bureaucracy. It might then be easier and more worth while to give a straight grant to people affected by a disaster.
Therefore, 1 would give general support to the principle of giving relief to disaster victims, particularly victims not covered in some other way. I would wish to have the Government study the methods-and the motion before us right at the moment does exactly that-to attempt to make them as progressive as possible.
We could spend a lot of time looking at disaster procedures in the country. They are fairly well documented. The processes of EMP and EMR and so on have been well covered. I imagine most Members who have been involved in community emergency treatment of disasters know well what goes on. Those procedures seem fairly adequate after an agreement is reached between a Province and the federal Government.
It is also possible that the suggestion made by the Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday), which is remission of taxes, would help the quality and even the extent of the replacement that was necessary under this kind of disaster requirement.
However, if you look at the history of disaster relief in Canada, there are some amazing incongruities when the Government makes an attempt to provide an over-all answer to a requirement. I could give you a number of examples, Mr. Speaker. We only have a few more minutes and I am sure there are other Members who wish to speak. I believe the Hon. Member for Oxford is able to speak under these circumstances.


Some Hon. Members:: Yes.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Therefore I will go through this as quickly as possible. Right now in our present estimates we are talking about giving $6.9 million of relief to farmers who had apple trees frozen in Ontario and Quebec in the last year. The requirement is very heavy but worth while, the $6.9 million being used to restore orchards. Those same farmers could have frost damage every year for ten years which kills the fruit and yet never get any disaster relief unless their incomes fall below a certain level. Two years ago we had a very heavy drought in Saskatchewan which affected the quantity of feed for farmers' cattle. Many farmers were paid disaster relief. In my particular area one farmer living on one side of the road got $5,000 worth of help but the fellow living across the road who experienced exactly the same kind of disaster got no help.

November 23, 1983
Excise Tax
There are a variety of things that can happen to so-called disaster funds. Those are things that should be looked at.
As 1 said earlier, the Hon. Member has opened up a very large can of worms in talking about the remission of taxes, tax credits or deferral of taxes. This whole area has traditionally been used for corporate welfare for which the Government does not have to account. It has been used through the years as a way in which the Government has been able to give a reward to its friends without having to account for that reward. For example, the CPR, a great friend of both the Liberals and the Conservatives, now owes Canada $1.4 billion in deferred taxes which the CPR never expects to have to pay, nor do Governments expect to collect. Maybe the type of remission considered here would spread this largesse a little more broadly and fairly. Do we really want to get into this kind of practice that is very repressive and has not worked particularly well in the past?
We support the relief in principle. We also support referring the motion to committee. However, we would be very cautious about the method used to give relief, particularly the method suggested in this motion.


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I thank the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) for giving us unanimous consent to allow me to discuss briefly again this particular motion of mine that was raised almost four years ago. 1 should say for the Hon. Member's benefit that 1 assume he would want to give unanimous support because his colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell), who I am pleased to say is here today, spoke in favour of this motion in 1980. 1 thought he would naturally be in support of her.
1 want also to express my appreciation to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean), who as he said is a neighbour of mine. I am particularly pleased he was able to approach this Bill today with his usual empathy, sympathy and understanding for the human aspects of government and the need for us to concentrate more on that aspect of government. The people in Oxford, as well as the people in Waterloo, will recognize the fact that he is very much in support of this motion. We hope the Government will come around to accepting the motion this afternoon as far as referring it to the committee is concerned.
On January 19, 1981, this matter was first before the House. I am disappointed that the Hon. Member for Kent (Mr. Bossy) is unable to be present this afternoon. His area suffered a tornado last spring at Reese's Corners, a very small community which was virtually destroyed. I am sure the people of that area would have the same concern for this kind of motion as the people of Oxford. The community of Oxford Centre was badly demolished as well in that tornado. This past summer it raised several thousands of dollars locally which were sent over to the riding of the Hon. Member for Kent to help the people in Reese's Corners. If the Hon. Member had
been present, I am sure he would have acknowledged that support from fellow tornado victims.
In addition, I emphasize my concerns for the moral and ethical issues involved. Governments are somewhat slow to appreciate these issues. They take the expedient way of dealing with such matters and find excuses for not doing something which should be more properly done for a moral and ethical point of view.
As the Hon. Member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean) said a few moments ago, there is the issue of Governments seeking revenues from people who, through no fault of their own, suffer severely from natural disasters. I find it to be a very distasteful situation for the Government to find itself in and should not allow itself to be guilty of accepting tax revenues from such persons.
Also the Hon. Member for Waterloo said that over $3 million was raised in my constituency from private individuals as well as from individuals outside the constituency. People came from far and wide to give money quite freely. In particular, people from the Mennonite communities in Wilmot and Wellesley Townships came by the hundreds into Oxford to work without pay to help the victims. For them to see the Government reap profits from that disaster, especially when they gave freely of their own labour, bothers me somewhat. I wish it would bother the Government more so that it would take some action in support of my motion.
I would like to leave some time this afternoon for the motion to be referred to committee, if at all possible. However, I would like to refer to some of the comments made in the previous debate by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans). I am very pleased to see the Hon. Member for the riding in which I live in Ottawa present today. I was very pleased with his comments as reported on page 6333 of Hansard where he said:
-but it certainly goes without saying that the Hon. Member has our whole support in his concern for disaster assistance.
Of course, he was referring to myself. Then, as reported on page 6334 of Hansard, he went on to say:
As a result, it would certainly seem to me that we should be looking at much more generous and larger funds to be paid to the disaster victims, and whether there should be included in that particular package of funds which goes to an individual something that could be called a refund of the tax.
I was pleased to hear that, but he concluded his speech by suggesting that the Government could not support it. Given the present political climate and his desire to have the support of all his constituents, hopefully he has changed his mind somewhat. Obviously he was philosophically in support of the motion, yet for some purely technical reasons he could not support it. 1 appreciate the fact that there are some technical problems. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fisher) with whom I spoke earlier today also appreciates the fact that there are some technical problems which can be overcome, one way or another, if indeed we are in philosophical agreement on this.
Finally, the last reference I want to make is to the comments of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard). Unfortu-
November 23, 1983

nately he is not present in the Chamber at the moment, but his Parliamentary Secretary, in the person of the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre, is here. As reported on page 10494 of Hansard for June 11, 1981, 1 asked the President of the Privy Council some questions regarding disaster aid. In reply to my question concerning whether or not there should be some involvement from the private sector, he agreed and said:
Should the individual and the private sector become more involved? I fully agree with his suggestion-
He went on to say:
-we are quite willing to consult the private sector-
1 would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary who will speak next whether any Government action has been taken. To the best of my knowledge, no such action has been taken along those lines. It is disappointing that we have not had the benefit of input from the private sector, especially from people such as those in Oxford who have had first-hand experience at overcoming disaster problems.
I would like to close my remarks with a one and a half line quotation which I used in my original presentation of this motion on January 19, 1981, when I quoted Edmund Burke. When he was giving his second speech respecting conciliation with America, Edmund Burke said:
It is not what a lawyer tells me I may do; but what humanity, reason and justice tell me I ought to do.
The Government philosophically agrees with us; it knows what ought to be done. I challenge the Government to allow the motion to be referred to committee where it can be discussed further and possibly result in putting some humanity into the affairs of Government.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech, I would like to pay tribute to the previous speakers who have obviously worked hard on this matter. 1 also want to compliment the Hon. Member for Lambton-Middlesex (Mr. Ferguson). Last spring his riding experienced a tornado. I believe three town-
Excise Tax
ships in that area were very seriously affected. He told me that local people made outstanding contributions as volunteers. They contributed to the rebuilding of their neighbours' homes, farms and facilities. He has asked me to refer specifically to the outstanding work that was done by the Mennonite relief organizations. People came by the busload from all over southern Ontario to his riding and worked very hard to improve and restore the local economy. I pay tribute to the Hon. Member and all those dedicated volunteers in his riding who helped to restore the local situation.
This is a familiar topic and one which has been discussed widely in the House; it is an approach which has been discussed widely. The previous speaker referred to a stirring quotation from Edmund Burke. It is a handy quotation, a very emotional one which makes it difficult for the next speaker to rise and say that he has serious reservations. Unfortunately I do have serious reservations.
We have a system now that rebates people in disaster areas for the costs they incur. There is a formula for that. We make payments to rebate people who have experienced disasters. The formula recognizes the primary responsibility of the Province, but as soon as costs rise above a certain level-I think it is $1 per capita of the provincial population-we become involved. As the costs increase beyond that level, our involvement becomes deeper.
It is important to note that under these rebates we also rebate the cost of the federal sales tax. To answer his concern about the morality, we are not keeping federal sales tax; we are rebating it when we become involved in disaster relief. Hopefully that will settle the issue in the Hon. Member's mind.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being six o'clock p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, November 24, 1983