1984-04-04

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Hon. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton North):: Mr. Speaker, Yurij Shukhevych, aged 50, is a Ukrainian political prisoner whose history of persecution has come to span three decades. Currently serving his thirty-first year of imprisonment, he has been free for only four years since the age of 15. His case serves as a tragic example of Soviet persecution of minors who are held responsible for their parents' political beliefs and activities. They suffer the consequences of a Soviet legal system that punishes their refusal to denounce or disassociate themselves from their parents and their cause. Shukhevych can in fact personify the cruel fate of thousands of Ukrainians, Poles, Latvians, Lithuanians and Czechs who have maintained, against great odds, a determination to realize their goal of a self determined national state.
We appeal to you, Sir, as the first Commoner, to intervene on behalf of Yurij Shukhevych and on behalf of humanity. Pressure must be brought to bear on the Soviet Union to stop the insidious practice of persecuting minors for their parents' political beliefs and activities.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Marcel Dionne (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, last week I read an article published in an Ontario newspaper which said that the riding of Chicoutimi had the lowest per capita income and the worst economic problems in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to point out that last Monday 1 announced the appointment of the professionals who are going to renovate harbour facilities at Chicoutimi for the sum of $9 million. I may add that construction on the harbour at Chicoutimi has started, involving an investment of $50 million. In addition, since it has been recognized that the base at
Bagotville is very important to the air defence of our country, NATO and the United States, the Liberal Government has agreed to invest $54 million, and, Mr. Speaker, I should mention that, although the newspaper article was somewhat negative about my riding, the Canadian Government, as part of its energy policy, has just announced the construction of a pipeline for $240 million in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area.
Mr. Speaker, you will agree that as far as infrastructures are concerned, we have a region that is becoming very attractive as a place for foreign industry to locate, and furthermore, this region has exceptional human resources.



Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, despite all the claims by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) that the economy is recovering and business is booming, the reality of the situation is that things are much worse than they appear. Just ask any of the 500 workers laid off at the Port Colborne Inco plant, or the 50 workers for Hart and Cooley in Fort Erie, almost all of whom are being let go and the Fort Erie plant shut down. To what can we attribute this? Two things: the lack of a comprehensive retraining plan, and the need for more research and development.
If this economy were really buzzing as it should, any workers who were laid off from one industry would be quickly retrained to take up work in another area. We should be training the people who used to make chrome auto bumpers, and put them into programs designed to prepare them for the high-tech world of the future. They should be learning now how to build computers and satellites, instead of being at a dead end and subsisting on UIC and welfare.
R and D must not be forgotten either. It is indeed amazing to note that one company in West Germany employs 30,000 people in industrial research and development alone. This is more than the entire Canadian Government spends on that item. IBM in the U.S. also employs more people in this field than our federal Government.
Why then does the Government not invest more in research and development, as an investment in the future? The Government, despite its brave rhetoric about meeting the challenges of the 80s, is nevertheless spending only 1.1 per cent of GNP on R and D, while back in 1968, in the rookie year of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), we spent 1.4 per cent of GNP.

April 4, 1984
Perhaps the Liberal leadership candidates, who are so eager to criticize the record of the Leader-


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

[ Translation]


PALESTINE LIBERATION ORGANIZATION
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great regret that I heard about the recent decision of the Senate Committee to hear as a witness the PLO's official observer at the United Nations. This terrorist organization has never done anything to advance the cause of peace and has constantly resorted to terrorism and violence to further its objectives. Since 1968, thousands of moderate Palestinians who were prepared to talk with Israel have been assassinated by the PLO. In fact, to date, the PLO has killed more Palestinians than Israelis. We were all shocked by the senseless attack on forty-eight civilians in Jerusalem earlier this week. Responsibility for the attack was claimed by the Democratic Palestine Liberation Front, one of the component organizations of the PLO, and which was not condemned by the PLO.
The witness the Senate will hear tomorrow belongs to the same organization. It is an insult to the democratic traditions and institutions of our country to be having talks with representatives of a terrorist organization.

When I was elected to Parliament, I thought that it was to serve the law and not terrorism and violence.


MEDICAL CARE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address a health care problem experienced by thousands of Canadians living in remote regions of the country, notably the high cost of travelling to an urban area for medical care that is unavailable in isolated communities.
In recent days I have received hundreds of messages from the Thunder Bay area alone, pointing out the magnitude of this problem in the Lakehead region where some 1,000 residents a year must travel to Toronto and Winnipeg to get specialized treatment. For the period 1976 to 1982, this represents a 50 per cent increase in patients going to Toronto, and a 98 per cent increase in patients going to Winnipeg. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, many of these people must pay out of their own pockets for medically necessary trips to large urban centres or, worse, they are forced to rely on charity.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, such a situation does not represent reasonable access as defined in the Canada Health Act, nor does it meet the Act's universality requirement that insured services be provided to all residents on uniform terms and conditions.
The accessibility problem I am referring to, Mr. Speaker, is by no means peculiar to the Lakehead region of Ontario. Similar problems exist throughout Canada. I call on the Government to live up to the spirit of the new Canada Health Act and co-operate with the provinces to ensure that all Canadians, in both urban and rural areas, have truly reasonable and universal access to quality health care.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Alain Tardif (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, in November this year, import quotas on footwear will be lifted. Since the Canadian footwear industry employs nearly 20,000 workers, I think it is essential that our Government should support this industry. To do so, we absolutely must extend the quotas, otherwise thousands of jobs will be lost, especially in regions whether the unemployment rate is extremely high, including my riding.
In 1981, this Government took the excellent initiative of setting up a remarkable program referred to as the CIRB Program. A specific portion of this program was designed for the footwear industry. Several dynamic businesses, including H.H. Brown Shoes in Richmond, took advantage of substantial grants under the program. These businesses wish to continue the trend towards modernization and are prepared to invest in order to protect existing jobs and create new ones. We must react positively to the request being made by the manufacturers, a request that is both realistic and reasonable. They want a five-year quota extension and fifty per cent of the Canadian market. Fifty per cent of the market and five additional years would consolidate existing jobs and create hundreds more. Contrary to certain claims, the interests of the Canadian consumer would be protected in such a way that they would benefit, since consumers have always benefited from a competitive market.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to register my deepest sense of concern and unease
April 4, 1984

with respect to what I view to be the abridgement of rights accorded to Susan Nelles and Phyllis Trayner. My chief concern focuses on the judgment which was rendered this morning by Mr. Justice Grange to the effect that counsel for the police and counsel for the Attorney General of Ontario were entitled to cross-examine Susan Nelles.
It is my view that it is one thing to allow Mr. Lamek, who is a neutral counsel acting on behalf of the Commission, to cross-examine these nurses. It is quite another thing to allow counsel for the police, and counsel for the Attorney General of Ontario, to cross-examine in circumstances where they have a vested interest and where they may very well have an axe to grind. To recall the facts of this particular case-


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has some concern. This is a proceeding in provincial jurisdiction before a semi-judicial body


Chris Speyer: There was a decision this morning.


Mr. Speaker:: There is a decision rendered by the body?


Chris Speyer: This is a matter, Sir, of criminal law and the criminal law power.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will let the Hon. Member continue but must express some concern.


Chris Speyer: This is a matter which affects the rights of all people and deals with the criminal law power, Mr. Speaker. My sense of concern, as I say, stems for these facts. There was a preliminary inquiry and there was not sufficient evidence at that preliminary inquiry to put Miss Nelles to a trial. There was not sufficient evidence. A law suit was then commenced by Miss Nelles with respect to the propriety of the police action and the action of the Attorney General of Ontario.
It is my view that they are not getting to the issue of the inquiry, which is what happened to the babies, how did they die? What we have is vested interest in the police defending their own conduct, and Miss Nelles does not have the safeguards she should have to protect her own interests.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SENATE REFORM
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, one year after I introduced a resolution in this House, the Government established a joint committee of Parliament to consider Senate structural reform. That committee's commendable report now rests neglected. The initial excitement has died down, but the need for action remains. The committee recommended a nine-year non-renewable term, an elected Senate, and more equitable provincial and regional representation in a reformed Senate of 144 members.
Oral Questions
All recommended changes are subject to the new constitutional amending formula requiring the agreement of seven provinces having at least 50 per cent of the Canadian population, with one exception. Constitutional change affecting the tenure of existing, newly appointed, or newly elected Senators, requires only the approval of Parliament. Therefore, this House should act now to adjust senatorial tenure.
Today, Mr. Speaker, I will introduce in this House a Bill to provide for a nine-year maximum non-renewable term for all Senators, both existing and new appointments, so that only one class of Senators will prevail. The Hon. Member for York Scarborough (Mr. Cosgrove), who was joint chairman of that committee, has agreed to second and support that Bill. Such a constitutional change will be a signal to western Canada, in fact to all of Canada, that Parliament is serious about Senate reform. It would be another major step on the road to national unity.


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



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


[Stage Direction]
WESTERN GRAIN STABILIZATION ACT Mr. Speaker: The Hon. Leader of the Opposition.
Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Brian Mulroney (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Members opposite for the warmth of their welcome. I was in their constituencies, saying good-bye for them.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: You are paid to be here.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Prime Minister is aware of the growing concern of western grain farmers because of the Government's delay in carrying out its commitment to amend the Grain Stabilization Act to permit desperately needed cash payments this spring. Will the Prime Minister prod his lethargic Ministers to bring down the legislation so that hard-pressed grain farmers in western Canada can have the assurance right now of desperately needed cash flow at this time?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I would be in a better position to give that assurance to the Hon. Leader of the Opposition if he were to assure me that his Party would co-operate with the Government House Leader in get-

April 4, 1984
Oral Questions
ting through that and many other pieces of legislation which the country needs.


Some Hon. Members:: Bring it on!


INTRODUCTION OF AMENDING LEGISLATION
Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister will undertake to bring that legislation in immediately, I guarantee we will give it quick passage in this House so that western farmers can benefit from the cash to which they are entitled.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: May I take the Prime Minister's earlier comment as an assurance that, no later than tomorrow, that legislation will be before the House so we can pass it within hours?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we would have to have the assurance that the Hon. Leader's Party would not be ringing the bells and delaying the Government and the House all the time.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The difficulty in running Parliament is well known to the Hon. Leader of the Opposition. There are many Bills of great importance to all Canadians which have to be moved forward.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Don't weasel now.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1 can certainly give an undertaking concerning that particular Bill if the Hon. Leader of the Opposition, speaking for his Party, will give us an equal undertaking on several other Bills which I will give-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Oh, well, Mr. Speaker! The Leader of the Opposition has just come back from the West and he has discovered that the western farmers have some requirements.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He is asking for one Bill. Why does he not ask for a Bill to pass the Guaranteed Income Supplement for the elderly? Why does he not ask us to pass the Bill to give rights to the Indians?


Some Hon. Members:: Bring them on.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: They are there, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Lalonde:: The budget Bill.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There are budget Bills before the House to give relief to Canadians. His Party has been ringing bells, goofing around, wasting time.


Mr. McDermid:: Give it up.


An Hon. Member:: You are the goofy one.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Suddenly he discovers one constituency that needs assistance and he stands up on that.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Shame! Shame!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, they have discovered one constituency-


Some Hon. Members:: More! More!


John Horton McDermid: Keep it going.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: They ask me for more, Mr. Speaker. I hope you will recognize that I have a long answer to give. Give me the Order Paper.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: With all due respect to the Right Hon. the Prime Minister, the Chair could call to the attention of Members of the House the Order Paper and the items on it. I wonder if it is essential to read it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will heed your admonition and I will not read the five pages of the Order Paper. When they ask for more over there, we agree. Let us have more action from the Opposition and more time seriously spent on legislation, instead of goofing off with ringing bells.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, no wonder the Liberal Party and all of its putative Members are dead as doornails in western Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: And that is where they are going to stay.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION
Martin Brian Mulroney: I asked a question on behalf of western farmers, whose bankruptcies were up 110 per cent last year, and all you get is a jokester hamming around with a piece of paper. We want answers on behalf of western farmers.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: For 16 years the Prime Minister has been sitting around talking about pieces of legislation that he refers to on the Order Paper. I am asking a specific question on behalf of thousands and thousands of western producers. Will the Government bring that piece of legislation in immediately?
April 4, 1984

I give the Government the assurance that when it does it will pass this House to the benefit of thousands of western farmers.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Leader of the Opposition is showing contempt for the House when he refers to the Order Paper as "goofing around with a piece of paper".


Martin Brian Mulroney: You goof around with it.


An Hon. Member:: It is you goofing around with it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is not a piece of paper, Mr. Speaker, It is a serious program of action for the Government. Yes, I will give an undertaking to pass that Bill.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Bring it in.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: And he will give me an undertaking to pass-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Just give your undertaking.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -relief for the taxpayer, Mr. Speaker, the budget Bills, the Bill of the Minister of National Health and Welfare on Medicare. Can he do that in five hours?


Mr. Nielsen:: Bring it in.


John Horton McDermid: Bring it in.


Mr. Epp:: Let us have it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Will they give second reading and reference to the Standing Committee of Bill C-4? Will he give me that undertaking?


John Horton McDermid: Be careful.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Will he give me an undertaking to pass the Crown corporations legislation?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He is laughing, Mr. Speaker.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: It has not had second reading.


An Hon. Member:: He is a joker.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Who is the joker, Mr. Speaker? Sure, we have the partisan Tories-


An Hon. Member:: Order.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -echoing their Leader about who is a joker. However, that Party has been ringing bells, the way it has, preventing Parliament from functioning-


John Horton McDermid: Who rang the bells two weeks ago?
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -keeping this legislation from proceeding. Our House Leader has been trying to make a deal with the Opposition House Leader in order to have orderly process in discharge of this legislation. The Leader of the Opposition has just discovered one constituency and he pleads for them. There are thousands and millions of Canadians in Canada who want this legislation.


An Hon. Member:: And who are in trouble.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Why does his Party not help Parliament function?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ANNOUNCEMENT IN SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Martin Brian Mulroney: It is
typical of the Government that when the interests of western Canada are involved, it is always tied to something else. You can't get a straight answer from the Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: No wonder you are all going down the shute, and no wonder western Canada won't trust them as far as they can throw them.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: My question is simple. Everyday we raise questions on behalf of groups of Canadians who have been trod upon by the Government.
There was an undertaking in the Throne Speech that amendments will be introduced to the Western Grain Stabilization Act to make it more responsive to the needs of producers. When will the Government bring that in? If it does bring it in, we will pass it in the interests of western farmers. Stop fooling around and bring it in now.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I gave a serious undertaking. I said that we would bring it in and pass it.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Bring it in now.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He has not given a like undertaking. He wants to pass one Bill because he just discovered the West.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: There are no conditions in the Speech from the Throne.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, of course not, but there are many measures in the Speech from the Throne, and when you are the Government-you will never learn this because you will never be the Government-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
2714

April 4, 1984
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There are about 40 days left of parliamentary time before the end of June. Out of that one must take into account Opposition days, special motions, and so on. But if the Hon. Member Leader of the Opposition will ask his House Leader to sit down with our House Leader to decide how this time will be allocated in a reasonable, sensible way, so that the Opposition can debate the motions and debate second reading, but seriously consider this legislation, I can guarantee to him that this legislation, which is of importance to the western farmer, will be passed expeditiously. Can he give me that guarantee that this House Leader will bring allocation of time?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Bring it on.


REQUEST THAT FARM FUEL TAX BE REDUCED
Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister might remember that in 1980 he promised the western farmers that he would not forget about them, since there was no representation from western Canada. For two years we have been calling for a western grain stabilization payment.


Some Hon. Members:: Question!


Leonard J. Gustafson: My question is directed to the Minister of Finance. He will know that the farmers have very serious cash flow problems this spring. This is why we have addressed the Western Grain Stabilization Program as a priority. Furthermore, the high fuel costs to farmers are bankrupting them, as well as high interest rates, and their cost of production is exorbitant. Will the Minister of Finance do the right thing and reduce the fuel costs by reducing the federal tax on farm fuels?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, some Conservative Members have discovered that there are problems amongst the farming community, and their answer is to do something about the Western Grain Stabilization Act. Our answer has been to try to introduce measures that affect farmers all across the country, not only western farmers.
We have implemented a number of measures which are of service to all farmers across the country, and that is what we intend to do. As to the specific question raised by the Hon. Member, I stand by my Budget of last February 15.


EFFECT OF INTEREST RATES ON FARMERS
Leonard J. Gustafson: The Minister will know that when his Government took power in 1980 fuel costs to farmers were 92 cents a gallon. I just got word by telephone that fuel costs today are $1.80 a gallon. They are double. You will remember some of the promises that Government made, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. McKnight:: On farm fuel.


Mr. McMillan:: Phony promises.


John Horton McDermid: Where is Allan MacEachen?


Leonard J. Gustafson: Another problem facing farmers is the high interest rates.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member please ask his question?


Leonard J. Gustafson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture has again and again promised reduction of high interest rates. Will the Minister of Finance consider and bring in a program, which the Minister of Agriculture cannot bring in seemingly, and alleviate the problems of high interest rates for farmers?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member talks about fuel costs. What he should also mention is that if the Tory plan had been put into effect-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Nonsense.


Marc Lalonde: -and if we had not defeated the Tory Budget in 1979, fuel costs today would be at international price levels for farmers.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Nonsense.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: No way.


Marc Lalonde: And this would have meant even higher prices than the price farmers are called upon to pay at the present time.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: These are the facts which the Hon. Member should know.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: I understand Hon. Members over there shouting, because they are afraid of the facts. They are afraid of recognizing what their policy would have meant for this country, and that is why their policy was rejected wisely by Canadians in 1980.
As far as the interest rates are concerned, we have taken steps to reduce interest rates. Interest rates have come down quite significantly over the last two years, as the Hon. Member knows. They have been cut by half, approximately. In addition, we have introduced measures to take care of farmers in difficulties. Over $25 million in support has been put into such a program to help farmers in difficulty, in addition to the increased funding provided to the Farm Credit Corporation. My friend should at least bother to examine the facts, get briefed, and he will realize that this Government has delivered in terms of its concerns for the farmers of this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
April 4, 1984


VISIBLE MINORITIES
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I listened with interest to the Leader of the Opposition's question concerning the West. I am pleased he read the questions asked by three members of the New Democratic Party as recently as yesterday.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: My question to the Prime Minister concerns a matter which is not on the Order Paper, but which thousands of Canadians wish were there.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: He does not know where Yorkton is, and they do not know where he is.


John Edward Broadbent: It concerns the important redress of the injustice which was inflicted upon more than 20,000 Japanese Canadians during the Second World War. On Monday a Member of the House asked the Prime Minister if the Government would commit itself to redressing these terrible wrongs, to use the words of the Prime Minister himself, that were inflicted upon Japanese Canadians. On Monday the Prime Minister said, I hope in a premature way, that he was expressing the personal view that it would be inappropriate to redress wrongs that were inflicted upon our ancestors.
Considering the people who are being discussed are not simply ancestors-more than one-half of them are still alive today, considering the injustices are real and that the Government of Canada should do something about them, I would now like to ask the Prime Minister if he would, not personally, but on behalf of the Government, say, first, that there were injustices inflicted upon Japanese Canadians, and we ought to acknowledge that wrong-doing, and second, will he commit the Government to some compensation for such past injustices.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member asks two questions, Mr. Speaker-first whether there were injustices and, second, would there be compensation. I believe my answer the day before yesterday indicated quite clearly that, in my view, there were injustices. I have said that in the House. I have said that publicly. I have said it in writings. I have said it even in Japan when I was there on an-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: Injustices.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I understand. But I also said it in Japan. Did the Hon. Member say Japan?


An Hon. Member:: What for?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Because, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important in order that the people over there realize that the Government
Oral Questions
of Canada, today's Government of Canada, has regret, and expresses regret about what has happened in the past when it is unjust. And also, as I answered, we had taken specific measures in the Constitution to ensure that there would be a Charter of Rights to prevent this kind of thing in the present and in the future.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There is no question that justice has been denied, Mr. Speaker. But what I went on to add on the question of compensation is that I did not feel it necessarily followed that compensation should necessarily be promised and paid to all those who, in the course of our history, have suffered some form of injustice. That is all I said.
There is a report of a parliamentary committee. It will come before Cabinet in the usual way, and we have an undertaking to state the Government's view on it and to table it in Parliament, in a specified time. I believe it is three months. Obviously we are going to have to state views on it.
But I repeat my personal view, which I will argue in and out of the House and in and out of Cabinet, that Government's main function is to be just in its time. It is not to try and correct the injustices that have been done to everybody in the past. If it is possible, well, that is fine. But as I said to a colleague of the Hon. Member from Oshawa, if we have, say, millions of dollars or hundreds of millions of dollars of compensation to pay to all those who have been somehow unjustly treated in the past, we should begin by perhaps using those hundreds of millions of dollars to help those who are below the poverty line, to help those who are on unemployment insurance. Those are the kinds of priorities that we have, Mr. Speaker. If the Hon. Member wants to go back once again to the deportation of the Acadians, I will make a case that they should have better lands in Nova Scotia and in New Brunswick than they have now-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -because when they came back from deportation they were given the rotten land.


Mr. Nowlan:: It is a different situation totally. Tell them the history, Gerry.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What about the NDP standing up for that justice? I know the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead does not like this because he is always interested in politics.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Order.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If he were more interested in thinking, he might be sitting here instead of over there.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Order.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

April 4, 1984
Oral Questions CORRECTION OF INJUSTICES


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has said, and I believe 1 heard him correctly, that he was interested in having justice in our time. I agree with that, and that is why we stood up in this House to make sure that justice was restored to Franco-Manitobans, even if it was taken away in 1890. That is why we stood up in this House and fought for constitutional rights for native Canadians, even if they were denied in the past.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I ask the Prime Minister if it is right to redress past wrongs for living Franco-Manitobans, if it is right to redress past wrongs inflicted upon native Canadians, because those native Canadians are still living today, why is it not right to redress the past wrongs of living Japanese Canadians today?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member gives an interesting example. He is going to redress the past wrongs of Franco-Manitobans. I would like to know how he is going to operate that redress. Since 1890, as he correctly points out, they have been suffering injustice because they have been legislated in a language by laws which were ultra vires because, according to the Supreme Court in 1979, the laws passed since then were ultra vires. I would like to hear the Hon. Member say how he is going to redress that.


Marc Lalonde: And compensation.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: And how he would compensate for that suffering and how he would also deal-he talks of the Japanese-with Chinese Canadians, of whom we heard not so long ago, who were asked to pay head taxes to get into the country, and who were certainly treated in a way which was not compatible with equal justice to everyone.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I hear the heckling back there, Mr. Speaker. 1 think the Deader of the New Democratic Party can think for himself. He does not need the backbenchers to give him the next answers.


Mr. Regan:: I do not know about that.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There may be some doubt about that.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am just trying to state the principle.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Order.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Clark is disturbed again. I will sit down.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The Prime Minister has dropped from being merely disagreeable to being somewhat pathetic, and I say that directly to him.


METHOD OF REDRESS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister knows that we tried to redress past injustices to Franco-Manitobans by bringing forward a Constitution in the House, in which some of us believed, to make sure those rights would be entrenched. That is the way we dealt with that. There is a different way now to deal with the rights of Japanese Canadians, that is, to provide some compensation through financial measures here in the House.
Does the Prime Minister not see that there is a connection between Franco-Manitoban rights, if those Franco-Manitoban rights were destroyed in the past but had to be restored in the present for the living, and the rights of native Canadians which were denied in the past but were restored for the present and for the future? If he agrees, does he not also agree the Japanese Canadians who had their rights denied, who were cruelly and inhumanely treated in the past, ought in the name of simple justice have those grievances dealt with in a straightforward and compassionate way by the House of Commons?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member makes a parallel, and I suggest he is then departing from it himself. He says that Franco-Manitobans were unjustly treated and we brought in redress in the House will a Bill of Rights and with resolutions before the House. He does not talk of compensation. He talks of making sure in the future- and God help us that we succeed-that they will not be treated unjustly. In an exact parallel we did the same thing with the Japanese Canadians. They were unjustly treated in the past. This Party brought in a Bill of Rights to ensure that there would be no more of that kind of discrimination in the future.
The parallel is perfect, but when we get to the financial compensation-and I take it he is talking about financial compensation, not apologies, because there have been apologies which I made personally on behalf of the Government of Canada-let him, perhaps not today but maybe by way of correspondence, tell me how much he thinks we should compensate not only the Japanese but the Chinese who have been unjustly treated, other Canadians who suffered from immigration practices, and let us go back as far as the Acadians. Then we will see if it is a reasonable request that he stands up in the House and tries to increase his favour with a particular lobby in the country, as the Leader of the Conservatives was doing at the beginning of this Question Period, by standing up for one group. The Government has to govern for all of Canada; it has to take everything into account.
April 4, 1984


GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: En franfais.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


A. Daniel McKenzie: The Prime Minister took notice of a question of mine yesterday regarding the advertising management group and the function of Mr. P. T. Zarry, the chairman. I wonder whether he could provide us with an answer today on what are his functions, whether he is receiving this $2,000 per day salary, and does he report to Senator Davey?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, yes, I did take notice of it. In effect the Hon. Member was right that Mr. Zarry is chairman of the advertising management group which does co-ordinate all the advertising of the Government of Canada. He, and the group which he chairs, the management group, do not report to Senator Davey. It reports to the Chairman of the Cabinet Committee on Communications, who is a Minister, not a Senator.


SALARY INQUIRY
A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, could the Prime Minister inform us as to what is Mr. Zarry's salary? Is it $1,500 or $2,000 per day?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member is willing to put that on the Order Paper, I will ensure that he gets an answer. I do not have the answer here.


John Horton McDermid: He asked you yesterday.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am sure he is receiving a salary which is in the market range, and I do not know what it is.


TOURISM
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism. As the Minister knows, we on this side of the House, and the tourist industry, have been calling upon the Government for over a year to take the initiative or to take the lead by attacking tourism's No. 1 problem, namely, overtaxation. In response, the Liberal Government dipped into its slush fund for $22 million for government advertising through Liberal agencies. As the Minister well knows, this ploy has not worked
Oral Questions
in other countries promoting tourism. Germany is a typical example.
Can the Minister justify this blatant porkbarrelling by the Liberal Government as far as government advertising is concerned? Second, and perhaps more important, when will the Government attack the underlying problem facing the tourist industry, which was responsible for a $2.1 billion deficit last year, namely, overtaxation?


Hon. David Smith (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the question, because it seems to me that the Opposition wants to have it both ways. We have been accused of not doing enough to promote Canada. People have pointed to the fact that our tourism deficit with the United States reached $2 billion this year. What have we done? We are doubling our advertising efforts in the United States in 1984 to bring Americans up here to spend dollars, so that those in the tourism industry in this country will benefit. That is exactly what we should be doing, and that is exactly what we are doing.
With regard to taxation, let us take one specific example. In the alcoholic industry, which is related to tourism-


Mr. Stevens:: The alcoholic industry?


David P. Smith: -ten years ago the federal Government took 40 per cent of the tax revenues. That is now down to 31 per cent, whereas the provinces have increased their share from 60 per cent to 69 per cent. I think the Hon. Member ought to talk to a few of the Tory premiers in the country.


REDUCTION OF ALCOHOL TAX IN NEW BRUNSWICK
Otto John Jelinek: I am glad that the Minister referred to the provincial premiers and talked about alcohol overtaxation. The provinces have been asking the Government to take the lead over the last year and a half. As a matter of fact the Government of New Brunswick earlier this week, in case the Minister does not know, reduced the provincial tax on alcohol in that province because the federal Government did not take the lead. Will the Government, if it is not prepared to lead, at least follow the positive example set by the Government of New Brunswick? If not, why not?


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, we have taken an initiative. The Minister of Finance some months ago, in response to a request from that industry, established a task force to review that issue and to report to him. I understand that task force is under way.

April 4, 1984
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF DESIGNATED MINISTER OF EMPLOYMENT OF FRANCE
Mr. Speaker:: Order. 1 wish to draw the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of Mr. Jack Ralite, designated Minister of Employment in the French National Assembly.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. For several years now, the federal Government, the Ontario Government, and the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton have been studying the feasibility of using municipal wastes generated within the region as a fuel to produce steam to heat and cool federal buildings. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre opposed that when it was proposed in the LeBreton Flats area, and I took a strong stand against it in the Overbrook area.
My question to the Minister relates to the financing and the possible participation of Public Works Canada in this project. Given the environmental difficulties and the high costs of this project, will the Minister's Department take a position of instigating, promoting, or supporting this steam plant in the near future?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, strong representations from all Members in the Ottawa area led me to make the decision I communicated to the main parties concerned-the Province and the region's municipal governments-in a letter I signed this morning.

Four years ago when there was an appearance of a shortage of steam energy in the centretown area, we agreed to participate in the feasibility study of this project. However, conservation measures have worked even better than we had expected. For this reason, I have informed the province and the municipal authorities that the Department of Public Works and the National Capital Commission will not be proponents of this project.


CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The Minister is well aware that in Canada in the past couple of years there has been a record number of mergers and takeovers, particularly foreign takeovers, which have often squeezed out smaller businesses. Under the Minister's proposed competition legislation there are absolutely no guarantees whatsoever that the efficiency gains which are promised by large corporations in exchange for allowing mergers will be passed on to consumers and effectively implemented. I would like to ask the Minister to explain why she has effectively knuckled under to the big business community in this important respect, and failed to protect consumers adequately by providing for assurances that efficiency gains will in fact be monitored and enforced.


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, frankly I am amused that the Hon. Member has asked this question in view of the fact that he has not himself had time to study the legislation. We have made some attempts to brief him about it, and he is basing his judgment on a very superficial press release.
I would suggest to the Hon. Member that he take some time to examine the Bill thoroughly. He would find that the Bill has indeed been strengthened. The conspiracy section has been strengthened. Indeed, we are calling for mandatory pre-notification in case of mergers. All of that never existed before. It is a much stronger Bill, and I suggest to the Hon. Member that he examine it thoroughly before he makes such statements.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have seen the Bill and I have read the Bill. Given the whoops of joy from the business community, it is quite clear that the Bill was in fact ghost-written by John Turner's Bay Street buddies.


UNITED STATES AND CANADIAN LEGISLATION
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows very well that the United States' trust-busting legislation is much tougher than the Minister's proposed Bill. Given the fact that there is no maximum ceiling whatsoever on market share before a merger can be effectively reviewed and presumed to be against the interests of consumers, how can the Minister explain to consumers, and particularly to small business, why this legislation is so much weaker than the equivalent American anti-trust legislation?


Judith A. Erola: Mr. Speaker, again I suggest to the Hon. Member that he does not understand the Bill. Otherwise he would not be making the outrageous statements that he is making in the House. This Bill is far stronger than previous legislation, and it is a Bill that faces the economic realities of Canada and of
April 4, 1984

world markets in general. 1 suggest to the Hon. Member that he see that this Bill is brought to committee very quickly so that we can all have a good look at it. When he asks about guarantees, is he suggesting a performance review and direct regulation? If so, I think that he would find himself in serious difficulty.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. The Minister will know that yesterday leaders of Canada's national voluntary agencies were gathered here in Ottawa and were alarmed by reports that the Minister's Department has engaged 12 new lawyers to investigate systematically Canada's national voluntary groups. The Minister is also aware that his officials are at this time threatening to remove the charitable status of the Canadian Mental Health Association. The charter of that Association has always included the aim of urging Governments at all levels to take legislative and financial action to further its objectives.
Why has the Minister chosen this particular time when his colleague, the Secretary of State, is introducing a Joint Committee to look at this very matter of charitable activity? Why has he chosen this particular time to turn his guns on the Canadian Mental Health Association?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct the impression given by the Hon. Member. I would like to tell him that we have not added person-years to the charitable organizations division of the Department in order to look after the charitable organizations. We have added person-years because there was a large backlog of requests by charitable organizations and we wanted to speed up the processing of those requests in order to have charitable organizations recognized more rapidly. That is what we have done with those added person-years.


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the leaders of the voluntary agencies will be reassured by the Minister's comment.


REQUEST THAT CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION STATUS BE MAINTAINED
Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of the Minister's comment, will he then follow the recommendation made by the Secretary of State during yesterday's debate, which was that until the Special Joint Committee has completed its report there will be no further removals of charitable status from voluntary agencies?
Oral Questions


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of trouble understanding the Hon. Member's suggestion. The Hon. Member is asking that when there is an obvious case of abuse of the provisions of the Act with respect to charitable organizations, I, as Minister of National Revenue, should ignore the fact and refrain from enforcing the law. I hardly think the Hon. Member would want us to administer the laws of this country in that way.
However, I may point out to the Hon. Member, as my colleague, the Secretary of State, said previously, that a committee has been established, further to a proposal made in the Throne Speech, for the purpose of examining the status of charitable organizations and what their status should be in relation to the tax system. Any charitable organizations that wish to submit their complaints to this committee will be welcome. This will not be considered to be political activity on their part, since they have a formal invitation from the Government and the House of Commons to come and submit their comments with respect to the status of charitable organizations.


WAR MEASURES ACT
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice and concerns the War Measures Act. He will recall that his predecessor Minister of Justice, Mr. Turner, said on October 16, 1970, as reported on page 215 of that day's Hansard'.
It is my hope that some day the full details of the intelligence upon which the government acted can be made public, because until that day comes the people of Canada will not be able fully to appraise the course of action which has been taken by the government.
1 wonder if the Minister of Justice would tell us whether it is his intention to continue to keep secret the information which Mr. Turner kept secret 14 years ago?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, this is certainly a day for the Opposition to try to rake up the past. I have not had an opportunity to consider that question. My hon. friend is aware of the fact that there is a rule that, after 30 years, information becomes available. However, I will certainly have another look at that file to see whether there is any public interest to justify having the information released now.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, there has also been a rule that Canadians do not get thrown into jail without charge. This Government, this Prime Minister, and Mr. Turner as Minister of Justice, threw hundreds of Canadians into jail without charge under the War Measures Act, and they solemnly promised in this House that they would tell the people of

April 4, 1984
Oral Questions
Canada why they took that extraordinary action. It is not a question of the past, it is very much a question of today.


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL UNDERTAKING
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Justice give us an undertaking that he will be back in the House within a week to give us a full answer to the question of whether or not he will reveal the information kept secret by John Turner, so that Canadians can judge for themselves whether or not the Government was justified in throwing Canadians into jail without charge in 1970?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has his history a bit askew. First of all, his Party supported the legislation that was passed by the House at that time. Second, those prosecutions which occurred took place in a province and were not under federal authority. Third, 1 believe that all of this was looked at by the McDonald Commission and has been discussed by the Canadian public. There is nothing at all of the sinister character that my hon. friend would wish to impute to this past history.


REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice is now getting briefed by the Prime Minister. Perhaps now he has an answer.
We consider it sinister when Canadian citizens may be thrown into jail without charge. We consider it sinister when the House of Commons is promised that it will receive an explanation about why those actions took place, yet never receives that kind of explanation.
What I am asking the Minister of Justice is quite clear. Will he now give us an undertaking to come into the House within a week to tell Parliament whether he is going to honour the undertaking given by Mr. Turner and ignored by Mr. Turner? Will he also tell us whether he is going to reveal to Parliament the reasons the Government introduced the War Measures Act, an Act that was supported in part by this Parliament because the information was not given and because we took it on faith? We have had enough of taking things on faith. Now we want to know the facts. I want to know if the Minister will come into the House within a week and give us those facts.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, essentially all of the facts on which Parliament and the Government acted at that time are in the public domain. They have been much written about and much talked about. The Hon. Member's Party voted for the actions of the federal Parliament at that time. All of the abuses, if any, which took place at that time have been opened to investigation subsequently, either by the courts of appeal or by the McDonald Commission. There is nothing to be added to that file. At some
time in the future it may be that there will be some small fact that is shown by the revelation of documents, but there is no substantial fact of any kind which is not known to the Canadian people and has not been known for many years.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition to the House this afternoon. It is signed by more than 6,000 Canadians from every province and territory. Now that Bill C-10 will be before the House shortly, these Canadians are availing themselves of their opportunity to indicate to the House their strong objection to the provisions of Bill C-10.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga) rises on a point of order.


POINTS OF ORDER
Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of a number of Members in the Chamber I wish to share with you a concern and a reservation that we have. I do so with no criticism whatsoever directed at the Chair. As a Member of the House of Commons who wishes to put questions to government Ministers about their accountability, I share with you my deep concern at the time it takes for the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and Cabinet Ministers to respond to legitimate questions.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Peter Elzinga: I stand to be corrected, but I believe that during the entire Question Period only 10 questions were put to Cabinet Ministers. We all have equal responsibilities as Members of Parliament from all across the country. I share with you my deep concern and I make a plea and a request to you to examine how long it takes these individuals to answer questions which could be answered in a much shorter time. They could be much more curt in their reply.
I make that plea to you, recognizing the responsibilities that we all have as Members of Parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is happy to respond to the statement of the Hon. Member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga). For some time the Chair has been concerned about the change in Question Period. It is no longer a period of question and
April 4, 1984

answer; it is debate and counter-debate without a length of time being assigned to answers or even to questions. Under these circumstances, a very provocative question will bring a provocative and lengthy reply.
The Chair is as concerned as any Hon. Member. Today there were 9 questions, not 10. Yesterday there were 17. The Chair does its best to call Hon. Members, including Members of the Cabinet and senior Members on both sides, to account and to call to their attention what it does to Members on the back benches when the questions and answers and supplementary questions that are not supplementary questions but supplementary speeches, take place in the House.
The Chair is the servant of the House and is as anxious as anyone else to bring in more rules governing the length of time in which questions can be asked and answers given. I suggest that this is a matter for the House Leaders to consider, or perhaps the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization.
The Hon. Member for Pembina on a supplementary observation.


Peter Elzinga: Mr. Speaker, when I share my concerns with you that does not affect my high regard and high respect for the Chair and the high respect and high regard I have for you as an individual, Sir. I say that very sincerely. 1 realize the difficult role that you have to play, but 1 just ask for some acknowledgement and respect for the role that we have to play as well.


Mr. Speaker:: No previous incumbent of the Chair in recent times spent more time on the back benches than the present incumbent.


MR. McDERMID-CAMPING ON PARLIAMENT HILL
John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder how a Member would go about addressing the problem of camping on the front lawn of this beautiful House of Commons or how we might remove the unsightly camping that is going on at the present time. It is a disgrace to the grounds of the House of Commons.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is aware of the Hon. Member's views. The Chair would again invite the Hon. Member to make use of a Standing Order 21 statement on the matter.


John Horton McDermid: That has been done many times.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is as concerned as is the Hon. Member and has raised it in appropriate places.


John Horton McDermid: Where are the appropriate places?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon).


Mr. Siddon:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you might give consideration to the possibility of inviting all Canadians to
Order Paper Questions
camp on the front lawn of the Parliament Buildings this summer?


Mr. Speaker:: We are stretching petitions a little far at this point. The Chair has made note of this, but the Chair would also hope that other very senior Members of the House who carry responsibility would make note of the views expressed.


CONSTITUTION ACTS, 1867-1984 MEASURE RESPECTING TENURE OF SENATORS
William J. Yurko: for leave to introduce Bill C-231, an Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (tenure of Senators).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the recommendations of the Special Joint Committee on Senate Reform would create three classes of Senators; in contrast this Bill would create one class of Senators by making all existing appointments subject to a nine-year term or retirement at 75 years of age, whichever occurred first. Because this amendment would not affect the powers of the Senate and the method of selecting Senators, it could be passed by Parliament exclusively without recourse to the general procedure for amendment requiring provincial approval.


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

[Stage Direction]
(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. 42, 339 and 357, revised.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	By province and for each of the last five years for which figures are available, what (a) was the contingent liability of the Government for the Canada Student Loans Program (b) were the statutory expenditures related to the Program?
2.	For each of the same years what (a) were the costs, by province, related to (i) defaulted loans (ii) interest payable while the borrowers were in school (b) amount was either paid to the government of the Province of Quebec or foregone via a transfer of tax points?


Hon. Serge Joyal (Secretary of State):: 1. (a) The contingent liability under the Canada Student Loans Program is based on reports from the banks and the individual data pertaining to the provinces is thus not available. The figures for Canada as a whole are:

April 4, 1984
Order Paper Questions
	$ million
1978-79	677.8
1979-80	689.2
1980-81	739.8* *
1981-82	802.5
1982-83	930.1
* figures for July 1981 arc excluded since loan year changed from July I-June 30 to August I-July 31.
Source: Canada Student Loans Program Annual Report Table B
Statutory Payment and Recoveries-Canada Student Loans Prograi
Loan	Interest	Loss	DeathYear	Payments	Claims	Claims(1)	(2)	(3)1978-79	39,003,234	25,139,759	282,7401979-80	32.922,029	25,943,518	213,0101980-81*	38.133,463	28,648.268	417.4571981-82	49.408,241	33,626,693	400,8011982-83	71,773,235	43,234,255	442,131
* Includes July, 1981 and therefore is a 13-month year.
Source: Table D Canada Student Loans Program Annual Report
2.(a) (i) Column (2) of 1 -(b). (ii) Column (1) of 1 .(b).
(b) Column (6) of l.(b)-The Canada Student Loans Program pays to a province which chooses not to issue loans under the program an alternative payment based on the 18-24 population in that province compared to the 18-24 population in the participating provinces as a factor applied to statutory costs. There are no tax transfer payments.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many copies of the "Semi-Annual Report on the Progress of 6 & 5" were printed?
2.	(a) Who were the authors (b) what were they paid (c) what was the total cost of the report?
3.	Was the report distributed and, if so, to which (a) public and private groups or organizations (b) departments (c) individuals?


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister of State (Finance)):: 1.
Seven hundred and fifty.
2.	(a) and (b) The authors of the report were salaried public
servants, (c) $14,000.
3.	The report was distributed to all Members of the Senate, House of Commons and to the Members of the six and five committees.


ARTISTS' STUDIOS ACQUIRED BY DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 357 (Revised)-Mr. St. Germain:
Does the Department of External Affairs and/or the Canada Council maintain artists' studios at the (a) Cite Internationale des Arts in Paris (b) Institute of Art and Urban Resources in New York and, if so (i) how many (ii) at what total
cost?
John Leslie Evans: 1 am informed by the Department of External Affairs and the Canada Council as follows:
(b) As in (a) statutory expenditures are not available by province.
Collection (4)	Recoveries (credit) (5)	Alternative Payments to Gov't of Que. (6)	Total (7)2,718,448	11,692,772	15,875,306	71,326,7152,773,540	13,192,936	21,670,352	70,329,5134,085,625	19,121,137	17,452,508	69,616,1843,703,735	18,407,459	17,612,136	86,344,1474,160,931	20,265,474	25,828,646	125,173,724
(a) (i) and (ii) The Department of External Affairs has bought the right to occupy three studios at the Cite internationale des Arts in Paris. These occupation rights were acquired in 1964 for a total cost of $48,000. The maintenance costs of these studios are paid by the artists, (b) (i) Two studios are leased by Canada Council, (ii) $U.S. 7,000 per year.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 203 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 203 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND OCEANS-OUTSIDE CONSULTANTS
Mr. Blenkarn: 1. In the fiscal year (a) 1981-82 (b) 1982-83 were outside consultants employed by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and, if so (i) how many (ii) what was the total amount paid?
April 4, 1984

2. Were any consultants paid more than $20,000 and, if so, in each case what (a) was his/her name (b) was the amount (c) services were provided?
Return tabled.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-12, an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Established Programs Financing Act, 1977, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Speaker:: As Hon. Members are aware, there are 9 motions standing on the Notice Paper at the report stage of Bill C-12, an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Established Programs Financing Act, 1977.
Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9 give the Chair some concern as to their procedural acceptability, in that they infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown and, in some cases, are contrary to the Royal Recommendation attached to the Bill.
It would seem that Motion No. 4 is proposing to impose a condition on the expenditure of each cash contribution by the provinces. While the Chair has some concerns about the procedural acceptability of the motion, 1 am prepared to give the Hon. Member the benefit of the doubt and will, therefore, put the motion to the House, that is, Motion No. 4.
Motion No. 5 seeks to add a new element to the Bill and is therefore beyond the scope of the Bill.
If either the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett) or the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) wishes to put forward procedural argument, I am prepared to hear them when each motion is numerically called by the Chair. Since the first three motions
Established Programs Financing are in the name of the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam, perhaps the Chair can recognize her first in order for the Hon. Member to present her arguments.


Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, Motions Nos. 1 and 2 address the retroactivity of this Bill as do subsequent Motions Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9. Motion No. 3 addresses the six and fiving of post-secondary educational transfers.
Speaking first then on Motion No. 1, and the subsequent motions which also address retroactivity, my argument, Mr. Speaker, would be that this legislation is retroactive to April 1, 1983. That is to say that the six and fiving goes back to April 1, 1983, a full year ago. A full year has passed. We are now into the second year covered by the Bill, namely, 1984-85. The argument, surely, Mr. Speaker, is that the supreme authority of Parliament is totally denied when we are asked to impose restrictions on post-secondary educational transfers for a year which is now finished and over.
There was an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, for the Government to have done this six and fiving on time. As you will recall, Mr. Speaker, it did indeed introduce a Bill last year to cover the 1983-1984 part of the two-year program. That Bill sat on the Order Paper and actually the Government allowed it to die. The Government, in other words, knew itself by introducing it that the correct procedure would have been to have the Bill passed during the year in which it would take effect.
It seems to me that it is utterly disdainful of the authority of Parliament to ask this House now to place limits on fiscal transfers for a year which has already expired. That would be my main argument, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has indicated her desire to interpret the intent of the Bill and, in her opinion, her motion is a logical interpretation of the implications of the Bill. However, in the opinion of the Chair, Motions Nos. 1 and 2 propose to change the base year for calculations of cash contributions and entitlements. In the opinion of the Chair, they call for greater expenditures than provided for in the Royal Recommendation and, therefore, are out of order.
Motion No. 3, if adopted, would change the basis for calculation of the escalator which is used in determining the level of an entitlement. In the Chair's opinion, such a change in the escalator would increase post-secondary education entitlements and hence be an added charge on the public purse which, lacking the Royal Recommendation, is out of order. As well, the motion proposes to eliminate a phase-in formula which is contrary to the purpose of the Bill.
So, regretfully, I will have to rule Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 out of order. However, I will put Motion No. 4 to the House for debate.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I did not give my arguments for Motion No. 3. I thought you only wanted to hear my arguments for Motions Nos. 1 and 2 on retroactivity. 1 wonder if I could make my argument for Motion No. 3?

April 4, 1984
Established Programs Financing


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair was very specific in inviting the Hon. Member to make her observations on Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 3. It could not have been more specific. The Hon. Member was invited to so comment and the Chair has made a ruling.


Pauline Jewett: That Bill C-12 be amended in Clause 8 by adding immediately after line 25 at
page 7 the following:
"(3) Any such cash contribution for hospital insurance and medical care
programs and post-secondary education program shall be expended by the
province for the purposes of those programs only."
She said: Mr. Speaker, one of the problems of the transfer of funds under the post-secondary education provisions of the fiscal arrangements Act is that the funds do not need to be expended by the provinces for the purposes for which they were intended. The provinces can take these moneys and spend them in any fashion they please and, indeed, many provinces have been doing so. It was quite apparent that all members of the committee from all three Parties felt that the time had come when the federal Government's contributions to the financing of post-secondary education should be earmarked and used by the provinces for the purposes intended.
We realize that this Motion No. 4, which reads with respect to post-secondary education transfers:
Any such cash contribution for hospital insurance and medical care programs and post-secondary education program shall be expended by the province for the purposes of those programs only.
This motion, we realize, is in some way symbolic rather than real because, in fact, these are relatively limited amounts of money. They are only a drop in the bucket compared with the total amount which the federal Government makes possible for post-secondary education, either through transfers or tax points. Therefore, with this amendment we are only getting at a tiny part of the problem in cash terms. Indeed, one could probably argue, and others will, that most provinces will undoubtedly be spending or have already spent the money embodied in the six and five increases provided by this Bill. We understand that the whole operation of fiscal transfers and tax points is not covered, indeed it cannot be, under this particular Bill. That will have to await a complete re-examination by the federal and provincial Governments of the financing of post-secondary education.
There was much concern expressed on all sides about the absence of accountability in the field of post-secondary education funding. Everyone on the committee-and I think I can speak for everyone on the standing committee-argued quite strongly that the provinces should not be able to spend the federal contributions in any fashion they pleased, such as on highways or put it into their general revenue fund, or whatever. Some signal should be given to the provinces from the federal Parliament of Canada that their practices were contrary to the spirit of the federal contribution to post-secondary education.
We found, at least in the course of all my discussions with the experts in the field, that the way we could get that message
across would be through this kind of amendment. It would be a very clear signal to the provinces that the Parliament of Canada felt that it had a responsibility to the taxpayers of Canada to ensure that the moneys being transferred would be spent in the way that Parliament and the taxpayers intended them to be spent.
I may say that we in this Party opposed block funding at the time it was first introduced in 1977 because we feared that exactly what has happened would happen, that the provinces would not in all cases spend the money on post-secondary education. But we cannot repair that now. I think every Member of this House is hopeful that in the course of the next six or eight months we will, however, together with the provinces find a new formula in which the provinces are accountable for the spending of federal transfers on post-secondary education. In the meantime, surely all would agree with the spirit of Motion No. 4.
This is an extremely important message to get across, namely, that we want to have some degree of accountability for the spending by the provinces of money that this Parliament allocates for post-secondary education. Until we get a new formula and an adequate system of accountability, which as I say will come within the next few months, we should proceed with this motion in the interval.


Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise to speak in favour of Motion No. 4 which reads:
That Bill C-12 be amended in Clause 8 by adding immediately after line 25 at page 7 the following:
''(3) Any such cash contribution for hospital insurance and medical care
programs and postsecondary education program shall be expended by the
province for the purposes of those programs only."
While there is a great concern right across the country, particularly in the student and academic community, I believe it is fair to say that nowhere is this feeling as strong and universal as it is in my own constituency of Kootenay West, and more particularly in my own home of Nelson, British Columbia. In dealing with this Bill, both inside and outside this House, I have outlined the situation in that province and in my own community. For the second time in seven years a provincial Government has closed the post-secondary institution in that community. These are the only times that a university facility has been closed in Canada, to my knowledge, and both of them were in the same community, a community of only 10,000 souls.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but it seems to me that we are now having a discussion on substance rather than a discussion, which I understood the Speaker to introduce, of whether Motion No. 4 is in order.


Pauline Jewett: It is in order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please. We are debating Motion No. 4.


John Horton McDermid: Where have you been?
April 4, 1984


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: I can only say to that, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon. Member opposite seems to be as confused on this issue as his whole Government was confused in 1977 when it decided it was going to believe in the goodwill and good faith of provincial governments across this country, whether they be Tory or whatever-


John Horton McDermid: Or NDP.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: -that they would somehow respect the intent of the legislation and that the money would be spent for either medical or post-secondary educational purposes. It shows exactly the same ignorance, if I may say so, and naivety of which, astoundingly enough, the federal Secretary of State (Mr. Joyal) suggested the critics of Bill C-12 were guilty when he spoke to the Faculty Association of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver just last Thursday. He suggested that we in the Opposition who criticize the application of six and five to post-secondary education were the ones who were naive. One way to correct the problem, which he seemed to think existed for us now, is to make clear in this legislation that if this parliament authorizes the transfer of funds to the provinces for post-secondary education, we ought to be able to demand in law that those provinces act in good faith and spend the money for those purposes.
What the Conservative Government in British Columbia has done in the last few months has been an absolute disgrace. It has impacted not only on the students and faculty, but on the life of the community of Nelson, B.C., as well as on the rest of the province. That Government has reneged on its commitment to the people of Canada who provided most of these funds. We have large-scale fee increases of 23 per cent, 25 per cent and up to 30 per cent, being levied on students in post-secondary education in our province. They are denying accessibility not only on the grounds of how much money you have in the bank, but they are also denying equal access to students simply because they do not reside and earn their living in the major metropolitan communities of that province. That is wrong.
The Government across the way, Mr. Speaker, if it refuses to adopt this amendment or something very much like it, is equally responsible. It invites people such as those who now inhabit and misgovern the Government of the Province of British Columbia to do exactly what they are doing, that is, to ignore the principle of equality of access to education. That is wrong. If anyone, they are the ones who were naive. In 1977, other Members of the House moved from unconditional funding to block funding. Members of this Party were not among them, 1 am glad to say. The other Parties are thus equally culpable of the actions we are now seeing in British Columbia and elsewhere, which this amendment is designed to correct, at least in part.
In my own community there is a mass meeting taking place today at the David Thompson University Centre. The citizens of that community are talking about setting up picket lines.
Established Programs Financing Negotiations are going on between representatives of that community and representatives of the federal Secretary of State. Negotiations are still going on between that community and representatives of the provincial Government in Victoria with regard to whether we shall continue to have access to our facility so that if we can find the funds and co-operation to ensure continued programs in the future, that this will be possible. While those negotiations are under way we are being threatened by the provincial Government in Victoria with having agents move in in the middle of the night to steal library facilities and books which belong to that institution. By the law of the Province of British Columbia, which has not yet been repealed, those books and facilities are guaranteed to the people of that city. Citizens of that community are meeting today to talk about setting up picket lines to enforce with their bodies their right under law to equal access to education and their right to defend their private or community property from a government which has acted so rudely and crudely. I am talking about the Government of British Columbia. At least the federal Government has had the courtesy to talk to people and negotiate in some good faith with us about the ongoing chances for the delivery of some educational programs in our community.
While I am being critical in other areas, I would like to congratulate and thank the federal Secretary of State who met with me, the mayor of my home town, consultants for the City of Nelson and representatives of the David Thompson University Action Committee last Thursday. In response to our requests, he agreed at least to fund the cost of the research and development which is now taking place and being paid for by the citizens of the City of Nelson. Other communities in that area had also volunteered funds to assist my home community to bear the costs of investigating and negotiating with other institutions which may agree to locate there. He thus agreed to help with the cost of negotiations and of the delegations to Victoria and Ottawa to pursue the rights of our young people and our community. When the federal Secretary of State realized the economic hardships which our community is going through, he immediately agreed to provide at least a token amount of money to assist with those costs. That action was most welcome.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please. I have to remind the Hon. Member that the motion before the House is Motion No. 4. The rule of relevance applies. He should be speaking to Motion No. 4.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, to make the point of relevance clear, I think it is wrong that we should have to meet in a hit and miss way with the federal Secretary of State or any other Minister in order to have some chance of access to those post-secondary education facilities which should be ours as a matter of right. The federal Parliament of Canada has, over the years, allocated certain significant funds for post-secondary education to the Province of British Columbia, as it has to other provinces. No provincial government in the country has been so callous in the disregard of its duties as has the

April 4, 1984
Established Programs Financing Government of British Columbia. Even though the increases are going to be cut back by the six and five program in the Bill before us, there have at least been some increases. In our province they have not been passed on and the province has even taken away from what had previously been accorded to the province for the purpose of post-secondary education.
Mr. Speaker, I know that in dealing with specific amendments it is not always normal to talk about specific instances that are having an impact. However, I do not think that is because it is not proper to do so. Surely it is correct to talk about the impact which the absence of such an amendment as we propose here is having on a particular community, on 500 full-time and part-time students and on their families. Surely it is proper to talk about the devastating economic impact as well as the impact on the careers of these students and faculty members. The impact is absolutely horrific.
1 would ask the federal Secretary of State to recall some of the conversations which took place last Thursday. I would ask him to recall what gave rise to those complaints and to those very serious problems for those hundreds of young people and for an entire community which now has some 24 per cent to 30 per cent unemployment. I ask him to realize that if he were to agree to such an amendment as we propose today we would not in future have the type of serious problems we are now facing. I would again appeal to the Minister, to the Government, and to all Hon. Members of the House to move in this direction.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please. I am sorry to advise the Hon. Member that his time has expired.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, it is very important in the life of man to have a philosophy. It is obviously the responsibility of any political Party also to have a philosophy. However, when you start to mix your personal politics with your philosophy, you denounce your philosophy and second rate yourself. Then you mean nothing to anyone.
I would like to say that I admire the philosophy which suggests that there is a federal responsibility for education, particularly as it relates to post-secondary education. However, I do not think we should exert our politics to the extent of pointing the finger of blame at the wrong place totally. I cannot speak for all the provinces of Canada. I can speak from some knowledge of things in Atlantic Canada. It is no wonder the NDP does not have any seats in Atlantic Canada. It is attacking the wrong people in the House.
The Atlantic provinces of Canada have negotiated for years and years with the federal Government to be able to sustain the programs recommended by the federal Government, whether they be hospital care, welfare, medicare or postsecondary education. It was hoped by many that when the block funding system was adopted at long last, after four decades of negotiation and cost shared programs, the Government of Canada would in fact honour what was perceived to be its commitment and intentions. The failure to honour those commitments and apparent intentions has been expressed by the Minister of Finance of New Brunswick in the shortage of
$234 million in the budget which he is about to bring down. What can a province of limited means do?
I am rather amazed that the lady who moved this motion, who has knowledge of the Province of New Brunswick, would not have attacked the Government of Canada first, and only later the provinces if she so wished, for the shortage of $234 million to the province from which she hails. That is a very serious thing.


Pauline Jewett: It is not in the motion.


Fred Alward McCain: I only said that the Hon. Member was a descendant of New Brunswick people.


Pauline Jewett: And proud of it.


Fred Alward McCain: I hope that the Hon. Member would be.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: So is the Premier of British Columbia.


Fred Alward McCain: There is no better stock in Canada. I do not like the failure to recognize that with its block funding system the federal Government has again avoided the intent and the perceived commitment of the Government of Canada to do what needed to be done and not to shortchange it. I say unequivocally that Atlantic Canada has had the proudest history in education of any province in Canada. We have dedicated ourselves to better the education of our people. However, this cannot be done when the money is not available. While the Government has shortchanged every province in Canada, I am more knowledgeable about the situation in my province and its neighbouring provinces in Atlantic Canada. If we are going to mix our philosophy about this amendment, which I suppose is not objectionable, and overlook the fact that money is needed to meet the objectives of this amendment, then I think the credibility of the proponents of this amendment will be perceived by Atlantic Canada as lacking,
I must say that the Government has been remiss in its duty because in its attempt to take credit for itself it has shortchanged the provinces. It has tried to take action in other forms to appear as if it were taking action since the provinces will not do so. It has done this through medicare and postsecondary education, to the point even of putting a note in old age pension cheques saying that the Government of Canada is in favour of people getting all their health and medical services free. That is a blatant political exploitation of the senior citizens of this country at public expense. It implies that other Parties in the House do not support the same concept. But we have supported that concept. It is a blatant, contemptible trick to pull, but it was done.
Here we are again, with the supposed friends of Canada to our left and the supposed friends of universality, criticizing the provinces that have been shortchanged for not doing a job for which the federal Government had essentially committed the provision of funds.


Mr. Parker:: Our record is clear.
April 4, 1984


Fred Alward McCain: Your record is contemptible at this time. They do not recognize the realities or the reason for this amendment.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Look at the other amendments.


Fred Alward McCain: Until such time as the New Democratic Party is prepared to recognize the total picture rather than the narrow conceptual picture of colloquial politics, about which they have spoken in this Elouse and have illustrated-


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Do you know how to read?


Fred Alward McCain: Those fellows must believe that everyone in the House is deaf. I did not have to read. All I had to do was to listen and to isolate the colloquialism of the last two speakers. They do not give two hoots about Canada.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Could I bring the Hon. Member to order? He is speaking on Motion No. 3, not Motion No. 4. Motion No. 3 was the one which blames the federal Government for imposing six and five on these transfers and suggested going back to the 11 per cent at which they should have been. That concerned Motion No. 3 and is what the Hon. Member is addressing. It was my motion that, unfortunately, was declared out of order.
He is wrong to be speaking totally to Motion No. 3, which is the one I wanted to have discussed in the House. If he had attended the committee he would have known that we are on record as opposing the imposition of six and five on postsecondary educational transfers.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: I will draw the remarks of the Hon. Member to the attention of the Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) and ask him to address his remarks of the last few minutes to Motion No. 4.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, I was asked if I could read. May I just read the motion to you. It reads:
Any such cash contribution for hospital insurance and medical care programs and post-secondary education program shall be expended by the province for the purposes of those programs only.
Have I addressed any other subject than these programs? I leave it to you to rule on, Mr. Speaker. While I discussed the source of those moneys and the obligation of the federal Government in respect of them, as well as the distortion of the facts by the members of the NDP, the Hon. Member did debate that subject somewhat and I do not begrudge her that opportunity. It is one of the privileges of the House which she should exercise.
On the other hand, I believe there should be somewhat more resemblance to the truth and the basic problem as it exists in Canada. Let us not address this on a carte blanche basis, speaking against every Premier in Canada for not spending enough money on these programs. The fact is that since they do not have the money, they cannot spend what they do not have.


Pauline Jewett: They do not spend what they get from us.
Established Programs Financing


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: They do, Mr. Justice Hall said they did.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, I have heard this accusation from Members on my left and Members on your right. Not one speaker has documented the fact that the Province of New Brunswick has not spent all of its grants or the equivalent of those grants for the purposes for which the money was granted. While slimy accusations have been made against the Premiers of Canada, not one Member has documented any facts to show that a province in Canada has misspent or misappropriated the money. Mr. Justice Hall supported the provinces in spite of all the accusations of those who would say otherwise.
When one gets one's tail caught in a trap one screams, and that is why they are screaming.


Pauline Jewett: You should have listened to the committee.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: You are deaf and blind.


Fred Alward McCain: I attend the committee as regularly as the screaming Member on my left attends the Fisheries Committee. We each have our interests and responsibilities. When she begins to attend the Fisheries Committee, the Agricultural Committee or the Forestry Committee, then I will start to attend the committee to which she refers, that is, if my Party has room for me on that committee. However, in view of the expertise from our Party that is already on that committee, I recognize that I am not needed in that sphere. We all have our own interests, and I suggest that she attend to hers. I will look after my constituency and I will try to look after the integrity of the provinces of Canada.
I want to deflect the accusations which have been made against those provinces and which have been alleged without any foundation by any Minister or backbencher since the subject matter has come before us.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, let me first deal with the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain). I recall that he began his speech by admonishing the House that we ought not be too political in our remarks. He charged us with overexerting, I believe he said, politics in our analysis. After making that self-righteous comment, he went on to be obviously political in his very selective interpretation of what our criticism of this Bill has been.
As the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett) pointed out, we are debating Motion No. 4, which admittedly implies a criticism of some provincial governments and is symbolic of our desire that the money transferred from the federal Government to provincial governments for the purposes of education should be spent on education. We make no apologies for that. If that provokes a defensive attitude toward the provinces on the part of that Hon. Member or any other Member, so be it.
However, to be fair, the Hon. Member neglected to say that we had another amendment which, had it been ruled in order and debated, would have acknowledged that we also view the

April 4, 1984
Established Programs Financing
federal Government as being culpable in the confusion which surrounds the whole question of post-secondary education.
Therefore, I suggest it is evident that we are not playing politics with this issue because we moved a number of amendments which, taken together, provide an equitable approach to the question. The Hon. Member, who accused us of playing politics, is the one who, with his incredibly select interpretation of our criticism of Bill C-12, gave a very adverse political analysis of our position and thus contradicted himself.
Speaking to the substance of the amendment, I would have thought it would go without saying that all Members would want to indicate that any money transferred to the province for a particular purpose should be spent on that purpose. It may not be the case with the Province of New Brunswick. I do not have the most current figures, but I know it has been the case that certain provinces have spent less in total on post-secondary education than what was transferred to them by the federal Government for that purpose. In other words, the federal contribution in a couple of provinces has sometimes been over 100 per cent of what has been spent by those provinces on post-secondary education. Again, to be fair, lest I lapse into a purely political analysis, that has something to do with the arbitrary nature of the division of the transfers into one-third for post-secondary education and two-thirds for hospital and medical care. It is the case that there are some provinces in which the federal Government always paid more than 50 per cent, in which the federal government always carried, right from the beginning of the serious development of post-secondary education facilities in those provinces, a heavier burden than it carried in some other provinces.
There has been some confusion as to who is living up to what expectation as a result of the arbitrary division, which was made in 1977, but of the total EPF transfer, two-thirds seem to be allocated for health care and one-third seems to be allocated for post-secondary education. That confusion and what arises from it was acknowledged in the special parliamentary task force report on federal-provincial fiscal arrangements entitled Fiscal Federalism, a committee on which I sat in 1981. But one of the things to which everyone was agreeable was the idea that there ought to be more accountability. The amendment which the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam has moved on behalf of the NDP makes that point. That is the only point trying to be made by this amendment. There was absolutely no good reason, except obvious partisan reasons or perhaps confusion on the part of the Hon. Member from New Brunswick, to imply either that this was the only criticism that was ever made of Bill C-12 and, therefore, it was completely unbalanced, which is not true, and, as I said, it is part and parcel of a number of amendments and criticisms, or to imply that we somehow view the provincial governments as the only ones to be blamed for the crisis in post-secondary education. We hold neither of the views which the Hon. Member attributed to us.
I hope that in future if the Hon. Member wants to get up and accuse others of simply playing politics with the issue, he will take more care to be even-handed, to be well informed, to read our speeches and to know what we have said. Then he can comment on what we have actually said. We are quite prepared to defend what we have said. If there is something he does not like about what we have moved and what we have said about Bill C-12, then let him get up and say so. Let him not just comfort himself with being able to get up and be eloquent about things that are not there, knock down straw men and use that wonderful voice of his to criticize things that are not there.


Walter Franklin McLean: There's the birds nest of Birds Hill.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Ms. Jewett, seconded by Mr. Blaikie moves:
That Bill C-12 be amended in clause 8 by adding immediately after line 25 at page 7 the following:
any such cash contribution for hospital insurance and medical care programs
and post-secondary program shall be expended by the province for the
purposes of those programs only.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 79, a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You will know that Motion No. 5 which stands in the name of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), was ruled not acceptable by the Chair earlier this afternoon.
If you can find consent in the House, and I believe there is consent, there have been discussions and negotiations, I would be willing to move an amendment which covers the subject matter of Motion No. 5. This amendment has found favour, I believe, with the Government as well as with the New Demo-
April 4, 1984

cratic Party. I would like to move the motion, if the rules of the House will allow me to do that at this time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The Hon. Member can move the motion only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Members of the House for the courtesy extended to us.
Therefore, I move:
That Bill C-12 be amended
(a)	by adding, immediately after line 25 on page 7, the following:
"9. The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 24 thereof, the following section:
"24.1 (1) The Secretary of State shall cause to be laid before each House of Parliament, not later than the fifth sitting day of that House after the 31st day of January next following the end of each fiscal year that begins after March 31, 1984, a report for that fiscal year on
(a)	cash contributions and total equalized tax transfers in respect of the post-secondary education financing program applicable to each province;
(b)	expenditures by each province on post-secondary education;
(c)	any other federal programs of support to or involvement in postsecondary education;
(d)	the relationship between such federal contributions, transfers and programs and Canada's educational and economic goals; and
(e)	the results of any consultations by or on behalf of the Secretary of State with the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada relating to the definition of national purposes to be served by post-secondary education and the means by which the governments of Canada and the provinces will achieve those purposes.
(2) Every report laid before Parliament under subsection (1) shall be referred for review to such standing committee of the House of Commons, of the Senate or of both Houses of Parliament as is designated by Parliament for that purpose."
(b) by renumbering the subsequent clauses accordingly.
There would also be a subsequent re-numbering of Clause 13. If you want me to move that at this time, I would be willing to do that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Yes.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That clause 13 (renumbered as 14) of Bill C-12 be amended
(a)	by striking out line 28 on page 9 and substituting the following:
"14. (1) Sections 1 to 9 shall be deemed to"
(b)	by striking out line 30 on page 9 and substituting the following:
"(2) Sections 10 to 13 shallcome into force"
That is in both languages, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Hon. Members have heard the reading of the motions proposed by the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp). Can I dispense with re-reading the motions?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Is the House ready for the question?
Established Programs Financing To speak on the debate, the Hon. Member for New West-minster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett).


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, initially we supported the motion which is now before the House in the final report of the parliamentary task force on fiscal arrangements, the fiscal federalism task force which the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) mentioned a moment ago. Hon. Members may not all realize that the 1981 report of that parliamentary task force made the identical recommendation to the Government. Why the Government, which is now prepared to accept this recommendation, was not prepared to accept it over the last two years is difficult to know. Perhaps I should not dwell on the past. Perhaps I should congratulate government Members for having now adopted an all-Party agreed resolution identical to the one we are now discussing.
I should point out that, excellent though this recommendation is, it does not yet address the question which we in this Party were doing our best to address in the previous motion. Perhaps it has not been fully understood by some Hon. Members. As I say, this motion is very useful. It requires that the Secretary of State every year will have to provide to Parliament, to the House of Commons and to the other place, a full report on the cash contributions and total equalized tax transfers in respect of post-secondary education to each province. It is very interesting that in that report will have to be provided a breakdown of expenditures by each province on post-secondary education. Also in the report a listing will have to be provided of any other federal programs of support to or involvement in post-secondary education and so on.
That kind of report will be a real first for the House in the subject of the funding for post-secondary education. It will then be sent to the appropriate committee of the House, of the other place or of both, for review. Therefore, until we have a system of real accountability, it seems to me this is an excellent intermediate step. That is exactly what it is, an intermediate step. At least we will be in a position to know, as the Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) was not because he was not a member of the particular committee, what is being spent on what and by which level of government. At least we will have information at our disposal under this amendment which we do not have today, except by doing an enormous amount of digging around, ferreting out and listening to contradictory statements by provincial Cabinet Ministers and the federal Ministers involved in post-secondary education. That confusion or that lack of knowledge, unless we really dig to get it out, will be overcome by this amendment.
When we take a vote later this day I urge all Hon. Members to support Motion No. 4 standing in my name. This in itself does not require what we used to have prior to 1977 and that we could have again, namely, a full system of accountability of all federal dollars which are being spent by the provinces in post-secondary education. We still will not have that, and we still want to have that. I thought I spoke for members of the

April 4, 1984
Established Programs Financing Conservative Party as well. I have talked to many of them on this. However, the Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte did not seem to approve of that concept of accountability. Those to whom I have spoken have certainly said that they approved it. Many on the other side have told me that they approved it. While supporting very strongly this particular motion, we should not kid ourselves. It is an interim motion. It is there because unless we pass Motion No. 4 later today we do not have a genuine signal going out to all concerned that what we want and what we owe to the taxpayers of the country is accountability for the spending of federal funds on postsecondary education. We still have to get that. I hope Hon. Members on all sides will support the efforts of my colleagues and myself to bring this about through Motion No. 4.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, I rise to give support to the amendment of the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp). I simply say again that while we believe the amendment will help those of us who are currently being hurt, whether by Ottawa or by a provincial capital-and I most certainly know that students in post-secondary institutions in my own province are being hurt-to know whether we are being shafted, by how much and by whom-at least according to the federal Government and according to the Minister responsible-the amendment will not really tell us any more than what we know today. We will still not know whom we can believe or which level of government we can believe. We get different stories on that today. Even if the Minister tabled such reports in the House, there would still be issue taken with the findings of the reports by various provincial governments. It will not tell us whom we can believe or, with any degree of verifiability, who is shafting us and by how much. It certainly will not save our institutions from being destroyed and our students from being hurt.
Recently British Columbia was accused of not passing on federal funds by cutting provincial aid to post-secondary education by 6 per cent. The B.C. Minister of Education denied it and said that B.C. only cut the funds to universities by 5 per cent and to other post-secondary institutions by 3.5 per cent. We thus have an admission that the Government of British Columbia is not passing on the funds received from Ottawa, inadequate as they may be. We believe they are inadequate. We have a further admission from that Government that it has cut past levels of provincial funding to universities by 5 per cent and to other post-secondary institutions by 3.5 per cent respectively.
While the information which will arise from the amendment before us will be welcome, we really do not need it in order to find out what is happening in British Columbia at this point. At least we already know that that provincial Government is not passing on the money received from Ottawa for postsecondary education and in fact is cutting back on its own expenditures for those purposes from previous levels of funding.
We will support this amendment. Hopefully we will then be seen to have recognized, even to the satisfaction of the Conservative Party, that there is more to this issue than just the
fact that some provincial governments-and none of us have suggested all of them-are denying access to students to education to a greater amount than is necessitated by the level of federal funding made available. Hopefully, even the Conservatives will now recognize that we recognize the issue is broader. Perhaps they will look at it themselves and decide, despite their protestations on another amendment a few moments ago, to reconsider their view of that previous amendment and give it, as well as their own, some support.
We not only need to know what is happening to post-secondary education across Canada, we actually have to do something about it. It is not enough to know if we refuse to act. What I gather from statements made by representatives of the Conservative Party in the last few moments is, that just because some of the provincial governments in Canada may be doing an adequate job, that they will deny my constituents and the people who live in my province the right to equal access to education, because they only want to have a talk shop and know what the facts are, but do not actually want to do anything with the facts that are already admitted. To me, Mr. Speaker, that is totally irresponsible.
If Conservative Members want to have any hope of being able to speak for the people of British Columbia in any good conscience, they should not only support this amendment but also support the amendment which we dealt with just a few moments ago.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I have a few words to say about this amendment. As has already been pointed out, it will not have the same effect as the amendment moved by the Hon. Member for New Westmin-ster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett). That amendment would have had the effect of requiring that we make sure that the money transferred to provinces for the purposes of post-seondary education would actually be spent for those purposes. In the absence of the political will to accept that amendment-


Pauline Jewett: It has not been voted on yet.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: It has not been voted on yet but I am making the assumption that the Government is not likely to change its mind between now and some time later this afternoon, although I hope that I am wrong. If that were to happen, government Members would need to have open minds, and I have not seen that demonstrated up until now.
As I think has been said before, this amendment as it stands comes very close to what was recommended by the special parliamentary task force on federal-provincial fiscal arrangements. Again, as on a couple of other occasions, I note with pleasure that recommendations which I had a hand in formulating as a member of that task force are coming into legislative form. I think this is one of the rare delights for a Member of Parliament. So many recommendations in which one participates collect dust and never see the light of day or are rejected by the Government.
April 4, 1984

It is always worthy of note when one can say that something that was recommended by a parliamentary task force is now being incorporated into legislation. Indeed, the separating out of post-secondary education transfers from transfers for the purposes of hospital care and medical care was another recommendation of the committee. I would like to take this opportunity to recall that you yourself, Mr. Speaker, sat on that committee that made these recommendations, and I hope that you will be taking equal pleasure in the fact that one of our recommendations which we made some three years ago is being adopted.
Established Programs Financing
If 1 get an indication that there is unanimous consent to accept the motion, I shall deem the motion to be in order and put the motion as presented. Is there unanimous consent to accept the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Epp) agreed to.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on this amendment and its relevance to the past amendment. In 1977, the Government made a wrong decision, and it has squirmed underneath that decision ever since. It has been unable to protect, in the eyes of the people of Canada, the universality and accessibility of guaranteed medicare to all of the people of Canada. The provinces have made various interpretations of the decision which was made in 1977, and these interpretations have varied considerably from the one-third two-thirds decision which was made at that time.
Today, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the accountability of the provinces and to some extent the accountability of the federal Government to let the people of Canada and Parliament particularly know how that money is being spent. This motion asks that there at least be a reporting to Parliament so that Parliament and the people of Canada can make a judgement about how the provinces spend the moneys which are transferred to them under the transfers which are allowed for in this Act.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The House will proceed to the division on Motion No. 4. The House has already indicated that it is the wish that the bells be rung on this motion. Call in the Members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The Chair has had the
opportunity to read the motion and has some reservations. In fact, the Chair finds the motion somewhat similar to the motion that has already been ruled out of order. However, there appears to be unanimous consent of the House to accept the motion despite the reservations of the Chair.
	Messrs.	
Allmand	Cousineau	FraserAppolloni (Mrs.)	Crombie	FretzBachand	Crouse	FriesenBaker	Cyr	FrithBeatty	Dantzer	GambleBeauchamp-Niquet	Darling	Garanl(Mrs.)	Dawson	GassBegin (Miss)	De Bane	GauthierBerger	de Corneille	GendronBloomfield	Demers	GimaielBockstael	Deniger	GingrasBosley	Desmarais	GourdBossy	Dion	(Argenteuil-Papineau)Bradley	Dionne	GourdeBujold	(Chicoutimi)	(Levis)Burghardt	Dionne	GrayBussieres	(Northumberland-	GreenawayCaccia	Miramichi)	Gurbin .Campbell (Miss)	Dubois	Halliday(South West Nova)	Duclos	HargraveCampbell	Dupont	Harquail(Cardigan)	Dupras	HawkesChretien	Duquet	HendersonClark	Ellis	Herbert(Brandon-Souris)	Elzinga	HnatyshynClarke	Epp	Hopkins(Vancouver Quadra)	Erola (Mrs.)	HowieCollenette	Ethier	HudeckiComtois	Evans	HuntingtonCook	Fennell	IrwinCooper	Ferguson	Isabelle {Corbett	Fisher	JoyalCorbin	Fleming	KaplanCorriveau	Flis	KellyCossitt (Mrs.)	Foster	KemplingCote (Mrs.)	Fox	Kilgour
April 4, 1984
Divorce Act
Killens (Mrs.)	Masse	ReganKing	Masters	ReidKorchinski	Mayer	(St. CatharinLachance	Mazankowski	RobertsLajoie	McCain	RossiLalonde	McCauley	RoyLambert	McCuish	St. GermainLanders	McDermid	SavardLang	McKinnon	SchellenbergerLaniel	McLean	SchroderLapierre	McRae	ScottLapointe	Mulroney	(Hamilton-W(Charlevoix)	Munro	ShieldsLapointe	(Esquimalt-Saanich)	Siddon(Beauce)	Munro	SimmonsLa Salle	(Hamilton East)	SmithLawrence	Neil	SpeyerLeBlanc	Nickerson	StevensLeduc	Nielsen	TessierLefebvre	Nowlan	ThackerLoiselle	Oberle	TobinMacBain	Olivier	TousignantMacGuigan	Ostiguy	TowersMackasey	Ouellet	TurnerMacLaren	Parent	VankoughnetMacLellan	Patterson	VeilletteMalepart	Pelletier	WatsonMalone	Pepin	WenmanMaltais	Pinard	WilsonMarceau	Portelance	Vanakis-182.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Marc Lalonde: that the Bill as reported be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion? Agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: On division?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to on division.

When shall the Bill be read the third time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.




[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, February 24, consideration of the motion of Mr. MacGuigan that Bill C-10, to amend the Divorce Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, in what I have to say this afternoon, whether it is heard or not-I do wish that those who have conversations would carry them on behind the curtain-in what I have to say in continuance of my intervention in this debate on February 24, 1984, as recorded at page 1731 of Hansard, I want it clearly understood that-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order in the House.


Donald W. Munro: I want it clearly understood that although I am opposed to this Bill, I am not opposed to it on the grounds that it introduces the notion of what is called no fault divorce. That I can live with, as a notion. It is perhaps time that an element of that sort was introduced into legislation, if only to eliminate some of the fraud and/or fictitiousness that I am told surrounded many divorces under the present legislation. A no fault provision may well put an end to that fraud and/or fictitiousness and some of the pain and anger that has gone with it for the partners and for the children. Pain and anger may even be putting it mildly. It may well be worse, it may be agony and psychological trauma. If we can avoid that by introducing a no fault provision into the divorce proceedings, perhaps we will be doing well.
Not all divorce should have to rest on the no-fault provision. In some marriages there is fault. If there is, that fault should be revealed honestly in the clear light of day, assessed, and settlements determined accordingly. That is one point. The Bill is too restrictive in the grounds it recognizes and in the instructions it gives to judges who sit on divorce cases. They are being instructed to disregard fault where real fault can be established. Also, the provisions in the Bill with respect to ensuring that support costs are paid do not satisfy me and should not satisfy any Canadian. They are not strong enough.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, there has been no real attempt so far as I can see to enforce the payment of support costs when one or other of the partners moves beyond the provincial jurisdiction in which the decree is granted. A central registry is essential if we are to manage the payments to the injured party in any divorce procedure. On these grounds alone 1 am opposed to the Bill. The grounds are too limited and there is inadequate provision for enforcing payment of support costs even within the jurisdiction of the court granting the divorce. As well there is no central registry and inadequate consultation with the provinces to assist with the payment and collection of support costs.
I would go further and suggest that Canada ought to begin by entering into bilateral arrangements to ensure support costs; even a multilateral or UN move to ensure that if one of the partners should leave the jurisdiction of Canada there is still a possibility of collecting support costs and ensuring that they are paid. That sort of thing should be put in place. I came to this conclusion after looking at the provisions of the Bill. 1 think it well that we should look at it again. Let us understand how the Bill proposes to deal with divorce.
April 4, 1984

First, a husband or a wife may individually petition for divorce on the grounds of a breakdown of marriage. Second, a husband and/or wife may jointly petition for divorce on the same grounds of breakdown of marriage. That is all, no other grounds. No other grounds can be accepted by the court. We must, therefore, ask what constitutes a breakdown of a marriage.
Here a breakdown is established under clause 3 of the Bill if the husband and the wife assert, or if the husband and the wife have lived apart for one year or more. One of these provisions calls for an "or" and an "and". The other calls for two "ands", Mr. Speaker. Something is wrong with the drafting of this Bill. The nonsense and the double "and" provision lies in this: How can a woman, let us say, who is not in a no-fault situation but in a real fault situation, be it wife-beating or child-beating or some other child abuse situation, who has no other means of support except what is begrudged by her husband? How could such a woman live apart for a year, especially if child abuse is involved and she wants to protect the child and take that child out of the household during that period. It is pure nonsense to suggest you have to build a case for a breakdown of marriage by saying a husband and wife have to live apart for a year, completely disregarding the fact that one person who is trying to protect-perhaps herself, perhaps herself and a child-has no means of living apart.
How do we determine under clause 2(4) on page 2 the deeming provision? This is extraordinary wording. They shall be deemed, says the clause, to have lived separate, and here I would suggest that the word is "separately" and not "separate", Mr. Speaker. The word "separate" is more usually considered as an adjective. The word "separately" is the adverb. Let me continue they shall be deemed to have lived apart if for that period either of them had the intention to live apart. That is in the legislation. How is intention to be determined? Who is to determine intention?
But to return to the main theme, politically I agree. I mentioned this in my earlier intervention. It looks to me as though this Bill and several other Bills that are due to appear in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs have been put forward by Ministers as political Bills, not with any real intention of solving social problems. One of the Bills, of course, is this Bill, one is the Security Bill, and the other one contains reforms to the Criminal Code. Those three Bills are presumably intended, all of them, to land in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs between now and an election.
I suggest, with all due respect, Mr. Speaker, that these Bills have been brought forward by a Government which is seeking some means of saying "well, we had to do something" in order to indicate when we got into an election that it brought forward a Bill, the Opposition dragged its feet and did not put its back into the matter. Therefore, the Government can say "it is not our fault that these particular Bills could not become law."
The family unit in my mind is so important to the community that to play with it politically, as I have suggested this Bill
Divorce Act
does, is an insult to the Canadian people and to their beliefs. Bring in no-fault divorce if you must, but remember there are other causes for divorce. There is also a fault divorce. The guilty party, be it husband or wife, should have to pay under the law for having failed to live up the marriage vows and also to the vows taken during the baptism ceremony.


Miss MacDonald:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a couple of questions to the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich. (Mr. Munro). One is on the question of fault. He mentioned that judges should determine according to fault. I understand him to mean with regard to maintenance. Would the Hon. Member clarify that? Is he suggesting in cases where there is fault that the economically dependent spouse should therefore get a lower maintenance order because of the fault, or similarly that a faulty provider spouse should pay a higher amount of maintenance on grounds of the fault?
Second, will the Hon. Member give a little more information as to what he would consider adequate by way of support provisions? The mechanisms for ensuring support payments are made in this Bill. Specifically, would the Hon. Member agree to equal splitting of all pensions in federal jurisdiction? Does he think this should be in the Bill? Would he agree that there should be access to all federal data sources, such as income tax and unemployment insurance for the location of defaulters of court order maintenance and interception of any funds under federal jurisdiction, such as unemployment insurance or pensions for the payment of court order maintenance?


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the first question asked by the Hon. Member having to do with a higher payment situation, I had thought I had made it quite clear in my comments that fault has got to play a role. If there is a fault that can be determined and assessed, obviously the person who is at fault ought to pay more than if there was a general agreement in a no-fault situation, particularly when there are children involved.
As to the splitting of resources, I do not know whether the Bill makes adequate provision for the judge to determine the role of the two spouses in the accumulation of savings and assets of a particular marriage and how they can be divided. 1 do not think the law as now drafted really takes that into account. Actually the judge is barred from looking at fault, as I understand the Bill. While I agree that the greater the fault the greater the settlement, I do not think the Bill makes any provision for that, and I think it ought to.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, in participating in the debate on Bill C-10 one could start off by labelling it as creeping progressivism. It is creeping because the divorce proposals in Bill C-10 were really recommended by both the Anglican and the United churches in 1968. I know in the New Democratic Party we have a resolution on record from the 1967 federal convention urging that divorce be granted on a no-fault basis. The Bill gives the appearance of being progressive. Most Canadians and most Members of the

April 4, 1984
Divorce Act
House agree that granting divorce on a no-fault basis is long overdue.
One can enumerate many reasons in favour of the Bill. Many Members on both sides of the House have dealt with some of its positive aspects. Making marriage breakdown the sole ground for divorce is a welcome aspect. It can help eliminate many of the problems which couples now face when going into court to obtain divorce in marriages which have obviously been broken down for some time. Now it will not become necessary for one of the partners to commit adultery or for other people to start lying and playing all sorts of games. With the present provisions it will become cleaner and more direct. Hopefully they will help create an atmosphere in which amicable settlements in terms of property, maintenance and child custody occur.
I would like to introduce two quotations if I may supporting the concept of no fault. The National Action Committee on the Status of Women in a brief to the Minister in October 1983 indicated:
Marriage must be recognized as an equal partnership entered into voluntary 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.
The other quotation to which I should like to refer is from a brief of The Catholic Women's League of Canada presented to the Minister in May 1983. In part it reads:
-the accusations and counter-accusations of the present adversarial system seem to do a great deal of harm to the familial relationship which oftentimes must survive the dissolution of a marriage because of children. Accordingly it is our submission that the best interests of all parties concerned, including children would be best served if the only ground for divorce were permanent breakdown of the marriage.
As I mentioned before, all Members of the House admit to the positive aspects of the Bill. What distresses us is that which the Bill does not address, considering how long it has taken in Canada to bring our divorce legislation into the 20th century or into modern reality. This is a rare opportunity for Parliament to deal with the question of divorce. The last time we dealt with it was in 1968, or almost 16 years ago. Perhaps the next time we will deal with it will be some 16 years down the road. We can only regret that in this rare opportunity the Government failed to deal with some of the more pressing problems confronting dozens of Canadians in marriages which are no longer functional and have broken down.
The major problems confronting Canadians involved in divorce are maintenance, and the court order in terms of financial and property settlement between the two parties. The Minister has indicated in the past, "I am sorry, this is not our responsibility; this is a provincial responsibility". In part he is right, but a contemporary law or an attempt by government to create a contemporary law would recognize that federal-provincial co-operation is needed, and that in order to bring the Divorce Act into the 20th century it will have to deal with the questions of property settlement and maintenance. Before introducing the Bill, the Government should have held meetings with the provinces to determine to what extent it could
obtain co-operation on these vital issues. It failed to do that. It failed to come to Parliament with a Bill which had the co-operation and blessings of provincial jurisdictions. It failed to bring forward a co-operative approach. A party who is responsible for maintenance payments can skip into another province and sort of disappear, very often leaving-in fact in most cases-a woman with dependants in the lurch with no real means of enforcing the court order.
The Government speaks about creating a central registry and being in contact with the provinces in an attempt to set up such a registry. It is a great move, but surely it is a little late. If that is an indication of where the Government is at, it is also an indication that reform in the Divorce Act will continue to be the slow and arduous process it has been in the past. That is just not good enough.
There are other aspects of the Bill which certainly displease us. The suggestion of time limitations on maintenance orders could certainly create much hardship in the future. It is a provision which would allow a maintenance order to expire and there would be no recourse to extend maintenance unless one of the parties went to court and asked for an extension. Another aspect which I find mischievous, and mischievous is the best way to describe it, is the notion of self-sufficiency. In terms of property settlements or maintenance orders, the court will encourage the notion that both parties become self-sufficient. Indeed theoretically this is an ideal solution. Neither of the two parties will be dependent upon each other and they can each go their merry way in life in a self-sufficient manner. However, that defies contemporary reality.
The reality for women in the work force is that the chance of getting a good job is very minimal, given the present economic situation. I do not think that the present economic situation will change radically in the next number of years.
The other reality is that in most cases, women have been the housekeepers. The woman has forgone and sacrificed her educational opportunities in order to raise a family and keep the home while the husband has secured his education, often supported by the wife's part-time job, and then secured himself a decent income. They are now in a divorce situation and the wife is expected at mid-age or in old-age to become self-sufficient and establish a career on her own while still being responsible for several youngsters in the home. This is not very realistic at all, Mr. Speaker. If this is an indication of the thinking of government lawyers and of the Minister, I am suggesting that they are still out of touch with contemporary reality.
There is the case of the older woman who is in her fifties or sixties and has been the homemaker and raised a family. Perhaps the husband or the wife has decided that their relationship is no longer a workable one. Very often in these situations the husband and wife decided to stay together in order to maintain a family home for the children. When the children have left the home and established their own careers, the husband and wife feel that their union is not in each

April 4, 1984
other's best interests and decide to get a divorce. To expect women who find themselves in that situation to all at once establish a new career, to go to university or technical training schools and acquire skills is just ludicrous. These women do not stand a chance at all. It is a cruel joke that the courts are suggesting that women should become self-sufficient.
The Bill dramatically fails in addressing itself to the question of enforcement. As I mentioned before, all too often husbands will skip the province and forget about making maintenance payments. In fact, statistics show that some 70 per cent of court settlements are in arrears. On the one hand we have a Bill which proclaims itself as one which deals with the contemporary problems and concerns of Canadian society. However, when looking at the Bill, one sees what is not included in it and one must realize and admit that the Bill fails to address the real concerns of Canadians who are caught in the situation of marriage breakdown.
This is not an easy topic to deal with. It is difficult for the House to address itself totally to this question. There is a sharing of jurisdictions between family courts, provincial courts and federal courts. Somebody described this as being like a Rubic's cube. Indeed, the present situation does not set the Rubic's cube straight and does not provide a coherent overall policy. Such a policy can only be provided with the co-operation of the provinces. Before this Bill was introduced, there should have been major consultations with the provinces, during the latter part of the 1970s, so that there would have been a coherent policy the Minister could have presented to the House. However, he has failed to do so and in fact has only addressed himself to a small part of the problem.
Like the previous speaker, who is a member of the Conservative Party, I wonder if this is indeed simply a political ploy. If this is the case, the Minister stands condemned and someday, when he faces his maker, he will have to answer to a great many questions. Playing with people's lives for political appearances simply will not work. I for one believe in the notion of karma and karma will get that Minister.
My own experience with divorce is not personal, but some good friends of mine have been suffering through the process of divorce. I can think of one case in particular, Mr. Speaker, and these people are very close to me. There are three young children in this family. Obviously the marriage has not been working for a number of years and finally a decision was reached that someone should make the effort to end the marriage. In order to do that in this particular case the husband took the initiative and entered into what, in terms of court consideration, became an adulterous relationship which then became the grounds for divorce. I think that there would have been a mutual consent between the two parties in terms of a no-fault divorce had this Act been in effect at the time. I think both parties would have agreed that their union was not working out. However, the real bone of contention is the question of property and maintenance costs.
During the divorce trial of the couple to whom I have referred, I heard the judge direct the woman to become self-sufficient. She has three youngsters at home. She does not
Divorce Act
have the opportunity to send the children to daycare so she can receive technical training or go back to university to establish a career. In this particular case, one of the youngsters has some learning disabilities and needs some special attention. This woman needs to function as a homemaker for a number of years yet. It will not be easy for her to get a job.
At the same time, it is not an easy situation for the man either. He is a middle-income earner and is all at once faced with maintaining two residences, two cars and double expenditures. A good chunk of his income must go to the woman. At the same time he must maintain himself. Perhaps at some stage, like most Canadians who have divorced, he will remarry and will have obligations to his second family. It is not easy for either party, Mr. Speaker. Certainly this Bill will not help them. This Bill alone cannot solve some of the fundamental problems faced by this young couple.
We need social programs, adequate daycare and income support programs for single parents, and particularly women if they are to be able to provide their children with a good and wholesome environment so that children who come from broken homes can have an equal chance and a secure future in Canadian society. We will need a host of social programs in order to support those families. This Bill does not address those problems and concerns either.
This Bill is lacking a great deal. If it were easier to have Parliament deal with divorce legislation, I do not think that either of the two Opposition Parties would have opposed this Bill. None of us is opposed to the principle of no-fault divorce. However, it took some 16 years to make this change. This Bill is simply not good enough for 16 years of waiting. It simply is not good enough and that is why I believe that both Opposition Parties will stand opposed to this legislation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments? Debate.


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us this afternoon is important, and it is timely. However, I regret to say, as so many of my colleagues on this side of the House have already said, as an Act of divorce reform it falls far short of the expectations of most Canadians.
The Lincoln County Law Association, of which I have the privilege of being a member, wrote to me saying that after giving the matter serious and extensive consideration they feel very strongly that further changes should be made. We in this House are well aware of the fact that society is anything but static. Society is constantly undergoing change and public opinion moves with that move in society. Parliamentarians who fail to keep in touch with the changing mores of our society do so at their own risk.
As has been mentioned by the previous speaker, the Divorce Act has not been subject to amendment for some 15 or 16 years, although there is no doubt that society has changed in those 15 or 16 years. Divorce and divorce reform must then be given in depth priority consideration.

April 4, 1984
Divorce Act
Much as I dislike relating divorce statistics in the House, they are a fact of life. Four out of 10 marriages in Canada are ending in divorce. In 1982 some 140,000 people found themselves divorced and thousands more were directly affected by those divorces. The financial cost of divorce is grim and it is not all measured in dollars. It has been estimated that some $500 million has been spent in legal fees alone relating to divorce proceedings in the last 10 years. The legal cost is nothing compared to the trauma of divorce and the dissolution of marriage. Divorce is a cruel and hard experience for anyone and everyone involved. Children especially find their lives torn apart by the tension and struggles between their divorcing parents.
The law as it now stands virtually assures acrimony. From start to finish divorce pits one spouse against the other because of the adversarial nature of our present process. The sole escape is a three-year waiting period for an uncontested divorce-three years of family life held in limbo. Like other Hon. Members, I have received the argument from constituents that the state should not make divorce easier because it leads to the increased breakdown of marriage and a breakdown in society. I am rather sympathetic to that argument because I am a strong believer in the institution of marriage as is perhaps every Member. Nonetheless, the state already regulates our way of life, perhaps to a greater extent than most people would approve.
Despite the toughness of the present law, despite the tremendous financial and psychological cost of divorce and despite the continued overwhelming support for the institution of marriage, 40 per cent of marriages end in the divorce courts. Parliament cannot ignore what is happening to divorce, and that does not reflect the law as Canadians see it today.
This leads me directly to the legislation before us for consideration, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) deserves credit for taking the action he has, but he deserves much criticism for not taking it further than he has. He should have taken advantage of the public momentum available to him, and he might have taken greater advantage of the time allocated in the House.
Comment has already been made on the fact that there was a real lack of negotiation and discussion with the provinces, so that when the Bill was brought forward it could be rather comprehensive on divorce reform. An editorial in The Province of Vancouver reads as follows:
After all the preening and advance promotion of its divorce law changes, the federal Government has brought forward a mouse-The end product is the work of a tired administration sapped of political courage.
Purely and simply, the Minister has taken the easy way out. He has thrown away the opportunity that is his and might have been that of the House to consider divorce reform after that lapse of 15 years. Issues like custody and maintenance orders are pressing today, but they are ignored. I want to return to those items later, Mr. Speaker.
Bill C-10 offers a significant lessening of the time a divorce action takes and the toll it imposes upon those involved. I am rather cognizant of the exchange that took place a moment
ago regarding the fact that as a result of this Bill marriage breakdown will be the sole grounds for the dissolution of marriage. A one-year separation period would replace the present three-year waiting period. That marriage breakdown issue will replace the different causes and reasons for dissolution of marriage, thus ending the adversarial approach to divorce proceedings. We on this side heartily accept that aspect of the Bill. We want to make divorce proceedings less acrimonious and less difficult to bear. Nonetheless, the Minister has opted for flash and little substance.
Bill C-10 will reward the deadbeat and punish the innocent. I can think of no other way to describe a situation where fault goes totally by the boards while maintenance and custody orders are left hanging in limbo. All Hon. Members have often enough received letters from constituents who have been left with inadequate support settlements; either that or court orders made but not carried through. Those writing have one simple question and they want an answer; when will the law take the side of the innocent? We know that Bill C-10 will not come to their assistance, and worse yet, we fear that women particularly will be worse off than before as a result of the legislation.
If we consider the case of older women that point becomes exceedingly clear. A woman married for 20 or 30 years may well have spent her whole time and effort in the occupation of homemaking. She may not have any marketable skills and her age may add to her disadvantage when it comes to seeking gainful employment. To become self-sufficient, retraining is a must and that requires support and an extra, special effort. Even after retraining, will the opportunity be given to her to make a meaningful contribution to society?
Bill C-10 does not even begin to address the situation. Even if the woman receives a sympathetic hearing in court there is no guarantee that the settlement will be adequate or equitable. The absence of any assessment of fault makes it even more likely that maintenance and custody orders will become weaker, not stronger, as has been suggested. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, it comes down to this: The Minister of Justice must do better before this Bill comes back to this House for third reading.
Of equal concern is the issue of enforcement. In the Province of Ontario for the year 1978, $25 million was collected in support payments. Under half a million dollars came from outside the province. This emphasizes the mobility of people, one or the other of the spouses, from province to province. It is a fact of life that some people will do what they can to avoid their responsibility under such maintenance orders. The law should not assist them to avoid their responsibilities. Let us be honest, Mr. Speaker, a maintenance order is of no use whatsoever if it can be ignored by the person responsible for the making of payments under that maintenance order.
At present, an estimated 75 per cent of those maintenance orders are in default. Just think of it, Mr. Speaker. This year, 1984, 75 per cent of the existing maintenance orders are in
April 4, 1984

default. By and large, those maintenance orders are against the male spouse. This is an appalling situation. Not only is the spouse, usually the wife, left to fend for herself, but the whole judicial system is undermined by its inability to respond. Bill C-10 again falls very short of addressing this problem. For women in particular, the legislation is a disaster.
So that these comments may not be seen by those on the government side as simply obstructionist, may I put on the record that the Lincoln County Law Association has submitted to me a number of recommendations for the consideration of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. This association shares the concern expressed by so many that the enforcement of custody and maintenance awards must be both efficient and uniform across the country.
The first recommendation is that there be a requirement that federal government agencies provide the last known address of the parties, and more particularly that favourable consideration be given to a central registry for this purpose. Second, it recommends the power to attach wages, RRSPs, RHOSPs, salary, commissions, pensions, life insurance benefits and income from all sources, coupled with the third recommendation, the elimination of all exemptions from attachment. Fourth, it recommends the power for the court to transfer property in satisfaction of a lump sum maintenance award; fifth, the power for the court to grant exclusive possession of real and personal property; sixth, the power to create trusts for the benefit of spouse or children of the marriage; seventh, the power of the court to bind an estate subject to maintenance payments; eighth, the power to charge property with an obligation to make payments under a maintenance order; ninth, the power to designate a beneficiary or beneficiaries of life assurance; and tenth, the power to designate responsibility for the payment of personal debts. I trust, Mr. Speaker, that these recommendations will be given full consideration by that standing committee.
If the failure of Bill C-10 to address enforcement is its worst failing, a second flaw is equally as fuzzy and difficult. That is the question of mediation and counselling services. Quite simply, the state should not place itself in a position of aiding and abetting the demise of a salvageable marriage. The institution of marriage is a good one. Most of those divorces which take place are fouled up by a second marriage, so why ruin the first one? If it is a salvageable marriage, then there should be some consideration given to saving it. Counselling and mediation are not a waste of time, but this Bill does not address that particular subject.
The Province of Ontario has already legislated a procedure for mediation of custody disputes. I would urge the Minister of Justice to give consideration to amending Bill C-10 so as to include provisions similar, if not identical, to those found in Section 30 and Section 31 of the Children's Law Reform Amendment Act, 1980, of the Province of Ontario. Consideration might be given as well, Mr. Speaker, to federal assistance for the expansion of mediation and counselling services now available and to assist in the cost of those services through legal aid.
Business of the House
Time does not permit me to add comments of a more technical nature. However, let me say that some sections of Bill C-10, notably the new sections, Sections 3 and 12 of the Divorce Act, need to be given careful consideration by the committee. These are concerns which will have to be properly addressed. I trust that opportunity will be given to the members of the committee and that the Minister of Justice might concern himself with a rereading of those particular clauses.
I said at the outset, Mr. Speaker, that this legislation falls short of expectations. The opportunity is present today for the Minister to right the wrongs in the Divorce Act. The Minister is turning his back on that opportunity. He can do better. Canadians expect him to do more.
I would like to indicate, Mr. Speaker, that the opportunity is here for Hon. Members of this House. We are all agreed that reform of the Divorce Act must take place. We are all agreed as well that no-fault divorce is acceptable to Hon. Members of this House so long as we keep the no-fault to the question of the dissolution of the marriage. It seems to me an abuse of the privileges of the court when we attempt now to tell it that there is no alternative for the court, no discretion for the court to dispose of these very material matters of maintenance orders with a consideration of right and wrong. It is too simple. Mr. Speaker, to make them divide the assets between them and not take into consideration whose fault it was that the marriage is to be dissolved.
I had a most unusual experience last Saturday in my constituency office. A person came to see me who was handicapped in several different ways. First of all, he was totally blind. He was an amputee and the subject of a kidney transplant which worked. Less than one year ago he married another person who was suffering from some disability of her own. They are now separated. The question arises as to whether or not she should have advantage of the home which was provided for this handicapped person. The legislation is so written that she will be refused welfare or mothers' allowance unless she goes after her husband for one-half of the value of that house. This is a house which was practically built for him because of his special handicaps.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I, of course, must inform the Hon. Member that his speaking time has expired.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Pinard:: I would just like to confirm to the House that since we have voted the report stage of Bill C-12 today, as I indicated last week, tomorrow we will be dealing with Bill C-12 again for third reading. There might have been some confusion since I had said that the backup legislation was Bill C-10, which was the backup legislation for today. Tomorrow we come back to Bill C-12 for third reading. I suppose for some of us it was very clear, but it was suggested to me that I clarify the situation.

April 4, 1984
Business of the House


Mr. Lawrence:: Can the Government House Leader confirm that Bill C-10 will be the back-up legislation for C-12 tomorrow as well?


Yvon Pinard: That was the intent of the answer I gave last week, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Roche:: I would like to call it six o'clock in relation to the debate on Bill C-10, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 6 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock a.m., in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 2(1).
At 6.02, the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, April 5, 1984