1988-03-16

Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, today, according to reports in the media, a committee of the House wants the Government to impose a tax on food. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make it clear that as far as the Liberal Party is concerned, there is not going to be a tax on bread and butter. That is our position. At the request of my Leader (Mr. Turner), my colleague from Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) and I circulated petitions across Canada, and Canadians are entirely against the introduction of this new tax. However, I warn the Canadians who are listening that I would not be surprised if the Government, considering the way it and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) deceived senior citizens in the matter of deindexing old age security pensions, I would not be surprised that if this Government is ever re-elected, the first thing it would do would be to put a tax on bread and butter. Don't trust them!


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Paul Gagnon (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, the United Kingdom Government of Margaret Thatcher must be congratulated for reporting a budgetary surplus yesterday of some three billion pounds. This compares to Canada's $29-billion deficit. The burning question is why Canada spends so much more than it raises.
Not one day passes but we parliamentarians are lobbied to spend more, be it by industry, by commerce, or by special interest groups. Not surprisingly, no one lobbies us for higher taxes.
This credit card mentality must change. We as a society cannot afford to spend money we do not have. A continuation of our current policy can only lead to higher interest rates, a declining dollar, and monetary chaos. The choice is simple, prudence now or chaos later.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS BRITISH COLUMBIA THRONE SPEECH-AWARDING OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday's British Columbia Throne Speech shows that Premier Bill Vander Zalm has changed his buddy-buddy relationship with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and is now trying to talk tough in order to get fair shares for British Columbia. It is true that British Columbia has not received its fair share of federal contracts.
Of the 30 largest contractors ranked in terms of the dollar value of contracts received, only one was a British Columbia firm. British Columbia has 11.4 per cent of the population but in 1986-87 B.C. suppliers got only 9.1 per cent of federal government contracts, down from 10.2 per cent in 1985-86. These were relatively small purchases amounting to only 4.1 per cent of total federal purchasing outlays, down from 5.3 per cent in 1985-86.
British Columbians do not want a Premier who is a sycophant, they do not want a Premier who attempts to be a bully, they do not want a Premier who is the cry-baby of Confederation. They want someone who will stand up, speak reasonably, and get a fair deal for British Columbia.


ABORTION
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, human life in whatever form is sacred. It is precious and must be protected by the full force and effect of the law from the very moment of conception to natural death. Just as it is wrong for the state to allow the taking of a life through capital punishment, it is equally wrong to take a life before birth.

March 16, 1988
Parliament, each and every one of us, will soon have to decide when life begins. There is only one logical and just answer. Life begins at conception. To conclude that life begins at any other stage is to demean the very essence of life.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not discriminate between human beings. Regardless of how tragic or miserable or physically or mentally impaired a life is, that life is protected by law. We all have the right to life. Why, then, should we discriminate prior to birth? It is morally wrong to do so.
To quote an individual who wrote to all of us: "Just as one cannot be a little bit pregnant or a little bit honourable or a little bit honest or a little bit faithful, a country cannot have a Constitution that holds that life is a little bit sacred. It is either protected or it is not protected."
The most important human right, the only absolute human right, is the right to life. I hope Parliament endorses this principle during the abortion debate.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, it was recently announced that, due to the Government's improvement in cash management practices, over $539 million has been saved since 1985. These savings are projected to reach $1.2 billion by 1991, illuminating the positive impact that modern business-like practices can have on government. It is interesting to note that this story made page 13 in The Ottawa Citizen last week.
The savings in taxpayers' dollars do not become apparent overnight. It took time for management to assess the situation and introduce new practices. Now the benefits of an increasingly efficient federal Government are starting to yield real savings. These savings represent the fact that Government does not have to continue down the path of increasing growth and waste.
The introduction of practices like prompt bank deposits and paying suppliers on time was the kind of common sense needed in the financial management of the country. I have worked for sound financial management in government on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, and I know the Government will continue to do more to ensure better use of taxpayers' dollars.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Robert Toupin (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) for the courage he showed in openly and firmly condemning Israel.
We cannot support Israel when it violates the most basic human rights, as it has done in the case of the Palestinians.
Mr. Speaker, I may add that I deplore the lukewarm reaction of the Opposition Parties to this situation.
Will political considerations once again outweigh the need to defend the principles of justice and respect for human rights?


FREE TRADE
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, on March 3 I had the privilege of attending a workshop on free trade held at the Centre municipal des Congres in Quebec City.
The workshop, which was organized jointly by the Metropolitan Quebec Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Department of Business Administration of Laval University, was attended by over 300 people.
All 300 participants, leaders in their respective fields, confirmed their support for free trade.
Minister Pierre MacDonald, a member of the Quebec Cabinet, agreed with us that Canadians believe the agreement is a good thing and that it is well accepted. He suggested that participants look for ways to get the most out of the advantages arising from the agreement.
This experience makes me wonder why, when all Canadians understand and support this historic agreement, the Liberal Party of Canada and the NDP cannot or will not understand.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the two main organizers of this event which was a success both in terms of attendance and organization, and I am referring to Messrs. H. Pierre Racine and Pierre Talbot.
Mr. Prime Minister, the people of the Quebec City area want to thank you for the historic agreement you have given us.
March 16, 1988
O)


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, I was the Solicitor General in 1974 when the decision was made to admit women to the RCMP and, as a result, I was extremely disappointed today to read that their status in the force is not improving but worsening. This was the conclusion of a 215-page internal study made public yesterday through Access to Information.
At present there are 852 female constables in the RCMP constituting 6.5 per cent of all constables. When women were admitted to this male stronghold in 1974 it was recognized that special steps would have to be taken to facilitate their participation, as was done by many police forces in North America and Europe. Unfortunately, this has not been pursued properly.
Last week was Women's Week and on Wednesday we debated the adequacy of the Government's employment equity legislation. We said that that law was weak because it had no enforcement mechanism. Let the Government strengthen the legislation and take immediate steps to improve the role of women in the RCMP.

Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, for generations the villagers of Sambro have sailed from their safe harbour to fish on the treacherous waters of the North Atlantic. The risks are immense and ever present, but fishing is not merely a vocation but a way of life for many Maritimers.
On March 8, 1988, the dangers of ocean fishing struck the crew of the Bonnie Lou II. A late winter storm attacked this small vessel causing damage that led to its destruction. The sea search that followed failed to find any trace of the five young crewmen. Skipper Lome Gray, brothers Jimmie and Brian Gray, Denny Gilkie and Blair Gray were lost on the North Atlantic. Family and friends were forced to conclude that these brave young fishermen were victims of the raging ocean.
The fishermen of Sambro will continue to challenge the Atlantic Ocean despite the risks because fishing is their way of life. Parliamentarians and all Canadians moved by this tragedy will recognize a duty to ensure their families and children are helped and protected.
____________________________13797


S'. O. 21 APARTHEID SOUTH AFRICA-DENUNCIATION OF DECISION TO EXECUTE &quot;THE SHARPEVILLE SIX&quot;
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, today is one of those days when I regret the passing of the old Standing Order 43, because today is the kind of day on which all Members of this House might have been able to join, through that procedure, in unanimously urging the Government of South Africa to commute the hanging sentences of "the Sharpeville Six".
However, we do not have that procedure available to us so we must get up, time and again-the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), and every one of us-to make it absolutely clear that we regard as abominable the decision of the South African Government to hang these six individuals, which decision contravenes every principle of liberal and democratic jurisprudence which we could imagine.
It sets a bad precedent that blacks in South Africa in particular can be sentenced to be hanged on the basis of their participation in a crowd rather than on the basis of that for which they can individually be held responsible. It certainly shows once again that the Government of South Africa intends to use every device at its disposal to combat anti-apartheid activity. That is something which all Canadians reject.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, on February 10, Brian Grant, an employee with Revenue Canada, was suspended for passing information to two government agencies. The information led Immigration Canada to apprehend 24 illegal aliens as well as providing the police with a vital piece of evidence which led to solving a murder.
Because of these acts Mr. Grant is now subject to an investigation for breach of confidentiality. This is a serious matter and one which must be addressed. A policy must be implemented whereby individuals in Departments can communicate information to their superiors which is detrimental to Canadians. In addition, a clear policy of inter-agency communications must be implemented. All government Departments and agencies must have one goal of ensuring that the safety and well-being of Canadians come first.



March 16, 1988
Oral Questions


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the Ontario Environment Minister, Mr. Jim Bradley, told the King of Sweden: "The polluters in the United States and the United Kingdom are waging environmental war on our countries", because Ontario and Sweden are both threatened by acid rain coming from neighbours upwind who refuse to cut pollution. Mr. Bradley pointed out: "This situation will continue and worsen unless we find the means to make a great change in the actions of our neighbours".
Mr. Bradley called upon the United States and Britain to join Canada and Sweden in the 30 Per Cent Club, a group of over 20 nations which have vowed to cut S02 emissions by at least 30 per cent by 1994. It is refreshing to hear a Canadian speaking up on the international acid rain perspective. Unfortunately, it is a provincial environment Minister alone who has the vision to speak up.
The federal Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) is silent on the international acid rain stage. Perhaps Mr. Bradley's remarks will give the federal Minister the courage to speak up now.

[Translation)


FREE TRADE
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the New Democratic Party and Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) is taking a negative approach to free trade, although he is fully aware of the fact that the agreement will boost the Canadian economy and create jobs.
For 25 years now his riding has benefitted from the automotive agreement under which Ontario has recorded Canada's lowest unemployment rate-5.8 per cent-and created the highest number of jobs, while central Quebec had to cope with an unemployment level in excess of 10 per cent.
Quebecers in general and Drummondville residents in particular have every right to expect lower unemployment rates comparable with those of Ontario.
The Hon. Member for Oshawa cannot accept the fact that Quebec and my riding seek their fair share of the economic spinoffs from the agreement.
His protectionist attitude will not prevent Quebec from exporting hydro power to the United States and create 40,000 new jobs as a result of the agreement.
Our Government's balance sheet speaks for itself, and we will continue to introduce measures and programs to spur the economy, create jobs, and make life easier for Canadian men and women alike.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Yesterday the Minister admitted there was a very serious problem with service charges of Canadian banks, but he refused to take any action.
Would the Minister explain to Canadians the fairness and appropriateness of the Royal Trust charging consumers a fee if their balance is too low? Would he explain why the Bank of Montreal charges a fee if one wants information on one's own account? And would he explain why the Bank of Nova Scotia and the Toronto Dominion Bank have retroactive service charge fees? In other words, one is informed in July of a service charge that took place in June.
Would the Minister explain to Canadians the fairness of these measures and why he continues to allow them to exist? Why does he do that?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, officials in my Department and in the Department of my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, are watching this matter very carefully. The Hon. Member knows as well that the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs will be releasing a report shortly on this subject. I would remind the Hon. Member that his particular concern should be brought before the committee.
The Government is willing, as the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs said yesterday, to act quickly after we receive the committee report. However, I remind the Hon. Member of two things. If he has evidence of any violation of the Bank Act, he should present it forthwith. Second, I remind him that our financial institution reforms, allowing trust companies greater consumer and commercial lending powers and opening up consumer and commercial lending powers to insurance companies, will add an increment of tremendous new competition which will drive down these rates and charges.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, that is the same sort of leadership Canadians saw when investors in the Principal group were going down the tube-no action by this Government until well after the fact.
March 16, 1988


PROFITS OF BANKS-MORTGAGE RENEWAL CHARGES
David Charles Dingwall: The
Minister will know that last year the net profit of the Royal Bank of Canada was in excess of $540 million. Yet that bank, as well as other banking institutions, is continuing to charge Canadian consumers $1.50 and upwards for the use of instant bank tellers, and institutions are charging Canadians as much as $85 for a mere signature for the renewal of a mortgage.
In good conscience, why does the Minister allow these practices to continue when he has a preponderance of evidence, knows that they exist, and knows that they are continuing?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, my information with respect to the very examples raised by the Hon. Member is that he is totally wrong in each instance that he raises.
He is concerned about bank rate charges. He has a forum to present those concerns. I urge him to do that.


PROTECTION OF CONSUMERS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, the best forum for Canadian consumers to voice their concerns on practices concerning anything, but, in particular, chartered banks, is the Parliament of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Principal Group the Minister pleaded that it was a jurisdictional problem and therefore he could not act. He now pleads that he wants Mr. McIntosh and the chartered banks to do their own policing.
I ask members of the Government when they will stand in their places and represent Canadian consumers who are being shafted by chartered banks, something which the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs agreed to in comments he made in a scrum outside the House yesterday? When will the Government stand up for Canadian consumers and curtail these some 170 bank service charges?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the Government has acted consistently on behalf of consumers, especially as regards banking practices. We have the financial institutions reform which is the most major new increment of competition for the banks that has been produced in 60 years.
The Hon. Member does not want to present his examples to the Standing Committee. Why does he not want to do that? It is a committee of this House. It is taking a long and careful look at this matter. That also is a forum as well as this House.
Oral Questions


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister for International Trade I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance.
On July 28, 1984, in the election campaign, the Prime Minister in St. Catharines promised the wine grape growers of Canada that his Government would "act to revitalize the industry and keep our farmers farming". We know that the Government has dealt a major body blow to that industry because of its proposed trade agreement with the United States.
We also know that the industry is facing another major threat from subsidized imports from European wine producers.
I wish to ask the Minister of Finance this. Does the Government intend to accept and act upon the petition put forward by the wine industry of Canada today under Section 59(2) of the Customs Tariff Act and take proper action under GATT rules against subsidized imported European wines?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is correct in at least one part of his preface in that there has been a representation made to my colleague and me by the Canadian Wine Institute as the law requires. It is a matter that has been raised with us on several occasions by the Member of Parliament for St. Catharines and by others. Naturally, we will be looking at that submission, the announcement of which was made today.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, just let me say to the Minister he does not have much time. We hope that we will get an answer soon.


CLOTHING INDUSTRY
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance. We know that the Canadian Government has promised the apparel industry of Canada a $200 million duty remission package in order to offset the devastating effect of the proposed trade agreement with the United States on that industry which it says itself threatens to lose 65,000 jobs in a very major Canadian industry.
Is the Government prepared to say now that it is prepared to go ahead and offer the full $200 million package to that industry or to give it an exemption from the trade agreement before we lose hundreds of thousands of jobs in a very viable industry?

March 16, 1988
Oral Questions


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member's rhetoric is getting the better of him again. There has been no offer of a $200 million duty remission scheme. That is a figment of the Hon. Member's imagination.


Lloyd Axworthy: You better talk to the industry about that. You made the promise.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Member has said that I made the promise. I challenge him to show me where I made that promise.
We have had a number of discussions with the industry. We have been concerned about providing a regime whereby the competitiveness of the industry can be improved as a result of the free trade agreement. We see some great opportunities for the apparel industry in selling into that very large United States market.
It has been difficult to arrive at a consensus with the industry because of the different points of view represented by different sectors in the industry, but we are making some good headway there and we hope that we will have something to announce soon.


PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. A few weeks ago a study done by the Government of Ontario showed that drug prices for over 1,000 drugs had gone up in excess of the changes in the consumer price index. That was supposed to be the highest they would increase, according to the commitments made by the Minister and the brand name drug companies.
Today another study has come out that has shown that prices of many major drugs needed by Canadians have increased-note this I say to the Minister-by more than 50 per cent.
I want to ask the Minister when is the consumer going to get the protection that he promised.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: The study published in today's Toronto Star lists four drugs which supposedly increased by 50 per cent, 38 per cent, 29 per cent, and 20 per cent. Every one of those drugs is off patent.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: The Patent Act and changes thereto would have absolutely nothing to do with, and have no effect whatsoever, on those drugs.
On the other hand, if it had not been for delays by the Opposition and the Senate, the Drug Prices Review Board would be in a position to examine those types of costs and to ensure that the companies justified them. As it is, they are not in a position to do that. But they have given the study a preliminary look and that study is seriously flawed. Anybody with any degree of self-respect would dissociate themselves from that study immediately.


POWERS OF DRUG PRICES REVIEW BOARD
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, in November, 1986, the Minister said: "The price of drugs will not increase by one cent, not those on the market, not those coming on the market, no drugs are going to go up". Those are the words of the Minister.
We know from the Ontario Government study that 1,000 drugs increased in price in excess of the consumer price index increase in January.
When will the Minister start putting some teeth into the board that was set up in December? Will he give it some authority now, and bring in a Bill that will at least amend it to give it the authority to roll back all unjustified price increases?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): If the Leader of the New Democratic Party had quoted me correctly he would have added to the end of that statement, "as a result of C-22", because he knows that even the most severe critics of Bill C-22 had the intellectual honesty to admit that there was nothing in Bill C-22 that could possibly have any upward effect on the prices of any drugs currently on the market.
The effect of Bill C-22 could be to determine at what point generic competition came on the market. It could have no effect on pushing prices upwards, and that is admitted by everybody who looked at the Bill in committee. The Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party knows that, and he should accept that fact.


John Edward Broadbent: Dead wrong, Harvie.


Harvie Andre: The Drug Prices Review Board under the powers granted to it has ample power to ensure that there is downward pressure on the prices of drugs in Canada, once it gets into operation. The fact that it is not in operation today is as a result of delaying tactics by the opposition Parties. I cannot help that.


STUDY'S FINDINGS-REQUEST THAT BOARD HAVE POWER TO ROLLBACK PRICES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows that the board that his Government has set up
March 16, 1988

has no authority to roll back prices whatsoever, and it is not in an effective position to protect Canadian consumers.
I would like to ask the Minister the following question. An independent pharmacist stated today: "In 20 years of involvement with the industry we have never witnessed price increases of such magnitude by any companies as has occurred after the proclamation of Bill C-22".
Those are the comments of a man who is working out there. In the interest of the public, again I ask the Minister will he, for once, live up to his responsibility as Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and put teeth in the board so that it can rollback all unjustified price increases?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, that particular pharmacist is the person who participated in the study.


John Edward Broadbent: Yes, yes.


Harvie Andre: Let me just explain one fault with the study, just one. It compares the prices in 1987 without federal sales tax versus the prices in 1988 with sales tax.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: And then says: "Oh, my goodness". That is only one of many, many faults in this study.
The Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party should seek better expert advice if he wants to make some point on drug pricing.


John Edward Broadbent: That accounts for a 50 per cent increase, does it?

[ Translation]


TARIFFS
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, Canada's apparel manufacturers are calling out for help. That is the message their representatives gave us this morning. The industry employs 110,000 people in Canada, of whom 65,000 work in Quebec. Industry representatives also told us again this morning that these jobs are at risk as a result of the Free Trade Agreement. They ask the Government, and that is once again the question I have for the Minister of Finance ... The Minister said earlier, in his answer to the Hon. Member from Winnipeg-Fort Garry, that the Government had made no offer of a $200 million duty remission on imported textile products.
Oral Questions
Mr. Speaker, the documents we were given by the Canadian Apparel Manufacturers Institute reflect the opposite of what the Minister just said. I therefore want to ask the Minister whether the Goverment intends to meet its commitment to Canadian apparel manufacturers and their employees and make good its offer of a $200 million duty remission for the industry on imports of textile products from countries other than the United States.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member must be very careful in the positions he takes on this type of issue.
If he wants to propose a $200 million duty remission scheme, he had better also check with the textile industry to see how it feels about a duty remission scheme of that order of magnitude. I think he will find that the support he picks up in one segment of the industry, the apparel sector, he has probably lost, and then some, with other segments of the industry.


PRIME MINISTER'S ELECTION PROMISE
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I may be wrong in that suggestion, but a duty remission was a promise made by the Prime Minister of Canada in Sherbrooke during the 1984 election.

Mr. Speaker, this offer to remit duty on imports of textile products was made by the Prime Minister of Canada during the election campaign in 1984. Once again, I want to ask the Minister of Finance whether he is going to meet this commitment. We have the quotes in the documents we were given by the people in the apparel industry. Could the Minister of Finance, in order to protect 65,000 jobs in the apparel industry which are being threatened by the Free Trade Agreement with the United States, meet the commitment his Leader, the present Prime Minister of Canada, made during the election campaign to remit duty on imports of textile products from countries other than the United States?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member pursues this thought he may find that he has some differences with his colleague from Shefford.
I indicated that there are different points of view between certain segments of the apparel industry and segments of the textile industry.
What we are trying to do here is to develop a package of support for the industry which can enhance its competitive position and help it adjust in the free trade environment. Those discussions are ongoing.
However, 1 say as strongly as I can that to characterize some of the quotes that he and his colleague from Winnipeg have as promises involving a few hundred million dollars-

March 16, 1988
Oral Questions


Raymond Garneau: That was a promise made by the Prime Minister.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -involving a $200 million duty remission scheme, is absolutely unfounded. There has not been a promise to that effect.


POSITION OF AMERICAN APPAREL MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I have a letter from the American Apparel Manufacturers Association which contains the following quote representing its policy:
The American Apparel Manufacturers Association will oppose Congressional approval of the U.S.-Canadian Free Trade Agreement if the Canadian
Government implements any plan to provide Canadian apparel manufacturers
a subsidy-
Will the Government stand up and clearly reject this blackmail? Will it state today that it will proceed with the $200 million support for the garment industry, which was promised in the past by the Minister of Industry?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the New Democrat Member is following the same faulty rhetoric as the previous two questioners have used. There has not been a promise of a $200 million duty remission scheme, and that is an absolute fact.
What I can say to the Hon. Member is that we have had ongoing negotiations since the free trade agreement with the textile and clothing industries in order to provide a basis of support which is consistent with the free trade agreement, as set out in the free trade agreement itself.
Those discussions have been difficult because, as Hon. Members will know, there are quite divergent points of view in the apparel sector and in the textile sector. It is difficult to get a package of measures which is acceptable within Canada, within the various industries in Canada.
That is what we are working on, and we will continue to work in that direction.


Steven W. Langdon: The Minister knows that the Minister of Industry sent a letter with precisely that promise to the people of the industry right across the country.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT SUPPORT CLOTHING MANUFACTURERS
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, here is my supplementary: Is the Government prepared to acknowledge and live up to its promise of a $200 million support payment to the garment industry? Yes or no?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, for the fourth time I repeat that there was no promise of a $200 million duty remission scheme. There was no promise, and the Hon. Member knows that. Now then, in response to
the previous question I said we had negotiations with the textile and apparel industry, and it is difficult for the various sectors of the industry to reach a consensus. Still it is very important that the Government should offer the textile and garment industries a program designed to make them still more competitive.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF ICELANDIC MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to bring to the attention of Hon. Members the presence in the gallery today of Kristin Halldors-dottir, member of The Women's Alliance Movement of Iceland and a Member of Parliament.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. As the Minister knows, I have had a continuing interest in making amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act to allow a mother, when her child is born prematurely or has to remain in hospital because of health problems, to be able to postpone taking her maternity benefits until the child comes home from hospital.
As he also knows, I have a Private Member's Bill, but its path is long and tortuous.
I would ask the Minister, in fact I would plead with the Minister, that he on behalf of the Government be prepared to make those amendments now so that Melanie Williams and other women across Canada will know that this Government cares about them and their families during this difficult time in their lives.


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for Capilano for her question. I know and everyone in the House knows how much she is interested in this issue.
I will table this afternoon some amendments to the Immigration Act, and I am sure that the Hon. Member will be very happy with my answer this afternoon.
March 16, 1988


TELEFILM CANADA
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Disclosure today of the details of the expense accounts of the outgoing part-time Chairman of Telefilm Canada gives rise to serious questions about the salaries and expenditures of government patronage appointees.
Jean Sirois, the part-time Chairman of Telefilm Canada, has run up expenses and salaries totalling more than $176,000 in his first 16 months on the job. The total is not in, but that is in addition to more than $400,000 in legal fees charged to the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs during the same period of time.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister approve of these extravagant salary and expense account claims? Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House whether Mr. Sirois was running Telefilm Canada or casting himself for a role in Dynasty?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the travel and the expense accounts of the Chairman of Telefilm Canada are the responsibility of the board of directors of Telefilm Canada and of the Executive Director of Telefilm Canada who, up until October, was Mr. Pearson.
These accounts were approved by the board of directors and by the Executive Director of Telefilm Canada, and if the latter did not approve of them, he should never have signed them.
It is not the responsibility of the Government to approve or to restrict the travel plans of the President or the Chairman of Telefilm Canada any more than it is to approve or to restrict the travel plans of the Chairman or the President of the CBC, of the Canada Council or of any of the cultural agencies. These are independent agencies which have an arm's length relationship with the Government. As I have said before, if the Hon. Member has any proof of wrongdoing or impropriety, I have told him he should bring it forward and it will be investigated. I notice that he has not done so.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Sirois is looking for a role in Dynasty and the Minister is obviously cut out for a role in Yes, Minister.


Ms. Copps:: Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Acting as a part-time chairman and a part-time lawyer, Mr. Sirois has collected three-quarters of a million dollars from the taxpayers. Thank God the Prime Minister never gave him a full-time appointment.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member will put his question.
Oral Questions


CHAIRMAN'S EXPENDITURES-INSTALLATION OF NEW CASH FLOW SYSTEMS
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Does the Deputy Prime Minister approve of Mr. Sirois' extravagant spending? Does he agree with the words of the Minister of Communications who, a week ago, praised Mr. Sirois "for overseeing the installation of new financial and cash flow systems at Telefilm Canada"? Obviously the Minister's praise was flowing as freely as Mr. Sirois' cash flow. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I think probably the best answer to the Hon. Member was found in an article in this morning's Ottawa Citizen written by the Vice President of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters. He writes as follows:
Let's end the muckraking and intrigue about Telefilm Canada. What's at stake is too vital to Canadian independent film and television production, and domestic broadcasting, to be continually defamed ...
Rather than accuse others, we should pull together, building on Telefilm's legacy as a successful instrument of public policy.
He went on to list the number of films that have been made with the help of Telefilm Canada which are winning awards throughout the world.
The reason this Hon. Member and other Hon. Members of the Opposition continually attack and try to undermine Telefilm Canada is because they have no film policy of their own and they have nothing positive to put forward.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Yesterday in the House the Minister admitted that in fact a freeze on bank service charges would do nothing but keep service charges at a high level. Is the Minister prepared to accept his responsibility for the protection of consumers in the market-place by rolling back these high service charges which these ravenous and rapacious banks are charging Canadian consumers?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, as I answered yesterday and as my colleague answered yesterday and again today, the question of service charges is under active consideration by officials and by a committee of the House of Commons, as a matter of fact, which will be reporting in due course. If I thought that demagoguery, screeching, and yelling would help consumers, I would engage in it too, but I have a sore throat at the moment.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

Oral Questions


REQUEST THAT MINISTER ORDER ROLLBACK
[Stage Direction]
March 16, 1988
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. In light of the fact that this is the same Minister who surrendered consumers onto the altars of the multinational pharmaceutical companies a short while ago, and in light of the fact that in many small communities across Canada consumers do not have a choice of banks unlike the Minister and those in urban communities, instead of surrendering the consumers once again to these ravenous banks, is he prepared to do what any Minister who is worth his salt is prepared to do, and that is to order a rollback of the service charges?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, all over the world, political leaders and different political systems are discovering that price control by the central authority carries with it costs that are more punitive than the benefits it is supposed to bring. If I believed in that 19th century principle that setting all prices at the centre would create a new nirvana for consumers, then I would be in that Hon. Member's Party. However, I believe the consumers have a right to know what they are being charged and that is why I am calling for disclosure. I believe that consumers have the intelligence to make good choices when they have the information.
I await with my colleague the report of the committee of the House for which the Hon. Member should have more respect, and when it reports we will be able to examine the situation and, if necessary, but only if necessary, take the kind of Draconian action the Hon. Member is calling for.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Immigration. Will the Minister advise the House if it is true that President Corey Aquino of the Philippines has imposed a freeze on Filipino domestics wanting to come to Canada? If that is so, why is it? Will the Minister also advise the House if Canada has been successful in attempting to obtain an exemption from that freeze?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of State (Immigration)):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for the question. I am aware that the Philippine Government is presently considering exempting Canada from the ban. The issue is presently before the Philippine Cabinet, to the best of my knowledge, and I will be reporting to the House as soon as more information becomes available.
I might add that in 1986 there were over 16,000 foreign domestics included in our immigration program and welcomed to Canada, and of those 6,553 came from the Philippines.


AEROSPACE INDUSTRY
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. Yesterday he told MPs for the umpteenth time that the Government will establish an independent space agency. He will forgive Canadians for being confused and skeptical given the contradictory statements of the Minister for Regional Industrial Expansion.
Will the Minister confirm today that the Government will establish an independent space agency, that he has the full support of his Cabinet colleagues, and that this is indeed government policy?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State (Science and Technology)):: Mr. Speaker, for the umpteenth time I will tell the Hon. Member that the creation of a space agency to manage the various aspects of our space program was in the Throne Speech. It is a government commitment. My colleague responded to one of those hypothetical questions that the Opposition likes to ask: If there were not a space program, would we have a space agency? We do not make it a habit of forming agencies and bureaucracy with nothing to do. If there were not a space program we would not have a space agency, for the umpteenth time.


David Berger: If having nothing to do was the criterion, the Minister's Department would have to be disbanded.


Charles Joseph Clark: Is that Liberal policy?


DEMAND THAT MINISTER INTRODUCE BILL IMMEDIATELY
David Berger: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister make a commitment to table immediately the Bill to create the space agency, if only to show his good faith and at long last tell Canadians where the agency will be located?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, if my Department was disbanded we would not have anyone to manage a $100 million science and technology subagreement with the Province of Quebec which is paying dividends beyond anyone's imagination. I will table a Bill on the establishment of the agency and its location at the time the Government decides just what are the nature
March 16, 1988

and scope of our space program. Those decisions will be made within the next few weeks.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Labour I will direct my question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
In the 1986 Budget the Government announced its intention to introduce an adjustment program for laid-off older workers. At the end of this month the Canada Packers plant in St. Boniface, Manitoba, will close and 400 of the most senior employees will lose their jobs. According to a study, fully 35 per cent of the employees who were laid off earlier are still unemployed.
Can the Minister tell this House when improvements to labour adjustment procedures will be in place in order to help those 400 workers?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, this issue concerns the Minister of Labour, but I can tell the Hon. Member that the Minister is negotiating at present with all the provinces. I was told that the negotiations are going well and I believe the Minister could announce something pretty soon.


DELAY IN INTRODUCING ADJUSTMENT PROGRAM FOR OLDER WORKERS
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, we realize negotiations have been going on for a while but the promise was made two years ago. Will the Minister, or the Minister of Labour, make sure that the workers at Firestone in Hamilton, Massey Combines in Brantford, and Canada Packers in St. Boniface, will not be punished because of the Government's delay? Surely the workers are not at fault for the delay. Will he assure us that this program will be retroactive so that the people laid off now and who will be laid off at the end of this month will not suffer because of the government's delay of over two years?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I suggest my hon. friend is referring to individual cases and that while he is saying that a number of plants are closing, he should indicate that my Department, through the Industrial Assistance Service, has various contracts to look after not only all their older workers, but all their workers generally. I must remind my hon. friend also that only during the last year, between 1987 and 1988, unemployment among older workers went down from 7.6 per cent to 6.5 per cent, which is below the unemployment level for
Oral Questions
the whole country. When unemployment figures are going down, it obviously does not seem to please the Liberals.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, we will bring up Saint-Benoit again tomorrow!


AEROSPACE
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, if I direct my question to the Minister of State (Science and Technology), Mr. Speaker, it is because he seems in total contradiction with the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and the Minister of State responsible for Science and Technology concerning the establishment of a space agency. What we want to know is this: Is the Minister going to announce where this agency will be located? Will the Government make this announcement before the election, after the election or during the election? That is what we and Montrealers want to know.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, we carried out the widest possible consultation to discover all aspects of this procedure. In fact I consulted with the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier and he says the space agency would best be placed in Ottawa. The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie says the agency would best be located in Montreal. My constituents say it would best be located in Prince George, British Columbia.


Mr. Gauthier:: Ottawa-Vanier.


Lloyd Axworthy: Winnipeg.


Frank Oberle: We will announce that decision at the time I table the Bill.


REQUEST FOR GREATER SHARE FOR QUEBEC
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister came and embraced Mayor Dore on the porch. He came and embraced Mr. Robert Bourassa at a cocktail. The Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion indicated to Montrealers that the space agency will be located in Montreal. You are the Governement. Are you going to make that announcement? Montrealers also want to know why, when contracts are awarded, we are limited to 35 per cent, while in the car manufacturing industry, this does not happen. In the matter of shipbuilding contracts, we were had with the frigates: Quebec got nothing. In the space industry, where we are the majority, will we be limited to 35 per cent? Why such discrimination?

March 16, 1988
Oral Questions


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, several days ago the same Hon. Member lamented the alleged fact that only 9 per cent of our science and technology expenditures are made in Quebec. Today he says it is 35 per cent. Perhaps the Hon. Member could give me a percentage suitable to him and consistent with what other people are saying and I will try to accommodate him.
I said at the time we table a Bill on the space agency and we have established the necessity for it, we will at the same time announce its location.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Guy St. Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I put my question to the Minister of Transport. The Canadian National Railways are about to grant freight rate reductions for rough lumber transportation from British Columbia to eastern United States transfer facilities. My question is the following. Why are the Canadian National Railways encouraging the West to the detriment of the East?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, CN is of course attempting to be competitive within the new competitive pricing policies established by the National Transportation Agency. It is of course reducing rates wherever that is proper to do so or makes them more competitive in Canada.
Its competition in Quebec is the trucking companies which have about 70 per cent of the market. The competition in the West comes from ships. If there are any Quebec lumber companies which think that they are either not charging compensatory rates in the West, or that a rate is unjust or discriminatory, they can apply to the National Transportation Agency and request an investigation.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State who is responsible for
bilingualism in Canada. In view of the Government's commitment with regard to Bill C-72 on official bilingualism, is it willing to intervene and use its influence to ensure the survival of the newspaper Le Droit, the only French language daily in the national capital of a bilingual country?


Hon. David Crombie (Secretary of State of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I understand the concern of the Member. I can advise him that we have had some consideration of the matter and I hope that we can assist. If we can, we will.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT UNDERTAKE DIRECT INTERVENTION
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question. In view of the fact some members of the Government, including the Prime Minister, are very close to the Hollinger company, which owns Le Droit, and namely Mr. Conrad Black and Mr. Peter White, a former assistant to the Prime Minister, will the Government intervene directly to save this important newspaper, to rescue the 250 employees who suffer financially from the intransigence of the employer, and to ensure the continued publication of a newspaper in the other official language in the bilingual capital of a bilingual country?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, we can take the Hon. Member's question as a representation. The matter is under consideration.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Egmont for a single question. This will be the last question.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Agriculture announced the 1985 Potato Stabilization Program for Prince Edward Island farmers he excluded or subtracted from the calculation of the provincial share of stabilization funds 104,703 metric tonnes of potatoes which were disposed of through the 1985 potato diversion program.
The Minister knows full well that by doing this he has cut stabilization payments to Prince Edward Island farmers by about $800,000. Why has the Minister short-changed the potato farmers of P.E.I. by this tricky arithmetic?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the Government has not short-changed any farmers. The Government has not short-changed potato farmers in any part
March 16, 1988

of the country. The Government did not use any tricky mathematics to arrive at the method of payment.
The Hon. Member must recognize that it would be impossible for us to make two stabilization type payments to the same crop in the same crop year. At the request of the producers in P.E.I. and New Brunswick a year or so ago, we assisted them to enter into a cost-sharing program for diversion purposes. We also applied some financial assistance, at about that same time, in the Province of British Columbia.
In order to be fair and equitable we had to exclude the volume of potatoes which was covered under the diversion program in Prince Edward Island and in New Brunswick. We also had to exclude the volume of potatoes that qualified for the stabilization payment in the Province of British Columbia.


George Roland Henderson: Will you allow a short supplementary question, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: The Question Period is over. Perhaps the Hon. Member will raise the matter again at another time.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: I want to advise Hon. Members that we have a question of privilege to deal with. I call first on the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn).


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I raised a question of privilege in connection with reports which were under consideration by the Finance Committee which had, unfortunately, been allowed to get into the public hand improperly and without the permission of the committee. They were released in such a fashion as to cause some concern to the public.
As a result of a young man coming forward, that issue has now, I think, been resolved. We have received advice from the young man, who was an employee of a Member. I know the young man and I think he has learned his lesson. One of the problems with the operation here is the pressure which people are sometimes under to tell people things which they perhaps should not find out.
I think, Sir, that if you would outline as far as possible the views of the Chair on this matter, we would probably best handle it in that fashion and not proceed further by referring this specific matter to the Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure, although it is clearly a matter of privilege because of the damage that the release of confidential material can cause, not only to the committee but to the House itself and to the integrity of Members.
Privilege-Mr. Blenkarn
I think this particular matter has been attended to and dealt with effectively, but if you could make a ruling on the issue, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be appreciated by all Members of the House.


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I want to express, in the strongest possible terms, my disapproval of what has happened. When a preliminary draft prepared by a staff person is misrepresented as a report by Members of Parliament, it is not only mischievous but a serious obstruction to the continuing work of the committee. The real report will not get the same media attention as the leaked draft and some Canadians will remain misinformed. This is particularly irresponsible, even cruel, in the matter of the sales tax on food.
All three Parties in this House have taken a position against imposing a sales tax on food. Yet, this morning's headlines screamed something different. My colleagues from Newfoundland tell me that there were radio shows in their areas beamed into very poor areas telling people that their food bills were about to go up by 10 per cent.
I can hardly find words to express my disapproval of the irresponsibility which would impose that kind of pain and distress on poor people who are finding it hard enough to live.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Aideen Nicholson: This morning a spokesperson for the National Anti-Poverty Organization was quoted, quite correctly, as expressing bewilderment at the idea that an allParty committee of this House could reverse itself on commitments which had been made.
This is really quite shocking. It is unfair to the people of Canada. It is unfair to the Members of this House and members of committees who try to work with difficult and complex issues and produce recommendations which are sensible and fair.
A less important matter, although I still mention it, is that the same staff person who released this draft report on the committee's examination of the sales tax in New Zealand before the committee had expressed opinion on it, also released to the press a draft report on banking charges, again to which the committee had not yet bent its mind.
In that preliminary draft there were some errors. There is nothing wrong with a preliminary draft being less than accurate because obviously the staff keeps reviewing and checking for accuracy, with or without the input of members of the committee. But for someone to hand out a preliminary draft that Members had not looked at means that errors just go into the system and get fed around the country.
Although I would not be quite as kind as the Chairman about the young staff person involved, and I agree he is young and young people are entitled to make mistakes once-let us hope he has learned from it-I agree he should not be named

March 16, 1988
Tabling of Documents
or pilloried. However,he is not only an individual working for a Member of Parliament, he has also worked for our committee for six months. He is in a position to know very well the difference between a preliminary draft prepared by staff at which Members have not looked and a report that Members are in the process of adopting. For someone with that kind of inside information to hand out a draft to the media as a final draft is triply irresponsible and deserving of condemnation.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of our Party, I also want to express disapproval over what has happened. What has happened is wrong. It is wrong for someone, be it a Member of Parliament or a staff member from an office of a Member of Parliament, to leak confidential information to the press. I think this is the time we should remind ourselves that this place runs because of trust. Yes, we have partisan politics and we differ on issues, but Parliament only runs because there is a certain amount of trust between the members of all political Parties.
I want to compliment the generous comments of the Chairman of the finance committee, the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn). He says he knows the person in question and he thinks that person has learned his lesson. I too know the person in question and I do think this person has learned his lesson. However, that aside, I think this is a very important opportunity to remind all Members of Parliament and to remind the staff of Members of Parliament that when we are dealing with confidential work in the House of Commons, or in the committees of the House of Commons, that work should remain confidential. If it does not, it undermines the trust of this place and the integrity of all Members of Parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. Members have just heard the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) and others. The effect of their interventions has been to inform this House that a member of the staff of a Member of Parliament has admitted leaking confidential and private research material from the finance committee to the print media.
As your Speaker, it is my humble opinion that it is in the best interests of the House that this matter now be set aside, given the fact that Members of Parliament from all three Parties who sit on the committee have made the remarks they have in this place.
However, this issue does warrant some comment from the Chair, and it is with caution that any presiding officer comments on such matters. First, let me express my personal gratitude to Members for the manner in which this was handled. Honour and trust, even in as difficult and sometimes as partisan an arena as this, is the foundation of our democratic system of government. The House of Commons can only be effective when the basic principles of honesty and trust guide its often heated debates.
I wish to remind those who work for Members that while they enjoy some of the privileges of the House, they also bear,
in our more modern parliamentary system, the very heavy responsibilities of trust, honour and confidentiality. It is rare indeed that such matters have occupied the time of this House and, given all that goes on on Parliament Hill, it is a credit to all those people who serve us so well that such incidents are the extreme exception.
I must say to all Hon. Members, and to everyone who works in this place for Hon. Members, that if it had not been for the frank explanation and the way in which all three Members on this committee, representing all three Parties, have intervened, this breach of privilege could easily have been referred to the appropriate committee with all the consequences that would ensue.
However, there was another participant in this incident. The confidential report of the finance committee may well have been released without proper authorization as, in fact, of course, it was, but someone else also decided to print or report parts thereof. The new, reformed committees of the House have greater powers than ever before. They are now inquiring more often into areas of vital public interest. The Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson), in what, I think, was an extremely lucid intervention, has pointed out exactly the harm to the public interest that flows from either the irresponsible leaking of material or the injudicious use of it once it is leaked.
To ensure that these committees are able to function in a climate of trust, Members are agreed that their work should not be impeded, delayed or obstructed or brought under undue suspicion by any premature publication of their in camera proceedings or draft reports. The good relations between the House and the media are also founded on principles of trust and honour. Those of us who have spent time in this place know that it is impossible to have a democratic community unless there is that relationship between those who are elected and those who report on us.
I can only hope that in the future, the media might reflect on the conventions that the House has imposed upon itself in matters of confidentiality of committee reports, and consider carefully how any decision it might make potentially to breach the privileges of the House impacts on the important principles of parliamentary government and can do great harm to the public interest.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, in response to a question on Thursday, March 10, 1988, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. de Cotret) gave a commitment to make certain statistics available. On his behalf, I have the pleasure
March 16, 1988

of tabling, in both official languages, a breakdown of federal moneys distributed for science and technology, research and development, as well as federal space expenditures.


CANADIAN GRAIN COMMISSION
Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Grains and Oilseeds)):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table, in both official languages, the annual report of the Canadian Grain Commission. Pursuant to Standing Order 67(4), this document is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.


WAYS AND MEANS
Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 84(1) I have the honour to lay upon the Table copies of a Ways and Means motion to amend the Excise Tax Act.
Pursuant to Standing Order 84(2), I ask that an Order of the Day be designated for the consideration of the said motion.


PETITIONS
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to 37 petitions bearing the following numbers: 3323835 to 332-3839 inclusive, 332-3850, 332-3945, 332-3946, 332-3992, 332-3993, 332-3997, 332-4000 to 332-4002 inclusive, 332-4004, 332-4006, 332-4031 to 332-4036 inclusive, 332-4038, 332-4039, 332-4047, 332-4053 to 332-4056 inclusive, 332-4058 and 332-4070 to 332-4076 inclusive.
Committee Reports



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the fifty-fifth and fifty-sixth reports of the Striking Committee.
If the House gives its consent, Mr. Speaker, I intend to move concurrence in the fifty-sixth report later this day.



COASTING TRADE AND COMMERCIAL MARINE ACTIVITIES

Marcel R. Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, the Legislative Committee on Bill C-52, an Act respecting the use of foreign ships and non-duty paid ships in the coasting trades and in other marine activities of a commercial nature has the honour to table its report in both official languages.
I should like to thank all members of the Committee for the extensive work they have performed during the past few weeks. Our proceedings were carried on in a climate of sincere cooperation, thus allowing us to improve significantly the bill under consideration.

I would also like to express my gratitude to all the witnesses who accepted to appear, sometimes on very short notice, before the committee, and to share with us their views concerning this piece of legislation. Their expertise has been very helpful to the committee.



FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS-FIFTEENTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official languages the fifteenth report of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs in relation to the goods and service tax. This report deals specifically with the committee's visit to New Zealand between February 14, 1988, and February 23, 1988.
The committee held 22 meetings in New Zealand with the architect of the tax, the Minister of Finance for New Zealand, Roger Douglas, many of his colleagues, public officials, independent businessmen, legal and accounting people. In all we saw 37 witnesses. The report is a very comprehensive report.
Without going into the full recommendations, I might say for those who have leaked this report that the committee makes no recommendation with respect to the taxing of such necessities as food.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]

March 16, 1988
Introduction of Bills



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT, 1971 MEASURE TO AMEND

Benoît Bouchard: for leave to introduce Bill C-116, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971.


Mr. Speaker:: Is leave to introduce the bill granted?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a correction to the answer I gave this afternoon to the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins). For obvious reasons, instead of saying "The Unemployment Insurance Act", I said "The Immigration Act". I would appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that that correction be made. I did mean the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act.



FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT


Mr. Patrick Boyer (Etobicoke-Lakeshore) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-287, an Act to amend the Financial Administration Act with regard to remission orders.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the Bill that I am introducing for first reading today amends the Financial Administration Act pertaining to remission orders. It is certified consistent with Standing Order 108.
Very briefly, the Bill would provide an opportunity for this House to scrutinize and to approve remission orders that involve amounts in excess of $1 million. It would also require the Minister of Finance to assess, through a justification report, whether amounts remitted are compensated by a financial benefit for Canada.
In conclusion, I note that this is a matter the Auditor General has drawn attention to, the Public Accounts Committee has considered it, and I have personally raised it several times in the House in respect of the remission order granted to Goodyear Canada Inc.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties. I think you would find that there is unanimous consent to put the following motions immediately. The first reads:
That, the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources and the necessary supporting staff be authorized to travel to eastern and southern Ontario from March 20 to 23, 1988 inclusive; to Europe from April 8 to 17, 1988 inclusive; and to Washington, D.C. and Boston from May 1 to 4, 1988 inclusive; and for the purpose of continuing its ongoing study of the economics of nuclear power in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Minister have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the second motion states:
That, the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services and the necessary supporting staff be authorized to travel to Washington, D.C. from April 18 to April 21, 1988 inclusive to study Members' services in the U.S.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Minister have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
March 16, 1988


Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, if the House agrees, I move that the 56th Report of the Striking Committee, tabled in the House earlier today, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from a number of residents of Canada who are concerned about the low-level flight training of pilots of NATO countries at the Canadian Forces Base in Goose Bay, Labrador. This is disrupting many of the native people whose lives are based on hunting, fishing, tourism, and mining, and which they feel provides a more stable, healthy, and peaceful employment there.
The petitioners point out that this program to train pilots to fly under radar into eastern Europe is a provocative and aggressive war-fighting action tending to endanger world peace. Therefore, the petitioners ask Parliament to ensure that the Prime Minister will end all low-level flight training at the Goose Bay Canadian Forces Base and cease negotiations with NATO for the establishment of a larger base there.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, 1 also have a petition from a number of residents of the constituency of Spadina. They point out that the fabric of Canadian sovereignty is threatened by the proposed agreement between the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the President of the United States, the Prime Minister having no mandate to negotiate such a deal with the United States. Furthermore, this deal would reduce Canada's ability to plan economic, social, and cultural programs that we need, and it would integrate Canada further into the North American defence industrial base.
For those reasons, the undersigned ask the House of Commons to ensure that a national debate takes place on this trade deal, and that this debate result in a national general election before any agreement has been signed.


Mr. Peter Peterson (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present today which has been signed by members
Petitions
of my constituency of Hamilton West and the neighbouring riding of Hamilton-Wentworth. The petitioners are members of the congregation of Westdale United Church in the City of Hamilton. Among other things they point out that, under successive Governments, Canada's weapons and weapon components industry has doubled in the past eight years.
They call upon Parliament to establish a review committee whose function would be to monitor Canada's policy in connection with this industry, and until such time halt further expansion of this industry in Canada.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions signed by Canadians from across the country. The petitioners are residents of Ottawa, Toronto, Edmonton, and Calgary. The petitioners urge the Government of Canada, and particularly the Minister of Immigration, to amend the legislation, Bill C-55, dealing with the refugee determination system, in order that the prescreening stage and the implementation of a safe third country would be removed from the proposed legislation and thereby make the legislation more fair, just, and equally effective. I table the petitions for the consideration of the Government and of the House of Commons.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions both of which deal with the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) trade agreement with President Reagan of the United States.
The petitioners object to the fact that the Government had no mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a trade agreement with the United States. They object to the fact that the promise made in the bilateral trade negotiations that Canadian sovereignty would not be compromised has been forgotten.
They humbly pray and call upon Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed trade agreement during a national general election.


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege to present two petitions. One is signed by some 60 residents of the community of Fort Frances, Ontario to add to the more than 1,000 signatures that have come from that community on this same matter.
The second petition is signed by a vast majority of the adult residents of the community of Mine Centre, Ontario.
Both petitions complain of the unfair implementation of the northern residents' tax allowance which the petitioners believe to be discriminatory in granting such an allowance to some

March 16, 1988
Order Paper Questions
communities whereas other adjacent neighbouring communities are excluded from the beneficial operation of that northern residents' tax allowance.
The remedy that the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament for is that all communities in the remote and isolated constituencies in this country designated as Tier III constituencies under the Canada Elections Act should be designated as being eligible to receive the northern residents' tax allowance.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On a point of order, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have been successful in getting an answer to my Question No. 209 some 147 days after the question was put on October 15. The Government finally gave me an answer on March 10. We all know that my request was in accordance with the regulations of Standing Order 64(3), and the Government did not obey the Standing Orders which state that there be a 45 day limit on the reply.
Nevertheless, I was so successful in convincing the Parliamentary Secretary, that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), has asked me to intervene in his name today and perhaps use my good offices to try to convince the Parliamentary Secretary to answer Question No. 205, which has been outstanding since October 8, 1987, although a reply was requested within 45 days.
I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary, in view of the good relations that we have established in the last few days, could not see fit to ask the appropriate authorities to answer that question today, or perhaps tomorrow at the latest.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I would remind my hon. friend that Question No. 209 was answered. The difficulty with that question was that it was broad, it encompassed many government departments, and it was both time consuming and very expensive. Historically I have asked for a chance to cut the questions down to something more limited so that we can respond more quickly.
In connection with Question No. 205, it too cuts across two government departments. I understand that answers are available for both government departments. It is currently in translation and it should be available very shortly, in spite of the intervention by my hon. friend.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I wish to remind the Hon. Member that, in reforming the rules of the House, Members of the House
cannot put more than four questions. The Parliamentary Secretary knows that, and we all know that. Indeed, if the question I put on October 15 was an extended question requiring some work and research, I do not apologize for that. I am only allowed to have four questions on the Order Paper. If the Parliamentary Secretary allows more, perhaps we will put more questions, and he will have to give shorter answers to shorter questions.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Perhaps I have not made the situation as clear as I might have, and I will try once again. If the Hon. Member had asked those questions in series he would have received 80 to 90 per cent of the answers within the required 45 days. When the Hon. Member asks such a broad question, I cannot come to the House and answer it until all parts of the question are answered. Therefore, if there is one particularly obscure or difficult piece of information to be obtained, or there is a slow Minister, then the Member is indeed cutting down the flow of information to himself. He would be well advised to follow my advice.


Rodney Edward Murphy: The Parliamentary Secretary is well known for rising in this House and condemning others for not getting their petitions in on time, and complaining about all sorts of misdemeanours, in his mind. I find it very interesting because we on the opposition side have explained that quite often caucus members are in committee and they are not here to present the petitions on time, quite often they are travelling or doing other work, and that they have other priorities. Therefore, petitions cannot always come in in a very quick manner.
However, the Parliamentary Secretary did not accept that. Now we hear excuse after excuse; the Ministers are slow-and I am not sure if he is talking in terms of time or mentality- but he has excuse after excuse as to why the Government does not answer questions. Today he does not answer one question.
It seems to me that there are 40 cabinet Ministers, almost the equivalent number of Parliamentary Secretaries, goodness knows how many special assistants and senior advisers, and obviously those questions can be answered much more quickly than this. I would hope the Parliamentary Secretary takes this message back to the slow Ministers and to others.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, as of Monday of this week, we had responded to 87.4 per cent of the questions. There are 36 questions outstanding out of 285. The average length of time for response is going down. I continue to indicate to the House the complexity of questions, the number of departments they run across, and if there is one difficult situation, it slows down the whole answer.
Indeed questions more carefully targeted to reflect the original purpose for Order Paper questions would facilitate the work of the Government. Later, on a point of order, I will have something to say about petitions.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall all questions stand?
March 16, 1988


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



POINT OF ORDER


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, operating on the advice of the Chair last week, I should like to bring two situations regarding petitions to the attention of the House.
Today I was able to respond to 37 petitions which were laid upon the Table in the last two weeks. All petitions laid upon the Table in the last two weeks have already been responded to.
Some 18 of the 37 petitions were certified in late November or early December, 1987, and not brought to the House until the month of March, 1988.
As Hon. Members send the Government's answers to petitioners, I hope they will remind petitioners that the delay is not the fault of the Government but indeed the fault of Hon. Members for taking so long to bring petitions before the House after they are certified.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary indicated that he has answered the petitions which were brought forward in the last two weeks. Is he indicating that he has answered all petitions on the subject of free trade brought forward in the last two weeks?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, between March 2 and March 9, I think we have done that.
Canada Elections Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: that Bill C-79, an Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts in relation thereto, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to open what we hope will be a very short debate at second reading stage of Bill C-79. We want to get the Bill to a legislative committee where it can be examined in detail and where witnesses can be heard.
We appreciate that there is a continuing need to review the existing Canada Elections Act as a result of a recent committee hearing. However, we feel that Bill C-79, which has had a great deal of discussion among the Parties prior to this point in time, should proceed to committee in order to get the committee work started.
We assumed office in September, 1984. In response to various reports of the Canada Elections Commissioner, the Government began to review the Act and to consider various proposals for improvement. As a result of this exercise, the then President of the Privy Council published a White Paper on election reform in June, 1986, which announced the Government's proposals for reform of the Act. The paper was an important initiative of the Government. It served as the basis upon which constructive discussions developed among representatives of the three Parties.
I say without any hesitation that we have made a great deal of progress in trying to understand the legislation. I will discuss in a moment some possible amendments.
The legislation improves one of the most important pieces of legislation of any truly democratic society, that is, legislation dealing with the electoral process. It is for that reason that we moved slowly and in close co-operation with my colleagues in both opposition Parties.
I would say that we are confident that the result of this legislative revision will be to create a more fair and more equitable Canada Elections Act which is in step with not only the modern electoral process but with the changing needs of the electorate. A clear priority in the legislation is our desire to facilitate and extend the right of Canadians to vote.
I would suggest that one of the shortcomings of the present legislation in this regard-and I say it as a candidate and as a former campaign manager-is the problem encountered by urban voters who find, when they come to the polling station, that they are not permitted to vote because their names are not on the voters' list.

March 16, 1988
Canada Elections Act
In ridings such as Simcoe North we can fix that problem because people in rural areas are entitled to be sworn in at the poll. It is especially important when we have a summer election or an election in which the enumeration process took place during the summer. We find that people living in urban areas are, for some reason or other, not enumerated and therefore, if they do not catch it, not able to vote on voting day.
We think we have corrected that problem in the Bill. Often the problem is not a deliberate one; it is the result of an oversight or an error. After all, the point of the whole process is that Canadians should be allowed to vote, so we have included a solution in the Bill to correct present problems.
Let us move on to people who are absent from the electoral district on election day and inmates awaiting trial who are unable to get to their own polling station. We will make it easier, through the Bill, to vote in an advanced poll and easier to vote at the office of the returning officer whose office will be more accessible. We are also making it possible to vote in the office of the Deputy Assistant Returning Officer.
As well, we are giving federally-appointed judges the right to vote. There will be an enforcement commission to enforce the Act and to decide when prosecutions are necessary, and the trial will be held in a federal court as opposed to a provincial court.
There are other items in the Bill which I should like to highlight, for example proxy voting. It will be open to anyone absent from an electoral district on election day. However, we will not get into the business of wholesale proxy voting. It will be made an offence to solicit a proxy or be a proxy voter more than once.
[ Translation]
From now on, in accordance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the mentally handicapped will be allowed to vote.

Seasonal residents will no longer lose their franchise through restrictions to having to vote at their principal residence. They can now vote in the district of their second residence. This is a matter of great interest to a riding such as mine. Simcoe North has a great many seasonal residents who may wish to cast their vote where they are spending the summer. I would also say the same of the riding of the Hon. Member for Parry Sound- Muskoka (Mr. Darling) in that several residents would be in the same position.


Mr. Darling:: That's right.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Actually I would say that I have more summer residents in my riding than he has in Parry Sound-Muskoka.


Stan Darling: You have not.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: In any event, we are taking steps to accommodate the physically handicapped at all central polls, offices of returning officers, and advance polls. They will all be required to have level access. Other polls will have level access wherever possible, or an explanation from the returning officer will be required.
I would say on a personal note that there was some editorial comment on this item in The Toronto Star. I think it was well intentioned in that The Toronto Star was promoting access for the disabled everywhere. I would point out to those who are concerned about such access that the Bill does state that the returning office must have such access, but there are certain polling stations in rural or remote areas where there may be difficulties with access. I believe that that is taken care of in the enumeration. We have taken great strides to overcome the problem, and speaking on behalf of the Government, I would hope that this is something that would be addressed by witnesses at committee if they so desire. If there are any improvements we can make in this area, we are certainly open to them.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, the ban on the sale of alcohol on election day and on the solicitation of votes by non-residents of Canada has been repealed.

For some time there has been the feeling that to ban the sale of alcohol on election day hearkened back to a time when votes could be won with the use of alcohol. My friend, the Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka, and I come from tourist areas. We do not see that it is any problem to have alcohol sold on voting day and still respect the traditions of a free and democratic election.
There are other changes to the Act in which the House may be interested with respect to the returning officer and his ability to delegate his responsibilities. In an effort to involve young people in the election process and at the same time to provide employment for young people, one of the things we did was to allow the returning officer to appoint young people who are 16 and 17 years old as enumerators, as district returning officers or as poll clerks and allow them to go outside the official electoral districts to participate. We think this broadens the process and gets young people involved in the electoral process earlier. We feel that they can do the job. We have no hesitation in making that particular amendment.
We have made certain changes in the provision for the nomination of candidates. A candidate will need to have 100 electors sign nomination papers in order to file. Those of us in the House who have been through the electoral process realize that it is a very serious matter. We have no difficulty with what are often called fringe candidates, but we appreciate that running in an election is a serious business and we want to make sure that we have entirely serious candidates in the field.
March 16, 1988

We feel that these amendments constitute an important step forward for anyone who believes as we do that we must upgrade our legislation in order to meet the objectives and the aspirations of our times. There have been very extensive negotiations and discussions between the Parties on certain items with a view to improving the Act as printed. I point particularly to the question addressed in the Bill of the right of Canadians abroad to vote. We appreciate that because of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, this issue must be addressed. I can say without hesitation that my colleagues in the opposition Parties felt the need to address it as well.
I would suggest that we had trouble with the mechanics of how we could implement the system in fairness not only to Canadians living abroad but also to people trying to organize elections. We have had discussions with the Table Officers as to how the issue might be addressed. Originally I had thought that a reference could be made by the House to the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure. I was advised by the Table Officers that it might be easier, when this Bill goes to a legislative committee, and as I said we hope it might go this afternoon, to ask the Elections, Privileges and Procedure Committee at the same time, by letter,to specifically address itself to that part of the Act as a reference or as an undertaking of the committee. At the same time we would indicate at committee that we would amend the Bill to delete that part and let the committee come up with a workable way of addressing the problem. I suggest that that is one way that that might be dealt with in the spirit of co-operation.
We also looked at certain other items in the Bill and I would signal that we are looking at amendments to those. Specifically, we looked at the question of opinion polls. The Bill has certain provisions for the publication of questions asked, who paid for the poll, when it was done and the like. As a result of representations from the media and others, we found that certain parts of the media like the print media would be able to handle that easily, whereas the electronic media could not handle that information within the context of a broadcast. We are looking at some amendments to that, amendments which have been discussed with my colleagues.
As well, we looked at the difficulties of reporting cash flow and other items with local associations. We looked at what has been referred to as premature publication of results and the difficulties we face in a country as big as this where the polls are closed at eight o'clock in Newfoundland and some four and a half hours later in British Columbia. I think we will see some amendments to that provision at committee.
In an effort to facilitate the election, we dealt with agents at the poll. There has been a suggestion that there should be two rather than one, and we have no difficulty with that particular amendment.
We looked at the enforcement commission provision. I speak for my colleagues, I am sure, when I say that members of all Parties want to be sure that the enforcement commission is seen to be non-partisan and is made up of the best people
Canada Elections Act
possible. We are looking at wording which would take out any suggestion of partisanship in the process of appointments to that particular commission.
I do want to conclude shortly to allow my colleagues to address the Bill, but I want to say something, if I may, on the report which was tabled recently by the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure. Hon. Members will recall that we encouraged the committee to examine carefully the subject of election expenses.

To that end, Mr. Speaker, the Committee summoned some Elections Canada officials who, as expert witnesses, explained some of the Bill's difficult and complex aspects.

In its report, the committee recommended that the Act be amended as quickly as possible so that it defines precisely those election expenses which should be the subject of spending controls and rebates. I think it is fair to say that all of us who serve in this House share this objective. We are all seriously concerned about any ambiguities in the Act in this regard.
In addition, I think it is self-evident that this is a matter of great interest to the public and the media and there have been increased demands for clarity. It is because we share those objectives that we are committed to trying to find a way to clarify the issue of election expenses.
There have been discussions among officials of all Parties with a view to resolving this matter. The discussions have not been finalized yet, but once we are in a position to finalize them, we will look at the relevant legislation as quickly as possible.
We appreciate the positive comments that have been made by my colleagues in the opposition Parties with respect to this Bill. We sought the co-operation and support of the Opposition and it is our sincere intention to continue to proceed, in a nonpartisan and constructive spirit, with a review of any remaining issues.
I can assure you that the Government is prepared to listen to all views, those of our friends opposite and witnesses in committee, with a view to improving the Elections Act. I urge the opposition Parties to expedite this matter to committee stage so that we can start hearing witnesses, and get a feel for the amendments which have been agreed upon so that they can be drafted and moved. It is in the best interests of all Canadians who vote and in the best interests of all candidates who run that the technical matters in the Bill which are not at issue be proceeded with so that the Chief Electoral Officer can make the required changes. Therefore, I urge my colleagues opposite to give a speedy passage to this Bill so that the committee can start to hear witnesses and do its clause-by-clause work.

March 16, 1988
Canada Elections Act
I want to close by thanking my colleagues opposite for their co-operation at this point and I hope we can move the Bill into committee as soon as possible.


Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say first of all that as far as the Liberal Party is concerned, we welcome Bill C-79 as a step in the right direction. For the most part, the Bill proposes a number of relatively ordinary and minor changes to the Canada Elections Act, although in many cases, the changes will prove very convenient for Canadian voters. We are not talking about any major change in philosophy or policy with respect to the legislation. What we have here is mainly a set of recommendations by the Chief Electoral Officer, set forth in a 160-page document about the size of a dictionary or telephone book.
I agree there has been a lot of discussion among the Parties about reaching a consensus on the content of the Bill and expediting this legislation with the unanimity that has become a tradition in the House of Commons when considering changes to the Canada Elections Act, which means refraining from all partisan debate.
There was a great deal of consultation, and I want to thank the Minister acting for the Government House Leader for inviting my colleague in the New Democratic Party and myself to his office, to review some of the more contentious and delicate aspects of the Bill. There are several, and I will get back to these later on.
I would say that on the whole, the Government has done a good job. However, I think it is unfortunate the Government neglected to propose amendments that would have had the effect of clarifying the definition of election expenses. I will get back to this. I mention this right at the beginning of my remarks because what will probably sink this Bill is the fact that the Government wants to have it passed quickly this afternoon. Indeed, not so long ago the Minister wrote to me suggesting that perhaps we might agree to put up only one speaker per Party. This could have been arranged had the Government made it clear it wanted to amend the Elections Act to clarify the definition of election expenses, and to establish the difference between what we call election expenses and campaign expenses. Unfortunately the Government does not seem to be inclined to do that, so perhaps the Minister will have to show more patience because, having brought the matter up with Party colleagues and in our caucus this morning I must regretfully tell the Minister that a few of my colleagues will want to speak to this Bill.

It would be my pleasure to agree with the Minister's suggestion that we deal with the Bill very quickly this afternoon, but the fact that the Government has not seen fit to bring in amendments to clarify the definition of election expenses has spurred some of my colleagues to action. Some of them will want to speak on this Bill and try to convince the Minister of the importance, if not the urgency, of amending
the Elections Act to clarify the definition of an election expense.
Let us have a look at some of the issues in this Bill. Everyone agrees that there are some small housekeeping items which are not too contentious. There were in general six issues discussed among the Parties and we were able to come to an agreement and resolve our differences on all of these issues.
The Minister referred earlier to opinion polls. Bill C-79 wanted to impose on all media, whether electronic or print, the requirement that they provide all information related to polls, such as who commissioned it, the size of the sample, when it was taken, and so on. However, the electronic media told us that it is very difficult in the short time they have available, either on radio or television, to provide all this information. I would have preferred to have a standard for the print media and another one for the electronic media so as to make sure that both were at least obliged to provide some information. However, since the Government agreed to some of our representations, I agreed, with some reluctance, to drop this from the Bill. I think we can live with it because in good part we have to admit that the print media has been providing all the information for a number of years already.
With regard to local riding associations, there again our Party would have preferred, the proposal that donations over $100 to riding associations be divulged, receipted and so on to have been mandatory rather than voluntary. We think to propose a voluntary system is window-dressing. It does not solve the problem. It is an attempt to say we have dealt with the problem but it is not a real solution. However, you cannot win on all fronts.
We said we would have liked annual returns because if riding associations are to collect moneys subject to the rebate, it means the public at large has been contributing through taxes. In this case, not only do you want to know who gave money to the riding association in amounts exceeding $100, you want to know what the riding association is doing with the money. The Bill did not contain that requirement. There was no provision for mandatory annual returns by riding associations. We thought that if they were to benefit from rebates and so on, they would have to be on the same level as Parties and candidates during elections, all of whom have to provide a return and account for what they have done with the money. However, we agreed to the Minister's proposal that this could be removed from the Bill rather than have a proposal which is not perfect.
However, I would ask the Minister if he would not be agreeable to referring this subject to a committee. I think we could work on this, improve it, and come to a solution if it were.
I know the Minister is willing to refer the question of voting abroad. If this also were referred, and it is a smaller item, it could be done in the same package and it would take much less time than the other issue. Maybe we could hear witnesses, too. At the same time as they are dealing with voting abroad
March 16, 1988

perhaps they can tell us what they think about local associations having to divulge their donors, having to provide annual returns, and so on.
The Government had originally decided that there would be only one agent representing a candidate at the polls. This became a problem in my province because we have traditionally had two. I have to give credit to the Government and the Minister who has expressed willingness to try to get back to two representatives per candidate. It has been suggested that we could restore partially what was in the Elections Act, that is, that one candidate could have two agents at the polls, but not at the counting. In my province it is mainly for the counting that we want to have two agents. I wonder whether it would not be possible through amendment at committee stage to try to restore what is in the Elections Act because that would suit a major province of the country which has 75 seats. Perhaps the Minister would like to reflect on that.
With regard to Canadians voting abroad, in principle we have welcomed the move by the Government to allow Canadians who happen to live abroad to exercise their right to vote. We differ in that we think that the proposal in Bill C-79 is too wide-ranging, too much subject to abuse, and has been put together too quickly. This is the reason that some of us have suggested to the Minister that this be stripped from the Bill by way of amendment and that we have a separate reference to the committee. The Minister has agreed to this and I would like to give him credit for that. I believe that if we take the time to think about it and ask Canadians to come before the committee to give us their views, we can devise a better system for allowing Canadians abroad to vote.
We are talking about a large number of people. Canadians abroad in the U.S. alone amount to about two million people. That figure is probably double world-wide. Some people have Canadian citizenship just because they were born in Canada. They may have moved when they were only a few months old and may have never lived in Canada since then. This Bill would give them the right to vote. I do not think it is fair for someone who is not really a Canadian, although he may have Canadian citizenship, to have the right to vote I would like to know what my fellow Canadians think about this. I would like to give them a chance to appear before the committee and tell us where to draw the line.
Obviously to give only Canadian Forces personnel and people working abroad for External Affairs the right to vote is not enough. That is clear in my mind. There are a number of people on contracts with various companies, for example people working for Bell Canada installing a telephone system in Saudi Arabia or some other part of the world. Why should they lose their right to vote because they happen to be working abroad when an election is called?
It is a matter of determining who has the right to vote, under what conditions, and how to facilitate that. I believe that
Canada Elections Act
to refer this to the committee is the proper route. The Government has decided to do that and the Minister should take credit for that.
With regard to the enforcement commission, I and my Party are quite satisfied that we are going to change the way the Act is enforced. Very recently we had hearings before the Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure. Elections Canada was called upon to appear, and the Elections Commissioner was questioned on the procedures he uses to police and enforce the Act. Bill C-79 is bringing forth a whole new concept. We will now have not an Elections Commissioner but an enforcement commission made up of representatives of all Parties. I think that is a great step forward.
We have been discussing this at length among the Parties. I understand that the last proposal of the Minister is that the chairman and the member of the enforcement commission representing the public be appointed by a resolution of the House of Commons. I think that is fair. I think we should have another resolution which would contain in whole the representatives of each political Party as they are agreed to.
In devising such a system we would need, first, maximum consultation among the Parties. The last thing we want is a commission staffed with people who are there only to protect the interests of their own Party. We want a level of quality of people sitting on that committee which goes beyond the mere protection of the interests of a political Party. We want people with vision.
There is a risk with such a system, that being that if only people protecting interests are sitting around the table the temptation may exist to say, "We will not lay charges against your guy in such a riding provided you do not suggest that this guy of our Party in another riding broke the law". I do not think this is the way in which this should be approached. We want the type of people who are going to be impartial as much as possible. I want maximum consultation among the Parties at the time of appointment in order that we have a crew of five very solid and competent people who will do a good job for us and who will police the Act in an impartial way. I believe that to present the appointments in two motions like this in the House of Commons could go a long way toward providing this enhanced consultation.
I would now like to come to the other part of the proposal, especially the latest proposal made by the Minister in letters to us and also in the speech he just made. This is the more difficult part. We on this side of the House are saddened that the Government would not seize the opportunity of making extensive amendments to the Elections Act without bringing forward those amendments which, in our opinion, are most urgently needed.
I would like to refer to the extensive hearings which have been held by the Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure in the case of the election expenses of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse). We heard several witnesses and rapidly came to the determination that

March 16, 1988

Canada Elections Act
the Election Expenses Act is not clear enough when it tries, and I use the word "tries" advisedly, to define an election expense. I would like to quote some of the recommendations made in the eighth report of the Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure. It reads in part as follows:
The difficulty with the limited scope of the definition of election expenses was alluded to in a document produced by Elections Canada on 9 July, 1984-
-just after the last election-
-entitled Guidelines Respecting Election Expenses of Registered Political Parties. It was further amplified in a telex to all political parties on September 1,1984-
That was only three days before the last election. Maybe it was too late to change the Elections Act then, but three years have elapsed since that time. The Government has been reminded time and time again that there is a problem with the definition of election expenses, but it has not moved to correct the situation.
First, I was surprised it would not be included in Bill C-79, but let us be honest, Bill C-79 was written almost a year ago. But after the hearings of the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure, I cannot understand why the Government would not realize that there is a gaping hole in the rules defining election expenses through which one could drive a truckload of unreported election expenses, making a mockery of what I thought was the principle that election expenses were to be limited to give an equal chance to all persons running for election whether they be rich or have a medium income and medium means to run their campaign. The committee report states:
It was pointed out time and time again during the hearings that the present definition in the Act of those campaign expenses that are "election expenses" is vague and imprecise. Your committee is also concerned that the vagueness of wording and interpretation may lead to abuses during the next election.
That is clear enough. I would like to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, in case you may have been busy doing something else and was not able to attend this committee, that this is a unanimous report. The majority of the committee was composed of members of the government side, and this is a unanimous report. We all came to the obvious conclusion that the Act is too vague.
[ Translation]
And that being said, Mr. Speaker, the recommendation we finally made was again unanimous: Your Committee recommends that the Act be amended as quickly as possible in those sections dealing with expenses so that it precisely defines those election expenses which should be the subject of spending controls and rebates. That is crystal clear. I repeat that the Committee of which I was a member and with me, one of my NDP colleagues, nevertheless consisted of a majority of Conservative Members who in fact drafted the recommendation.
Furthermore, some Conservative Ministers commented on the Canada Elections Act, and I am thinking of the Minister
of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse), who was glad the Committee decided not to condemn his actions following the hearings, possibly because the Committee failed to obtain all the information it needed, but in any case, although the Minister was vastly relieved, he did have some comments about the Canada Elections Act.
Mr. Speaker, I have here an article that appeared in Le Devoir on February 29, and I quote: Masse in favour of amending the Canada Elections Act which was used against him.

"Masse rails against election expenses law. Masse wants election rules simplified".

Upon reading these articles, we realize that here again, the problem is that the definition of election expenses is not sufficiently clear. I don't know what the newspapers will have to say tomorrow morning. I don't know what you will see on the TV News this evening, Mr. Speaker, or what we will hear on the radio. However, I am sure that all the information media will be amazed to hear the Government missed a golden opportunity to amend the Canada Elections Act by clarifying the definition of election expenses. Especially since an ad hoc committee consisting of Members of all three Parties, the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party, has been sitting for some time and made recommendations that would provide for a more acurate definition of election expenses.
We want to prevent abuses, and the investigation carried out by the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections is quite clear on this matter. If the legislation is not amended, the door will be wide open for all sorts of abuses during the next election.
Mr. Speaker, the Committee hearings have demonstrated that it is now possible to have paid volunteers in an election campaign. A contradiction in terms, paid "volunteers"!. That is exactly the ruling which Elections Canada made in connection with certain election expenses of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who had paid representatives in the polling stations and other people working on his election a salary which was under the commercial value. The ruling of Elections Canada is to the effect "... that these election expenses are not subject to the limit. We now have a new term "campaign expenses".
From now on, therefore, we will have campaign expenses which are not subject to the election expense limit, and also election expenses.
Which means that anyone can exceed the imposed ceiling which is between $35,000 and $40,000, depending on the riding and the number of voters, by as much as $15,000 or $20,000 over the election expense limit. Which means that the spirit of the legislation is no longer respected and those who

March 16, 1988

have lots of money can spend a great deal by using existing loopholes which the Government refuses to eliminate.
Mr. Speaker, I have just said that we now have "paid volunteers" people whose expenses on behalf of a candidate can be reimbursed such as car-renting, hotel and food costs; these are not election expenses, because the person whose expenses are being reimbursed is considered a "volunteer". Fancy that!
Again, this means that people in the know who take the trouble of learning about these loopholes can easily spend some $20,000, and even more over their election expense limit, without being subject to any kind of sanction by Elections Canada. This means that there is no longer equality among the candidates.
We are coming back to the old system where there were no expense limit and where those who had lots of money had a definite advantage over those who had lots of ideas but little money.

I realize that Bill C-79 was written before all these committee hearings. I admit that. But what surprises me is that the Minister does not appear to be willing to move amendments at the committee stage-


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: It is not within the scope of the Act.


Jacques Guilbault: The Minister says it is not within the scope of the Act. If the Government wants to close the loopholes, the Government can. It can get another royal recommendation. In this particular case, the Government is lucky because it happens to have the support of both the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party with respect to closing the loopholes. Therefore, it would not be a matter of the Government having to work very hard in trying to reach the objective of clarifying the definition of an election expense. The co-operation is offered. If the Minister does not do it, that is when the co-operation may not be forthcoming. I do not know what the media will be reporting tonight, but I am sure it will be quite surprised, after having followed very closely the committee hearings into the election expenses of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, to see the Government is not moving to close these loopholes.
The people of Canada will be surprised because now everyone realizes. Very few people knew before these committee hearings that there were two types of election expenses, election expenses and campaign expenses. Now all Canadians know that. Now all Canadians believe that there should be proper definitions in the Act.
I would like to suggest something very precise and concrete. I do not just want to argue about the election expenses. I would like to propose a concept of what should be considered an election expense. The concept my Party would like to put forward is very simple. It is that everything should be an election expense unless it is specifically excluded, not the other
Canada Elections Act
way around. The principle should be that every dollar that is spent in a riding during an election, by someone involved in the election, is philosophically, as far as I am concerned, for the election.
There could be exclusions, and some of them are already there. I realize, for example, that the personal expenses of candidates have to be excluded. Transportation expenses of candidates have to be excluded. If they were not, as they have been all this time, then it means that candidates representing or running in large ridings, where sometimes the means of transportation is by airplane, helicopter, ship, or whatever else, would not be on the same footing as people running in a small urban riding such as mine where the size of the riding is more vertical than horizontal.
A number of other items which can be excluded include auditors' fees, candidates' deposits and legal fees. My philosophy is that any expense in a riding related to an election is actually done to promote a candidate. No one spends money just for fun during an election campaign. If something is to be excluded then let us have it in print, otherwise let us include everything.
There were discussions between Parties to try to come to some agreement as to what to include. For example, do we include the cost of polling? I do not mind. There are ways to do that. We can exclude the cost of polling. Polling itself does not promote a Party, it provides one with information. It is from that information that the Party can make moves to try to win the election. But certainly the mere fact of polling is not something that promotes a Party in itself. It is research. Either we exclude it or, as the Conservative Party has suggested, let us include it. But let us increase the limit that Parties are allowed to spend. I am easy one way or the other. We can agree on these things. I understand that the amount of money that can be spent by a political Party during a campaign at this time is about $7.5 million. If we were to increase the limit to include polling, then we are talking about an additional $1 million. Perhaps that is the way to go.
There were also discussions about fund raising expenses. Some say that if one is using what is called a home list of preferred donors, then one is probably not winning votes because these are people who have been on the home list for years. One is simply collecting money. I would be willing to agree that if a Party does that or if a candidate does that, then the cost of sending letters should not be an election expense. It could be out and not in.
However, if one Party or one candidate is prospecting by sending out thousands and thousands of letters across the country, then these are certainly election expenses. I refer especially to three-page letters in which some Parties talk in bad terms of other Parties with a single paragraph at the end stating, "We also need your financial support". There are ways to agree on what is in and what is out. The groundwork was

March 16, 1988
Canada Elections Act
done during discussions between Parties. All the Government has to do is to step down and to take its responsibilities.
The Government has brought in Budgets with which other Parties did not agree. They still brought these Budgets down. The Government has negotiated the free trade deal with the United States. Not everyone in the country agrees with this, but the Government has still done it. I do not see why the Government should hide behind an eventual unanimity of the definition of election expenses. I think that the discussions between the three Parties are advanced enough that all the Government has to do at this stage is to settle a couple of outstanding items and to come in with actual amendments.
1 can make a couple of other suggestions. The Minister is listening. He is sitting across from me with a smile on his face. If I have the Minister listening to me, then I am going to make a couple of other concrete suggestions.
One of the obvious problems is with the definition of election expenses under the electoral terms. I think we have a problem with the words "for the purpose of promoting or opposing directly or during an election a particular registered Party or the election of a particular candidate". The minute we use the words "for the purpose of promoting or opposing" it is a matter of interpretation which is very difficult to make. This paragraph should be changed. The words "during the election" can be kept. I agree that if one spends money three months before an election or two days after voting day then one is not influencing the vote. I am saying that the philosophy of my Party is that if one is spending money during the writ, then one is spending money and one wants to win the election. It would be easy to clarify this paragraph.
Further down is paragraph 2.1(f) which is the paragraph that allowed the Minister of Energy to escape by paying people and still calling them volunteers. This paragraph states that an election expense is the cost of acquiring the services of any person, including remuneration and expenses paid to him or on his behalf as an official agent or registered agent or otherwise, except where such services are donated, something with which we all agree. If the person donates the service then one cannot say that it is an expense. It states further " provided at materially less than their commercial value". That is where the problem lies. Because of this particular section of the Act, one ends up being able to pay people and to claim that they are still volunteers, which does not make sense to me. It does not make sense to most Canadians. If people are paid, they are not volunteers. This can be corrected by removing some of the wording such as "except when services are provided at materially less than their commercial value".
The Minister certainly has a basis on which to move in and close these gaps. I am asking him to do that. If he does not do that, Canadians will be quite dissatisfied with the exercise in which we are now involved.
All the rest is housekeeping as far as I am concerned. It is small stuff compared to the definition of election expenses. I plead with the Minister to move in. We are ready to continue
discussions. We have had discussions between the three Parties. I think that they have been cordial and constructive. I have been trying to offer in a quick fashion some suggestions to the Minister as to how we can better define election expenses. If the Minister has something else, something of his own, or if my colleagues in the New Democratic Party have suggestions, then we are willing to listen. We are willing to discuss and to sit down to try to plug these gaps. It would be regrettable if Parliament would miss such an occasion, and to use a euphemism, if Parliament missed a golden opportunity to close these loopholes and to prevent what the committee determined has to be possible abuse during the next election.
Unfortunately, our Party will have to line up other speakers to try to convince the Minister that this is the most important part of the Act. This is the part that needs to be cured most. I recommend for bedtime reading to the Minister a document which is not very long. It is entitled, "Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Elections, Privilege and Procedure Respecting the Canada Elections Act", otherwise known as the eighth report of the committee. That was tabled in the House on March 3. If the Minister were to read this, he would come to the conclusion that the Government has to move in now to better define what is an election expense. If the Government does not do that, it will be proceeding at its own expense.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, during the comments of the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault), the Deputy House Leader made some remarks. He was reacting to the fact that the Liberal Member who just spoke had suggested that perhaps we should be looking at amendments in committee in regard to defining the Canada Elections Act. I am not sure if the comments were recorded by Hansard, but the effect of the Minister's comments were that we could not amend this Bill in committee with regard to election expenses because it goes beyond the scope of Bill C-79. I believe that the Minister is correct. That is one of the major concerns that we have with this piece of legislation. It does not deal with what all of us in the House, the media, and many people in the country know to be a glaring error or a loophole in the present legislation.
There are many things that are good in this legislation. We have been lobbied quite reasonably by the Government and by other people to try to send this legislation to committee quickly. For example, I know that the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young), who has been active in handicapped and disabled issues for a number of years, has talked to people from those communities. They state that they want this legislation because it does help to improve their access to polling stations and other election offices during the process of a federal election. Today it is necessary to speak for that group in the House and state that we are in favour of that clause. We are in favour of many of the clauses contained in the 160 page Bill in front of us today.
March 16, 1988

During the last little while, some of the problem areas of Bill C-79 have been discussed among the Parties. We think that we have come to grips with some of the major errors or problems within Bill C-79. We have not finished with all of the problems of Bill C-79, and I will deal with that later on.
The fact that the Government has not moved on providing a definition of what is an election expense is so glaring that we cannot agree to the passage of this legislation at this time. Until the Government is willing to address the whole issue, we cannot accept the Bill. We believe that this may be our only opportunity prior to the next election to close the loophole made so public by the affair of the Member for Frontenac (Mr. Masse). Without closing this loophole, the 1988 or 1989 election campaign will be a wide open affair with no effective limits placed on expenditures.
The revelations made by the former Commissioner of Canada Elections in front of the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure last month indicated what a mess we have. It is essential that the Government agrees to the inclusion of all expenses inside the elections expenses limits. Exceptions can be made for auditors, deposits, and other similar expenses, but these have to be specified. Allowing for grey areas in those categories only makes the situation worse. Again, big money can play an issue in deciding the fate of Parties and individuals in the election. We propose a philosophy of "if it ain't out it's in". In other words, anything that is not specifically excluded from the limit must be listed and must be included under the election spending limits.
We recognize that that can create a problem because we are changing the rules. If it is necessary, we agree that the limits should be increased to ensure that most legitimate expenses can be covered, but still keep the philosophy of the 1972-1974 legislation which stated that there should be a limit on how much the Parties can spend, and that there should be a limit on how much each of the candidates can spend.
We are not alone in that opinion. The lawyers for Elections Canada who were asked to look at this issue issued their report on March 3, 1988. The law firm of Borden and Elliot in dealing with this issue stated:
In our view, the easiest and simplest means of defining "election expenses" would be to deem all funds spent by a Candidate or a party in an election as "election expenses" and then proceed, in subparagraphs, to enumerate those items of expense which Parliament does not wish to limit. The Act is presently structured in such a manner that the broadest definition of election spending is found in section 62 in the words, "any expenses incurred on account of or in respect of the conduct or management of the election." Based on our suggestion wording such as that should constitute the definition of "election expenses" and the exceptions should follow setting forth those items of expense on which Parliament chooses not to place limitations...
That is the legal opinion received by Elections Canada earlier this month. We believe that in the legislation which presently exists in the various provinces, including the Province of Ontario, there are examples of what could be used in the federal Canada Elections Act. Our problem is the following. Over the next little while Bill C-79 will be studied. It deals with the Canada Elections Act, changes to the Canada
Canada Elections Act
Elections Act, and for some reason the Government is refusing to act on what might be the most important Section of the Canada Elections Act, which is the section dealing with election expenses.
We have been asked by the Government to have faith that it will do something prior to the next federal election. Although the Minister has been very forthright with us in the House, I must say that we have no reason to believe that there will be changes to the definitions of election expenses prior to the next election. We realize that agents for the Conservative Party were aware of the problem as early as the summer of 1985.
We are aware that the lawyer for the Member for Frontenac was aware of the situation. We are also aware that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources read his letter from Mr. Gorman to this same lawyer. We are aware that this same lawyer represents the Conservative Party at the ad hoc meetings of the three Parties. It is that committee which has been looking at election expenses since the summer of 1986. Yet nothing has happened. We are in a situation where the Government through legislation tabled in the summer of 1986 was aware of the problem. At that time it sent the issue of election expenses off to an all-Party committee, not the House committee but the ad hoc committee of officials of the various political Parties. Nothing happened. There were many meetings, but no agreement was reached.
It is almost two years later, and three years since Conservative lawyers were aware of the problem, and there is no legislation that indicates that the definition of election expenses will be changed. I do not wish a "Dodge City" type of election in 1988 or 1989. I believe that it is possible, if the Government has the will, to introduce legislation which allows us to deal with election expenses. I am very disappointed that the Government did not do so at the same time as it started debate on Bill C-79, the Bill we are presently debating. Bill C-79 was first tabled in the House on June 30, 1987, almost nine months ago. Until one and a half hours ago there was no debate on this piece of legislation whatsoever. That means that the Government had no parliamentary time invested in this legislation.
The Government had nothing to lose by holding off the introduction of this legislation for another week or two in order to allow its officials to make a proposal regarding election expenses and to reintroduce a piece of legislation incorporating Bill C-79 and a definition of election expenses. It could have done that. It would not have cost the Government any parliamentary time, but it would have meant that the committee had proposed legislation before it with regard to election expenses and that we in the committee would have been in a position to make whatever amendments were necessary. However, by starting the debate without any reference to the committee on election expenses, the Deputy House Leader for the Government has precluded any possibility of the committee

March 16, 1988
Canada Elections Act
making any legislative recommendations or amendments to Bill C-79 that deal with election expenses.
Once Bill C-79 gets to committee, it will be there for a fair length of time. It is a comprehensive Bill affecting many groups in society. Many individuals and others will want to make presentations to the committee. In addition, because it is a comprehensive piece of legislation, it will take time for the committee to study it in a clause by clause manner.
If the committee is doing that during the months of April and May, when will it start studying proposed legislation with regard to election expenses? It will not.
The Government has been unable to come up with a definition of election expenses, after the investigation of the Hon. Member for Frontenac after the various legal opinions of which people were aware in 1985, after the all-Party study throughout the summer of 1986. It did not do so in the fall of 1987, and if it does not do so in the spring of 1988, I do not believe it has a commitment to come up with a workable definition of election expenses. I am afraid that the Government may have some ulterior motives for not coming up with that definition.
As we are well aware, the Liberal Party is seriously in debt. The Conservative Party has a very good bankroll at the present time. It also believes that it has the ability to raise more money before the next election. The Government represents the Party which has the most to gain by being able to spend considerable amounts of money that are not covered by the limitations on election expenses.
One has only to look at the 1984 election to realize how close the Government came to going over the limits. One has only to look at the accounts of the Hon. Member for Frontenac to realize that much more was spent in that campaign than the election limits allowed because of a glaring loophole.
The Government can survive as a Party with the present very loose legislation. It may help the Tories save one or two seats, three or four seats, or five or six seats. It may help them to have a very expensive national campaign, but that is not democracy nor the intent of the present legislation.
In the mid-1970s all Parties agreed that there must be limitations on the expenses of Parties and candidates. They wrote legislation which they thought was very thorough. Most of us in all three Parties believed that it was thorough as we went through the 1979, 1980, and 1984 election campaigns. We believed that we had a good piece of legislation and that we had stopped most of the loopholes. When most of us campaigned we looked at our limits, whether it was $30,000 or $40,000 in our ridings. We looked to see what expenses we had to pay and tried to come in under the limits. We believed that it was just legislation which would be enforced. We now know, as a result of what happened to the Hon. Member for Frontenac and the committee study, that that was not the case.
We have a situation presently where, for example, I could hire volunteers whom I could be paying $40 or $50 per day. As
long as it is below the minimum wage, we can get away with it. We can assume that such people would be working 16 hours or 18 hours per day. In some elections they work that long. They are called volunteers, but they could be earning $40 per day over a 50-day period of time for some $2,000 each. I could fly the volunteers in helicopters to each of my 63 communities. I could put them up in hotels, resorts, or whatever other accommodation is available. I could feed them and give them expense money. All that could be done and I would not have to declare one cent under the election expenses limitations.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: What about CUPW?


Rodney Edward Murphy: The Government House Leader is joking or suggesting that perhaps CUPW does not have that money. I will tell him that we can raise a lot of money in my riding as we have in the past. However, despite the fact that we can afford to run a very expensive campaign in the Churchill riding, and despite the fact that many of our incumbents could do so elsewhere in the country, we do not believe that we should buy votes. We do not believe that the system should be so unfair that one Party can spend $150,000 while another Party or individual who follows the spirit of the law is limited to $35,000.
There are some people who say that that will not happen. As a result of the investigation involving the Minister of Energy, we believe that approximately $20,000 was spent and assumed to be campaign expenses which did not come under the limitations.
It does not take much work for a campaign manager or a party official to realize that if these items come under election expenses they will use up that money and come up to their election limit. However, there are many items which no longer constitute an expense under the limits with which they can do whatever they want.
It is not only the case in rural ridings such as my own where the spirit of the Act can be so abused. Let us look at an urban riding where it is close, where we know that any of the three Parties could win the seat. It is quite simple to move in a bunch of university students or others who would be quite happy to work for $2,000 over a 50-day period, to put them up in hotels in Regina East or Regina West, and to feed them so that there is a full-time army of people campaigning on behalf of a candidate. It is quite a legal situation.


An Hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Rodney Edward Murphy: I hear some rantings by an Hon. Member.


Alan Redway: Rational comment.


Rodney Edward Murphy: If a person has a rational comment to make, he will make it from his seat. If he does not have a rational comment to make, he will continue to heckle. The point is that all three Parties in the standing committee said that we had to deal with the issue. Also the lawyers for Elections Canada said that it had to be dealt with.
March 16, 1988

Let me explain other things that were said by the lawyers for Elections Canada. They indicated that the definition of election expenses was so troublesome, cumbersome, and ambiguous as to make it virtually impossible for any candidate to know if an expense is an election expense and, conversely, for the commissioner to know whether the failure of a candidate to include certain types of expenses as election expenses in the return should warrant prosecution.
This was not political rantings. It was something that we all realized was a problem for any candidate who wanted to run an honest campaign or for any Party that wanted to run an honest campaign. It is even a problem for those involved in investigations and prosecutions afterwards to know what should have been done or what should not have been done during an election campaign. It is a major problem, and there has been no commitment from the Government that it will deal with this issue prior to the next election.
I believe I have made my point on that, but it is so important that we have a real definition of election expenses. As the Liberal spokesman who spoke previously indicated, right now a candidate could send out a fund-raising letter lambasting his opponent, talking about what he or she has done or should not have done, to every person in the riding. In the last paragraph there could be a little pitch for the incumbent, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie), for example. That would not constitute an election expense. It could contain page after page of the most vicious partisan material and it could actually ask for money for a candidate, but it would not constitute an election expense.
The same is true of polling. While polling people, a candidate could ask most blatant partisan questions, basically playing a recorded message for a political Party, but that is polling and it does not count as an expense. Obviously we do not have legislation which protects the candidates, and it must be cleaned up. For us to go forward with Bill C-79 without dealing with that is for us to create election havoc.
When the Minister introduced Bill C-79, he did not give a firm commitment to deal with election expenses. There was no commitment from the Government that that would be dealt with in an acceptable manner prior to any upcoming election. There was an agreement that the issue be studied, but there was no commitment to bringing forward provisions which are acceptable to the Parties in time for the next election.
I know that I do not have very much time left in debate, so I will turn to other matters. One of the areas on which we have come to agreement is the reporting of financial accounts by local constituency associations. In the legislation, there was a proposal for voluntary reporting by local associations. We consider that to be neither fish nor fowl.
If the Government believes that the funds raised by local associations and how those funds are spent, funds quite often gained through election rebates or tax rebates, should be
Canada Elections Act
recorded, then it should not be a voluntary effort, it should be a compulsory effort. The Government has stated in Bill C-79 that it does believe that this should be reported. There are large amounts of money in local associations for which no one is accountable and there are no controls over that money. We do have a problem.
Obviously the Government believed that there should be some accountability, but for some reason, it has made the accountability voluntary. I know that the Minister of State (Mr. Lewis) is not only a lawyer, something which we do not hold against him all the time, but in addition to that he is an accountant. To have voluntary accountability is to have no accountability at all.
Those associations with clean records which are spending money in a manner that will not suffer from public scrutiny will be quite willing to report their accounts on an annual basis. Those associations like the one in the constituency of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) with over $100,000 sitting in an account or accounts somewhere do not have to report, even though we do not know what they do with that money. We do not understand why the accountability is voluntary. We believe, and to be fair members of the Liberal Party also believe, that it should be compulsory.
Since we wanted compulsory accountability and the Government wanted voluntary accountability, the Government simply decided to take out the whole clause. That is the Government's way of coming to a compromise on this issue. We regret that because again, this is a chance to clean up the Elections Act and to ensure that money raised through election rebates, taxpayers' dollars, or tax rebates, is accountable. The Government was moving in that direction, but for some reason it decided not to move far enough. We do not like it but we accept the fact that this clause will be withdrawn in committee.
The issue of Canadians living abroad being allowed to vote is one which all of us regret cannot be dealt with at this time. It is unfortunate that we have not begun to deal with the Elections Act until almost the end of the fourth year of the Government's mandate. It is unfortunate that the proposal made in Bill C-79 is so wide open that it creates a problem for all three Parties.
As has been mentioned before, the proposal in Bill C-79 is to let anyone who has Canadian citizenship and who indicates that he or she may eventually return to Canada vote in an election. Tie or she could have been away not only five, 10 or 15 years but 30 or 40 years, most of his or her life. He or she would still be permitted to vote in a Canadian election, simply by saying that he or she will probably return to Canada at some point.
We believe that there are too many road-blocks preventing Canadians who are legitimately abroad from voting. We certainly believe that those who are working for Crown corporations, the federal Government, NGOs or the like should be able to vote. We would also suggest that those who

March 16, 1988
Canada Elections Act
are on vacation for a short length of time should be able to vote if they can get to a proper place like a Canadian consulate or embassy. However, to open it wide up without any clarification is unacceptable.
We proposed that we limit the categories of people who would be eligible for voting. We also suggested that those who had been away for five or ten years without ever returning to Canada should not be allowed to vote, but those who had been back or had only been away for four or five years should automatically be allowed to vote.
We went through the exercise of trying to find a reasonable compromise, but we could not find one. Now it appears that we will have to send this matter to committee for separate study, recognizing the fact that it will probably not be resolved before the next federal election.
I was asked by one of my colleagues why this should not be open, that there would not be that many voters from abroad who would vote. I was told that for every person who had never returned to Canada who voted, there would probably be six or seven living outside Canada and who should be able to vote who would vote. That might be true, but we are talking about massive numbers of people. On the American side, over two million Americans who live offshore have voted. With our population figures, Elections Canada assumes that there may be about 200,000 people who do not live in Canada voting in a general election.
The problem with the legislation is that a candidate who runs in Broadview-Greenwood, Regina or in Thunder Bay may find that there are 2,000 or 3,000 voters who will vote on election day who cannot be contacted. The candidate does not know where they live, he has no indication of who they are and he has no means of communicating with them. Yet they will make a difference when it comes to whether or not the candidate wins a seat.
We want to see Canadians who legitimately work or live elsewhere for a short period of time be able to vote. Unfortunately, the Government has been unable to make a proposal and unwilling to accept the amendments we have suggested to resolve this matter. Rather than having a complete screw-up in the next election, I believe we may be forced into taking this clause from the Bill and studying it separately, realizing that the net result will be that many Canadians who should legitimately be allowed to vote in the next election will not be able to do so.
This Bill contains 160 pages and I will not be able to deal with all the problems in it. Let me deal with some of the problems that will be important over the next little while.
When the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure dealt with the problems of the Hon. Member for Frontenac, we saw a need to tighten up the election enforcement commission. This Bill does that. It prevents premature
publicity when investigations are taking place. It allows the commission to use investigators outside of the RCMP so that maybe things can be done a little faster. This also shows that investigators are more directly accountable to the commission so that you have some control over what they are doing or not doing. You are in a position to give them direction so that they are actually investigating what they are supposed to be as opposed to doing a wide open investigation.
One of the problems with the present system is that the commissioner calls for an investigation but it is the RCMP, acting almost completely separate and apart, which conducts the investigation. This is without, in many cases, reporting back to the commissioner for instructions or legal interpretations. This Act improves that situation. That is very important to a lot of people because reputations have been hurt in the past and investigations have not been as thorough as they should be. This is not because the RCMP is doing an inefficient job, but because the people who carry out the investigations are not in a position to know what the commissioner is really after or what has transpired in the meanwhile.
One of our main concerns is that we make sure the commission is secure from the taint of political patronage and that decisions on investigations or prosecution for alleged infractions is non-partisan. This is not in the legislation but we have been assured that amendments will be coming forward, and we accept the concept that the Chair and the Member representing the public be approved through a resolution of this House. The members representing the various political Parties should also be approved through a motion or some other means with the agreement of all Party Leaders. However, we have to know a bit more about that process to make sure it does not become open to abuse.
We are also concerned, and I hope the Minister is paying attention, with what happens when one member representing a Party resigns. How will he or she be replaced? In the initial step you get agreement of the three Party leaders for all three people. We are not sure what happens when one person resigns and we have to replace that person.
The Bill also called for one agent in each poll. All three Parties are used to the practice of two agents in a poll. Quite often someone is inside seeing who has voted and someone can come in to see who has voted so that when the various Parties are knocking on doors, encouraging people to get out and vote, you do not knock on the door of someone who voted three hours ago. For some reason the legislation is going to restrict us to one agent who, presumably, will have to sit inside all day and not give any information to the Parties. Obviously that would restrict the use of an agent. The Government has recognized the error of its ways and is willing to go back to two agents per Party. That is a good move.
With respect to opinion polls, at the time the Government was in real trouble it decided it did not want opinion polls too often during an election. It came out with a very strict definition of what must be done if you publish an opinion poll.
March 16, 1988

However, it became so cumbersome that it was obvious, while it was all right for the print media, it would make it impossible for a radio or television reporter to cover an election. You have to spend 10 minutes explaining what the poll was, the sample size, the questions asked, who paid for it and what-have- you. That could not be done in a 30-second clip. We encouraged the Government to make sure what would be required for the print media be fairly specific, because they have the space, and that there be a shorter form for the electronic media. The Government, for its own reasons, determined that rather than having a different requirement for the different types of media, it will pull the entire section dealing with opinion polls. In the long run that might be regrettable. I believe there is some advantage to having minimum requirements.
An Hon. Member has said something and I do not know what it was. It is government legislation which was going to require everyone to say everything. We are saying we think a minimum would be a good idea and in the best interests of the public. Since the Government has gone from an all to nothing position I do not see how the Conservative Member, who holds himself out as an Elections Act expert, can object when the NDP says there should be a minimum standard. The Government, in the legislation now before us, requires very detailed information on the publication of opinion polls. We are saying we need something but you are too strict with regard to the electronic media. However, we thought something could have been done which was acceptable, and I hope that in committee we will still find some middle ground.
The last area to be dealt with by negotiation among the Parties, and I always like to bring this forward so it is not done just in the back room and the public has some knowledge about it, concerns the broadcasting of results. The problem was this. We in the West, especially the far west, would be driving home from work when the polls closed in Atlantic Canada. Even before someone has gone home for supper, before they even think about getting dressed up to go and vote, they would know that in Atlantic Canada 30 Members of this Party were elected, 10 of that Party and two Conservatives. The same thing would happen when the polls closed in Quebec and Ontario. I am sure my friend, the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), will agree that western Canadians have often felt that decisions were made prior to the West being heard from.
Under the current legislation we have a rule that you cannot broadcast results until the polls close in that part of the country. We have a problem because the Broadcasting Act says that those companies which provide cable TV cannot edit the signals. The Elections Act says you cannot broadcast the results before the polls have closed, and the Broadcasting Act says you cannot edit the signals. If you are getting signals from Atlantic Canada or Hamilton, obviously they are going to cover the election. The legislation suggests that we just remove the ban on broadcasting the election results so that they can be given out as soon as they come in from various parts of the country.
Canada Elections Act
Personally I believe that would be unacceptable to many people in the West. Depending on what happens in the next election, it could increase regional animosity. The Government decided it will live with the present system for another election. We will still prohibit the broadcasting of election results, but have not taken the further step of changing the Broadcasting Act to allow those companies providing cable TV service to edit out election coverage. I wish it had gone that step further.
That is possible because in this Bill we are not just amending the Elections Act. If you look through it you will discover there are about five or six other pieces of legislation being changed at the same time. The Government can change not only the Elections Act but the Broadcasting Act at this time in such a way that cable companies and others are not forced to break one Act or the other. We are putting those companies in a very awkward situation. We have the power to fix that up and I hope the Government will take that into consideration.
You have indicated that I have one more minute left to speak. There are two areas I want to cover quickly. The first is that despite the amendments to improve the ability of urban voters to be registered and vote, we still forbid urban voters who have not been put on the election list from voting on election day. We create all sorts of other situations. They can go to the returning officer's office and vote on election day if they are not registered. There are all sorts of ways and means that they can get on the election list between the date of the writ and election day, but they still cannot be sworn in at the polls.
I will give a very quick sample of the problem that creates. Just as the election was called in 1984, thousands of people who worked at International Nickel in my riding were laid off for the entire summer. Most of them went back to visit their families. Most of them come from other parts of the province or other parts of the country. Many of them returned to Thompson just when school started, which happened to be September 4. They were not on the list.
You may say that is an exceptional circumstance, but we have many summer elections and many shut-downs. We are having too many of them and this problem will increase. I believe that we in this country should be politically sophisticated enough to allow people with the proper documentation to prove that they are Canadian citizens and live in a particular riding to swear to their identity on election day and be allowed to vote because they are Canadian citizens living in Canada.
I find it ironic that the Act proposes allowing all sorts of people to vote who have never been in Canada for the last 20 or 30 years, but does nothing to allow people who, for reasons beyond their control, have been left off the voters' list. We are talking about many thousands of Canadians.
There is a proposal in the legislation to change the number of voters per poll from an average of 250 to a minimum of 250. That in itself does not sound like a problem but it is my

March 16, 1988
Canada Elections Act
understanding from some calls I received very recently that people who have been appointed as returning officers have been instructed to have a minimum of 400 or 450 people per poll. If that is the intent of this change to the Elections Act, it is certainly going much beyond the concept of a minimum of 250 voters per poll. I would prefer that the legislation specify what is meant in order that we do not have enormous polls.


Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, it is a curious thing that this legislation should be taking so long to get through the House when every Member here considers himself or herself to be an expert on the subject because they all got here by complying with this law and have an intimate working knowledge with a lot of its provisions.
I would like to begin my comments this afternoon with the general observation that there are in fact a number of separate measures which, in the course of this thirty-third Parliament, are dealing in one way or another with the electoral procedure and the democratic process. We have heard criticisms this afternoon from Liberal and New Democratic spokesmen about the fact that more is not being done in Bill C-79 to address the definition of election and campaign expenses.
It is a fact that there have been and will be a number of separate statutes before this House addressing the election process. We have dealt already, for example, in this thirty-third Parliament with legislation to modify the rules for electoral boundaries. Section 51 of the Constitution and the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act were amended as one step. Bill C-79, presently before us, is a second step. The indication by the Minister that there will be further examination of election expenses following the report tabled in recent days by the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure will give rise to a further area of consideration.
There are two other Bills, one dealing with the registration of paid lobbyists and the other with conflict of interest legislation which pertains to Members of Parliament, which I think must be seen as part of the whole fabric dealing with this general area of the health, procedures and nature of our democratic process. Another which is being drafted which I intend to introduce as a Private Members' Bill is the national referendums and plebiscites Act, which would be a counterpart to the Elections Act and would provide for questions to be submitted directly to the people.
I make those general comments only to set in a broader and fairer context some of the narrow criticisms which have been coming from the two opposition Parties about the fact there are some things not being dealt with in Bill C-79.
Speaking frankly, I share the regret that we are dealing with this only at this stage. I was chairman of the caucus committee on election law and redistribution which in 1984 and 1985 made recommendations that would result in changes. This became the White Paper and then the legislation. The series of delays has put the Chief Electoral Officer in an invidious
position. If we pass this legislation within the next month or so, and anticipating a reasonable date of June, 1989, for the next federal election, that would make it quite a time crunch for those who are shouldered, once this is passed, with the legal obligation of carrying out the election according to all these new procedures, rules and regulations.
I would like to turn to two or three specific sections that are included in Bill C-79 and stress their importance or significance. The first of those has to do with the position of disabled Canadians and their electoral process. Strides have been taken in previous amendments to this Act to, for example, facilitate voting by blind voters. The notch ballot in some jurisdictions and the template in other jurisdictions have been two of the technical methods used to facilitate blind voters to vote. There traditionally was also the way of being accompanied by a seeing voter in the ballot box area and marking the ballot that way.
In this Act we are considering amendments which will make further progress by ensuring level access to voting stations. When the Minister was speaking he pointed to the difficulties which exist in some of the rural areas. The provision which will be in this Act requiring enumerators to ascertain the level access requirement of voters will be helpful information, but more than that it will be necessary to ensure, in my view, level access for voters in every case.
I do appreciate that in some cases that may be an impossibility. I submit, and will in committee as well, that the answer to that is the mobile poll in the sense that the voting box and materials can actually be taken out and down the steps to facilitate voting by someone who is unable to enter the polling place.
Mobile polls are not a novelty. They were used in previous elections. Indeed, overseas, on those rare occasions when Canadian soldiers were voting during war time, ballot boxes were actually moved to where the soldiers were.
Another area which is significant in terms of Canadians with disabilities and voting is the extension of the franchise, under this Act, to Canadians with mental disabilities. The former prohibitions which existed in federal, and certainly a lot of the provincial statutes, were terrible provisions in the way in which they lumped people together and entirely disfranchised them on the basis of some mental affliction or disability.
When the equality rights committee of this Parliament met in New Brunswick, we heard submissions on the importance of extending the franchise to those with mental disabilities. Part of the rationale was that this in fact is a self-denying ordinance. Someone who is mentally incapable of getting to a ballot station and voting is not going to raise a problem, but there are many other individuals with some forms of mental illness from which they are recovering, which may create problems for them in their daily living, but do not in any way
March 16, 1988

impair their ability to follow public events and come to a very sound decision as to who is the best candidate or Party, and they should not be denied that basic democratic right. Therefore, I am glad this Act will reflect that more modern and compassionate approach.
I would point out that the Province of Ontario has already enacted such a provision. A provincial general election was conducted with that provision in place and it was a benefit to many and a problem for no one.
What represents a very important reform here is the establishment of the Canadian elections enforcement commission. A number of Members elected to this Parliament found, in the wake of the September 4 results, that investigations were being undertaken pertaining to their election expenses. In some cases those investigations were being conducted by officers of the RCMP. I have heard of some cases where the officers involved had just come off a drug bust, with much of the mentality used in dealing with thugs and criminals who are trafficking in drugs, and with a very combative approach to the "criminals" they were investigating. That was matched by a very shallow understanding, to put it generously, of the intricate provisions of the Canada Elections Act. That meant that there would be a significant difference in the perhaps 30 or 40 investigations going on across the country with respect to the level, quality and nature of the investigation. Therefore, the new provision which will allow the commission to appoint its own investigators, and to have a standard and uniform approach from coast to coast to coast by people who are knowledgeable about the Elections Act and the workings of the elections financing provisions, is going to prove to be in everyone's interest, including the public.
The provision in the Act that deals with liquor causes me to pause and take a drink of water, knowing that in future elections people will be able to pause and drink a glass of something stronger, because of the removal of the prohibition of selling liquor while the voting is under way. That provision is found there because of practices from the late 19th century when a great many elections saw a candidate floated to power on a perfect sea of booze. I know that in the Parry Sound- Muskoka district, where I come from originally, it took the Conservative Party many years to live down the infamy of the frozen whisky election campaign. Everyone here would know that whisky does not freeze because alcohol does not freeze. But in that election it did because it had been so watered down. When the voters came out from the schoolhouse to dip the metal bucket down into the barrel on the back of the sleigh out behind the school, the bucket did not come up with whisky, it hit ice. The whisky had frozen because it had been so watered down. For about a decade after that, the Conservatives in that area could never get any credibility or any vote because they were known to have watered down the whisky.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The more it changes, the more it stays the same.


Patrick Boyer: I think that is another thing that speaks in favour of summertime elections. I am glad to see this Bill is
Canada Elections Act
going to committee with the full intention that a lot of these provisions will be thoroughly examined at that stage and further changes will be made. If we take, for example, the provisions which deal with the publication of opinion polls during a campaign, on the one hand, and the proposed removal from the Act of the ban on publication of election results in those areas where voting is still under way, we see something of a contradiction. First, dealing with opinion polls, I think the tendency in recent elections to have the publication of opinion poll results at different stages of the campaign has become, to some extent, a transforming factor in the way elections are viewed and understood. As much as there is concentration on the personalities, policies and programs, there is an emphasis on the polls, the reaction of the polls, and who is ahead and by how many lengths.
To see election campaigns transformed into horse races is not overly edifying, nor is it really that helpful to Canadians who want to see and hear about the candidates, policies and issues. That is why the recommendation was made that there be included in the Act something that I would really characterize as consumer protection legislation, that, yes, the major broadcasters and the major newspaper publishers do indicate who commissioned the poll, when it was conducted, how large the sample, the nature of the question and the percentage of error on a sample of that size.
We all know that there are other kinds of polls that are taken which may not be reliable. They may not be scientific in any sense. Yet they are reported on in the course of an election campaign, often with the effect of influencing or creating a lot of hype and getting a response to something that is as much a fiction of someone's imagination than it is an actual reflection of popular opinion.
Therefore, I think it is important to put within the Canada Elections Act this kind of consumer protection. If it is a difficulty for the broadcast media to do that in the course of a 30 second clip-the New Democratic Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) seemed almost beside himself in his concern about the broadcast media in this regard-perhaps it should not be trying to do it in a 30 second clip. Perhaps that is the answer.
We will look at that in committee and I would like to suggest that while looking at it, we should equally consider the proposal to delete the important section of the Canada Elections Act that prohibits disclosure of election results in an area where voting is still under way. The premature publication of election results can have an influence on the way others may vote. There are political scientists who argue for both sides saying that those who would jump on the bandwagon are counteracted by those who would opt for the underdog. However, we do not have to resolve that argument on a political scientific basis. I think we need to stick with the provision that was first enacted in 1938, primarily as a response to the practices of the Canadian Press. For years, the Canadian Press election report was Canada's only national compilation of the election results. Official reports available

March 16, 1988
Canada Elections Act
only weeks later did not name Parties, show Party standings or include Party vote compilations. The Canadian Press election reports became so systematized, thorough and fast as a tabulation of early accounts from individual constituencies that CP was able to flash the election or the defeat of federal Governments while voters in British Columbia were still casting ballots. Consequently, an Act was passed here in Parliament in 1938 to prevent publication of CP's results in either newspaper extras or on the air in any province while voting was still in progress. Something in the 1942 plebiscite on conscription contained the same provision.
In the 1960s and 1970s the broadcasting networks usurped this role CP had developed for itself, using their computers and nation-wide link-ups. However, the problem was still the same. This is why Section 105 of the Canada Elections Act, in a sense of preserving fairness, prohibits those publications in areas where voting is still under way. I think that is an important provision. I do not think it should be deleted. It is proposed that it be deleted, which is why I hope to speak to it in committee.
Generally, under this Act we are seeing a further opening up of the franchise. I have already mentioned the extension of the franchise to the disabled. The vote is now going to federal judges. There is also the proposal that Canadians living abroad be able to vote, much as Americans, Australians and residents of the United Kingdom are able to do.
We have also seen an extension of the franchise through the opportunities that are being increased under Bill C-79. It is worth pausing to record that Canada has the highest rate of eligible voters on its voters' list of any of the democracies. This is the reason we have the longest election campaigns, sort of a 58-60 day minimum. We are really the only country that starts about the whole process of compiling its voters' list after the election has begun. Yet that process ensures that some 97 per cent or 98 per cent of qualified voters find their names on the voters' lists. There is then a further period of revision, as well as courts of revision, which adds further opportunities for voters to find their names on the list.
In recent years we have taken additional steps to see that those who are thereby qualified to vote are not administratively disfranchised. It is one thing to be 18 or over, a Canadian resident and a Canadian citizen and therefore qualified. But, first, one has to have one's name on the voters' list. Second, one has to be able to actually get to vote at a time and place where the polls are open. That is why we have seen the provisions in this Act to expand proxy voting, to permit voting by people who have two residences. In the location of either one there is an option there to choose and so on. In other words, we are seeking to go the furthest route possible to ensure that every Canadian has the opportunity to fulfil their first duty as citizens which, of course, is to get themselves a government.
My final comment has to do with the concern being expressed by members of the two opposition Parties with respect to the definition of election expenses and campaign expenses. I share the concern expressed with respect to having this matter dealt with. I listened to the concern that was being expressed with two caveats in mind.
The first caveat is that the difficulties that they point out will, if unchanged in the present Act, continue to be difficulties that are shared equally by all Parties and all candidates seeking office and any effort therefore to parade these as giving some kind of particular advantage to one or another Party is to put on a partisan edge that really is inappropriate.
With respect to the second caveat, I listened to the concerns expressed with some sense of the history of Canadian elections when the way our great grandfathers and grandmothers conducted elections were wild in comparison to the almost genteel practices of today. The Minister from Newfoundland who is in the House knows that in his province, as in the Province of Quebec, there were election riots. In some of those election riots people were killed. Corruption was an absolute cornerstone of early Canadian elections. We have gone a long distance to bringing about changes, particularly in the 1974 legislation, to see that politics is not a rich person's game, that is it open, above board and fair to all.
With the reservations I have mentioned I think that Bill C-79 represents another important step forward.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member really believes that it is important to put everyone on an even footing and to establish very specific limits with respect to spending during election campaigns. Can the Hon. Member explain why his Government is not coming forward with specific amendments in relation to the definition of election and campaign expenses?


Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat what I said when the Hon. Member was not in the House when I addressed this matter earlier in my remarks. I talked about six or seven different pieces of legislation that are going through the Thirty-third Parliament which deal with the various aspects of the electoral procedure. I referred to redistribution, conflict of interest legislation, the registration of paid lobbyists, Bill C-79 and my proposed legislation on national referendums and plebiscites that will be tabled soon.
Earlier the Minister expressed the intention to examine this matter, but he also said he had received an indication from the Table concerning the difficulties of dealing in Bill C-79, which has been in the House for quite some time now, with the subject matter of a report from the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure which was only tabled about 10 days ago. I think it is a problem of timing which has created an imperfect approach to this matter. However, I certainly join with the Hon. Member in wanting to see this other matter dealt with, if not in Bill C-79 then in other legislation.
March 16, 1988


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, is the Hon. Member aware of the fact that the all-Party committee that has been meeting on the issue of the definition of campaign expense, et cetera, has in fact as recently as this week, put some agreement as to the definitions in these areas? It is my contention that if the Government is prepared to wait for a week or two in order to obtain some thoughtful and unanimous concerns in this regard then it can move ahead with the Bill that will deal with the issue of election spending. If this Bill goes ahead as is without the amendments that were blatantly called for in relation to the report of the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure, then obviously this Bill is a farce. If a situation exists in which, by statute, one can spend only, let us say for purposes of discussion, $38,000 on election expenses but one can go ahead and spend $60,000 or $70,000 on campaign expenses, then obviously de facto there is a free spending campaign which is in violation of the spirit of the Act. That is why I think the two have to go hand in hand. I think that they should be both brought together.


Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, I guess it is here that the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) and I part company rather dramatically. I think it is unconscionable that it has taken so long to get this Bill this far in this Parliament. The Hon. Member says that we should now delay yet a few more weeks because there is some discussion going on behind the curtains among the representatives of the three Parties as to what they might agree to as a definition of election expenses and campaign expenses. She suggests that we wait even longer to get on with measures that will give to disabled Canadians fair and greater access to the democratic process, as well as deal with some of these anomalous situations and outdated provisions in the statute.
I refer to measures with respect to liquor on the day of voting, and some of the other measures that I characterized as consumer protection legislation with respect to public opinion polls, and all the things that I did mention in the course of my speech. I regret that the Hon. Member for Hamilton East, who I know takes those things seriously, was not in the House during the course of my speech. She would have heard why I think it is truly unfortunate that at this late date we are going to be passing even this much and saddling the Chief Electoral Officer with the onerous task of gearing for an election on these changed procedures.
We must get on with this. Over nine months ago I proposed that this Bill be split in two and that the non-controversial parts be passed, and that those other areas dealing with broadcast and election expenses be delayed, if delay was necessary, to achieve a consensus in the House. I am no longer persuaded, on the basis of performance to date, that that type of consensus can or will be developed. I would resist strongly any effort to delay this Bill any further. There are many other good provisions in this Bill. I worked hard on it as chairman of the caucus committee since late 1984 and early 1985. The time
Canada Elections Act
to look for further causes for delay is passed, and the time for action is here.


Alan Redway: I know the Hon. Member is one who had a great deal of input into the Bill before us. I would like to ask the Hon. Member for his comments with respect to four areas of the Bill.
First, one of the great areas of concern in the Bill certainly relates to having people enumerated and placed on the voters' list. Why is it that this Bill does not incorporate the provisions for a permanent voters' list?
Second, if there is not to be a permanent voters' list, in municipal elections one who is not on the voters' list can be sworn in at the polls on voting day at the time of voting. Why does the Bill not provide for that?
Third, traditionally judges have been considered to be entirely independent of the political process. Why does this Bill give, for the first time to my knowledge, the vote to judges?
Fourth, one of the penalties that has traditionally been imposed on those who are incarcerated is the temporary removal of one of the rights of citizenship, and that is the right to vote. Why is it that this Bill franchises people who are incarcerated? Having done so, if this legislation is passed, is it the intention of the Government, having franchised prisoners, to take away the right to vote from police officers?


Patrick Boyer: First, the permanent voters' list has two problems. One is the cost. The cost is somewhere around $90 million to prepare an enumeration of voters' list in an election campaign. The cost of maintaining a permanent voters' list is in excess of that amount. Under our present system of enumeration, 97 to 98 per cent of eligible voters are on our voters' list. That is higher than any other democracy and that is because of the approach that we have.
In connection with national plebiscites, one of the inhibiting factors may be the cost of those votes. It would involve compiling the same voters' list at a cost of approximately $90 million. As a country, if we come to be more democratic and over the course of a Parliament submit one, two, or three matters directly to the people for their consideration, so that there are nation-wide votes at more frequent intervals, then it makes good sense to bring the cost of all of those votes down by instituting a permanent voters' list. That could also shorten the time of election campaigns.
Under the Charter there was a strong argument that judges not be disfranchised, but rather than we as parliamentarians making that decision on their behalf, should solicit even if informally through the channels and through the judicial councils and so on, a clear indication from the Canadian judiciary as to whether they want the long-standing tradition in this country to have our judges separate, apart and distinct from the electoral and political process continued, or they want to be on an equal footing with others and have the ability to cast a vote. To my knowledge, that course was not followed.

March 16, 1988
Canada Elections Act
The decision was taken, probably on advice of the Department of Justice, to extend the franchise to judges. Formerly the Liberal Party in Government amended the Canada Elections Act to give the vote to citizenship judges, but that was at a time when the appointment of those individuals was even more clearly identified with the Party affiliation and it was simply seen as a method of perhaps franchising a sure school of votes.
The question of the prisoners is one that was initially dealt with in the Province of Quebec where prisoners were given the right to vote in provincial general elections, and never in byelections. The issue is one that 1 felt was not ever adequately addressed by judges in passing sentence. It should be at that level where the judge is making the main assessment that the person is going to be removed of their liberty, and that at that level prisoners should have the vote taken away from them as an additional penalty.
I would like to continue, but I see that my time is up.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There are three minutes left. On debate the Hon. Member for Hamilton East.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, very briefly I would like to call attention to our concerns in relation to campaign and election expenses.
If this particular Bill goes through as is, and I respect the intentions of the Hon. Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr. Boyer), it will be the greatest travesty to election expense control that has ever been levied on the people of Canada. It is a farce to claim that this particular Bill as is puts limits on spending. It sets up a situation which we have seen and identified where the current Act, because of its vagueness in relation to campaign expenses, will permit Members or candidates to go out and spend $100,000 plus allegedly under the guise that they are living within the guidelines that are set by the Act. This giant loophole has to be plugged. If it is not plugged, I would suggest that any talk by the Government about controlling spending is merely blowing in the wind, because it really has no intention of controlling spending unless it brings forward specific amendments to define campaign expenses in relation to election expenses.
I see that my time is up momentarily.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, March 17, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers