1984-05-11

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker the appalling performance of the Liberal Government is not without its root causes. Those Canadians desperately seeking non existent jobs know what to blame. It is the Liberal zero growth policy. It is the Liberal high interest rate policy. It is the Liberal anti-investment policy, and the Liberal lack of concern for economic and job related issues.
Today's Statistics Canada figures speak for themselves. Our unemployment rate remains at 11.4 per cent, in comparison with only 7.8 per cent in the United States. Last month youth unemployment increased from 18.2 per cent to 18.5 per cent. The number of long-term unemployed is now double what it was three years ago.
Canadians have a right to expect a better deal from their Government. They know that neither the Liberals nor the NDP can deliver jobs. Therefore, let us bring on an election and change to a Conservative Government dedicated to high rates of permanent employment right across the nation.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, last autumn the Government of Canada consolidated its 12 existing job-creation programs into four. This was a welcome move in that it made it much easier to keep track of the programs and to advise constituents. However, one aspect of this consolidation has led to complaints from a number of my constituents at McMaster University. This is in relation to the change in rules between last summer and this summer in what was called the Summer Canada Student Internship Program. The corresponding program this year is called Summer Career Access.
The problem has occurred with those programs which were approved in principle last summer for three years funding with
the understanding that the same students would be hired for three consecutive summers, allowing training at a higher level each year. However, with the program change, instead of the Government paying the students' full wage, only 50 per cent of the wages will be paid up to a maximum of $3 per hour for a 40-hour week. In addition, for charitable or non-profit employers, another $80 per week will be allocated per student for additional costs such as OHIP, et cetera.
For projects which were approved in principle for three years, the rules have been changed. This has jeopardized a number of student jobs because the universities were not able to budget for the difference in the wage subsidies. I would therefore recommend that the Government provide a special supplement to these projects which were approved in principle for three years' funding last year so that 100 per cent of the students' wages will be covered until the end of those three-year projects.


HOUSING
Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, according to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, housing starts in most Canadian cities posted a significant slow-down during the first third of this year. On a national basis, housing starts fell for the second straight month in April. According to the director of statistics for CMHC, many housing experts have trimmed a few thousands starts from their housing forecasts for 1984.
With the bank rate the highest it has been in two years, and going up, and mortgage rates following, the situation in the housing industry is becoming critical. The proposed increase in the federal sales tax on building materials scheduled for October is only going to exacerbate the problem and cause more lost jobs.
Economists are predicting another recession by the end of this year, or at least by the beginning of 1985. If we go into another recession with 1.5 million people unemployed, it will have a traumatic effect on the average Canadian household. We need to help the people of Canada by keeping mortgage rates at an affordable level. This in turn will help those people in the construction industry because they will have jobs and will be able to go to work every morning.

May 11, 1984


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian public has become the unwilling participant in penal therapy experiments that allow axe murderers and sex killers to roam the streets on so-called day passes. For the second time this week a dangerous inmate has escaped custody. This time Giovanni Fasciano walked away from an unarmed social therapist while strolling down a Montreal street. Fasciano has a history of attempted escapes. In fact three years ago, following his first escape, hospital officials described him as a dangerous schizophrenic.
The questions which must be answered by the House are simple. One, why was the inmate allowed outside the hospital without wearing manacles or other restraining devices? Two, why was his attendant not armed? Three, why bother providing extensive security in a jail or hospital for the criminally insane if prisoners are to be turned loose on the streets?
[DOT] (i HO)
These two incidents have given all Canadians reason to question the fundamental ability of our prison security system to do its job. It is hard to imagine any justification for allowing day passes to such violent and escape-prone inmates.
It is sheer lunacy to allow such prisoners on the street without security measures that are at least comparable to those of the institutions housing the inmates.


EDUCATION
Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, all too often in recent years Canadians, as a result of increasing urbanization, have come to assume that the good life was to be found only in the larger cities. One of the unfortunate results of this pro big city attitude was the development of a prevailing philosophy that excellence too was synonymous with such large urban centres and, as a result, many young people, often with their parents' encouragement, have migrated from our smaller western communities in order to secure what they believe to be a superior education.
Many of us who were educated primarily in the smaller western communities, many of us who taught in the educational institutions located in such centres, and many of us who, as parents, have encouraged our own children to remain at home for their education, have always denied that bigger necessarily means better. Those of us of that mind are particularly delighted to hear that a national academic competition, the "Reach for the Top" program, has been won by a high school which has an enrolment of only 212 students in its Grade 7 to Grade 12 program, and which is located in a smaller Manitoba
community with a population of approximately 1,100 residents.
The students of Deloraine Collegiate have proven without doubt that educational institutions need not be large nor need they be located in large urban centres in order to be of a superior quality.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Vork-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, it is time that this House reconsider the Armenian question. You will recall that on March 27, 1980, the Legislature of Ontario unanimously adopted a resolution that said in part that, on behalf of the people of Ontario, that Legislature "requests the Government of Canada to officially recognize and condemn the atrocities committed by the Government of Turkey upon the Armenian people who were victims of persecution and genocide during World War I."
The Legislature of Ontario also stated, on behalf of the people of Ontario, that it urged the Government of Canada "to make appropriate representations to the General Assembly of the United Nations to recognize and condemn the Armenian genocide and to express abhorrence of such actions as being in violation of the basic standards of human rights and decency now embodied in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights."
The Ontario Legislature, on behalf of the people of Ontario, also recommended to the Government of Canada "that it designate April 24 in every year hereafter throughout Canada as a day of remembrance for the Armenian community, as it has been by the Armenian people for many years in memory of fellow Armenians who suffered such crimes."
A similar resolution was passed on April 10 in the National Assembly in Quebec.
We should act.


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


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, Canada's immigration policy is losing some of its humanitarian principles through administrative decisions that erode the intent of our immigration law and regulations.
On June 29, 1983, the former Minister of Employment and Immigration promised to have a review and report by the fall on the concept of the family as used by his Department. It had been found that our rules were often being so interpreted as to exclude people whose close family ties are all here in Canada.
May 11, 1984

In particular, there are cases of one family member remaining in the old country who wishes to be reunited with the family here. The guidelines were intended to authorize and encourage immigration officers to give favourable treatment to such a last remaining family member who is financially or emotionally dependent on the rest of the family in Canada.
While we wait for the report, which was promised almost a year ago, the immigration officials continue to tighten the restrictions that they apply when interpreting these guidelines. They are causing severe personal hardship in a number of cases that have come to my attention, and they are departing from the humanitarian principles of our immigration legislation and policy.
I understand that officials of the Department have indeed been studying this issue and have in fact prepared a draft for the Minister, with recommendations which would improve the situation for these immigrants. Therefore I call upon the Minister to expedite this report, the report promised nearly a year ago-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time has expired. The Hon. Member for Red Deer.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, in 1968 the Canadian unemployment total was 351,000, or 4.5 per cent. Now it is 1,399,000, or 11.4 per cent. The unemployment rate for youth was 7.4 per cent and is now 18.2 per cent, up a whopping 10.8 percentage points, Mr. Speaker. In 1968 unem-ploymnent insurance costs were $438 million. Now they are $10,169 million, up 2,222 per cent. Since 1968 the purchasing power of the dollar has dropped to 31 cents, a minus 69 per cent. Interest rates have soared, and five-year mortgages have increased from 9.25 per cent to 13.25 per cent, and now will go higher.
In the past 16 years the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Hon. John Turner, the Hon. Don MacDonald, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien), and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), have all been Finance Minister, in charge of the economy and the public purse. In that time the Government sector has mushroomed and unemployment has quadrupled. Prices have increased several times. If the Hon. John Turner had so many good ideas, why did he let the Liberals get into such a mess? He was the start of it all.
The Prime Minister also did the Canadian public a great disservice by delaying his departure until such time as an election could not be held before July 1, the Queen's visit and Pope John Paul's visit. With a June election, the economic mess could have at least-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time has expired.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I would like to direct my question to the Minister of State for Finance. The unemployment figures were released today by Statistics Canada. The news is bad. Interest rates continue to climb, the dollar continues to fall, and unemployment shows no sign of improving. Indeed, the youth unemployment rate is up. In light of these economic indicators, which show virtually no growth in employment over the past quarter, and with interest rates continuing to rise, cutting into consumer demand, we can only anticipate that the situation will get worse.
Does the Minister of State for Finance, on behalf of the Minister of Finance, intend to indicate to the House that it is his intention, since the Budget of the Minister is no longer relevant, to bring in a new economic statement?


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, the unemployment numbers that were released indicate some progress in creating new jobs in Canada. Essentially we have seen the situation continue of the creation of new jobs being matched by additional people coming into the work force. The reported 0.2 per cent increase in jobs was matched by the increase in new entrants to the work force. But the creation of new jobs in Canada is in part, indeed as the Hon. Member suggests, the result of government stimulus, government action, to help create jobs.
The Member will know that we have acted in two broad ways to provide more job opportunities in our economy by direct government spending, through the special recovery and other programs in which there is direct federal funding. On the other hand there is the whole range of programs which the federal Government introduced in the April and February Budgets to stimulate more job creation in the private sector.
We have begun to see some of the benefits of the changes we have made, including those in investment tax credits. We have seen the special share purchase tax credit as an incentive to private investors-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Roy MacLaren: -to expand Canadian jobs.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Order.


Roy MacLaren: And we have also, of course, seen other initiatives that we have taken.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair is concerned about the length of answers to questions. The Hon. Member for St. John's East.

May 11, 1984
Oral Questions EMPLOYMENT


JOB CREATION-COMPARISON WITH UNITED STATES
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I wish the Minister would tell the House where he is finding these new jobs. The figures we have indicate to us that there has been zero growth in employment. There has been virtually no change in employment in Canada in the last three months, indeed since last September, unless a thousand new jobs constitute growth in the Minister's estimation. In the U.S. over the same period employment increased by 1.4 per cent, or
1,461,000	new jobs. The fact is that our job rate is now growing. Indeed, in terms of the recession, we continue to fall behind, whereas the position in the United States is a net increase.
Does the Minister still stand behind the ridiculous statement he made in the House yesterday wherein he said that Canada has been creating jobs faster than the United States? The facts do not support that statement.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, on that last point, it depends of course on which period the Hon. Member opposite wants to discuss. I indicated the period I was talking about. He may want to indicate what period he is talking about.


James Aloysius McGrath: I am talking about the last quarter.


Roy MacLaren: With regard to job creation in Canada, I am surprised the Hon. Member opposite does not realize that employment grew 0.2 per cent in April. That represents an increase of 25,000 jobs. Is the Hon. Member opposite suggesting that 25,000 jobs are 1,000 jobs? If so, his arithmetic seems a little at variance with the facts. We have created additional jobs in Canada. For example, adult male employment increased .5 per cent, or 27,000 new jobs.
The Hon. Member opposite should get his statistics right before he makes his usual doom and gloom allegations, which seem to be the stock-in-trade of his Party every time it discusses the economy. The fact is that we have created a lot of new jobs in Canada. We have also given the opportunity to new people to join the work force through our training programs, and through direct stimulus in public works projects, in conservation projects, and in a whole range of other directly funded programs. We have also done much to stimulate-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Again the Chair is concerned about the length of answers.


James Aloysius McGrath: The Minister does not live in the real world because there are still 300,000 jobs less in the country today than when the recession started. That is the fact. They are ahead in the United States.


REQUEST FOR NEW MEASURES
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Given the very serious economic indicators, for example escalating interest rates which will have an impact upon consumer demand, and given the unemployment figures today showing virtually no change in the unemployment situation-indeed, in terms of youth unemployment the situation is getting worse-what new steps does the Government intend to take in terms of direct job creation, and in terms of stimulation of the private sector, to offset the disastrous consequences of a Budget which seems to be blind to the facts?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman's real world is the world in his mind, which is often not very related to the facts of the situation other than those he has selectively chosen. Just to refer to his previous comments, in fact there has been an increase of 260,000 jobs in Canada over the past year, April to April, and that amounts to an increase in employment of 2.5 per cent. Those are the facts.
The Hon. Member may not have realized that earlier this week we indeed announced another $130 million worth of projects which were forecast by my colleague, the Minister of Finance-


James Aloysius McGrath: It took you three months to do it.


John (Moody) Roberts: -in a variety of projects directly related to creating jobs for young people. As he knows, or should know, this is one of the key areas of concern. The Government has been acting in a general way by creating a context which enables the private sector to create economic growth and jobs. As my colleague, the Minister of State for Finance indicated, there are a variety of special programs, such as the Youth Employment Programs and the Special Recovery Capital Projects Programs which are assisting in the creation of jobs over the short term.


NUMBER OF PEOPLE EMPLOYED
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration, who has turned to statistics. Would he indicate to the House whether it is correct that there are fewer Canadians working today than there were in June, 1981? Level with the House.


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I will level with the House. I can understand why the hon. gentleman does not want to use statistics. The reason is that the statistics do not bear out the case which he is trying to present falsely. I just gave him the facts. If he had been listening to the previous answer, he would know that there has been an increase in jobs of 260,000 over the past year.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: What about June, 1981?
May 11, 1984


John (Moody) Roberts: Instead of Hon. Members opposite seeming to show great lamentation, and weeping and crying about the situation, one would have thought that they would be a bit reassured and slightly more cheerful over the fact that there has not been any increase in unemployment over the past month.


EFFECT OF INTEREST RATES
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, again I direct my question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration, who is sometimes referred to as "Doc", one of Iona's dwarfs. Is it not true that if interest rates were not rising in Canada as quickly as they have been rising, his job in lowering the unemployed list in Canada would be much easier?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the hon. gentleman opposite is of such stature that he should criticize anyone else about being a dwarf.
I have already outlined, as we on this side of the House have done, again and again, the general approach we have been taking to the creation of employment. That general approach is to provide a context of support for private sector activity. That has been happening. Jobs have been created in this economy over the last year. The other approach we are taking is to focus on short-term problems, particularly the creation of youth employment and the support of entry of women into the labour force for the first time. We are doing that in a variety of programs, the most important of which may be that of Career Access, and in terms of short-term stimulation of the economy, construction through the Special Recovery Capital Projects Program.


FINANCE
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I will direct my question to the Prime Minister. He will know that again this morning the tragic unemployment levels are continuing in this country. At a time of the year when the situation ought to be improving, today's statistics indicate that there is no real improvement occurring in the country when it comes to jobs. Is it not time that the Prime Minister and his Government rethought the high interest rate monetary policy that is presently in place, and brought in an interest rate policy that would result in jobs being created, as opposed to simply creating profits for financial speculators? Is it not time to reserve this interest rate policy?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member persists in calling it a high interest rate policy. I notice he does not take issue with what I pointed out
Oral Questions
to him yesterday. He goes on to try to spread the myth that it is a policy that wants high interest rates in Canada. That is not only a myth, it is an outright falsification. Yesterday I challenged the Hon. Member to indicate how the Government, or anybody in a free society, could force lenders of money in Canada-the savers, those in ordinary walks of life who save money-to lend money to other Canadians at a rate lower than the rate they can get by putting their money in the New York market. The Hon. Member has not suggested an answer to that.
He should be saying there is a policy in Canada to permit lenders in Canada to seek the best return they can get for their hard-earned and hard-saved dollars. Maybe that is the policy of his Party. If so, he should say no clearly. Does he suggest that the Canadian Government, under its constitutional right, should force savers in Canada to lend their money at a lower rate than they can get by crossing the border? If he is suggesting that, he is proposing that we impose controls on Canadians which are not compatible with the normal operation of a free society.


REQUEST FOR CAPITAL OUTFLOW TAX
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the Government has not been hesitant in the past to impose penalties on people and corporations which pollute our environment. It has not been hesitant to impose penalties on Canadians who drink and drive and endanger the lives of their fellow citizens. Why are the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada hesitant to impose penalties on those people who would move money out of the country to take advantage, on a speculative money market, of an interest rate in the United States? As an historian the Prime Minister will be aware that other countries, on a temporary basis, have imposed a speculators' tax on the outflow of money. Why does Canada not do the same and allow interest rates to come down?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is making an extraordinary analogy. He is saying that savers, Canadians who save money, which is not an unvirtuous occupation, should be treated as we would treat people who pollute our environment or who drive when drunk. The Hon. Member shakes his head, but that is exactly what he said. He said that if we control drunken drivers, why should we not control poor Canadian savers-


Nelson Andrew Riis: Speculators.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Speculators? It is not only speculators who move their money across the border, Mr. Speaker; it is every Canadian who is looking for the best return on his buck. How would the Hon. Member propose to control those Canadians and not the drunken drivers?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how to respond to that.

May 11, 1984
Oral Questions


CANADIAN AND UNITED STATES MORTGAGE INTEREST RATES
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I will try to ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister and have him explain something to me. Because of the banking system in Canada, there is very little competition. Can the Prime Minister explain why one can obtain a long-term mortgage at an interest rate of 7 per cent or 8 per cent in the United States today? How is it that the Americans, with the competition that exists in the United States, can obtain those kinds of mortgages for their mortgage holders but, because of our restrictive banking system in Canada, with its minimum of competition, we must pay twice that amount? Can he explain why mortgage holders in the United States can obtain mortgages with interest rates of 7 per cent or 8 per cent in a number of States?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there are two answers to that question. Yes, I can explain it. The one reason is that interest rates are deductible for income tax purposes in the United States. Mortgage rates are deductible in the United States but they are not in Canada. If the Hon. Member is suggesting that-


Nelson Andrew Riis: The banks.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am talking about the mortgage holder, Mr. Speaker. That is the question the Hon. Member asked. In so far as making the banking system more competitive, there is a Bill before the House that is intended to do that.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The foreign banks?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, foreign banks which would compete with Canadian banks and therefore force Canadian banks to be more competitive.


REQUEST FOR NEW BUDGET
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Prime Minister who, in his heart of hearts, I am sure, will understand that the employment policies of his Government have been an abysmal failure as shown by today's statement of the unemployment level. We are now faced with the prospect of school graduates entering the work force and the prospect of an increasing unemployment rate during the course of this summer. We are faced with escalating interest rates. We are faced with the dollar being at its lowest level in years.
Does the Prime Minister not think that one of his last gestures as the leader of the country should be to arrange with the Minister of Finance to bring forward a new economic or budgetary statement before the end of June, so that we may adjust in terms of legislation and initiatives to these appalling economic prospects?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Opposition is preventing the Government from moving forward by agreement on the Budget Bills of last year. I am
not referring to this year's Budget but to last year's Budget. Now opposition Members are suggesting yet another Budget for which they would obviously refuse to move the Budget Bills forward. What does the Hon. Member want? He wants a new Budget, but he has not even begun to deal with the last one or the one before that.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister and his band of colleagues would bring these measures before the House, he would be sure that they would receive reasonable and appropriate attention.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER OF FINANCE TAKE ACTION
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister. The majority of economic forecasts and indicators now indicate that there are storm clouds on the horizon and we face the real prospect of serious financial collapse in our country. The Prime Minister can talk about the legislation that is before the House, but he knows that the Government is simply spinning its wheels and is preoccupied with the Liberal leadership convention. It cares not one whit for the people of Canada and the problems they are facing. Will the Prime Minister not tell the Minister of Finance to come forward and deal with the changing economic circumstances so that the people of Canada may be served, rather than the Liberal Party?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member began his question by saying "if the Government would bring the Bills forward". We brought the Bills forward last Wednesday, I believe, and the Opposition filibustered the Bills. We brought the Crown's-


Mr. Dick:: Bills? How many Bills?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. McKenzie:: Your legislation is no good.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Oh, yes, Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members would like to say that it is no good. Will the Hon. Member do me the courtesy of hearing my answer? I will then hear any supplementary question he wants to ask.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: They are not interested in having any questions answered, Mr. Speaker. The loud-mouths over there just want to shout about the leadership contest, and they are shouting about the leadership contest because they are beginning to be shaky in their boots.
m


May 11, 1984


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I would like to compare some statistics with him. If the Government has created almost 400,000 jobs every year for the last two or three years, how can the Minister reconcile that with the fact that, while the labour force has increased by
449,000	in the period from June, 1981, to April, 1984, actual jobs have decreased by 145,000? How does he reconcile that fact with the statistics that he is quoting? In fact the number of full-time jobs has decreased by 338,000 in the period of time to which I have referred. Incredibly, there are 348,000 fewer jobs for young people today than there were in June, 1971. How does the Minister reconcile his statistics with the actual facts?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, no one denies that the country has gone through a recession, and no one denies that we would still like to make further progress in coming out of it. The figures which I cited to the Hon. Member are accurate. Over the past year the level of job creation has been at 2.5 per cent. There have been 260,000 new jobs created. Over the past year, April to April, the actual unemployment rate in Canada has declined from 13.2 per cent to 12.1 per cent.
I am not suggesting that we should be smug, or that we should step back our efforts to do better. The fact is that the figures show very clearly that, over the past year, we have been making progress, and making successful progress. It seems to me that that should be welcomed and applauded rather than attacked by using another statistical base, which is what the Hon. Member seems to want to do.


DURATION OF JOBS CREATED
Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, the Minister can use whatever statistical base he wants. I have asked him to relate what he is saying, and what he has been saying for the last three years, with the facts. He has claimed that the Government is creating 400,000 jobs each year, and I have asked him to reconcile his statistics with the actual facts of the past three years.
Would the Minister not agree that the jobs that have been created are of a temporary nature, that they are being recycled every year, and that some jobs are being recycled twice a year? In other words, would he not agree that the jobs that are being created are of a three-month duration, and that every time someone takes a three-month job it is reflected by the statistics? Those jobs are being recycled and cranked through the statistics. Is that not what the Minister is saying? Is he not saying that there has been no creation of full-time employment? In fact, as I have said, will he not agree that there has been a net loss of 145,000 jobs in that three-year period even though the work force has increased by 449,000? That is the
Oral Questions
truth of the unemployment statistics. How can the Minister stand in the House and play with figures?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I think it is the hon. gentleman who is playing with the figures. The answer to the specific question contained within the rhetoric of his larger question is no, those
260,000	increased jobs to which I have referred are not short-term or temporary jobs. Those jobs increase the permanent employment rate in the country.


NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs who will know that in 1903 the International Boundary Tribunal unanimously agreed that Canada's international boundary on the West Coast would be the 54-40 line or, as it is known on the West Coast, the A-B line. As well, he is probably now aware that the U.S. Department of the Interior has offered for sale to American oil and gas companies titles to land south of the A-B line, territory that is in fact sovereign Canadian territory.
I understand that earlier this week the Minister sent a diplomatic note to his colleague in the United States, Mr. Shultz. However, many Canadians consider this to be an act of extreme hostility. I wonder whether or not the Minister might consider it more appropriate to take this matter to the World Court in The Hague immediately?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that that would be a wise decision in present circumstances. There is a major case before the international court affecting the boundary of the coast of Nova Scotia. In that case we exhausted all the possible bilateral diplomatic avenues before we went to the World Court, and I think it would be unwise to alter that particular practice in this case.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER CONTACT UNITED STATES PRESIDENT
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. The matter to which I referred would be very similar to the Canadian Government offering a chunk of California for sale to various Canadian oil and gas companies. The Prime Minister is a bit of a geography buff, so I direct my supplementary question to him.
The World Court in The Hague has just ruled that what the United States did when it mined the ports in Nicaragua was an illegal act. Would the Prime Minister confirm that every international marine chart, and every single map that has been produced in the world since 1903, shows that 54-40 is Cana-

May 11, 1984
Oral Questions
da's international boundary? The United States Government is now offering to sell Canadian territory which is south of the 54-40 line. Will the Prime Minister call the President of the United States and, at the very least, give him a geography lesson?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that 1 am not in a position to confirm the facts referred to by the Hon. Member. I missed the previous exchange, but I will take his question as notice.


INDUSTRY
Hon. Bud Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional and Industrial Expansion. The petrochemical task force report was presented in the latter part of February. Since that time I know that officials and Ministers have been working on its content. I wonder if the Minister is in a position to indicate when he anticipates a public response to the recommendations made in that particular report?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows, because he has made substantial representations prior to the task force report and subsequently, that there is a group of officials from various Departments working on recommendations to my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Ressources, and myself, with respect to the proposed response of the federal Government.
Second, as I responded the other day to the Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre, my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, has had discussions with his counterparts in the producing provinces with respect to the major recommendation in that task force report, the reduction of the natural gas price. If I am not mistaken, I believe that about two weeks ago the producing provinces and the Minister made an announcement in that regard.
Third, I have also had discussions with my counterparts in two of the other producing provinces on the industrial side, to see if we could accelerate a response from the provinces and ourselves with respect to the report.


SARNIA INDUSTRY
Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. The Minister has taken a year to look at the auto task force report. He has taken three months to look at the petrochemical report. There are 200,000 jobs on the line, direct and indirect. When is the Minister going to come up with an answer for the petrochemical industry in the city of Sarnia with respect to
allowing the 15 per cent discount, or, preferably, the Gulf gate price?


Edward C. Lumley: Mr. Speaker, as I said in response to a question put by the Hon. Member yesterday-I realize he works very hard and he has not had a chance to read everything we have put out- we have already responded twice to the auto task force report. Perhaps, more important than responding to the report, Mr. Speaker, we have taken action, and that is one of the reasons why I believe the federal Government has played a very prominent role in the substantial increase in employment in the auto industry during the past year.
With respect to the petrochemical task force report, the Hon. Member should know that pricing is the responsibility of my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and the producing provinces. I am sure I do not have to remind Hon. Members opposite about the discussions which took place with respect to pricing policy in the last couple of years.


FEEDSTOCK PRICE OF NATURAL GAS
Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, the Minister passes the buck again. It is his responsibility to create jobs in industry. If the feedstock price of natural gas is brought down, it will create more jobs and more export of finished products. Will the Minister give us his commitment that within one month he will have an answer that the Government is either going to implement this report or it is going to do what it did with the auto task force report?


Edward C. Lumley: Mr. Speaker, if we are as successful with the implementation of the petrochemical task force report as we were with the auto task force report, we are going to have another additional increase of jobs across the country. I wish I had the power to decide pricing across the country, and I am surprised at the Conservative Party. I look back on the negotiations which the former Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources held with producing provinces and I know the position the Conservative Party took with respect to pricing. I am not aware that we have that power, but we would very much like to have that power.
Second, does the Hon. Member realize that the financial assistance given, for example, to Petromont, and the opportunity for Petrosar-


Thomas Scott Fennell: That is a band-aid.


Edward C. Lumley: That is $100 million. That is a band-aid? I am surprised that the Conservative Party is now calling $100 million a band-aid, Mr. Speaker.
May 11, 1984


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. It relates to a situation at Niagara-on-the-Lake where the Department which he heads is presently building an animal inspection station. I am sure he is well aware of it. It is my understanding that the Minister had a visit from local officials in his Windsor office on April 23, and that he personally ordered a halt to the construction on May 1. Yet on checking with the mayor of Niagara-on-the-Lake this morning at approximately eleven o'clock, I was told that construction is still going on. I wonder if the Minister could tell us why construction is still going on this morning in light of the fact that he personally ordered a halt to that construction?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is partly right on some of the things he has stated about this facility. It is an animal inspection station which is being built near the Queenston Bridge, in that area. I am not at all satisfied with the procedure which was followed. I issued an order to stop construction, and I meant it. I told them this morning that I would personally go down there and bulldoze it down if they did not stop.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I will not comment on the "bull". 1 would just hope that the Minister means what he says, because it is my understanding there are a lot of people upset that, despite the Minister's personal request that construction stop, it is still continuing.


MUNICIPAL REGULATIONS
Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister a more comprehensive question. It is my understanding that the Government spent too much money to buy the land; it is in contravention of municipal and some of the provincial regulations; it has ignored the wishes of the local people, and even today it is ignoring personal requests of the Department. I wonder if the Minister would review the procedures within the Department which locates these kinds of premises or facilities for his Department to see that this kind of thing does not happen again? Surely the Minister can run his Department in such a way that he does not have to go and bulldoze facilities down and therefore waste money which has been spent by the Department?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, to make it clear, the Hon. Member knows that part of the footings, I believe, are established, and some fresh stone and gravel have been hauled on to the site. That is as far as the construction has gone. We held it up for eight days. Then I understand there was some misunderstanding and they started hauling gravel on to the site again. I talked to my officials this morning and told them that we want this construction stopped
Oral Questions
until we have all the facts on the table about what took place, who did what, and why.
It is not my Department which purchases sites. I am sure the Hon. Member is aware of that. It is the Department of Public Works which purchases sites and looks after building the facilities for us. There has been a need for a long time to have an efficient type of facility because of the horse racing industry and our inspection system. So they decided to go ahead with this facility in that area. As I said, I am not at all satisfied with it. I have a person on the job site at the present time to make sure that no further construction takes place at this time.
It appears to me, Mr. Speaker, that this site, from the evidence I have now, will be moved, either to the Queenston Bridge authority or to the industrial site, where it should have been in the first place. It will be either one or the other.


BANK ACT
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I would like to direct a question to the Minister of State for Finance. When the Bank Act was last amended, after a great deal of debate, there was a Section which we thought seemed to prohibit banks from getting into the business of leasing cars and small trucks. Now, apparently, the Royal Bank has implemented a plan under which customers can purchase a car or truck, borrow the money from the Royal Bank, and after three years they have the option of paying the rest of the loan and taking possession of the car, or they can just return the car and let the bank take it over.
This is obviously a way of avoiding that provision in the Bank Act, allowing the bank to get into the leasing business through the back door. Is the Minister aware of what is going on? If so, what steps is he taking to stop the banks from doing what they are not permitted to do under the Bank Act?


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, we have the proposal of the Royal Bank under review at the moment. The first legal opinion we have received is that the financing of the vehicle is a loan and not a lease. It seems, therefore, that there is no question but that what the bank is proceeding to do is legal. However, I would say to the Hon. Member opposite that our study is not yet completed and I would be glad to return to him on this subject at a later date.


REQUEST FOR AMENDING LEGISLATION
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I discussed this matter with the Inspector General yesterday. He told me he had representations from the Canadian auto dealers and the Canadian auto leasers. The preliminary advice he got from the Department of Justice was that this was in fact not a

May 11, 1984
Oral Questions
leasing arrangement. It was a loan with a balloon payment. Obviously the bank is trying, and succeeding, to do through the back door what the Bank Act would not permit it to do through the front door. If the legal opinion is that what the Royal Bank is doing is legal, will the Government bring in legislation to plug what is obviously a hole in the provisions of the Bank Act?


Roy MacLaren: As I
have indicated, Mr. Speaker, when we have completed our review of the practice of the bank I shall be able to answer the Member's question.


AIR TRANSPORT
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Airport user charges, air passenger ticket taxes, and fuel taxes account for a major portion of the price of an air ticket. I believe the Minister acknowledged that these charges may be out of line inasmuch as he has established a review procedure to look into this. Could the Minister inform the House what form this review will take and when it will take place?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the comments the Hon. Member made to the media on the air policy. He said that while he had some dispute with parts of it, he thought it was going in the right general direction. I appreciate the Member, who is learned in these matters, providing that qualified, but nonetheless important, endorsement of the policy.
With regard to the air review, I agree that it is a matter which should be looked at for the purpose of getting costs down. It is a departmental review as opposed to an outside review. I have asked the air administrator to undertake that examination. In the meantime, I have instituted a holding of any increase of airport parking fees for the forthcoming year.
At this point in time we will be examining not only the question of the cost involved but also whether there should be some incentive pricing system in order to provide an opportunity to use, more effectively than we do now, airports which are under utilized.


PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT OF LOCAL AIRPORT AUTHORITIES
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister assure the House that there will be adequate opportunity for industry and other input in the review process? Second, is the Minister giving any consideration to incorporating any form of deregulation within the airport system itself? I believe he has recognized that there is extravagance in the system. For example, is he considering the establishment of local airport authorities? That was recommended by the Hag-glund report, which I am sure he will find on the shelves of his
Department. If he is not looking into that, will he undertake to do so?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the study and have looked at it. There has been some discussion over the past couple of years on moving toward a comparable local ports corporation type legislation. At this point in time I feel it could be one of the examinations we would include as part of that review. I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that when I next appear at the Standing Committee on Transport, which I think is scheduled for two weeks from now, we might be able to get into this kind of discussion more extensively. I look forward to the Hon. Member's further representation. Any review which we make will certainly take into account the views of the industry and of the various associations involved.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. With regard to offshore labour, processors and producers in my constituency have recently been told that they must adhere exactly to last year's level of offshore employment. Last year they voluntarily attempted to cut back. Also, last year was a horrendous crop year and they obviously had to utilize less labour.
Would the Minister agree that common sense could be applied to the amount of offshore labour required for this year, even though it may result in a half a dozen or a dozen more bodies than last year being utilized? This would still be 50 per cent below five years ago.


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I agree that I want to approach this matter in a common sense way. Our objective, of course, is to ensure that there are employment opportunities for Canadians. I realize that sometimes these jobs are not one for which there is an adequate supply of Canadians willing to do the work concerned. The best answer I can give to the hon. gentleman is that I will take his question as a representation, reflect upon it, and see if there is some way in which I can make my common sense agree with his common sense.


WESTERN GRAIN STABILIZATION ACT
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture who states he has a great deal of sympathy for the western farmer. In the February Budget there were indications that amendments would be made to the
May 11, 1984

Western Grain Stabilization Act. In a press conference last April 25 the Minister, and his cohort from the other place, indicated amendments in order to trigger a payment. Can the Minister tell us when we can expect the tabling in the House of a Bill to amend the Act? Will that Bill contain amendments that will trigger a payment to farmers this spring?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I understand the Bill will be tabled soon. The Member will have to wait to see what the Bill says.


TIMING OF INTRODUCTION
Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, the Minister and Members on the Liberal side have been saying "soon" for months. What is "soon"?


Eugene Whelan: Very soon.


THE PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Chuck Cook (North Vancouver-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I want the Prime Minister to know that the people of British Columbia are simply pining away as he fades into the sunset slowly. I speak on behalf of British Columbia and ask the Prime Minister to please make at least one more visitation to the Province of British Columbia. We would appreciate another philosophical speech about those who live-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I question whether this is appropriate for Question Period. Order.


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: Will the Prime Minister come back once to British Columbia before he finally goes?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Since he prefers to compare statistics from one year to the next rather than over a three-year span, I would like to point out to him that a year ago in British Columbia there were 1,196,000 people employed, and today there are
1,174,000	people employed. That is a drop of 22,000 in the workforce. How does the Minister explain that? What does he plan to do to increase employment in British Columbia, which is the hardest hit area as a result of the recession?
Oral Questions


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I accept on faith the Hon. Member's figures. He should be a tinge optimistic because there has been an increase in employment of 5,000 in the latest monthly figures. For a more accurate response to his question about the difficulties of employment in which British Columbia finds itself, he should refer to the policies of the provincial Government which are so close to the kind of policies which would be introduced by his Party if the Canadian people were ever unfortunate enough to have it as the governing Party.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That is why you only have one delegate in B.C., John.


RAILWAY UPGRADING-BENEFITS FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA
Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Transport. The Government promised that as a result of the Crow legislation there would be thousands of jobs created across Canada and literally millions, if not billions, of dollars invested. Presumably those jobs would accrue to the areas which would be affected by the Crow legislation.
What has the Minister of Transport done to ensure that the industrial benefits which are supposed to affect British Columbia as a result of the Crow legislation will come to British Columbia for example, the construction of cement railway ties and all of the other components of the railway expansion which were supposed to result from the Crow legislation?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, to begin, I think the Hon. Member should be aware that just this week the Canadian Pacific Railway announced a letting of a contract for what would be the largest single construction project in North America, beginning in British Columbia this spring, in regard to the cutting of a new tunnel through the Rogers Pass. That will provide a large number of jobs and a very major investment for a number of contracting firms in British Columbia itself. That is only one example of a wide number of contracts. I take into account the contract recently let by the CNR for new steel rails to Sysco in Sydney.
There is an entire series of industrial benefits flowing across the country at the present time. I believe that the estimate for purchases this year will be in the neighbourhood of $1.1 billion.
In terms of ensuring that those contracts are given preference in the local areas where the work is being done, my colleague, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, and 1 have worked with the railways to establish a number of seminars across the country between the railways and the local suppliers. Of course he also knows that the western industrial benefits package is now available and presently being used to help enable western suppliers and manufacturers to bid on those contracts.

May 11, 1984
Petitions


FISHERIES
Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. He is aware that some 60 fishermen have been excluded from a traditional fish dock in False Creek in Vancouver, because the Minister's Department has signed a private contract for a wharf for fishermen who have wharf-side sales. Would the Minister inform the House at what stage are negotiations for making other space available for those displaced fishermen who have very little opportunity in the Vancouver area of finding additional space for their vessels?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I approved that initiative in view of the support that it has received in the last few months not only from the municipal authorities but also from several members of the Minister's advisory council. That initiative would help the commercial fishermen sell their catch to the general public.
I hope that this initiative will be well received by the public and provide an excellent opportunity for fishermen to engage in direct sales and thus enjoy a higher profit while selling ocean fresh fish products at attractive prices.
Depending on the success of this initiative, we might study other similar ventures that could be authorized in the future.


ARRANGEMENTS FOR DISPLACED FISHERMEN
Edward Allan Miller: Mr. Speaker, quite simply I wish to ask the Minister what arrangements he has made for additional moorage for those 60 displaced fishermen who normally dock their boats at that moorage and who are not selling over the side at the dock?


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, I will answer the Hon. Member's question within a day or two.


PETITION
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges) on Thursday, May 10, 1984, meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Jacques Olivier (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the provisions of S.0.46(1), I wish to table, in both official languages, the Regulations concerning the Canadian Sports Pool Corporation. Pursuant to the same Standing Order, these documents shall be deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.


INCOME TAX ACT
Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, I move that the document entitled "Draft Amendments to the Income Tax Act", tabled yesterday, be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. Following consultation with spokesmen for the other two Parties, I ask leave to move that the Committee make its final report thereon no later than May 31.1 propose that this be made a House order.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I have had an opportunity to reflect on this question and have consulted with the Government House Leader. Accordingly, we are prepared to allow this motion to come forth and be passed as an order of the House.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, considering the complexity of the tax Bill that we will be examining before the end of June, we have agreed to accept this particular measure today and look forward to discussing this in detail in the Finance Committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the Hon. Member shall have leave to introduce his motion, in the terms of the motion as indicated, with regard to the report?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered.


PETITIONS
Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, I have the great honour to present on behalf of the residents and friends of the City of Sarnia a petition signed by in excess of 1,000 people concerning the Petrochemical Industry Task Force report and
May 11, 1984

the early passing and approval of that report so that it will protect the petrochemical industry in Sarnia in a positive way.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, it would seem that a tripartisan group has really been on the ball because my petition is basically the same. It contains 8,800 names which would indicate the importance of this question.
The purpose of the petition is to urge the Government of Canada and the provincial government to implement immediately the Canadian Petrochemical Industry Task Force recommendations and to call upon all Members of Parliament to support a speedy and positive response to this task force report. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.



WESTERN GRAIN STABILIZATION ACT


Lloyd Axworthy: for leave to introduce Bill C-33, an Act to amend the Western Grain Stabilization Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Minister shall have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read a second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
Order Paper Questions
2. In (a) 1980 (b) 1981, how many times were these offers accepted by Cabinet Ministers or by other Members of Parliament?
Lloyd Axworthy: The
Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows:
1.	Yes, pursuant to Section 15 of the Aeronautics Act, Air Canada and other Canadian commercial airlines have been authorized to offer passes on a reserved space basis to the Prime Minister, Cabinet Ministers, Leader of the Official Opposition Party, Leader of the New Democratic Party, Speakers of the House of Commons and the Senate, Leader of the Opposition Party in the Senate and former Prime Ministers of Canada.
The same carriers also have an approved quota of passes for publicity, promotion and public relations purposes, and may offer such passes for free transportation to other Members of Parliament and Senators.
2.	The Commission does not maintain comprehensive records of free transportation provided by air carriers.


Mr. Howie: In the period January 1, 1983 to date did the Government give financial support to the research or development of the new cancer-combatting drug interferon and, if so, in what amount?


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: In so far as the Department of National Health and Welfare is concerned: No.
In so far as the Medical Research Council is concerned: Yes, the Medical Research Council did provide financial support to research or development projects concerning the drug interferon. Financial support given by the Medical Research Council for the calendar year 1983 was $613,095 (this figure includes salary support).
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)


Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 267, 462, 489, 499, 578 and 667.
EM&R-GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF NORTH CENTRAL ONTARIO


Mr. Howie: Did the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources authorize geological surveys in the Sudbury, Timmins, Algoma areas and, if so, what (a) was the purpose of the surveys (b) was the estimated cost of them?


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1. Does Air Canada or any other Canadian commercial airline offer free space on regularly scheduled flights to Cabinet Ministers or to other Members of Parliament and, if so, under what conditions?


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Yes, EM&R in conjunction with Employment and Immigration Canada (IEC) and Laurentian University undertook a program, consisting of five projects, in the Sudbury, Timmins and Algoma regions of northern Ontario.
Project
(a)
Purpose
(b)
Costs
EM&R	EIC	TotalMineral Data Base	To make possible the production of mineral distribution maps and	$104,786
listings of mineral occurrences in north central Ontario (general Timmins, Sudbury and Algoma regions) by collecting, coding and


[Stage Direction]
May 11, 1984
Order Paper Questions
entering basic information on these occurrences into the Geological Survey of Canada data bank. In conjunction, to provide information to the Ontario Geological Survey in their file format and update information for the EM&R National Mineral Inventory System.
Overburden Geochemistry	To aid and stimulate mineral exploration by detecting anomalous metal concentrations in overburden samples from greenstone terrains in the Swayze (Chapleau-Foleyet-Gogoma), Wawa and Gamitagama belts.	155,744	93,634	249,378Huronian Supergroup Lithogeochemistry	To aid and stimulate mineral exploration by defining target areas with anomalous metal concentrations in Huronian sedimentary rocks in the Algoma-Sudbury region.	222,691	160,246	382,937Rock Chemical Exploration Criteria	To identify target exploration horizons within the Onaping Formation, Sudbury Basin, and lithogeochemical criteria useful for exploration for massive base-metal sulphide deposits here and for gold deposits in greenstone belt terrains elsewhere in the region.	194,179	137,139	331,318Project Administration	To provide over-all co-ordination, administrative and clerical support	22,600	64,492	87,092
to the four operational projects listed above.
Mr. Howie: Did the Ministry of the Solicitor General conduct any studies relating to the illegal use of drugs and, if so (a) were any of them conducted by a person or persons outside the Department and, if so, what is a list of the name or names of all such persons (b) on what date will the studies be completed (c) at what cost?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: From April 1, 1980 to date: No. (a) to (c) Not applicable.


Mr. Howie: I. In (a) the current fiscal year (b) each of the two preceding fiscal years, with respect to the Medical Research Council (i) what total amount was expended by the Council (ii) how many persons were employed by the Council (iii) what amount was expended for staff remuneration?


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: 1. (a) Current fiscal year 1983-84
(i)	Total forecast MRC expenditures including salaries and
contribution to employee benefit plans:	$140,572,000
(ii)	Forecast person-years utilization:	50(iii)	Forecast salary expenditures:	$	1,750,000
(b) 1982-83
(i)	Total MRC expenditures including salaries and contributions to employee benefit plans:	$113,305,327(ii)	Person-years utilization:	42(iii)	Salary expenditures:	$	1,256,714(i)	Total MRC expenditures including salaries and	contributions to employee benefit plans:	$100,238,993(ii)	Person-years utilization:	39(iii)	Salary expenditures:	$	1,010,000


Mr. Knowles: I. On February 14, 1984 how many retired employees of the Canadian National Railways were in receipt of monthly pension benefits of (a) less than $25.00 (b) $25.00 (c) $25.01 to $29.99 (d) $30.00 to $39.99 (e) $40.00 to
$49.99 (f) $50.00 to $59.99 (g) $60.00 to $69.99 (h) $70.00 to $79.99 (/) $80.00 to $89.99 (j) $90.00 to $99.99 (k) $100.00 to $124.99 (1) $125.00 to $149.99 (m) $150.00 to $199.99 (n) $200.00 to $299.99 (o) $300.00 to $399.99 (p) $400.00 to $499.99 (q) $500.00 to $599.99 (r) $600.00 to $699.99 (s) $700.00 to $799.99 (t) $800.00 to $899.99 (u) $900.00 to $999.99 (v) $1,000.00 to $1,499.99 (w) $1,500.00 or more?


Lloyd Axworthy: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows:
Recently there has been no demand for a breakdown of the ranges of pension benefits under $100 a month. Consequently, CN computers no longer produce such information. If required, the data could be produced but it would involve an inordinate amount of time and expense. The following information concerning the number of pensioners and the monthly amount of pensions in force at December 31, 1983 was extracted from CN's present computer pension data base.
1. Number of pensioners receiving
(a)	under $100.00 a month	2,316(b)	$ 100 to $ 199.99 a month	2,652(c)	$200 to $299.99 a month	3,841<d)	$300 to $399.99 a month	4,122(c)	$400 to $499.99 a month	3,398(0	$500 to $599.99 a month	2,679<g>	$600 to $699.99 a month	2,194(h)	$700 to $799.99 a month	1,815(i)	$800 to $899.99 a month	1,670(j)	$900 to $999.99 a month	1,31000	$1,000 to $1,499.99 a month	3,5680)	$1,500 to $1,999.99 a month	993(m)	$2,000 to $2,499.99 a month	188(n)	$2,500 a month and over	57
In the group receiving pensions under $100 a month, there are a number of cases where the amount of pensions paid by Canadian National Railways do not represent the total pensions payable for railway service. For example, pensions payable by CN to international employees (service in both Canada and the United States) relate to their service in Canada only. Such employees also receive annuities payable under the U.S. Railroad Retirement Act or the Social Security Act for services performed in the United States.
In addition, there are various pension agreements between CN and other companies, such as Canadian Pacific Limited and the Ontario Northland Railway, where each company
May 11, 1984

issues separate cheques for its portion of the total pension. Only the pension payable by CN is included in this statement.
Also, since the passing of the Pension Benefits Standards Act by the federal Government on October 1, 1967, there are some employees who have terminated service with CN and are receiving rather small compulsory deferred pensions based on service performed only since October 1, 1967.
The balance of those receiving small pensions are employees who elected early retirement (before age 65) with reduced basic pensions ($25) and employees who had very short service and very small contributions.
Among those receiving a pension under $100 a month are those non-contributing members of CN's 1935 Pension Plan who receive a basic pension of $25 a month.
Since 1971 CN has made ad hoc adjustments to pensions paid to those who retired before 1975. Since January 1, 1984, CN has been providing higher monthly payments at a cost of $6.8 million in 1984 and an estimated total cost of $47 million. Surviving spouses receive 75 per cent of the pensioners' additional 1984 allowance.
Listed hereunder are the monthly increases by year of retirement:
Year of Retirement	Monthly Increase Payable to
or Death in Service	Pensioner/Surviving Spouse
1967 or prior	$31.50	$23.621968	29.00	21.761969	26.50	19.881970	24.00	18.001971	21.50	16.121972	19.00	14.261973	16.50	12.381974	14.00	10.50
In May 1984, CN will have updated pension data that will include the 1984 ad hoc adjustments. This information will be provided, on request, when available.
[ Translation]


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
International Peace and Security



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, April 18, 1984, consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen that Bill C-32, an Act to establish the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, on April 18 when debate was interrupted on this Bill to establish our International Peace Institute, I was saying that on the basis of past government practice, the way the legislation was drafted and because of mistakes like the appointment to the various institutions, such as the Science Council and the Canadian Transport Commission, regrettably our new peace institute would, in all likelihood, start life as a partisan, politicized and therefore flawed institution.
The recent zeal to push the Bill through the House, with third reading by the end of June, has also suggested that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) wishes to use it, at least in part, as a job-creation project for a number of people in his office who will presumably soon be out of work.
Happily, discussions have taken place since April 18. The Government has indicated a genuine willingness to amend the Bill in a way that my Leader and our Party believe would guarantee that the institute is truly non-partisan and independent from the beginning. Some of these include, first, that Section 5(g) be deleted so as to remove the false impression that the institute would seek non-government funding, thereby perhaps undermining several voluntary organizations in the same field. Second, that Sections 25, 26 and 27 be deleted, as my Party has asked, so as to avoid the perception that the government of the day would use this authority over by-laws to control the institute. Third, that Section 28 be amended in committee to remove the word "shall" and replace it with the word "may". Fourth, that Section 29 be amended to include, in effect, a statutory appropriation with a longer commitment than one year.
Perhaps even more important, Mr. Speaker, my Party and Leader believe that democracy in the 1980s means more than just casting a vote every four to five years for the candidate of one's choice. Participatory democracy to us means that we must also listen to Canadians and must give them meaningful input on matters such as the appointment of people to this institute: in a word, an openness to new ways, new processes and new ways of doing things.
In essence, that is why so many of us on this side of the House are very enthusiastic about our Leader's proposed amendment that all the directors of the institute, other than

May 11, 1984
International Peace and Security the chairman and the executive directors, be appointed by the Government from a pool of names provided by a number of representative Canadian institutions, including:
[ Translation]
-the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian Federation of Students, the Canadian Institute of International Affairs, the Canadian Teachers' Federation, the National Coalition of Voluntary Associations, the Canadian National Council of Ethno-Cultural Organizations, the Central Mennonite Committee and the National Council for International Co-operation-

-the Canadian Association of University Teachers; the Canadian Council of Churches; the Canadian Centre for Arms Control and Disarmament; the Canadian Federation of Independent Business; the Canadian Jewish Congress; the Canadian Labour Congress; the Confederation of National Trade Unions; the Quebec Federation of Labour; the National Action Committee on the Status of Women; and the National Council of Women.
I fully appreciate that many people would say it would be even better if any responsible group or individual could suggest names for the pool of names. There are now, as you know, Mr. Speaker, literally hundreds of such groups concerned about peace and international security across Canada.
Our proposed list is as representative of Canadians as we could make it on fairly short notice. A great many Canadians concerned about peace and security do find themselves, I believe, belonging to one or more of these bodies I have named. People who are not included and wish to be I hope will come forward to the committee and give their views as to what other groups should be added. Other groups should be added to the list as the Bill proceeds through committee.
I gather as of a few moments ago that the Government has not yet fully accepted our amendments on the appointment process. As amendments can only be made to a Bill by unanimous consent in the House at second reading, no group is yet on any list. There is neither list nor acceptance by the Government of our concept.
I understand that the Liberals may still insist that they should, in effect, make the appointments to the institute's first board after "consultation" by the Minister concerned with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) and the Leader of every recognized Party. The flaw with that is that consultation can mean whatever the consultant wishes it to mean. It can mean nothing more than just listening and then going ahead and appointing those who, in the exclusive opinion of the Prime Minister, are meritorious. In my judgment, Mr. Speaker, it is simply elitist to suggest that appointments can be negotiated out by the various Party Leaders while the standing committee studies the Bill in detail.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. The Chair has been listening carefully since the beginning of the speech of the Hon. Member. I wish to remind all Hon. Members that discussing particular clauses of a Bill during second reading is not appropriate. The principle of the Bill is to be discussed. Let me read Citation 381 from Beauchesne's Fourth Edition:
The second reading of a Bill is that stage when it is proper to enter into a discussion and propose a motion relative to the principle of the measure. On the motion for the second reading, it is out of order to discuss the clauses of the Bill.
I could carry on but Members usually recognize that the discussion of specific clauses is something to be done when the Bill reaches committee stage.


David Kilgour: I have not in the last three minutes been referring to any section, Sir. I think I am speaking to the heart, the principle of the Bill, not to a particular section. I respect what you have just said, of course, Mr. Speaker.
The reason we want the various organizations which 1 have named to propose people is that we think it is a more democratic, thoroughly non-partisan process which will also produce the best directors. We believe the people chosen from that pool of names by our process will command the respect of Canadians, thus getting the institute off to a flying start from day one.
There is already a fairly close precedent for what I am talking about in the legislation establishing the Economic Council of Canada. Section 4(2) reads in part:
Each of the other members of the Council shall be appointed after consultation with appropriate representative organizations to hold office for a term of three years-
We have here a chance to build on this precedent by going a little further, as in the amendment we will be proposing, by explicitly naming concerned organizations and requiring appointments to be made by the Governor in Council from among the names they submit. If this model works for our institute, Mr. Speaker, as I very much hope and believe it will, by all means let us use it again in other areas. We could have, for example, representative groups of lawyers and citizens decide who should be eligible for appointment to the bench in various provinces, as two provinces already have. We could have a peer group of architects decide which architect should win a competition to build an embassy abroad, and so on. The prospects for a more meaningful democratic process of truly participatory nature seemed virtually unlimited.
In closing, the vital thing for the Bill at hand is that we have an opportunity now to establish a wholesome and democratic appointment mechanism for directors. Let us show a little bit of originality and confidence in some very important national organizations on a matter of importance to them, to you, to me and to all Canadians, Mr. Speaker. Let us see the men and women they propose. Let us show all Canadians that all Parties in this House believe in both reforming our democratic processes and believe in our fellow citizens participating meaningfully in the appointment process of this new and hopefully successful institute.
May 11, 1984


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. With all due respect, the Hon. Member who has just spoken, by referring to the appointment mechanism, was referring to a specific clause. I would like Members to try and stay within the general principle of the Bill, as called for in our rules.


Mr. Pierre Deniger (La Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, the debate in the House today, on Bill C-32, is about a subject that is so important that it cannot be stressed enough. The House is being asked to vote on establishing an agency whose first task will be to promote peace. Does any Member of this House not hope for a future from which the threat of a nuclear holocaust has completely disappeared? We have now reached a turning point in our history where the possibility of a nuclear disaster is omnipresent and now, more than ever before, the leaders of our planet must act with great wisdom. I do not want to sound melodramatic, but we must realize that the survival of the human race is at stake.
Mr. Speaker, that is why countries the world over must try to work together and achieve peace between East and West, so that decisions are not made out of ignorance or because we misinterpreted the intentions of others, and ensure the fatal button is never pressed. Responsibility for the future of the world does not lie in the hands of nuclear experts or technicians but in those of our politicians. Thus, by sponsoring the establishment of the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security, the Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) has officially sanctioned Canada's commitment to the cause of peace. Only by increasing our knowledge of issues relating to peace, security, defence and arms control will we be able to take on our responsibilities and show the necessary leadership, a leadership both political and diplomatic, to urge the Super Powers to engage in a dialogue for a lasting peace. It seems hardly appropriate to challenge the intrinsic value of this proposal, to establish the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security. Similar institutes have shown that they have been able to expand and enhance support for the cause of peace. Mr. Speaker, I am thinking, for instance of the very respected Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, whose credibility has received unanimous recognition throughout the world.
Since the Second World War, Canada has played a major role in peace-keeping, and its efforts have been successful on many occasions, so much so that our country has acquired an international reputation in this field.
Today, we must have the necessary instruments if we are to continue to be effective in our role as a mediator who is recognized and respected by other nations.
Mr. Speaker, that is a role the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security would play.
International Peace and Security
Canada needs a research centre to develop its own expertise, without duplicating work already done elsewhere. Canadians must be able to define the parameters of a context in which a world movement towards peace must take place. What we want here is an exclusively Canadian perspective.
These problems are a matter of great anxiety and many Canadians are concerned. The advantage of the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security will be that anyone who wishes to do so may participate, since the Institute will be collecting ideas and opinions from all sources. Mr. Speaker, Bill C-32 proposes the establishment of a structured and independent agency whose main task will be to make a Canadian analysis of the world situation, on the basis of information collected from many sources.
Mr. Speaker, the Institute proposed by the Deputy Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs will be an independent body and act as a meeting place for discussion and consultation, where parties will be able to set aside political and day-to-day considerations, thus making for far more objective and less emotionally-charged debate.
The Institute will undoubtedly become an invaluable source of information and be in a position to advise governments at all levels.
Mr. Speaker, we are in fact being asked to vote on maximizing the value of peace. Following in the footsteps of the Prime Minister, who raised the consciousness of international leaders during his crusade for detente, I endorse without reservations the Bill to establish the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security, because it is an altogether praiseworthy initiative.
Mr. Speaker, thirty-five million people have been killed in wars since 1945. The steady spiral of the arms race to procure both nuclear and conventional weapons is maintaining a climate of tremendous anxiety on the international scene. In the Throne Speech, the present Government announced that it intends to devote its full resources to exploration of every possible means to restore confidence and trust among nations, particularly among the nations of East and West, and it has made a commitment to advance proposals to create conditions for greater international security.
This commitment has now been met in Bill C-32, which proposes to establish a centre whose purpose will be to seek peace.
Mr. Speaker, there have been some signs of improvement recently. There are signs of a common ground for discussion that may bring the leaders of East and West closer together. However, we must continue our efforts to prevent a catastrophe we would not even live to regret.
In the now famous novel "1984", by George Orwell, the Party's slogan is: "War is peace". Life, our life, is not a novel, and in this life, war might well mean, unless we decide otherwise, the end of the human race.

May 11, 1984
International Peace and Security


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


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to have the opportunity to address this subject today. It may well prove to be one of the most important topics brought before the House in recent times, provided the House deals with the issue in an appropriate manner and that the proposal ends up winning the confidence and support of the people of Canada.
Certainly there is genuine concern among the people of Canada today with respect to the prospects of a general war. It seems to me as an historian that the concern which exists today has been equalled only by the situation which existed in the thirties. At that time there was a widespread pacifist movement similar but not identical to the concerns of today. That movement proved to be very significant in terms of the history of the world, particularly the history of Great Britain. The subject was of special interest to me. The British pacifist movement was the subject of my MA thesis many years ago.
The end result of that movement was that it divided to a substantial degree the people of Great Britain. It is my opinion that the British pacifist movement virtually paralyzed the Government of Great Britain, and I would argue that the end result was not a positive one in terms of future developments in Great Britain and in the western world.
We in this Parliament must harness the concern which already exists in Canada in such a manner that the whole country is a beneficiary. The pursuit of peace has never been a partisan issue in the House. All of us are reassured by that. It is extremely important that the unanimity displayed to this point in time be continued. The most effective way to ensure that unanimity be maintained is to provide the general public with the greatest possible opportunity to make a contribution to this issue which is of vital concern to them.
As I said in the House some months ago, I received a communication from students in my riding, from the community of Souris. Recently I noticed in an article in The Globe and Mail that some students in Montreal had essentially done the same thing; that is, they wrote to numerous world leaders asking for some reassurance that the world would remain intact to enable them to mature and grow old. In passing, I note that the article in The Globe and Mail refers to the fact that the students in Montreal had their letters answered by some, but not many, world leaders. I regret to say that that proved to be the case in my example of the students in Souris.
What is unfortunate is that those world and national leaders, including some in this House, who received this letter did not respond. That is disquieting to the students. What the students, young people and all who are concerned about peace are seeking today is some sort of reassurance that we who have some responsibility in the decision-making process are listening. Furthermore, they ask for a demonstration of our sincerity. Perhaps one should not concede it, but quite often in politics leaders tend to posture in order to reassure. That should never be the case. It will be absolutely damaging if it proves to be the case in this instance.
My concern is that not only do we respond to those in Canada who are vitally concerned about the threat of war, but we respond in such a way (a) that we satisfy them of our sincerity and (b) that we satisfy them in such a way that they will have a direct input into the process. They see themselves as the victims if we fail. That is why the nature of this institute is all-important. Members on all sides of the House agree with the general objective. We agree with the proposal to establish the institute. We seek only to perfect that institute. We think we have a manner in which it can be perfected so that the people of Canada will believe, with real conviction, that this is their institute.
We do not need another government agency laid on to the people of Canada. Government has laid far too much on to the people of Canada in the past. One result is that Canadians have become alienated from the political process. They have grown disdainful of it. They tend to believe that government is something which happens only here and has very little direct impact on their lives. They way to resolve that is to ensure that Canadians in general understand that the peace institute this will be a vehicle which will be responsive to their own concerns.
Canadians have pointed out their fears and the problems to be resolved. I suggest they want to be an integral part of the resolution of that problem. By doing so, I believe we can make the whole political process more relevant to the general public. The people of Canada should have a direct say in the administration of the institute. They should have virtual membership in the institute. If we achieve that by turning to Canadians and their organizations, and invite them to be part of the process, we will ensure that this institute will have their support and commitment. We will also ensure that all Members of this House will be fully supportive of, and genuinely committed to, this very important principle.
If we do less, there is a tremendous danger that we are simply window dressing. There is a very real danger that we are failing those with genuine concerns and fears. What we must do is address the nature of the institute. By doing that, we will guarantee that the people of Canada will see it as their own, as they have done in other instances in the past.
As a westerner, I think of the co-operative movement which was born of the people of the west. While it has fallen upon difficult years in the recent past, for a substantial period of time it was a genuine expression of western concern. We have the opportunity to do that here once again. I urge that we invite the people of Canada, through their existing organizations, to participate in this process by informing the House of their candidates for membership on the board of directors. If we permit the people of Canada to do that, we will permit them to be, in essence, an essential part of the real being of the institute. We will be saying to the people of Canada that we have confidence in them. We will be inviting them to join
May 11, 1984

together in a genuine national institute which can in a nondivisive manner address the genuine concerns of Canadians.
That is why it is very important that we in this House agree unanimously to invite the members of the various organizations, some of which have been referred to by the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour). There would be some I would add to this list; for example, the United Nations Association of Canada. He perhaps did not include that, if I heard him correctly. That organization, the successor to the old League of Nations Society, consists of individuals who probably worked harder for world peace than any other organization in the history of Canada. I would include on the list membership of the Royal Canadian Legion for a perhaps somewhat dissimilar reason. They offered themselves in times of crisis to ensure world peace. By doing so, they offered more of themselves than all of us could ever do.
That is why it is essential that members of organizations such as those to which I referred and those referred to by the Hon. Member for Edmonton Strathcona be invited by unanimous resolution of this House to present to us one name in each case. I believe we have now suggested 23. I do not suggest it should be all-inclusive. We would propose, and it is essential to the principle of the Bill, that these 23 organizations and perhaps others be invited to submit a nominee to the Government which would consult with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) and the Leader of the New Democratic Party. From that list of 23 or 25 nominees, 15 directors will be chosen. As a result, we will have-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order. I believe the Hon. Member was in his seat when the Chair made remarks with regard to addressing the principle of the Bill. Suggestions the Hon. Member is now making refer to specific clauses in the Bill. This will be in order when the Bill is before the committee. For the time being, we have to stick to the principle of the Bill.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is my belief that the principle of the Bill is that we wish to create an institute which will work toward the furtherance of world peace and we wish this institute to reflect Canadian public opinion and to address the concerns of Canadians. That is why I made the remarks that I made. I firmly believe that the remarks which I made and the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) are germane to the very principle of the Bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. If the Hon. Member believes this, there is something he does not understand about the Standing Orders. The Hon. Member is simply trying to justify that what he was saying before was in order when the Chair specifically mentioned that it was not. I would like this to be made clear.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will conclude my remarks by saying as I did in the beginning that the pursuit of peace has been and will continue to be a
International Peace and Security non-partisan issue. I also believe that the pursuit of peace is something which is a by-product of public concern. What Parliament is attempting to do is simply respond to the expressions of concern which have already been made by Canadians to the Government on numerous occasions.
I support the principle of the Bill which is before us. I support the proposal for a Canadian Peace Institute. I would hope that this institute would take advantage of the expertise which already exists in Canada. I believe, for example, that within the university community there are a number of people who, by the nature of their disciplines, would have a substantial contribution to make in the area of research.
I hope that the Government would therefore provide support to organizations such as the Social Science Research Council, the National Research Council and the Canada Council. I hope as well that the Government would consider tapping the expertise of the Canadian medical profession, the Association of Canadian Phychiatrists and the like. However, what is of the utmost importance, Mr. Speaker, is that we respond to the concerns of Canadians in a way which will convince them of our sincerity.
Therefore, I must conclude, Mr. Speaker, simply by reiterating what I have said before. If we are to reassure Canadians that we are sincere and that we are creating a meaningful institute, then we must ensure that the institute be constructed in such a manner that it enjoys widespread public confidence. I believe we have indicated how we would ensure that that would happen.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Are there any questions related to the Hon. Member's remarks?


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I will put my remarks in the form of a question but I suppose they are probably more in the nature of a point of order. The Hon. Member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Clark) indicated that he thought I had left out the names of the Royal Canadian Legion and the United Nations Association of Canada. If I did so, it was indeed a serious oversight. Those are two of the organizations that should be high up on any such list. I suppose I must put a question to the Hon. Member. Perhaps I do not have to put a question to the Hon. Member. I would simply like to leave it at that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Are there any other questions or comments? We shall return to debate.


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put my comments regarding this Bill first within the framework of a set of principles that were laid down by the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) in the House on February 9. I think it is important to recall for a moment the principles for which our Party stands and which have a direct bearing on how the institute will perform.
In asking how we can best achieve policies which reduce the recourse to nuclear weapons in Europe and elsewhere, the Leader of the Official Opposition set down three fundamental principles to guide the formulation of policy. He said first that

May 11, 1984
International Peace and Security
Canada's foreign policy should always rest on a bipartisan search for consensus. Later on in my remarks I will return to the application of those words to this Bill. The second principle enunciated by the Leader of the Official Opposition was that the cornerstone of our security is NATO solidarity; and the third principle was that only through the strengthening of the non-nuclear deterrent can we reduce the present reliance on nuclear weapons. There is a great deal within those three principles to offer some guidance as we consider the best way to set up the proposed peace institute and the best manner in which it will conduct its operations.
I would like to draw to the attention of the House that it is our view, and certainly my view, that had the peace initiative undertaken by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), which as far as I know had the support of every Canadian, been set up in a manner following the principles laid down by the Leader of the Official Opposition with respect to bipartisan consensus, and had that initiative come from a resolution made by the House and a discussion in the External Affairs Committee, I believe it would have been strengthened domestically and, to that extent, strengthened in its international projection.
I also believe that the Prime Minister's peace initiative, worthy as it was, was deficient in that it lacked a broad consensus internationally. I believe that had the approach of the Canadian Government which was reflected in the person of the Prime Minister been built into a common front or a coalition of like-minded leaders around the world, it would have gained much more impact and stature and I dare say it would have had much more effect internationally, particularly on the two superpowers to which the peace initiative was directed.
Those two thoughts are linked in my mind with the need to establish a bipartisan consensus here, particularly on the grave matters that affect the continuation of life on this planet, and with the need to operate in a stronger way multilaterally. I believe that is a role for Canada to play. Considering the way the Leader of the Official Opposition has set out his thinking on the subject, I believe that when such circumstances arise that he is able to exercise leadership for all of Canada, following that perspective will lead to a more fruitful course of action.
I make those comments not in any critical way but only in a way that responds to a certain frustration that is in the minds of many Canadians who want more progress made on this crucial issue of the continuation of life on the planet and who want Canada to respond to this crisis in ways that are more thoughtful and more reflective of a sense of both domestic and international co-operation. I found some words to reflect the heart of my thinking. These words were uttered only a few paces from where you are seated, Mr. Speaker, when the President of Mexico, President de la Madrid, spoke to a joint session of the House on Tuesday of this week.
If I may, Sir, I would like to take a moment to read the words of President de la Madrid. I commend to the whole House for re-reading the entirety of the speech made by the President of Mexico. I believe the words that I am now going
to read are directly applicable to the kind of thinking we ought to be bringing to the Bill which is before the House today. As reported on page 3537 of Hansard, the President of Mexico said:
The world would seem to be skidding down the slope devised by the promoters of force. Technological development has relentlessly built up a deposit of destruction and terror. Both usable weapons and the leftovers of war are employed in attacks on the survival and dignity of mankind. While innumerable people are afflicted by hunger, unhealthy conditions, ignorance and death, millions are being spent to build an apocalyptic arsenal that is becoming increasingly difficult to control and presents a great risk of thoughtless use. We are witnessing an irrational cult to the capacity for self-destruction and to excessive spending to build up force.
Those are words which reflect the concerns of many Canadians as well as concerned people around the world.
All Members of this House would not agree totally with the comments which were made by the President of Mexico. That is to be expected. But I think there was agreement when he said:
In looking toward the future, each country must decide whether it will act in favour of a collective effort or to pursue sterile and egotistical interests in isolation.
I think that the time has come for Canada to play a very significant role multilaterally, and in doing so it will recapture some of the history of this country which made us an important force coming out of World War II when there was leadership on both sides of the House. When I say this, I am thinking of Mr. Lester Pearson and certainly Howard Green. There were leaders on all sides of the House who had the understanding that we must operate together and that we ought to be building a consensus of support that responds to the true needs of Canadians.
I think that the proposed peace institute-while it certainly leaves a lot to be desired, in my view, as to the fullness of Canada's response-is an effort that will make a step forward. In this kind of world, I think that one step forward is a heck of a lot better than standing still, even if the race is not won.
In the opening speech for our Party's response, the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) said:
-the concept of the establishment of a peace institute centred in Canada is of great importance to us. That concept enjoys wide support.
I think the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead properly assessed the mood of the House and, indeed, the mood of the country when he went on to give essential support to the concept of the Bill and said that the institute ought to play a "three-fold contribution to world peace and the Canadian policy: by helping the world nations to draft policies and plans likely to minimize the risk of nuclear conflict"; secondly, "by keeping Canada's own politicians and population well informed so as to increase their influence over public policies"; and thirdly, "by symbolizing the commitment of the Canadian Government and Parliament to make the quest for peace one of our great national priorities".
In laying down those principles, the Right Hon. Member very properly pointed to the fact that the Bill is flawed. It is
May 11,1984	_____________________________COMMONS
flawed in its principle. It is flawed in the espousal of its concept. That is why there has been a determination on the part of this Party to ensure that the Bill will proceed in a way that will guarantee its independence and will ensure that the credibility the institute should have in its opening days will be maintained by the perception that it is operating in an independent way from its very outset.
I believe the way in which those special Canadians who have been advising the Department of External Affairs have been treated has left a great deal to be desired. I have been a member of the advisory committee to the ambassador for disarmament. There have been two or three ambassadors. For the moment, I am leaving aside the question that the Government has left this very important post unfilled. I will not quarrel with that at the moment. However, I would like to make the point that when there were active consultations by representatives of the groups that were identified by my hon. colleague from Edmonton-Strathcona-and I was there personally to hear them-there was unhappiness and frustration by members of those groups because they felt that the Government was not taking them seriously. When the Special Session on Disarmament was held in New York in 1982, representatives of those groups attended in a formal way. At that time they felt that the Government was not responding to their collective concerns. That has built up, in the minds of some observers, an apprehension that if we are going to go ahead with a formal structure called the Canadian Peace Institute, there be put into place a system to ensure that those groups- and I do not mean to restrict my hon. colleague from Edmonton-Strathcona; I am sure he would put that list forward as a list of basic resources within Canada-will at least have guaranteed opportunities to suggest names, and guaranteed opportunities for input. That is very important in the understanding of Canadians. There is a growing number of Canadians on all sides of the perspective of the arms control question who want to ensure that these groups are not only speaking, but that the Government is listening.
The board of directors has been at issue with previous speakers. The appointment of the chairman of the board and the executive director would be within the purview of the Government and, of course, all the appointments would be the collective responsibility of the Government.
With respect to the appointment of the chairman and the executive director, I would like to make a brief comment. I think the Government has an opportunity to demonstrate that it is serious in ensuring that the board be non-partisan and will provide an opportunity to build a consensus of support; that it will be an organization whose stature will command the attention of all Canadians, indeed internationally, and will play a role beyond small domestic concerns.
Therefore I suggest that the board seriously consider as its chairman the name of the Hon. Robert L. Stanfield. I think that Mr. Stanfield is a person who is an acknowledged statesman, who is judicious and impartial. He is a member of the North-South Institute now and plays a very important role in that body. He is a man of great travel who has deep concern
DEBATES________________________________________ 3649
International Peace and Security
and presence. I believe that if the Government were seriously to consider the name which I have put forward, that would be a signal to all Canadians that this board is going-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order. The Hon. Member knows that he is not dealing with the principle of the Bill. He has made his point. Would he come back to the principle of the Bill.


Douglas Roche: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am certainly speaking to what I consider to be the principle of the Bill, but I acknowledge that your view is greater than mine.
In the moment that is remaining, I would like to put forward the view that this peace institute needs to take into account the kind of work that it is going to do. Surely, that comes right to the question of the principle of what the peace institute is. I think that the Peace Institute must ensure that there is accurate, reliable information of an impartial nature so that Canadians can come to a judgment as to the extent of the arms race. Indeed, we are quarrelling quite a bit about the figures that are put out by various organizations. My concern is that the people who frame government policy must have the most objective, impartial information that can be obtained. That should be a primary role of the peace institute.
With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I would like to return following the lunch hour to make a few comments concerning ways in which the peace institute could collect information, which would then lead to some final comments regarding Canada's contribution to the creation of greater conditions for world peace with security and disarmament in a mutual, balanced and verifiable way.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: It is agreed that the Hon. Member may continue his remarks when we resume this afternoon. However, may I inform him and other Hon. Members that if a discussion starts this afternoon regarding the way in which the institute is going to collect information, that is not within the principle of the Bill. It has been difficult this morning. It appears that some Hon. Members want to make sure that I earn my salary!
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, before the luncheon adjournment I was making the point of why the peace institute needs to establish its credibility at the very outset, and the kind of work we will expect the peace institute to do. In that context, Sir, I should like to quote from a very interesting article written by Dr. Don Bates who is a professor in the History of Medicine at McGill University and chairman of the McGill Study Group for Peace and Disarmament. Mr. Bates is a very well known

May 11, 1984
International Peace and Security
figure, particularly in his work with physicians for social responsibility. In an article in The Globe and Mail on Friday, May 4, Dr. Bates said, referring to the proposed institute before us in this legislation, and I quote:
What is required is an institute, in Canada, supported morally and materially by the federal Government, but international in its orientation-
Although I believe it is very important to make the point that we have been concerned about the manner of appointment to the board, I am not going to dwell on that any further except to make the point that members of the board of directors ought to have an international as well as a Canadian representation. I believe there is sufficient reason for making that statement when we consider that Canada's Peace Institute will have to look at the world scene in an effort to establish beyond the shadow of a doubt the correctness of the figures which have been put before the public with respect to the current nuclear arms race.
For example, Mr. Speaker, I should like to know if the following figures are correct. These figures are published by "World Military and Social Expenditures, 1983". This is a document which is used by many groups. It has an international standing. As the First order of business, I would like the Canadian Peace Institute to ascertain whether this set of figures is correct.
The publication to which I referred states:
As of 1982, the U.S. had 29,000 nuclear weapons, the U.S.S.R., 17,400. The U.K. had 446; France, 263; China, 304. These numbers include strategic, intermediate, and tactical warheads and bombs.
In other words, these are global figures. The publication continues:
In strategic weapons, the U.S. had 9,999 to the Soviets' 7,388, with the Soviets holding the lead in the number of launchers 2,452 to 1,832. It is in European Theatre Nuclear Forces that the U.S.S.R. has built a considerable lead over the U.S.

6,339 weapons and 4,424 launchers to 1,439 weapons and 1,283 launchers. But if the intermediate systems of the U.K. and France are included, the gap closes; NATO, as a whole, has 6,148 weapons and 2,766 launchers in Europe.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that these are the figures which are published in "World Military and Social Expenditures, 1983". Are they the correct figures? I believe that it is reasonable to request the Canadian Peace Institute to provide us with authentic information as to whether or not one side is significantly ahead of the other side in the pursuit of deterrents, so that we can make our political judgments. The publication continues:
Since 1945-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but the normal time allotted to him has expired. Is there a disposition to give unanimous consent to the Hon. Member to extend his remarks?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: There appears to be unanimous consent.


Douglas Roche: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank my colleagues. I will take only a couple of moments in order not to delay the debate unduly. According to the document to which
I have referred which was published by "World Military and Social Expenditures":
Since 1945, the lead in the race for improved systems has always gone back and forth between the superpowers. The U.S. led with the atomic bomb, intercontinental bomber, and thermonuclear bomb. The U.S.S.R. caught up and plunged ahead with the intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) and man-made satellite. The U.S. took the lead with the submarine-launched ballistic missile and multiple warhead. The U.S.S.R. countered with the antiballistic missile and caught up to the U.S. advance in multiple independently targeted warhead (MIRV). The U.S. went ahead again with the long-range cruise missile and neutron bomb.
Thus, we see, Mr. Speaker, that the arms race has been fueled by new technologies which have made nuclear weapons more powerful, more flexible, and shortened the time interval from launch to impact to only minutes. That, of course, is the great concern which is expressed by the public today. The time between launch and impact now, with the heightened technology which continues to go ahead, causes us increasing concern in many aspects of our lives.
Earlier in my speech I quoted from the speech of the President of Mexico to the joint assembly of the Houses of Parliament this week. He said we must understand that as we come into this new stage of technology we must find a way to put a cap on the arms race to preserve true security in the world. We must find a way to stop that security from being dependent upon a never-ending escalation of arms. I have said that it is the position of all responsible people that we must find a way to enhance the prospect for mutual, balanced and verifiable disarmament. It will be the task of the peace institute to consider Canada's special role in advancing verification for the monitoring of arms production and, indeed, arms control agreements.
We are not devoid of any opportunity of moving ahead, Mr. Speaker. Full documentation is provided in the Palme report which was signed by an international panel of officials from western, eastern and Third World countries including, I am glad to say, the distinguished former ambassador to the Soviet Union, Mr. Robert Ford. Time does not permit me to make an extensive analysis of or reference to that report here. I will only say that we are not devoid of answers. The peace institute must find a way of ensuring that Canada is able to make a contribution in a realistic way. Verifiability is a chief way in which we can make some progress.
From the beginning of its operation, the peace institute must be assured of its credibility by the manner of appointments to the board which has been suggested by earlier speakers. There must be full consultation with those groups which we have mentioned. The Committee on External Affairs and National Defence must be consulted at every stage from the inception of this institute. From the very moment of its beginning it must be assured that it will make a significant contribution to Canada's role in enhancing the prospects for true peace and security in the world. To make such a contribution would be a great moment for us.
I urge Members of the House, and particularly the Government, to establish this peace institute in such a way that no
May 11, 1984

one will doubt its authenticity and policy planners in the future will have reliable information to build on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Are there any questions on the remarks of the hon. gentleman?


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions for my colleague, the Hon. Member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche). We have had the campers in front of the House of Commons for a little over a year now. They are camping on the grounds in protest of the Cruise vehicle testing in Alberta.
I would say that slightly more than 50 per cent of Canadians are opposed to Cruise vehicle testing. On the other hand, the majority of Canadians support our commitments to NATO. Now that the campers have spent a year in front of the House of Commons, does the Hon. Member think that they should move and camp on the grounds of the Russian embassy? This is a two-way street. Both sides must disarm. We have received their message and are all for disarmament. Of course, the problem lies with the communists. I would like the Hon. Member to comment upon whether we should suggest that they move and camp on the grounds of the Russian embassy for a year to deliver the message to them. The campers have certainly given us the message.
We are talking about nuclear disarmament, Mr. Speaker. I would like to have conventional weapons included in the disarmament talks. Conventional weapons can do serious damage too. We know what happened to the cities in England and Europe during World War II.
Another issue which I think should be discussed with regard to disarmament is chemical warfare. There is enough evidence that the Russians are using chemical warfare in Afghanistan. We have also seen chemical warfare in the Iran-Iraq war. I would like my colleague to comment upon whether he would like those two additions to be made to the disarmament talks.
It is interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that in 1963 a Conservative Government was defeated by the combined efforts of the NDP and the Liberals because the Conservative Government was opposed to nuclear weapons being on Canadian soil. In 1979 the Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon), who was then the Conservative Minister of Defence, gave a commitment to have all nuclear weapons removed from Canadian soil by 1982. That is, to remove the warheads from Comox and other places in Canada.
Finally, is the goal of disarmament to convince both sides to set up monitoring teams so that we can ensure that both sides will disarm at the same time?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. The Chair doubts whether the question related to the peace camp is relevant to the Bill before us. Second, I would like to remind Hon. Members that questions or remarks addressed to an Hon. Member after his speech must be related to the contents of his speech.


Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for an interesting set of questions. I will try to respond briefly. The
International Peace and Security people who espouse the position of balanced, mutual and verifiable disarmament measures are protesting today against the arms race wherever it is found. Of course, the deployment of the Soviet SS-20s in Europe which precipitated the NATO response of the Cruise and Pershing must be condemned. I believe that those who look very clearly and carefully, as I am sure the peace institute will, will recognize that it has been the Soviet build-up of forces which provoked the NATO response. We must protest that very clearly.
The campers can certainly move to the Soviet embassy. Whether that will do any good, I do not know. Perhaps it would be a useful effort on their part to go to the Soviet embassy and make the point which my hon. colleague has made. With regard to the front lawn, it seems to me there is a larger question at issue. That is the question of the rights of democracy for Canadians of any persuasion to come unobstructed to Parliament Hill to make their point. It is a source of concern to me that nothing be done to impede the rights of Canadians to protest whatever cause they stand for.
Conventional weapons must certainly be reduced. If Canada is to make a contribution to the reduction of nuclear capacity in the world, we must bring down this nuclear mountain. In order to do that I believe there will be an increase in conventional spending in order to strengthen our conventional forces. By so doing, we would then not have to rely on the nuclear deterrent. To the extent that NATO is deficient in its conventional strength, NATO will have to be upgraded. Canada will have to play its continuing role, as I believe we are doing with our increase of 3 per cent a year. I am not qualified to say whether that is sufficient. I only make the over-all point that Canada must make its significant contribution.
With respect to the question of 1963, if the Conservative Government was listened to at that time, of course we would not have been in such difficulties which have resulted in confusion about our position. On behalf of the Government the Prime Minister espoused a strategy of suffocation at the 1978 disarmament session at the United Nations. There is some confusion as to whether or not this strategy will be implemented in everything that we do.
While I am not so concerned about the past, I believe that because of the never-ending escalation of the arms race, conventional and nuclear, a significant Canadian contribution would be to enhance verifiability measures. This would include on site inspection, which is a policy that was adopted in the 1978 United Nations session and one which we should support. More particularly, it is the enhancement of satellite verification measures. I think that Canada is particularly well equipped to contribute in this area because of our technology. We can make a significant contribution and thereby enhance verifiability around the world.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: One further question for the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine.

May 11, 1984
International Peace and Security


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, would my colleague suggest that the NATO countries unilaterally disarm in light of the fact that the Russians recently celebrated the shooting down of the Korean aircraft with approximately 265 people on board who were murdered? I fail to see how we can trust a country that celebrates the shooting down of innocent people in a jet aircraft.


Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, I can answer that question very briefly. I have not advocated in any of my remarks unilateral disarmament. I believe the position of all responsible citizens today is to advocate mutual, balanced and verifiable disarmament by the Warsaw Pact and NATO countries in ways that enhance their combined securities.
We must recognize the common ground on which we stand in the world today. As that common ground of survival is threatened by the never-ending nuclear escalation, I believe it is imperative to find ways to achieve collective security. I suggested earlier that the Palme Commission has provided us with a basic approach to find those ways to achieve collective security. This must be done but it is certainly not the intention to have NATO unilterally disarm. That would be a policy of disaster. I do not know of any knowledgeable person in a position of responsibility who would advocate such a position. However, we must ensure that our systems are not out of control.
The lesson to be learned from the tragic shooting down of the Korean airplane is how fragile our systems of control are today. We see many examples of how these characteristics of fragility in our international system must be strengthened. It is in our interest to make significant contributions toward strengthening them.


Mr. McRae:: Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of sympathy for all of the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche). I agree with him very strongly that a key requirement for this peace institute must be that it is totally independent.
During his remarks, I do not believe he was as passionate in saying that there should be a strong bias toward disarmament and getting the superpowers together through this peace institute as he was about other matters pertaining to this subject. Would he comment on the fact that that kind of commitment is an important criterion in the rationale for choosing people who will perform the necessary functions in that organization?


Douglas Roche: I believe that a strong rationale for choosing people is their possession of powers of analysis. They must be competent in their assimilation of the highly complex subject about which there are many different levels of information. They must have a sense of discrimination if they are to be charged with producing the policies of the peace institute. I suggest that the power of analysis is very important as well as a sense of commitment to the system of collective security. It is not necessarily a commitment to one approach to a particular problem because this is a multidimensional subject. I would
not want to see this as a board with a set of interests that are too narrow.
For example, there is a common characteristic of specialty in the field of development on the IDRC board which has an international representation. Specialized discussions are able to take place there as a result of the knowledge that people in the IDRC bring to those board meetings. I would expect the peace institute to operate in the same way, with a combination of analysis and commitment to the larger subject of obtaining a system of collective security through the strenghtening of international institutions in our world. We do that in common interest.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Resuming debate.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, it is said that the subject matter of the Bill before us today, that of peace and disarmament, is far too important that it be left to the experts. My speaking this afternoon will certainly demonstrate that fact. I hope that my colleagues in the House, such as the Hon. Member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche), the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. McRae) and the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett), will be merciful on me when I finish my remarks and not ask any difficult questions, because I do not pretend to be an expert in this field.
However, it would be my submission that the House of Commons and the country as a whole is united on its desire for peace. I have not heard anybody argue the contrary view. Certainly there is a difference of approach. It is the position of one of the experts I mentioned just a minute ago, the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam, if I understand that hon. lady's position, that Canada and other nations of the western world should lay down their arms tomorrow. They should not engage in any form of national defence. We should disband our Armed Forces, lay ourselves wide open and turn the other cheek, so to speak. The majority of people, including myself, would not accept that approach to life.
There are those at the other extreme who would argue that we must always bargain from a position of strength and that we should always be stronger than our enemies. Again if I understand correctly, this is the position that has taken hold in the two superpowers, both the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. I believe we must work toward a centre from those two extremes if we are to be successful.
I also wonder sometimes about what real effect Canada can have on world events. When we talk of successful disarmament, it would seem to me that the people who really must take the initiative and work hard at it are the two superpowers, especially if we are talking about the question of the nuclear threat and the use of atomic weaponry.
However, I have listened carefully to the views of the Hon. Member for Edmonton South and others. I think that Canada can play some small role in international affairs. At least we can have an open debate in Canada. The various views can be brought to bear and hopefully some distillation will take place, and perhaps by way of advice to superpowers or by setting an
May 11, 1984

example we can be of some assistance to our fellow human beings throughout the entire world.
These are philosophical questions which would undoubtedly be a subject of learned discussion at the proposed institute. I do not believe that there is anything wrong with wide-ranging philosophical discussions as well as discussion about more detailed areas.
I am also somewhat familiar with some of the peace movements that have occurred in prior years. I think back to the late 1920s, when Coolidge was President of the United States, and the approaches which were used at that time. There appeared to be two approaches both in the United States and in Europe. The first approach was a kind of simple way of doing things. If you read about, some people may remember, the "Outlawry of War" campaign that was active in the late 1920s and 1930s, there the idea was that public pressure would be put on governments so that each government in turn would sign an international treaty by which each agreed not to use force first in the reconciliation or the solution of international arguments. The theory went that as more and more countries signed an international undertaking of that nature that would, by its very nature, outlaw war. Everybody would have agreed not to use, as we call it today, the first strike option.
That was rather a simple approach but people felt very strongly and sincerely that war could be outlawed by this rather simple mechanism. At the same time as that movement was going on, there was also, just as today, government-to-gov-ernment negotiations on the major disarmament issues. They were bilateral, multinational, and they could focus on particular types of weaponry or they could focus on particular geographic areas. One series of conferences that went on dealt with the large naval vessels that were being built at that time. That was analogous to the nuclear weaponry of today.
Everybody thinks in terms of nuclear weapons and what we are going to do about them. They are very expensive and very dangerous. Things could go wrong in the use of them as deterrents. But in that day and age, the question was with large naval vessels. That was where all the money was going, money that could be spent better elsewhere for social purposes. A lot of manpower was to be tied up in these things. These vessels were looked upon in much the same light as the nuclear threat is today.
As analogies, today we have the SALT talks that are going on, we have the MBFR, we have the CDE talks, all on a certain type of weaponry or within a certain geographical area. There is, as other Members have pointed out, a good deal of similarity between the approach that is going on now and the approach that was going on in the late 1920s and 1930s. In light of developments after the 1930s, it seemed that neither of those two approaches worked very well. Most of the nations of the world eventually became embroiled in World War II. This gives me cause for concern at the present time. But because of past failures, because we have not been able to resolve these difficult problems in the past, I do not think the human race
International Peace and Security can afford to give up its search for eventual success. It is something we have to pursue even knowing that for the last many thousands of years of human history we have to admit to not being that successful.
You have permitted me to digress in general terms on the question of disarmament and peace-making, Sir. I would like to return, if I may, to the Bill proper. This Party gives general support to the proposal put forward by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). We have, however, had some concerns. We were not entirely satisfied that the direction in which the institute was to go had been clearly enough enunciated. We were concerned with a very important matter of appointments that were to be made to the board of directors of the institute, and especially the very important position of executive director, the person who will actually lead this institute into the fray and have a good deal of say over staff appointments, over where money is to be spent and who is to be involved in the process.
We were concerned over the true function of the institute. Was it to be something that was to be entirely separate from government, or was it to be something that was, under certain circumstances, to be seen as an instrument of government? It is pretty difficult to have both at the same time. If you read through the original Bill as presented and given first reading, it is not at all clear which of those two alternatives was anticipated in the Bill. It seems to take a little bit from each proposition. If the institute is to be entirely separate, has not its function already been fulfilled by other organizations?
I have before me a publication of the Canadian Centre for Arms Control and Disarmament. This publication is called the Arms Control Chronicle. The edition I have is number one, volume 1, I would imagine. In my opinion, it does a very good job of outlining the chronology of events in the disarmament field and where we stand now with respect to different sets of negotiations that are taking place.
I hope the new institute will not be superfluous. I hope it can be arranged in such a way that that will not be the case. If, however, it is to be an instrument of government or on certain occasions an instrument of government, what will be its exact role and how will it function? Will it, for instance, be privy to defence secrets, either defence secrets of Canada alone or defence secrets of the NATO alliance or the North American defence system? What will our treaty partners think when they tell the Department of National Defence in Canada some technical secrets relating to armaments? Will that information be passed on to somebody who is not within government proper? What will be the disposition of that information eventually?
If the institute is to have access to military secrets, will this not to some extent undermine its potential to deal with other parties? If it is trying to deal with parties from a country whose general view and outlook is not that of our own and is sometimes looked upon as an enemy, and at the same time it is known that the institute has access to military secrets, will that not make these things difficult?

May 11, 1984
International Peace and Security
What is to be the role of the institute in providing advice to government in its arms limitation negotiations? How can it be entirely independent at one time and then act in concert with the Department of External Affairs in conducting treaty negotiations on the other hand? That gives rise to certain difficulties to my way of thinking.
Our view on this side is that the institute should be as independent as possible. It should not be part and parcel of the Department of External Affairs or have particularly close ties with the Department of National Defence. There have been, Sir, considerable negotiations. I have copies of rather voluminous correspondence between the Prime Minister of Canada and the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) on the matters I have just laid before you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to see that these negotiations have been relatively successful. They have been slow, as all government negotiations always appear to be. But it does seem that we have now arrived at some form of common ground. 1 look forward to the presentation which will follow shortly to be made by the Deputy Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party in which some of these conclusions hopefully will be outlined.
In my view, the institute itself should not become a large and overwhelming institution. It should confine its role to that of co-ordinating and recording the work of others. There is a good deal of ongoing thought already in Canada on the question of peace and disarmament in universities and other institutions across the country, as well as elsewhere throughout the world.
One of the most important functions which the institute can do almost immediately would be to institute a central library for publications and for private material on these subjects. The collection and dissemination of factual information, as well as ideas and approaches which in all probability can be just as important as factual information, can be a function of the institute without requiring a great deal of money. It is something which can be accomplished fairly quickly.
We have heard speeches during this debate which suggested certain locations within Canada for the institute. My colleague outlined the good points of his home City of Edmonton as a physical location for the institute. However, it would appear that the most logical place for it would be here in the nation's capital of Ottawa. I do not see any necessity for moving it outside Ottawa. It would be central here, would have access to Government Departments and would be close to the embassies representing other countries throughout the world. It is a sensible, logical place for its physical location.
I would like to make a few last comments on the appointment of the board of 17, as I understand it. Although it has been said before, it is important that there be a good cross-section of expertise on the board. Of course, there should be people with expertise in diplomatic matters and people with knowledge of military affairs. As the Hon. Member for Edmonton South said, there should be people who are used to
handling ideas. We would look in the first instance to universities for people who have these particular talents. I would hope, at least at the start, that the institute would be a Canadian institution rather than trying to be a completely international institution. By far the majority of the directors, at least initially, should be Canadians, perhaps with some representation from other countries which should be kept rather small.
My final comment deals with the executive director of the proposed institute. This is a key position because, as I said before, he will have control of day-to-day affairs and I suspect much of the policy matters of the institute. My nomination for this job would be the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson, who unfortunately is unavailable. The possibility has crossed my mind that other ex-Liberal Prime Ministers could be candidates for the office-


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


Dave Nickerson: I have only one sentence more.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The Chair has been reminding Hon. Members most of the morning to try to abide by the Standing Orders and to deal with the principle of the Bill. Most of the speech of the Hon. Member, as interesting as it was, dealt with particular aspects of or clauses in the Bill. For the information of the next speakers, I would like to remind them to speak to the principle of the Bill. The only way that Hon. Members may get to the nitty-gritties or to the clauses of the Bill is to pass second reading and have it go into committee.


Mr. Nielsen:: No, no.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: I am suggesting this just from a procedural standpoint. I quoted Beauchesne's this morning, but it appears not to have stopped Hon. Members from dealing with particular clauses in the Bill.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, since I will be the final speaker for Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition on this Bill, it may be that I may exceed the regulation 20 minutes, but I would presume that if that happens, consent would be forthcoming to allow me to complete my remarks.
As spokesmen for my Party have made clear, we welcome the establishment of a Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security. Indeed, our Leader indicated to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) last April 9, after receiving the draft Bill from the Prime Minister, that the requirement in Canada for institutional restructuring and innovation in this field is beyond question. However, as has been made clear to the Government both before and after Bill C-32 was introduced into the House, we view the Bill as proposed to be fatally flawed in respect of the lack of independence of the centre, its lack of accountability to Parliament and the potentially negative effect that private funding of the centre might have on existing, indigenous centres of research.
In a lengthy letter of April 9 to the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) detailed these con-
May 11, 1984

cerns. Because of their particular importance in the amendments and deletions now agreed to between my Party and the Government, I believe it to be important that I give the House a detailed account of the attention of the Leader of the Opposition to this very important matter.
He did not question the Prime Minister's intention to seek to improve the quality and quantity of considered research and information on peace and security issues. He felt that this comes at a time when all Canadians show a growing commitment to search for both realistic and imaginative solutions to the perilous state of international security affairs which we know all too well. The creation of a new institute should be directed toward ensuring that this search is conducted in the best possible manner, and that peace and security is not allowed to become the province of one political point of view, one Party or one perspective.
Pluralism of ideas and pluralism of research cannot but be applauded and encouraged. However, that pluralism must be both real and enduring. This implies that what a Canadian government seeks to create in this area must ensure that its research and public information are protected from its prevailing political winds, and that Canadian research done elsewhere in the country is not distorted to conform to these prevailing winds. It also implies that if the Government truly seeks to encourage all worthy research and information efforts, a newly-created institution must not be structured so as to thwart those efforts, inadvertently or otherwise.
The following areas were of specific concern to the Leader of the Opposition. One of his concerns was funding. The Prime Minister proposed that this new centre be able to raise funds from non-government sources. He felt it was not at all clear why this was desirable. Far more than with this proposed institute, other Canadian research and information efforts are dependent on the goodwill of Canadian individuals, foundations, corporations and the like. These moneys are not unlimited, particularly in an area where Canadian funding entities are both cautious about donating funds to such controversial issues and where there is a very limited tradition or practice of supporting such activities.
If allowing the new institute to raise outside funds were to channel funds away from these other more vulnerable Canadian operations, one of two things might well occur. Either these other institutions or groups might be starved of funds or their research activities would become directed and rationalized through the mediary of a quasi-governmental body. Surely the Government does not seek to create a peace marketing board. The Leader of the Opposition was particularly concerned about the impact private sector funding would have on institutions such as the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies, Toronto, the Centre for Conflict Studies in Fredericton, the Centre for Strategic Studies in the University of Alberta, the Strategic Studies Program in the University of Calgary, the Research Program on Strategic Studies, York University, the Canadian Centre for Arms Control and Disarmament, Ottawa, the Centre for International Relations, Queens University, the Institute of International Relations, University of
International Peace and Security
British Columbia, the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, Carleton University, the Peace Research Institute in Dundas, Project Ploughshares in Waterloo and the United Nations Association of Canada.
Another of the concerns of the Leader of the Opposition about Bill C-32 had to do with its board of directors. He believed that the intent to have the governing body of this institute appointed by the government of the day would not enhance the confidence of Canadians that these very important issues were being approached in a totally apolitical way. Such confidence would be greatly enhanced if the members of the board were appointed by consensus of all political parties as represented in the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.
A third of the concerns of the Leader of the Opposition was publications. He believed that one of the most important elements in ensuring the quality and independence of research activities is the right, indeed the obligation, of a research body to publish the considered findings of its researchers. It would be extremely unfortunate if this new institution did not have such rights formally recognized in its founding legislation, as does, for example, the legislation enacting the Economic Council of Canada.
The spectre of a government censoring the results of research if such research was ideologically divergent or politically troublesome is surely to be avoided at all costs. Such dangers, however, are multiplied if the institute itself is financially dependent on the government of the day and must report to its designated officials.
A fourth concern of the Leader of the Opposition was reporting. The Prime Minister proposed that the Minister be able to request advice from this new institution. This is unobjectionable in and of itself. The Leader of the Opposition, however, believed that to ensure that all Canadians have access to the expertise residing in this institute, and that open and informed debate is encouraged, it would be desirable if the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence were able to commission this body to conduct research as well. Objectivity and openness would thereby be preserved.
Another of our Leader's concerns was recruiting. The Leader of the Opposition pointed out that a central symptom of the problem the Government seeks to rectify with this legislation was the unfortunate paucity of world-class expertise in Canada on peace and security affairs. It is troublesome, however, to observe that one of the most likely effects of this legislation may well be to absorb what talent does exist, depriving universities, private groups and institutions of their existing resources. Centralization of resources will have been purchased at the price of crippling unfettered analysis. This is what the Leader of the Opposition felt that a new institute could. Were the consideration raised by the Leader of the Opposition, which I have gone through, to be reflected in modifications to the proposed legislation, some very useful

May 11, 1984
International Peace and Security functions could be achieved. These functions, such as I will outline in a moment, are somewhat similar to some of those listed in the legislation, but their worth is increased significantly if the new institute is constitutionally freed from the pitfalls and problems the Leader of the Opposition described as I have outlined them today.
The first function is to centralize, increase and rationalize the distribution of government funds for research and public information; second, to create a national library and data base on peace and security questions; third, to provide facilities for conferences, seminars, et cetera, and funding of the same for other bodies; fourth, to provide facilities and resources to bring foreign scholars to Canada, either in-house or for the use of other bodies; fifth, to issue an annual, independent report on government activities in the arms control and security fields; and sixth, the provision of a review by Parliament of an annual report on the activities of the institute, including its financial operations.
Unfortunately, the Prime Minister in his response to the Leader of the Opposition some days later failed to respond in any significant manner to these suggestions by the Leader of the Opposition, although he did agree to amend the proposed Bill to include the relevant wording from the legislation enacting the Economic Council of Canada respecting the right and obligation of the institute to publish the considered findings of its researchers. As the House now knows, the Government subsequently introduced Bill C-32 in the knowledge that the Bill, as proposed, would not enjoy bipartisan support. Nonetheless, second reading debate commenced on April 17.
I do not need to review today the excellent contributions in that debate made by the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark), the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) and others, except to observe that those concerns which were based on our Leader's views as expressed to the Prime Minister on April 9 did give the Government second thoughts respecting the appropriateness of the Bill as proposed.
Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition was most encouraged by a letter dated May 1 that he received from the Prime Minister. This letter responded in more detail to the concerns expressed by our Party almost a month earlier. Specifically, my Party agreed to the following amendments and deletions: First, my Leader welcomed the Prime Minister's acceptance that Section 5(g) be deleted. This will undoubtedly reduce the anxiety of the existing centres of disarmament, security and arms control study over the negative impact Section 5(g) would have on private resourcing of their institution.
Second, with respect to its financial independence, my Leader welcomed the Prime Minister's acceptance of the suggestion of the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead that Section 29 be amended to include statutory appropriation on a yearly basis.
Third, with respect to my Leader's concern over the independence of the institute from government, the Leader of the Opposition welcomed the Prime Minister's commitment to delete Clauses 25, 26 and 27 and that Clause 28 be amended to remove the word "shall" and replace it with the word
"may". However, we were most disappointed that the Prime Minister continued to refuse to enable the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence similarly to request the institute to undertake research for or provide advice on matters involving international peace and security. Without such an amendment, agreement could not be reached.
Fourth, in addition to this, the major outstanding issue between the Government and my Party concerned the independence of the board of directors and the nomination process for selection of the board. The Leader of the Opposition found the Prime Minister's proposal for simple consultation on appointments to the board to be less than adequate in ensuring the board's independence. In contrast, the Leader of the Opposition proposed by letter of April 9 that these appointments be made with the consensus of all political Parties as represented on the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. He subsequently alternatively suggested that, to become a meaningful consultative process while at the same time leaving the Government the authority to nominate the board of directors, a section be added stating:
Prior to the appointment of individuals as provided in Sections 6, 7 and 8 the Minister shall consult with and obtain the support of the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition.
Such a meaningful consultation process would ensure that this centre would be politically independent.
The Leader of the Opposition further recommended that the Government formally consult with and obtain nominations from various national organizations. A preliminary list of such organizations was suggested to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). Such a list of nominees would form the pool from which the Government would select its candidates for the board of directors after which the consultation process as I have already outlined it would take place.
Regrettably, the Government felt unable to respond to either proposal respecting the board of directors, although it did indicate a willingness to accept the Leader of the Opposition's recommendation that consultation on the board begin immediately. We were, however, encouraged by the Prime Minister's willingness to accept the Leader of the Opposition's suggestion that Clause 28 be amended to enable the standing committee to initiate requests for study on the same basis as the Minister.
This left as the only outstanding issue that of agreeing to an appointment process which would leave no room for doubt that the board of directors would be non-partisan and would enjoy the confidence and support of all Parties. I am happy to report to the House that there is now agreement between the Government and Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition with respect to this process.
First, the Government has accepted the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition that consultations on the composition of the board of directors start immediately, especially with respect to the appointment of the chairman and the executive director, as they will be key appointments for establishing the
May 11, 1984

tone and quality of the institute. Second, the Government has agreed to immediate consultation with national organizations and interested Canadians with respect to receiving nominations for the board of directors. It is our expectation, as I know it to be the Prime Minister's, that there will be full agreement on the composition of the board of directors prior to the end of committee consideration of the Bill. Third, concurrent with this consultation, the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence will be examining the Bill and recommending a formal list of national organizations which, once the Bill is passed, will become the pool from which nominees for the board of directors will be selected.
The Leader of the Opposition believes that this process will ensure that the consultations will be meaningful, that Canadians will participate fully in the selection of candidates for the board of directors, and that the process itself will underscore the independence and integrity of the institute. I commend the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition for their diligence in pursuing these major improvements to this Bill. These amendments and deletions have enhanced the integrity and independence of the institute. We now await in committee the full and detailed amendments to which there has been agreement. Given the changes suggested by and agreed to between the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister, we will see a far better Bill coming from the committee.
I would like to make one final point, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the exchange of correspondence that has taken place between the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister. We would like to see that correspondence made available to all members of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. In this way, members of the committee will have available to them the entire exchange reflecting the agreements that have been reached between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition for guidance in their deliberations.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The question is on the following motion: Mr. MacEachen, seconded by Mr. Pinard, moves that Bill C-32, an Act to establish the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security, be now read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.
Divorce Act

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, April 9, consideration of the motion of Mr. MacGuigan that Bill C-10, an Act to amend the Divorce Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: When the House adjourned on the last day of debate on Bill C-10, the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) had the floor. As that Hon. Member is not present, another Hon. Member may rise to speak in the debate.


Mrs. Jennifer Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, today I join in this debate on Bill C-10, an Act to amend the Divorce Act, with both hopes and reservations. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that our deliberations will lead to a greater humanizing of a process which is, for the majority of those who go through it, the most difficult and traumatic experience they are likely to face in their lifetimes. I have reservations, Mr. Speaker, that this Bill is far from complete with its present proposals and that it is far from perfect as a vehicle which will provide that humanizing effect to the Canadian divorce procedure.
There can be no question that the divorce law needs to be revised and amended. The Divorce Act of 1968 has become subject to changing attitudes and social mores. Today, the Act is very definitely out of date. There is no question that change is due and that the principles of the original Act need to be rethought. The Act needs a change that will reflect that, no matter how regrettable and no matter how sad, divorce is indeed a very unfortunate fact of life.
Divorce is so much a fact of life that 40 per cent of marriages will end in divorce. However, recognition of those figures does not make the experience any easier to face. The rationale behind this Bill, and indeed the initiative taken on behalf of the Government in this area, seem to suggest that we can make divorce an easier experience without trivializing marriage in the process. I know that during his remarks at second reading, the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) denied emphatically that this Bill would make divorce easier.
It is because there appear to be confusing signals between what the Minister has said and what appears to be the rationale for bringing forth this Bill, that I question which objectives are really being addressed. I must also question whether we will not see as a result of this Bill a new and sudden upsurge in the divorce rate as we did in the aftermath of the 1968 Act. Such an upsurge would only serve to undermine the institution of marriage further. Before the 1968 Act was passed, the rate of divorce per 100,000 of population was just over 50. In 1969, it was up to 124.2, and that figure has more than doubled in the years since then.
Make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker. When a marriage is over and done with, I agree with those who say that it is in the best interests of all to end it. Ending it is especially in the best

May 11, 1984
Divorce Act
interests of the children of such a marriage, who are indeed the true victims of all tragedies associated with divorce. However, if we are not careful and if we do not exercise extreme caution, we may well create circumstances which make marriage dissolution so easy that no real judgment can be made as to whether or not the marriage has failed and is indeed irreconcilable.
This, Mr. Speaker, is the general reservation I have with the Bill before us and with one specific part of the Bill, its being the proposition which merely requires as a condition of divorce that the husband and wife have lived separate and apart for a period of one year or more that immediately precedes, includes or immediately follows the date of presentation of the petition.
I am sure the intention of this Bill is not that it be used to facilitate divorce on demand, but I question, especially when there are no children involved, whether that will not actually be the result. What requirements exist under the proposed Bill to verify that the couple in question have indeed lived separate and apart for one year? None that I can find. There is no legal requirement-no filing of legal separation papers and no letters of intent registered with the court. Indeed, the conditions that permit cohabitation during 90 days of the year, ostensibly to effect reconciliation, may well serve to obscure the deception being undertaken.
The argument may be made that when there are no children in a marriage and both partners agree to end the marriage, they should be able to obtain a divorce on demand. However, that is not the argument proposed by the Minister and his staff in the documents which accompany the Bill. If they wish to see divorce on demand, they should have the courage and the conviction to state so openly, rather than provide loopholes that permit them to say one thing and do another. It is this inconsistency, this slapdash attitude to this very important subject that affects the social fabric of our lives that I find throughout the Bill that causes me to hold reservations.
I have no objection to shortening the time requirement for divorce to one year. One year seems to be a reasonable time in which to determine whether a marriage has failed completely or whether it can be saved or reconciled in any way. I have no objections to "no-fault" grounds, as long as they are agreed upon by both parties, without coercion. But I cannot agree with the supposition contained in the Bill that in all cases it is preferable to list "no-fault" as the basis for concluding a marriage. This I cannot accept. Surely we are not so naive as to believe that once a divorce has been granted, the scars and injury of every single marriage, no matter how bad or how cruel, will be healed and that the agony and torment of such a marriage should not be taken into consideration when it comes to matters such as maintenance.
We know very well that there are acts committed in the confines and privacy of a marriage which would not be condoned were they committed in public against strangers. These acts would, in many instances, qualify for prosecution under the Criminal Code. The vast majority of such acts are committed against wives and minors. Surely they have some right, if not to financial compensation for the injuries received, both physical and mental, then at least to the understanding of the courts. Somewhere it should be recorded that such a marriage failed because of the very real, even criminal, fault of one of its partners. We provide financial compensation in Canada today for the victims of criminal injury. Surely we can at least give moral compensation to the injured victim of a divorce.
There is more than the emotional solidarity that a court can get in its assessment of fault in those instances where clearly there is fault. Surely there is a correlation between such fault and awards the court may make for settlement and maintenance. If there is no recognition of fault, how can we pretend that we will ever reach an equitable maintenance settlement? The Bill states that the courts will be obliged to consider the economic advantages and disadvantages of spouses. Where is the clear criterion for the courts to be obliged to consider, for example, the mother who has given up the pursuit of her career to raise children; the wife who has worked to help her husband through university and launch him on his career; the wife who has given up the advancement of her own career pursuits to raise children; and the wife and the mother who has been out of the work-force for some 30 years to 35 years or more and has no means of attaining self-sufficiency?
But age, experience and family obligations are surely not the only disadvantages created by a marriage. The mental anguish and insecurity caused by the behaviour of one or the other of the spouses is no less a valid disadvantage. To say that the court shall not have regard to any misconduct is to negate this very valid disadvantage. In my opinion, the use of the word "misconduct" to cover instances of extreme psychological and physical abuse is an insult unworthy of a Bill which purports to do justice. The concept of maintenance without consideration or regard to such misconduct not only ignores the very real disadvantages such a victim or spouse may have at the time of divorce, it also undermines the grounds he or she-and quite obviously in most cases it will be a she-may have at some time in the future of making application to have such maintenance orders reviewed. Are these victims of divorce, therefore, not to be protected? Do we not have a responsibility when amending any law to take into consideration and take the time to bring forth all the improvements that are required, and not just pay lip service to addressing a need that has been brought about by social change?
Let us remember that an abused spouse, indeed any spouse, may very well make agreements at the time of divorce just to get the process and the marriage over with. In such a case, and under the no-fault agreement, what recourse does a spouse have upon reflection to apply for an adjustment of the divorce settlement? What hope does a spouse in this situation have of obtaining that she or he should have had at the time of the divorce? Such a spouse cannot explain to the reviewing judge that there were circumstances at the time of the divorce-the severe mental anguish, even fear that prevailed-that acted against the spouse's best interest. The divorce was no-fault.
May 11, 1984

There were no such fears or anguish. As far as the court is concerned, there was simply no misconduct.
We are all very pleased, 1 am sure, with the recent news from the Minister of Justice that the provinces and the federal Government have agreed, at least in principle, to the establishment of a central divorce order register which should make the 75 per cent of obligated spouses who default on their payments think twice about reneging on their responsibilities. Elowever, I question whether the no-fault concept will not provide, through the conditions I have mentioned, an equally convenient vehicle for the avoidance of their financial responsibilities, and thus provide for more children, and indeed for the spouse caring for the children, to become wards of the State. As well, I question how much a court at one end of the country, upon a petition to review, is going to delve into a divorce that happened at the other end of the country. What guidelines or signposts are there in the words "no-fault" which might be instruction to disregard conditions, misconduct notwithstanding, that have influenced the original presiding judge who set the awards in the first place?
It is in the area of support and maintenance that this Bill has failed. It has failed to provide the means by which to ensure that individuals have an obligation to live up to their responsibilities-responsibilities they undertook upon entering into a matrimonial union; the responsibilities of providing an adequate environment in which to raise their children. With 75 per cent of spouses who default on their obligations to provide support, the recipients-in most cases women and children- become wards of the State. In Ontario alone, over 11,000 divorced women are on the provincial welfare rolls. To pass off support and maintenance as being strictly a provincial responsibility, as the Minister of Justice stated, is simply not the answer.
The Government should have the courage and conviction throughout this Bill to address these very real concerns, to provide a clear criterion for support and maintenance orders to be awarded, upheld and enforced. The Minister of Justice should not be trying to score political points in his bid for the Liberal Party leadership by introducing a Bill that is truly inadequate. This Bill is not clear enough. This Bill is not fair enough. It is not just enough, although the Minister obviously feels it is just enough, to fulfil the promise to review the law as it now stands. There are too many unanswered questions and too many new objections raised by its provisions, not the least of which is whether it is not laying the grounds for a whole new cottage industry of mediators and experts. Consulting lawyers, as we have consulting physicians, may be called in to advise the client's own legal adviser. This certainly seems to be the inference of the addition to Section 7 that advises lawyers to advise their clients to use mediation facilities to achieve agreements, including those covering maintenance. I hope I am mistaken in this regard, because this would make the divorce process more complex and more expensive. Thus the children, whom we are trying to protect, are going to be subject to even more trauma.
Divorce Act
In principle, I support the reduction of the time requirement for divorce to one year. In principle, I support the introduction of no-fault grounds. But let us be sure that one year means one year and no-fault is no-fault only when there is no fault or when it is amicably agreed upon.
I therefore urge the Minister to revise the provisions we have before us and to bring before us a divorce reform Bill which will help families, husbands, women and children alike through this difficult time and not add further to their troubles. I believe, Mr. Speaker, before proceeding with any great haste on this subject, that extreme caution must be exercised before making changes to an existing law which will have such a profound bearing on our individual lives and on society in general.
I hope that a complete airing will be given this Bill by all interested parties right across Canada, who would be given an opportunity to voice their concerns, and that the important questions of maintenance of a spouse and children, the division of assets, and the enforcement of such maintenance orders, will be addressed fully and completely.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: There follows a ten-minute period for questions and comments. Is there anyone who wants to put a question? If there are no questions or comments, we will continue debate.


Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, I feel certainly confident in giving this speech this afternoon. While I must confess that not every word I have uttered in the House of Commons has carried behind it all the research I might have wished, I can tell you, Sir, that, although, thankfully, I am not a first-hand expert in divorce, I have gone to the source of really deep knowledge in family law today and, as a result of that, I have these comments to make.
When I look at the key aspect of Bill C-10, it seems to be the introduction of a no-fault divorce after a one-year period of separation. The Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) has stated that, by reducing the required separation period from three years to one year, the adversarial approach associated with fault divorce will be greatly minimized. It is true that at present some divorcing couples are forced to have one of them take the blame for the breakdown of the marriage, and that this sometimes exacerbates an already difficult situation. However, the thrust of the proposal by the Minister misses the central reality of divorce in Canada today. The Hon. Member for Leeds-Grenville (Mrs. Cossitt) outlined very well the deficiencies which are present in this Bill, and reflected our concerns that a whole new examination be done before this Bill goes forward.
Elimination of fault grounds will not eliminate the adversarial process which is so destructive to families. Neither a three-year period nor a one-year period of separation will avoid the problems inherent in the present system unless the issues that are a corollary to the divorce itself are dealt with in a less adversarial, more humane, manner. It is necessary to

May 11, 1984
Divorce Act
distinguish between the grounds for divorce and the questions of custody of, and access to, children, property division and financial support, which must be decided before the divorce itself can be granted.
It is relatively easy to change the grounds for divorce. Reform in this area has been long overdue and, although provision might be made to retain fault grounds in circumstances where it would be unjust to force a spouse to wait a full year for a divorce, this can be done relatively easily. It takes much more courage to institute the kind of reform required to really change the way Canadians separate, divorce and then restructure their family lives today.
The adversarial approach to divorce proceedings, which is inevitably followed today, has numerous disadvantages. It is incredibly expensive. Estimates are that Canadians have spent over $500 million in legal fees over the past ten years. However, the emotional and psychological costs, both to the parents and to the children, have been even greater. Because the adversarial process forces the parties to take polarized, extreme positions, there is inevitably a winner and a loser, with the result that the parties come out of the process angry and bitter toward each other. Any possibility that they could have resolved their differences in a rational manner and continued to act as co-operative parents to their children is destroyed in the process.
How do we make the resolution of custody and financial issues less adversarial so that husbands and wives can spend less time fighting with each other and more time restructuring the family's future? I submit that there are three main ways: first, we need more precision in the law. Divorce legislation must provide concrete guidelines to the legal profession and to society, not vague statements of intent. The reason the courts are clogged with family disputes today, to the point where it can take two years to resolve all issues, is that even lawyers with the best of intentions cannot advise their clients with any degree of precision what a court will order in their particular case. The law is too general to allow any real predictions to be made.
Legislative steps have been taken to clarify the questions of cutody of, and access to, children, but provisions regarding maintenance payments, which are the subject of most court applications today, are still unclear. The objectives of maintenance payments set forth in the Bill do not begin to address the problems enunciated in the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in the Messier case. To simply state that a maintenance order is designed to relieve any grave economic hardship is to invite future litigation.
What are the rights of the young woman with small children who does not wish to work for several years while she raises her children? What of the older woman with little education and no marketable job skills who has become financially dependent on her husband during a long marriage? Are both these women going to be required to work to fulfil a requirement of economic self-sufficiency? How is "grave economic hardship" to be defined? Is the purpose of maintenance to compensate a spouse for the dependency created by a long
marriage, or simply to allow her time to become self-sufficient? If the objectives of maintenance, and the circumstances in which one spouse is entitled to maintenance, are not more clearly set out, this Bill will only result in an increase in adversarial proceedings.
Specific provisions are also needed with respect to the enforcement, as well as the criteria, of maintenance orders. As long as the law allows for a situation where 75 per cent of maintenance orders are in default at any given time, the courts will continue to be crowded with wives trying to enforce these orders. A central registry for maintenance orders, together with a stricter policy of enforcement, is clearly required. The federal Government cannot abdicate its responsibility in this regard by saying that these matters all fall within provincial jurisdiction. Joint action by the federal and provincial governments is required, and the federal Government must take the initiative in implementing these proposals.
Unless we have precision in the law, with specific proposals regarding criteria and enforcement of maintenance orders to the point where lawyers can advise their clients with some degree of certainty as to their rights and obligations, we are going to continue to see a flurry of litigation as judges are asked to interpret the law. The law should be clear enough so that adversarial proceedings are not necessary, in most cases, to resolve issues.
The second major way, Mr. Speaker, in which divorces can be handled in a simpler, more constructive manner, is through the nation-wide implementation of unified family courts. This type of court system has two main advantages. It provides husbands and wives with a single forum to settle all issues regarding their children, property and finances. The present system, which still exists in most Canadian centres, involves application to one court for custody and another court for maintenance and property orders, and still another for the divorce decree itself. This system is complex, unwieldy and very expensive, and any reform in the area of divorce must deal with this problem.
A unified family court has the added advantage that counselling services are available at three stages of the separation and divorce process. Pre-divorce counselling, when undertaken early enough, sometimes has the result of allowing people to reconcile before being caught up in an irreversible legal proceeding. Surely, this is a welcome and important aspect of divorce reform which must be encouraged. Even when the parties have decided to divorce, the counselling and conciliation services enable them to resolve all matters relating to their children, property and finances in a meaningful and constructive way. Finally, post-divorce counselling, designed to assist those parents and children for whom the divorce was a traumatic experience in dealing emotionally with the divorce and sorting out of their future, has been successful in minimizing the return to court by bitter and angry spouses bent on changing custody and maintenance orders. Again, federal and provincial co-operation is required to set up unified family courts across the country. The federal Government must be the leader in this area.
May 11, 1984

Finally and most important, Mr. Speaker, the current adversarial manner of settling the ancillary issues in divorce proceedings must be done away with through a system of mandatory mediation throughout the country. Divorce mediation is a structured process, usually involving both a counsellor and a lawyer, whereby these professionals help a divorcing couple work out problems regarding their children, property and finances without going to court. It is a time limited, practical process which focuses not on past wrongdoings but on future life goals for all family members. Particular attention is paid to the needs of the children. Whereas the traditional adversarial system fragments the family by focusing only on such questions as "What can I get?" or "How can 1 get even?" the mediation process forces the husband and wife to concentrate on their children's interests as well as their own. In short, divorce mediation is a rational, commonsense alternative to the adversarial process.
Although it is fairly new in Canada, divorce mediation has been an accepted way of resolving disputes for some years in the United States. An article which appeared in the Wall Street Journal some time ago reported on the two-year wait in family courts for hearing contested divorces. The solution advocated by one judge cited in the article was to get divorce out of the court system. The judge said that it is the ideal thing for mediation. The article went on to describe one American lawyer who refused to represent in the traditional way the parties involved in a divorce. Instead, he acted as a mediator, encouraging his clients to work out their own solutions to custody, property and maintenance problems. These matters, he maintained, were too important to be left to what he described himself as "a stranger in a black robe".
As the Canadian divorce rate increases, we must inevitably adopt the same approach to mediation as we now see growing more common in the United States. Most states have a no fault divorce. Mediation has been a natural outgrowth of that development. Studies show that in those states where mediation has been made mandatory, parties reach their settlements in a short period of time and at a fraction of the cost of court proceedings. Mediated settlements are also much more likely to last, minimizing the need for variation in the applications in the future. More important, husbands and wives are able to continue dealing with each other as parents and the children adjust to the separation much more readily.
Unfortunately, Sir, the sole reference to mediation in the proposed Bill creates a duty which is likely to become a mere formality. A clause of this Bill states that a lawyer must, in the absence of any real prospect of reconciliation, inform his client of the mediation facilities known to him which might help the parties negotiate corollary matters. While this legislative recognition that mediation has a role to play in the divorce process is welcome, the duty created by the Bill is not for a divorcing couple to seek mediation, but simply for lawyers to advise their clients of any mediation facilities known to them. The problem with this is that many lawyers are not in favour of mediation. That is the truth of the matter. This is not
Divorce Act
simply because it will reduce their incomes, but because they have been so strongly schooled in the adversarial process that they are reluctant to relinquish control to a mediator. They are also largely unaware of what mediation entails and how it works in practice. Thus, they have no real interest in or knowledge of the mediation facilities in their community and are not likely to recommend them strongly to their clients. Many lawyers now comply with the requirements of Section 7 of the present Divorce Act to inform clients of marriage counselling and guidance facilities only in a very cursory manner, perhaps assuming that by the time the client walks into their office, reconciliation or counselling is no longer appropriate.
Lawyers who may be in favour of mediation may not practise in an area where mediation facilities exist. These facilities are now found mainly in large Canadian centres, primarily in Toronto. Mediation must be made available to all divorcing persons, wherever they live in Canada.
The question of the cost of mediation must also be considered. Professional mediators charge fees of at least $60 an hour. Their services may not be available to all persons, particularly where a provincial legal aid plan is paying for the service. The Minister of Justice has expressed the hope that the money saved by the provinces through streamlining the actual divorce proceedings will be ploughed back into mediation and conciliation services. However, there is no guarantee that this will be done. Funds also need to be set aside for the training of professional mediators, for the education of the public and of the legal profession as to the benefits of mediation, and for the establishment of court and community mediation facilities.
The public is, by and large, in favour of mediation. Those mediators already in practice report a large number of inquiries from members of the public interested in finding out more about mediation. However, legislative acknowledgement of mediation, in more than just an offhand way, together with public seminars on the topic, are needed to convince those individuals with sufficient funds to litigate and those who feel they will obtain a better result in court to undergo mediation.
Funds must also be made available to train more professional mediators. Provincial associations of family mediators have begun to codify standards and ethics for divorce mediators, and courses designed to train mediators in accordance with those standards have been developed in major centres. However, more funds are required to make these courses available right across the country. Much more time and money must be devoted to educating lawyers about mediation. Because most divorcing couples now visit a lawyer before any other professional, that person has enormous influence over the way the divorce will be handled. If the lawyer does not advocate mediation, chances are the case will be handled in the traditional, adversarial way.
Law schools have begun to incorporate interviewing and counselling courses into their curricula. Mediation is now being taught to lawyers at the bar admission course level. However, lawyers already used to practising in the adversarial

May 11, 1984
Divorce Act
way are sometimes threatened by mediation. They are afraid that it will undermine their years of training and destroy their livelihood. These lawyers must be taught that they have a vital role to play in the mediation process, either by working in conjunction with the other lawyer and a non-lawyer mediator, or by acting as mediators themselves.
Studies in the American states, where mediation has been going on for some years, show that it is most successful when carried out by a lawyer-counsellor team. This interdisciplinary approach is a recognition of the fact that divorce is both a legal and an emotional problem and that the parties are better able to handle their divorce in a constructive manner when both these issues are addressed. A legal resolution which ignores the client's psychological needs is as inappropriate as a psychological resolution which conflicts with the client's legal needs. Lawyers do not usually have the psychological awareness and interpersonal communication skills necessary to mediate custody and access issues. A mental health professional trained in this area, with expertise and experience in dealing with children, can more easily help the parties come to an agreement on these issues. However, the mental health specialist is rarely trained in the law, and the parties need a lawyer's advice about property and financial settlements. By working together, Sir, the lawyers and the counsellor can help the parties arrive at a total settlement which resolves all their problems.
In conclusion, these are my three suggestions for reform: greater precision in the law, unified family courts, and mandatory mediation. They work together.
Only when the provisions of the law are set out with sufficient clarity that lawyers can predict the outcome of a given case with some certainty, will both lawyers and individuals be more accepting of the mediation process. Unified family courts will provide the framework for divorcing couples to obtain both the counselling and the legal advice they need to settle their case.
There is a profound need in Canada today for the humanization of our divorce system. This will not be accomplished by providing for no-fault divorce and tinkering with other reforms. These reforms must be set out clearly in any divorce legislation, if we are to reflect the reality of what is happening when thousands of couples divorce each year. Otherwise, our present system of settling divorce problems through expensive, time-consuming and contentious litigation will only continue, and the fact that we have no-fault divorce in this country will not stop the destruction of family life as we know it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: There follows a ten-minute period for questions or comments.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member. He made a very excellent and thought-provoking speech. I am disturbed by the fact that this Bill was drafted by lawyers when we should have had the Bill that had input from
family and marriage counsellors. That was one of the positive suggestions made by the Hon. Member who just spoke.
Given the fact that I agree wholeheartedly that if there is to be no-fault divorce there must be some form of mandatory mediation, what has been the experience in other jurisdictions in terms of the success ratio of this mandatory mediation and what is the time-frame involved? In fact, is there a time-frame imposed by the courts for the mediation process?


Douglas Roche: I was thinking of this Bill in relation to the Bill which we debated earlier today. The point was made at that time that if input had been made into the preparation of that legislation by the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, it would have assured a much wider and a more contemporary approach, and the Bill would have been improved prior to its being presented to us. Similarly, the Hon. Member mentioned the question of mediators. I believe that this Bill was drafted in the confines of the Justice Department and did not have sufficient input from mediators. I suggest that this raises a much larger question about how legislation comes to the House before Members have an opportunity to see it, especially those Members who are on committees that are relevant to the legislation to be introduced. Those Members who have the expertise and appropriate background would be able greatly to shorten the time needed for debate at second reading because of the input that could be given at the pre-presentation stage. That would certainly enable the House to move on to a one-day debate on second reading, provided that that input had been made in a parliamentary way.
1 believe that the research and surveys show that where there is mandatory mediation in those jurisdictions where it applies, there have been significant improvements in reconciliation. Furthermore, the savings in costs that would have otherwise been used in court proceedings can be used to train more mediators. Not only is there an economic benefit at that level, there is a much greater human benefit in helping families to stay together.


Mr. Thacker:: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question with respect to mediation services. Could the Hon. Member indicate from his reading whether the mediation services are provided at public expense, or would it be by psychologists holding themselves out as professionals at the street level? Would they be triggered by the law after a divorce petition had been issued, or would it be mandatory to have a certificate from a mediator before a person issued the petition? Could the Hon. Member tell me what the practice is in the United States?


Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the payment for mediation services, I believe it should be done at both levels. There should be public money available for the services and there should also be private payment by the couples concerned. In this respect, I think there needs to be a very detailed study made into how this applies to other jurisdictions so that we could advance the concept of mandatory mediation.
May 11, 1984

I have experienced a great deal of resistance even among those who are on the Justice Committee who, because of their legal background, do not believe that conciliation has a structured process in the legal proceedings. Until they improve their own understanding of this, we will not be ready to ascribe the whole question of costs.
In answer to the Hon. Member, my personal opinion is that the costs should be borne both publicly and privately. I think the destruction of family life and the resulting divorce is a societal matter and not only a private concern. I think there is a great deal about marriage today, about its input into society and how it strengthens society, that has been lost by current standards. As to when this would be done with respect to the decree, the conciliation process should take place before.


Mr. Patterson:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the Hon. Member for the very careful and thoughtful presentation which he made today. With respect to the idea of mandatory mediation, there have been suggestions that there ought to be some consideration given to the feasibility of premarital counselling. Has the Hon. Member given any consideration to this in the discussions and research in which he has engaged?


Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, I have believed for some time that the divorce rate in our country would be lower if more attention were paid in a structured sense to premarriage instruction. This is also a controversial question which concerns, among other things, the rights of people.
We have lost sight of the marriage contract as a centrepiece of our society. As a result, there are huge manifestations and repercussions from that in our society. Therefore, the commitment of two people to stay together to weather the storm that inevitably enters any marriage is weakened to the extent that the centrality of the societal importance of it was not understood at the very beginning.
That brings us directly to premarriage counselling. Religions throughout our society have always advocated premarriage instruction. They do not always have the facilities to do so. While I would not suggest that it should only be religions that have this right, I believe that if there were greater fostering and a deeper understanding through the mediation process of the commitment of marriage and its contituation as a societal contract, there would then be a greater understanding of the need to enter into this contract. There would be a better understanding that society assumes its own responsibility for financing it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: If there are no further questions or comments, we will proceed to debate.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-10, the Divorce Bill, has the appearance of a reformed Bill. However, it does very little to reform the way society faces divorce in this country. It probably makes one important reform, a reform that has long been part of the New Democratic Party policy, that marriage breakdown is the sole grounds for divorce. Otherwise, this Bill is grossly deficient, particularly in the area of maintenance, particularly when it
Divorce Act
might worsen the economic situation of women, especially those who are long-term homemakers who face divorce.
There are many amendments within the federal jurisdiction that we would like to see introduced in this Bill. They also involve other pieces of legislation within the jurisdiction of the federal Government. Not only are we limited because this Bill deals just with the Divorce Act, but we think this is a particularly good time for the federal Government to look at the whole procedure and make some broader changes to the legislation. It would be interesting to put before this House, something which has probably been done before and will be done again, some quotations and items that have been put to the committee studying divorce. For instance, the Canadian Advisory Council on the status of Women, on January 20, 1984, said:
-the dignity conferred by non-adversarial divorce proceedings must be undermined by economic losses that could easily come about if fair and effective support enforcement procedures are not explicitly made into law.
This is a direct reference to some of the needs for changes in the Divorce Act. The Law Reform Commission of Canada's report on family law, Enforcement of Maintenance Orders, 1976, had this statement:
Reform involves two courses of action. First there must be an effort by government in Canada to improve individual laws and practices that deal directly with maintenance enforcement. Second, the whole body of marriage breakdown law must be thoroughly re-shaped. It is as much the traditional fault-and-adversary foundation of this law as it is the particular deficiencies in enforcement techniques that account for the appalling record of non-payment of maintenance obligations in Canada.
Bill C-10 deals with only half of the problem or less than half of the problem. The Minister in the introduction of this Bill suggested that the Bill involved broad, revised and comprehensive measures on maintenance. The Minister claimed that this Bill goes as far as the federal Government can possibly go, especially in terms of maintenance and its enforcement. But that is not true. One of the things that needs to be explored in committee is how far and in what areas the maintenance procedures can be strengthened.
In dealing with this Bill, Mr. Speaker, we do not intend to support it on second reading, but we do intend to try to bring before the committee a large number of possible changes and an appeal to the Government to take a broader look at the needs of people facing divorce in Canadian society.
I would like to spend the next few moments going over the Bill based on broad principle and pointing out where there are some areas which the Government and which we as a Parliament need to look at in an attempt to make it a much better Bill than it already is.
First, marriage breakdown as the sole ground for divorce is probably the most welcome provision in the divorce Bill. Making marriage breakdown the sole ground for divorce has been our Party policy since 1967. It has been a position that has been supported by a number of churches since about that time, or even before then. No-fault divorce, as it is sometimes called, is supported by most women's groups, social service

May 11, 1984
Bonus Bond Draw
agencies and many churches. Again, I would like to quote from a brief of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women which was presented to the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) last year. This is what we find in it:
Marriage must be recognized as an equal partnership entered into voluntarily by a woman and a man. Once one of the parties has decided that the partnership is not working, the relationship is clearly ended and no legal rule will make it work. That spouse should be able to declare that the marriage has broken down, and that declaration should be regarded as sufficient to prove the breakdown. Proof of separation or fault should not be required.
I do not necessarily agree with that position, but it is a position of a very active group of women who have spent a considerable amount of time taking care of what they consider to be the major areas of welfare that need to be guarded for women particularly. Right now we have a huge backlog of court cases. Quite often, because of the fault provision which is in the present Divorce Act, these cases take much longer than necessary. No-fault divorce would affect almost 90 per cent of divorce actions that come before the courts. In other words, almost 90 per cent of divorce actions are not contested in any way and consequently would fit even now under this definition of no-fault divorce or marriage breakdown. I do not particularly like the phrase no fault. I think marriage breakdown as the only ground for divorce is a much better terminology. The idea that people must publicly, and sometimes falsely, admit to committing offences such as adultery so as to speed up the legal process is abhorrent. People should not have to lie, which is the case in many situations, to expedite the process of divorce. Quite often naming a third person, who might not have been involved particularly in the breakdown but is dragged into it because of the requirements of the law-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member, but his time has expired.
It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS

["Order. The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.\nIt being five o'clock, the House stands adjourned until next Monday, May 14, at 2 p.m., pursuant to order of Wednesday, April 18, 1984.\nAt 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.", 'Monday, May 14, 1984']
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Shall all orders and items preceding No. 97 stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Stood by unanimous consent.



A. Daniel McKenzie: That the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs be empowered to study and report on (1) the advisability of creating a Bonus Bond Draw to help partially finance the financial requirements of the government and to consider whether those requirements should be specifically designated and, if so, to which purposes (2) the means by which a Bonus Bond Draw could be designed to provide an added incentive to purchase and retain the bonds by means of tax-free prizes, drawn at random in the manner of a lottery.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a brief explana-	*
tion of the bonus bond draw. The bonus bond draw would be	I
similar to a lottery ticket draw. However, if one did not have a	I
lucky number, the Government would pay the interest on the	I
amount of the ticket and one could draw tax-free interest on	I
the amount spent on purchasing the bonus bond or lottery	I
ticket. This would mean that the Government would be raising	I
funds from ticket purchases at an interest rate much lower	I
than borrowing money outside of Canada.	H
Now I should like to refer to the purpose of the bonus bond I draw. Bonus bond draws will be established to help partially H finance the Government's expenditure in designated sectors. In H terms of the operation of the bonus bond draw system, bonus	H
bonds or tickets will be issued at par in values to be established	H
and multiples thereof in face value form. Each bond will bear	H
a number or series of numbers, each of which will represent an	I
investment of the established rate. Bonus bonds could be	I
purchased at banks, post offices, other local offices or estab-	Bj
lished booths. Bonus bond depots will only accept cash or bank	H
cheques for payment of bonus bond draw vouchers. These	H
depots could act as agents of the Department of Finance in	H
respect of bonus bond draw tickets and will hereafter be	H
referred to as the "agents".	I
Bonus bonds are issued for an indefinite period. If the	I
Minister of Finance deems it expedient, he may, by prior	I
notice in The Canada Gazette, fix a redemption date therefor.	I
Upon application by a holder, bonus bonds may be repaid at	H
any time after one year from the date of purchase, except in	I
the case of deceased persons and insolvent estates, which may	I
obtain repayment at any time.	I
If a redemption date is fixed in terms of the suggestion that	I
bonus bonds be issued for an indefinite period, provided the	H
Minister of Finance fixes a redemption date, the capital and I accrued interest on any bond not redeemed within six years of I such date will be forfeited to the state.	I
In terms of the interest rate payable on bonus bonds, simple	H
interest at a designated rate below the rate paid on other	I
guaranteed investment certificates or Canada Savings Bonds	H
will be paid yearly and will be paid only on repayment of the	H
bonds, it will be calculated for completed months from the	I
date of investment. If a redemption date is fixed in these	I
terms, interest will not accrue on any bonus bond on such date.	H
The prize fund and prizes would be covered by the Depart-	H
ment of Finance. It will make a contribution to a prize fund	I

May 11, 1984

calculated at the certain percentage per annum of the total amount of the bonus bonds participating in the monthly draw for prizes. Each bonus bond will participate in each draw for the allocation of prizes from the second calendar month following the month of purchase until the draw in the first month following upon the month in which it is repaid.
Each established value bonus bond ticket which is invested has one chance of winning the prize in any one draw. A number will not qualify for the allocation of more than one prize in any one draw. The Minister of Finance may from time to time decide upon the values and numbers of prizes to be offered, depending upon the amount available in the prize fund. Draws for the purpose of allocation prizes will be made by means of a random number-generating electronic apparatus. The prizes, in values from high to low, will be allocated to the numbers in the order in which they are generated by the apparatus.
Bonus bond numbers drawn for the allocation of prizes will be published in The Canada Gazette and will be available for inspection at the offices of all agents of the bonus bond draw. Also they will be published in all major newspapers in the areas of sale.
Interest and prizes will be free from income tax. The interest on investments in bonus bonds of this issue, as well as the capital amount of prizes allocated, is exempt from all taxes payable in Canada.
Referring to other characteristics of the bonus bond lottery, I should like to indicate that they are negotiable and transferable. Mutilated or destroyed bonus bonds will be replaced by Department of Finance agents, provided that identification is possible. The Department and its agents shall be indemnified against liability to the rightful holder of the bond for any losses incurred, unless such losses result from the proved negligence or any wilful act on the part of an officer or employee. The Department of Finance may declare forfeit any bonus bond or any benefit resulting from the holding of such a bond, if such a bond is held contrary to the provisions of the terms of the draw.
Turning to the area of repayment of bonus bonds, holders of bonus bonds, or the guardians or successors in title of holders of bonds designated for the allocation of prizes, must apply for such prizes at the offices of the Department of Finance agents by completing a special form in the presence of an official, to whom the relevant bond certificate must be produced. Administration of the bonus bond draw will be carried out by the Department of Finance. In consultation with all other federal Departments, the Department of Finance would be responsible for priorizing government needs in terms of acceptable goals for bonus bond draw-generated funds.
The bonus bond draw system would be regulated by all appropriate federal and provincial guidelines. The goals of the draw would be to establish an equitable and more socially beneficial system of draws in which both government and citizens would benefit on an ongoing basis. Funds generated by the bond draw could be used for such purposes as increased
Bonus Bond Draw
established programs financing or increased federal-provincial transfer payments for designated programs.
In summary, this matter could be discussed by the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. It is a method of generating funds within Canada. The Government would not have to borrow as much money abroad at such exorbitant rates as it is paying today.


Mr. Ralph Ferguson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the remarks of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) on Private Member's Motion No. 97. He touched upon several matters. First he indicated that the interest rate would be 1 per cent below that of other types of bonds. Also he mentioned that the prizes would be covered by the Department of Finance, but no mention was made of the amount of the prize or prizes. However, he suggested that the Minister of Finance should decide upon the size of these. The bonds will be negotiable and transferable. How would we follow such transactions between individuals? The holders of the bonds would have to apply to the offices of the Department of Finance for their prizes. Perhaps he is suggesting that the Department of Finance should become another lotto or institution for games of chance.
He went on to indicate that the Department should direct the receipts from these bonds into areas of greatest need. However, I fail to see how we can raise much money for Canada under this proposal. Bonus bond interest rates will be only 1 per cent below that of funds borrowed outside of Canada. Those wanting to invest funds would rather do it in a more conventional way such as through Canada Savings Bonds, guaranteed term certificates or other instruments.
We have to look seriously at the possibility of purchasing them at banks or other depots. I would be rather skeptical as to the availability of these institutions for distribution or sale, because they issue other bonds of various types.
Upon application by the holder the bonds can be redeemed at any time after one year. That would create a system very difficult to police. In essence, it would not be all that rewarding in the types of funds that could be created for other purposes.
Above all, there is a bit of irony in the sponsorship of this proposal by a member of the Official Opposition. When in government, my friends across the way signed an agreement in 1979 transferring the operations of Loto Canada to provincial hands. We heard strong statements from his colleagues in provincial governments since that time arguing that under the agreement, the federal Government should not be launching its new sports pool.
The sports pool is intended to finance a specific cause in Canada, the Calgary Olympics, which will be held in two or three years. Preparation has to start at the present time. This gives every Canadian the opportunity to contribute to something that is in direct relation to Canada, as is indicated by the

May 11, 1984
Bonus Bond Draw
name of the sports pool. They are competing to show in the Olympic spirit that our athletes are among the best in the world. Having a sports pool to fund something of this type is quite different from creating another pool in order to raise revenues, for example, for post-secondary education.
I do not intend to use the provincial opposition as grounds for arguing against this resolution, but I believe the provinces are wrong in their case against federal activities in the field. It is somewhat startling when a Conservative Member flies in the face of such a determined opposition from the provincial governments, particularly Conservative governments at the provincial level. It is somewhat amusing when a Member comes back with a proposal that will supposedly raise huge amounts of money to assist us at the federal level to fund medical health care and other programs that require large amounts of money.
Perhaps that is why the resolution uses the term "bonus bond draw" rather than "lottery" to describe what is being proposed. It is still very much a lottery. It is useful to have this issue discussed by Members of the House. I hope the debate will serve to clarify thinking on a number of the issues involved. However, I do not think it would serve any purpose to ask the Standing Committee on Finance to devote time to study this matter at this point when the committee has tax legislation, bankruptcy legislation and other important issues on its plate. At the present time, the Finance Committee has a very heavy schedule. We hope that most of what it is examining will be returned to the House in time for passage prior to the summer recess.
The main weakness in the case made for these lottery bonds is that there are other avenues available to raise money for purposes such as suggested here. Some years ago when lotteries were illegal and when the main outlet for the gambling urge of Canadians was office sports pools, bingo games and the Irish Sweepstakes, there was a case to be made for Canadian lotteries that would keep our dollars at home. Today, there is hardly a need for another organized outlet to satisfy the public urge to risk a few dollars on a long-shot hope for the big prize. It is certainly not necessary for the type of funding we are talking about, as I indicated before, because we have the Consolidated Revenue Fund and the system of funding we have established over the years.
In this proposal we are not necessarily talking about a few dollars. Lottery bonds seek to entice citizens to put their savings into a bond which will pay them very little interest or at best a nominal return in hopes of winning a big prize on the turn of the lottery wheel. It is this hope which encourages them to keep their money tied up in these lottery bonds. If experience is any guide, only a handful will get a satisfactory pay-off and the rest will see the real value of their savings shrunk by inflation and, in reality, no real return on their investment.
There is one other point. Loto Canada used to provide money to young people competing in the Olympics. This was turned back to the provinces. The provinces brought in other lotteries such as the Provincial and Wintario which took away
the funding which originally went to Loto Canada and was used by the federal Government to fund these events. The federal share of Loto Canada dropped off dramatically. That is why we went to the sports pool. It was because the provinces brought out new lotteries.
We are looking here at something bigger, not just a $5 or $10 ticket but a bond. Consequently, those least able to afford it would be enticed to go for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
Moreover, there is not much disagreement as to where lotteries draw their support. It is predominantly from people of low or moderate means, the very people who should be encouraged to save for a rainy day or for their retirement. If we look at this scheme from the standpoint of raising public funds, it is certainly a most regressive form of taxation. The poor and the working people invest their hard-earned money in lottery bonds with no reasonable return. They live in the hope that the wheel of fortune may suddenly make them rich.
I am alarmed about this type of scheme to raise money for the proposals suggested this afternoon. I do not think the scheme can be justified as meeting some unmet public requirement for gambling. There are many alternatives. It certainly cannot be justified as a worthwhile form of investment. It cannot be justified from the standpoint of meeting some governmental need.
First, it is not needed as an additional source of borrowed funds for the government. There are no basic difficulties facing the Government in borrowing funds through the traditional types of security such as market bonds, Treasury bills and Canada Savings Bonds. Furthermore, there are no savings to be made in raising government funds through lottery bonds. The existing borrowing mechanisms operate most efficiently at minimum cost in terms of administration.
The administrative and marketing cost of lottery bonds would be substantially higher. To that, of course, must be added the cost of providing tax-free treatment to lottery prizes and perhaps to any interest paid to purchasers of these lottery bonds. Certainly there would be marketing problems. As I mentioned previously, who would sell these lottery bonds at the retail level? It has been suggested that perhaps the banks or other lending institutions would do this. Or would one buy a bond at a corner tobacco shop? I do not think that that is a reasonable alternative at all because it is much too big a proposal to be handled through a local coffee or tobacco shop. Would banks and trust companies be willing to sell securities that were in direct competition with their own savings accounts and deposit certificates? I would have to suggest that they would not be willing to do this.
There is little doubt that lottery bonds are a high-cost way of borrowing funds. If we were to even consider this proposal, there would have to be a very large series of prizes involved which, as indicated by the Hon. Member who moved the motion, would be supplied by the Department of Finance. I fail to understand why the nominal interest earnings on such
May 11, 1984

bonds, earnings which go either into the prize pool or to small interest payments to purchasers, are normally much less than the return on normal market bonds or savings bonds. Usually, the interest return on lottery bonds is less than that on funds borrowed offshore, and in many cases those funds borrowed by the Government earn less than what could be yielded in other ways.
Not only are lottery bonds inefficient but they would very likely detract from sales of Canada Savings Bonds. This would be the case particularly for people with modest incomes, the people who should be encouraged to cultivate good savings habits rather than gambling habits.
I would like to point out another area that we have not yet looked at in detail, and that is, that under the Budget of February 15 and beginning in 1985, changes will be made to the registered retirement savings plans so that an individual could carry forward his credits from one year to the next until in 1988, I believe, and he would be able to set aside in excess of $15,000 a year. This can be done whether it is in cash or carried forward in credits up to an amount that is 18 per cent of his annual income.
I would suggest that a proposal such as the one made by the Hon. Member would take away from that advantage. Nothing has been mentioned as to whether or not the moneys invested in these bonds would be income tax deductible like the money invested in registered retirement savings plans. We could be adding one hardship on to another for the people who can least afford it.
When considering the problems involved in managing the public debt, lottery bonds have other drawbacks. They are open-ended and can be cashed after one year. There is no control over the amount to be sold. The Government might well feel that enough lottery bonds were outstanding and that it did not wish to raise further funds in this manner. However, it is not very easy to turn a lottery on and off.
Another problem with lottery bonds is that they are normally cashable at the option of the holder. As the Hon. Member pointed out, this could be done after one year. As Hon. Members know, that is the case with Canada Savings Bonds. A substantial porportion of government debt is in the form of savings bonds, and there has been concern about the fact that such a large share of government debt is subject to the option of being cashed on demand. The lottery bond scheme would create one more type of government debt obligation that would similarly be subject to being cashed on demand.
Another concern raised by this proposal, to which I think the House should pay careful attention, is the question of whether or not we really want to fund important services to the public on the basis of earnings from lotteries. I have already touched upon the issue of the regressive nature of lottery fund raising. It is a form of taxation which totally ignores the principle of relating taxes to an individual's relative ability to pay.
I think we should also be concerned about the proper control of government expenditures. In the case of most government
Bonus Bond Draw
run lotteries, the return on the lottery after payment of prizes and expenses is normally earmarked for particular kinds of expenditures such as those I mentioned earlier. It is often earmarked for some particular area of government services to the public or for supporting amateur sports, health care, research or perhaps cultural activities. The result is that the level of funding for those earmarked services does not depend on a careful judgment of relative priorities in our society. The amount of financial support in these areas is simply governed by how successful the lottery may be.
This might become less important if there were all kinds of financial resources available to Government. However, that is not the case. At a time of large budget deficits, can we really justify some further major step in the direction of abandoning government control over the allocation of federal spending?
In his earlier Order Paper resolution regarding this issue, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine suggested that the funds from lottery bonds be earmarked to increase federal support for provincial programs of health care, post-secondary education and other programs through the established programs financing plan. I am somewhat alarmed by the thought of going this particular route because under the Canada Assistance Plan, the Government of Canada already pays up to 50 per cent of those costs. The federal Government's share toward post-secondary education in the Province of Ontario has increased to approximately 58 per cent, and the province's share has decreased to only 21 per cent, with the students paying the other 21 per cent.
Does the Hon. Member suggest that the federal Government should increase its share of the cost of post-secondary education so that the provinces may decrease theirs even more? I do not accept that argument, Mr. Speaker. I think the provinces should pay their own share, particularly when they receive the revenues from provincial lotteries, Loto Canada, Wintario and the like. I think they should be directing more of this income toward that goal. I firmly believe that if we are to have a system of taxation in Canada that is fair to everyone, the provinces must carry their load as well. They must not decrease their share and complain at the same time that the federal Government is cutting back on its share.
The programs to which I have referred are major programs of vital importance to the welfare of all Canadians. The Government has already recognized this fact by increasing federal transfers to the provinces for these purposes, even though the federal Government does not have jurisdictional control over these programs as they are administered by the provinces. I think the provinces should carry more of the financial responsibility in that regard. That decision to increase transfers was made in a rational way with due consideration to all the other priority claims on available government finances.
Do we want to continue to decide on the funding of such important programs in such a haphazard way? I believe we must proceed in a very responsible way. If we abdicate this responsibility, do we want to leave these programs at the mercy of the vagaries of the lottery market?

May 11, 1984
Bonus Bond Draw
I have touched upon a few of the very major drawbacks involved in adopting some kind of a lottery bond scheme, which have created very serious concerns. As yet, I have seen no public need which would be usefully served by the implementation of such a program at this time.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, I shall speak briefly on this matter because it is certainly not my intention that the Bill be talked out, although I see that the Government has its bodies lined up to do just that.


A. Daniel McKenzie: The civil servants prepared their speeches.


Dave Nickerson: Yes, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) says that the public servants have undoubtedly prepared their speeches, and that I do not disbelieve. I have seen that done before on many occasions, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to say that this idea is not a new one. Rather than each individual bond holder being paid a small amount of money, all of the interest payable on those bonds is put into one pool and then a draw is made to determine which of the bond holders gets a chunk of that aggregate interest. That idea has worked quite successfully, having been applied in a number of other countries.
I know that there have been bonds of this nature in Great Britain for some time. I think that on the street they are called "Ernie" bonds, but I am not certain about that. However, a slightly new twist to this idea has been added by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine in that under his scheme, a certain low-interest rate on the bonds would be paid, presumably to protect them from inflation to some degree so that the capital amount is not eroded too badly. The remainder of the interest would be put into this one pool, or one part, and the distribution of that would be decided by lots.
After having said that this is not a new idea and has been applied successfully in other countries, I would like now to go into some of the rather spurious objections raised by the Hon. Member for Lambton-Middlesex (Mr. Ferguson). He went out of his way to attack the mechanics of how such a system would operate. I think the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine went into considerable detail in his proposal as to how the mechanics would work, who would be the agents of the Ministry of Finance in the distribution of the bonds, and how the funds would be administered. Other countries have worked out the details of the mechanics of handling such a situation. So any objection to the scheme based on details of who are to be the vendors and by whom the money is to be handled does not hold water.
This is not a lottery in the common sense of the word. People do not dig into their wallets and fork over $10 or $20 to buy a lottery ticket and then, if they are unsuccessful, lose all that they had at risk. In this case, a person might buy a bond in the denomination of $1000, maybe a little more or maybe a little less. That capital would be protected. It would not be put
at hazard. It would be protected, especially under the scheme proposed by the Hon. Member, wherein low interest payments would be made to keep up with inflation. The proposal is not in the nature of the common lottery system as we know it in Canada.
The Hon. Member for Lambton-Middlesex accused the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine of hypocrisy. Nothing could be further from the truth. I would venture to suggest that if there is hypocrisy prevalent in this Chamber, it is emanating from the Hon. Member for Lambton-Middlesex. He is a part of the Government that has actively promoted lotteries in the worst sense throughout Canada. The Government is presently engaged in the new sports pool lottery. It has changed it in midstream. It is that Government which is promoting the purchasing of lottery tickets by those who can least afford them. The Government is trying to take kids' shoe money from the low-income earners of Canada and risk it in these games of chance. That is where the hypocrisy comes in. In the scheme of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine, people would at least be required to have a minimum of $500, or maybe $1,000, in order to purchase one of the bonds. Only the accrued interest of that money would be at risk.
It is not the low-income earners, the poor people of Canada, who would be engaged in this type of activity, because they would not be able to afford to tie up that kind of cash. They would not have that kind of cash available. It is only the people who have been successful enough to acquire some capital and who can afford to have that capital tied up who would get into this type of activity.
We heard some other rubbish from the Hon. Member for Lambton-Middlesex dealing with the redemption terms of the bonds. The Hon. Member who proposed the scheme again went into considerable detail on how redemption would take place; how it could be done at the option of the Government so that it could issue or take back bonds in order to help with the normal financing program of the Government of Canada. All those red herrings about redemption that were dragged into the debate this afternoon just do not make any sense.


A. Daniel McKenzie: I did not say we would sell them in coffee shops.


Dave Nickerson: If we are to look at the question of gambling, especially gambling promoted by government, we cannot have it both ways. We cannot argue, as did the Hon. Member opposite, that it is bad in this case, but it is permissible in the worst type of lotteries which are actively promoted by the Government over there. If it is immoral with respect to one lottery, then it is equally immoral with respect to another type of lottery. If we are going to get into an argument about the degrees of morality, then the proposal from this side of the House-and I am going against my previous argument- would be a little bit less immoral than the proposals, or those things which have already been put into effect, by the Government of Canada. We can argue morality. Personally, I do not feel that a government should promote gambling in Canada, but we cannot have it both ways. We cannot argue on one side
May 11, 1984

of the question with respect to one lottery and on the other side of the question with respect to another lottery.
I have some objection to the scheme in that 1 do not think a very large market might exist in Canada today for this type of proposal. 1 know that when it was introduced in Great Britain, there was no other similar type of gambling, except maybe for the soccer pools. So it was reasonably successful. But when there are wide varieties of avenues for gambling, it is quite possible that there might not be a large market for this type of government obligation. That does not generate in me any great objection to further study by the standing committee, as has been suggested. There is no reason why we should not study it and try to determine whether it is a worthwhile proposition.
In conclusion, I would like to go back to 1975 when I was running as a candidate for a legislative assembly, before 1 became involved in federal politics. One of my opponents at that time was a gentleman by the name of Colin Wyne. Part of his electoral platform was that he was going to issue bonds of this nature. He was going to call them Wyne Bonds. I do not know whether he was going to spell them "Win" or "Wyne". However, the sad point from his point of view-not so sad from my point of view-was the result that he failed to be elected. I was elected.


Mr. Al MacBain (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, in responding to Motion No. 97 moved by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) this afternoon, I would like to mention first that the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) said that the Hon. Member for Lambton-Middlesex (Mr. Ferguson) suggested that the scheme was immoral. There was no such suggestion made by the Hon. Member for Lambton-Middlesex. In my opinion, one would not have expected any such scheme to have come from the distinguished Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine.
However, I do agree with the Hon. Member for Western Arctic that the proposal is not a novel one. It has been suggested to the Government from time to time, especially by those attracted to similar lottery bond schemes in other countries, particularly in Britain. The idea has been considered by the Government, but it has not felt that the proposal was worthy of being put into effect. The idea, at first glance, might seem to have some attractive points. But there are some substantial weaknesses and drawbacks to the lottery bond proposal. On the whole, I do not feel that idea has enough merit to justify asking the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, as this resolution proposes, to spend the time and effort to study the question. The committee has a good deal of priority work to occupy it without adding this proposal to its agenda. This point was in fact made by the Hon. Member for Lambton-Middlesex, and it is a valid point.
I suppose that there are three main arguments which have been made in support of what we might call "lottery bonds". First, they are seen as one way, a relatively easy way, of raising government funds. Second, they seem to be viewed as
Bonus Bond Draw
another outlet for satisfying the public's hunger for gambling. Third, it is argued that they are a good way of financing some particular field of government expenditure, for example, federal transfers to the provinces. I would like to put forward my own position on the proposal. I am not necessarily in favour of continuing the movement of federal-provincial governments, or even municipal governments into the field of gambling, whether by lottery bonds or other similar lottery schemes.
Lottery bonds can be designed in a number of ways, but the basic features are pretty much the same. The bonds are of small denomination so as to appeal to people of relatively small means. They are marketed through a large number of sales outlets, rather than the established financial institutions through which normal government securities are bought and sold. Sometimes a small interest payment is provided to all investors, presumably to protect them from forfeiting too much interest income in their pursuit of the big prize. The interest earnings which are not paid to the investors are put into a prize fund, with the winners determined by lottery.
There are some particular factors which should be borne in mind. For one thing, the nominal interest return on the bonds, whether paid in part to the investors or paid wholly into the prize fund, is normally substantially less than the interest return on regular government bond issues. In Britain, the interest earned on their premium savings bonds is equivalent to about half the going rate on long-term government bonds. This is because administration costs in selling lottery bonds are substantially higher than for normal bond issues, and also because the lottery prizes are exempt from income tax.
Another feature of importance is that purchasers of lottery bonds can cash them in for repayment whenever they wish. Of course, the lottery feature is designed to discourage this and to entice holders to hold on to their bonds. But with this option available to the public, the government's management of the public debt is complicated by the possibility of having to repay some part of its debt with no prior notice. This, of course, is a feature of Canada savings bonds as well, and it is precisely that problem which has in the past caused concern to government that savings bonds should not comprise too large a proportion of public debt.
So it would be adding to this problem if we were to issue a substantial number of other bonds which could similarly be cashed at any time without notice. I should add, however, that this is probably more of a theoretical than a practical difficulty. It is not very likely that lottery bonds would provide a substantial portion of the government's funded debt, in any event.
A more important fact is that, from the standpoint of financing the government's cash requirements, lottery bonds are really not needed. There are no real problems in raising necessary funds through the normal financial instruments: market bonds, Canada Savings Bonds, and Treasury bills. The cost of borrowing funds through those traditional routes is considerably less than would be the cost of merchandising lottery bonds.

May 11, 1984
Bonus Bond Draw
So I submit that lottery bonds cannot be justified from the standpoint of meeting the requirements of government. In fact,
I think it can be argued that there could be negative effects for government debt management if lottery bonds were issued. For one thing, lottery bonds could cut into the market for Canada Savings Bonds. This point was made as well by the Hon. Member for Lambton-Middlesex, and it is well taken. The market for both would be much the same, that is, those Canadians with modest amounts of savings. However, a large proportion of savings bond investors buy these bonds primarily for income purposes. Many of these investors are retired or approaching retirement and want the highest possible income from their investment. It is not likely that this part of the market would be attracted to purchasing lottery bonds. If it were, however, I submit that the results would be pretty undesirable from a social policy point of view.
Lottery bonds raise other difficulties for government debt management. There are inherent problems in mixing the concepts of a lottery and a bond. Not all Canadians are skilled and sophisticated when it comes to their investments. We saw this a few years ago in the widespread misunderstandings and confusions which surrounded the question of the perpetual bonds which the Government of Canada had issued in the 1930s. People misunderstood the nature of that bond issue, and a number of investors were disappointed. One feature of lottery bonds is that they do not usually carry a maturity date. That fact alone could create problems of misunderstanding. And I am sure that many Canadians would be confused as to the differences between lottery bonds and savings bonds. So I believe there are some potential problems in a lottery that masquerades as an investment. For a good many reasons, it would be best not to mix the two.
I would like to speak for a moment, Mr. Speaker, about the social issues. I suggested at the outset of my remarks that some people have viewed lottery bonds as a useful outlet to satisfy the public's gambling impulse, apparently a very strong impulse. That might have been a valid argument not many years ago before the proliferation of official lottery schemes across Canada. However, I do not think it can be claimed that there is any shortage of opportunities for Canadians to give expression to their urge to get rich quick in a big lottery killing. It is also fair to say that there are no shortages of ways in which Canadians can save and invest their moneys today. Banks, trust companies, credit unions and other financial institutions are competing for the public savings. One of the primary social objectives of Canada Savings Bonds has been to encourage Canadians with modest means to establish good savings habits. That is probably one of the important factors behind the very high savings rate which we have experienced in Canada. Lottery bonds would encourage Canadians to speculate rather than to save.
For Canadians who put their savings into lottery bonds, the vast majority could suffer a significant decline in the real value of their savings and little, if any, flow of income. Lotteries provide big wins to only a handful of hopeful purchasers. This may not be too serious if it were a question of lottery tickets of
only a few dollars. However, it could be a grave social problem if it were a matter of S100, $500 or $1,000 bonds. The cost in social terms could be severe unless there were a relatively low limit on the total amount of savings which an individual could invest in lottery bonds.
It is sometimes suggested that the experience of the premium savings bond scheme in Britain could be duplicated in Canada. However, I do not think the two situations are similar. In Britain there is only one national lottery scheme, the premium savings bond plan, although there are a number of sports pools which involve relatively small wagers. Here in Canada there are a number of national and provincial lottery plans which attract substantial amounts of funds from large numbers of Canadians. It is likely that a lottery bond scheme in Canada would meet much stiffer competition than does the British plan.
There are some practical problems as well in administering a lottery bond scheme. It would mean setting up a special bureaucracy to handle these bonds. They would be so different from normal government bonds that I do not think the Bank of Canada administration would be appropriate.
There are marketing questions as well. It is one thing for your corner tobacco shop to handle $2 or $5 lottery tickets. It is quite another matter to contemplate that shop handling bond sales of $100, $500, $1,000 or more. I have doubts whether banks and other financial institutions would want to serve as marketing outlets for this kind of product which would be competing directly with their savings accounts.
The idea of earmarking the funds raised through lottery bond sales for some particular field of government expenditure raises some concerns. This approach implies that the level of expenditures in this chosen field is determined, not by the relative priority or importance of the government service which receives the lottery money, but rather by the element of chance, how successful the lottery sales might be.
The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine, in the earlier version of his resolution which appeared on the Order Paper, suggested using lottery funds for such purposes as increasing federal transfers to the provinces for established programs financing, or other designated federal-provincial programs. I suggest that these programs are of such an important nature that their funding should not rest on the uncertain base of lottery plan funding. I appreciate that this earlier resolution spoke of the Department of Finance being responsible for setting priorities for allocating funds from the lottery bonds. That is precisely the Department's role when it comes to government expenditures out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
I recognize that there has been a tendency to earmark funds from other lotteries for particular areas such as sports, cultural development and the like. I do not think it is wise to extend this practice more broadly into such important areas as federal-provincial financing of medical, hospital or educational services.
May 11, 1984

The mention of federal-provincial programs raises another question. What would the provinces say about this lottery bond proposal? Has the Hon. Member sponsoring this resolution looked at the provincial reaction to the new federal sports pool? Provincial ministers have been most vigorous in opposing this federal initiative. They claim it runs contrary to the agreement with the provinces, which was made by the former Conservative Government in 1979. I do not agree that the provinces have a valid objection. However, I am rather surprised to see this kind of proposal from the Hon. Member opposite.
In conclusion, I submit that for a number of reasons, Mr. Speaker, we would not be justified in asking the standing committee to consider this idea. Briefly, the scheme is open-ended and it would be difficult to control the amount of lottery bonds outstanding. Second, it would raise other problems in the management of the public debt, including creating competition against Canada Savings Bonds among small savers. There are no problems in raising funds through traditional methods, so there is no reason, on financial grounds, for introducing a lottery bond proposal. The cost to Government of lottery bonds would not be significantly lower than that of borrowing through traditional securities, when we consider all the additional costs of administration and the cost of tax exemption for lottery winnings. Finally, there are many alternative lottery schemes available to Canadians who want to gamble, and this scheme is not needed for the purpose. I would personally not support the proposal.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I would like to spend a bit of time discussing the motion which is before us today. I have great difficulty with it. I, like my colleagues on this side of the House, and I am sure my colleagues on the other side of the House, have some difficulty with the notion of a form of gambling as a mechanism for raising public funds for public purposes. Most of the lotteries in the country, Mr. Speaker, have responded to a need. Gambling will go on in the country, and the Government is providing, at least within the context of gambling, a fair and honest outlet for that kind of behaviour. That is fine.
In most cases, Mr. Speaker, the funds which are raised through that type of vehicle are used for purposes in addition
Bonus Bond Draw
to those which we would consider to be essential public services. Whether the funds are from Wintario, Lottario, the lotteries in Quebec, 6/49 or the sports pool, they are being used for purposes which might not otherwise be funded through tax revenues. Perhaps the taxpayers would not consider those purposes to be of sufficient importance to allow themselves to be taxed to finance them. As a result, forms of pools, lotteries, and other vehicles have been established to raise money over and above the moneys raised through the tax system to fund what we consider to be essential public services.
The Hon. Member's motion suggests that the funds to be raised through a lottery bond vehicle could be used to fund post-secondary education, medical care and so on. I would object very strenuously to that, Mr. Speaker. The day we reach the point when we are willing to finance essential public services such as health care, post-secondary education and perhaps even adequate pensions for our elderly, with a gambling vehicle is the day that our tax system and fiscal policy will have reached an all-time low.
It should be clear that essential public services should be paid for through funds raised via an equitable and fair tax system. We should all bear the burden in a fair and equitable manner for these essential public services which we believe governments should provice to the Canadian public. I think the objective is quite clear that the enticement would be to lower middle-income Canadians as opposed to Canadians at large. It does not seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that we need to find some other new and fancy way of trying to entice these people who can least afford it to provide some subsidization to Canadians at large for post-secondary education, medical care and so on.
Mr. Speaker, I disagree with this approach. I do not think the subject matter of this motion should go to the Finance Committee. We have much more important things to do than to consider this proposal.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order. The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
It being five o'clock, the House stands adjourned until next Monday, May 14, at 2 p.m., pursuant to order of Wednesday, April 18, 1984.
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, May 14, 1984