1981-07-16

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing importance under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas Canada and Canadians rejoice over the royal wedding of the Prince of Wales and Lady Diana Spencer, to take place July 29, 1981, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. Campbell) and the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans):
That this House unanimously congratulate and express its best wishes to the royal couple on their wedding.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the introduction of this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, despite the fact the report on Agent Orange was inconclusive, evasive, and totally unsatisfactory, several private companies intend to douse approximately 44,000 acres of woodland in New Brunswick with a poison containing some of the lethal properties of Agent Orange, namely, dioxin. Besides being adjacent to populated regions of the province there are water courses which could carry the toxins well beyond the boundaries of the spray area. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer):
That until there is conclusive and substantial proof that sprays of this nature have no harmful effect on humans, or negative ecological impacts, the government immediately withdraw all permits for the use of these poisons in Canada.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, whereas the plan of the Liberal government to cut severely rail passenger service by order in council is undemocratic and a threat to the well-being of many communities in Canada; and whereas if the Edmonton-Drumheller VIA Rail line is abandoned the city of Drumheller will be without direct ground transportation to Edmonton, our capital city, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche):
That this House urges the Minister of Transport to refuse to approve the elimination of such essential railway lines.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 concerning a national disaster that is a matter of urgent and pressing necessity to be dealt with before this House breaks for the summer.
It is now clearly established that testing for the effects of urea formaldehyde foam insulation are inconclusive, since the degree of poisonous gas can vary with the weather, and individual susceptibility can differ. Since thousands of Canadian home owners are suffering from considerable stress and financial worry, as well as suffering health problems from urea

July 16, 1981
formaldehyde, and inasmuch as the federal government is responsible for creating this severe problem through its product safety and CHIP programs, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly):
That the federal government reallocate the $5 million budgeted for UFFI testing and the $330 million approved for home insulation programs for this year, and establish a fund to assist home owners immediately to remove this poisonous foam insulation and make their homes safe again for their families.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CALL FOR IMMEDIATE APPOINTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CO-ORDINATOR-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Madam Speaker, it took the previous minister of transport only five months to negotiate the terms of reference for the Grain Transportation Authority and appoint Dr. Horner as its first co-ordinator. For almost two years the Grain Transportation Authority has served a very useful function in making the best use of the limited amount of transportation facilities available for Canadian grain, and the Grain Transportation Authority has been without a permanent co-ordinator for almost ten months. Therefore I move, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, seconded by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta):
That the Minister of Transport show his support for the Grain Transportation Authority by immediately announcing a permanent Grain Transportation Authority co-ordinator.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South-Weston):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of this morning's Globe and Mail report that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) has been "brought to heel" by members of his caucus concerning the Progressive Conservatives' postal strike strategy, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Parent):
That this House condemn those heels in the Tory caucus who are putting the boots to their leader at a time when his leadership is under review.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


RAILWAYS
Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Madam Speaker, I am appalled at the thought that much of the rail passenger service across Canada may be discontinued in this time of high energy costs and, in particular, at the cancellation of the rail passenger service between Toronto and Barrie, a rapidly expanding area. The present Barrie train carries 500 to 600 passengers daily, and the savings in fuel alone for this service has been estimated at approximately 260,000 gallons annually! In speaking to the office of the minister of transportation and communications of Ontario this morning, I understand that the Hon. James Snow has requested a meeting with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin). Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That the meeting between the two ministers be convened as quickly as possible and that there be no discontinuance of any rail passenger service without full public input and, most particularly, not by a sneaky order in council.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PENSIONS
Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, because it is understood that all hon. members of the House believe in equal rights for men and women I trust there will be unanimous support for my motion. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell):
That this House notes that under various government superannuation plans, if the wife dies First the surviving widower's pension is 100 per cent but that if the husband dies first the surviving widow's pension is only 50 per cent, and this House calls on the government to bring in the necessary legislation to correct this situation on an interim basis by raising the widow's pension in all such cases to 75 per cent, and to declare that the eventual goal is pension equality between men and women.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
July 16, 1981


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas 3,000 western cattle producers are still waiting for finalization of their herd maintenance applications, and whereas many of the producers hit hard for lack of forage crops last year are now experiencing worse conditions this year, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight):
That the Minister of Agriculture, the minister responsible for DREE, the minister responsible for Saskatchewan in the other place, and the minister responsible for Alberta in the other place, get their act together and at least one of them accept the responsibility to see that last year's herd maintenance is finalized and that an arrangement be made to extend the program for another year.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NORTH-SOUTH RELATIONS COMMENDATION OF POLICIES OF WEST GERMAN CHANCELLOR-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In recent times Helmut Schmidt, the Chancellor of West Germany, who arrives in Ottawa tonight, has gone through "great strains" to remain firmly committed to European security through NATO. Further, since Helmut Schmidt speaks for the one European country without which neither the North Atlantic Treaty nor the European Economic Community could exist, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Dion):
That this House thank and congratulate the Chancellor for his position that while military strength is one essential element of security, social peace based on a determined effort to ensure that the burdens of austerity are shared with tolerable fairness is another.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a
Oral Questions
matter of urgent and pressing necessity to the producers under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board. I hope the minister responsible will assist me in this matter. In view of the announcement made yesterday by the assistant to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) in the other place, which lowered the initial payment for spring wheat by 60 cents per bushel and $1.75 for durum, compared with what producers received last year with the initial adjusted price, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer):
That, in light of the appearance of deliberate deception by the assistant of the Minister of Transport in the other place, this House instruct the Minister of Transport to accept his responsibilities and dismiss his assistant immediately.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. John Thomson (Calgary South):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Trade. For the first time yesterday we witnessed a member of the United States cabinet speaking on behalf of the United States government with respect to what it believes to be discriminatory policies of the Canadian government, particularly with respect to the Canadian National Energy Program. William Brock, U.S. special trade commissioner, has stated in the last few days that the United States views recent Canadian policies as a violation of our bilateral agreements. The minister will also be aware of the concerns expressed by other of our major trading partners. These concerns-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows that he should not be quoting at such length when asking a question. I would ask him to come directly to his question.


John William Thomson: Madam Speaker, the question 1 would like to put to the minister is this: has the minister discussed those concerns expressed by Mr. Brock? If so, could the minister advise the House what steps he has taken to ensure that Canadian exports will not be damaged as a result of the discriminatory aspects of the National Energy Program?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of State (Trade)):: Madam Speaker, I have not had an opportunity to see the total transcript of Ambassador Brock's statements. I called CTV in Washington, today, and a copy of the film clip is being sent

July 16, 1981
Oral Questions
here. This morning I endeavoured to call Ambassador Brock to discuss the situation with him. I am hoping to meet with him in the next couple of weeks.


REQUEST THAT PROGRAM BE WITHDRAWN
John William Thomson: Madam Speaker, I think you must agree, and the minister must agree, that this is a very serious matter. I cannot believe, in view of the seriousness of the implications, that the minister has not taken the time to talk to Ambassador Brock about this matter.
I would like to remind the minister that 75 per cent of his-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member put his question?


John William Thomson: Will the minister undertake to persuade his cabinet colleagues of the grave consequences which exist for Canadian exports and Canadian employment, and to withdraw the government's discriminatory energy program before it is too late?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, we are very conscious of the fact that no two nations in the world will have bilateral trade reaching $100 billion this year, which Canada and the United States will attain. We are unaware of any violation of any bilateral agreements to which Ambassador Brock has referred. As my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, said the day before yesterday, the Prime Minister in his meeting with President Reagan last week discussed this issue. The Secretary of State for External Affairs also discussed this issue with Secretary Haig and Ambassador Brock in Nassau a week ago. Because of the fact that the private and public sectors in both nations are conscious of this excellent bilateral relationship which we have, I am confident we will find a solution to these problems.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INDUSTRY
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question must be directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce because the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is not here, nor is the Minister of Finance, nor the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: All I see is empty green here.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: This is a bad start. I wonder if we are going to get through the question period today.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: It is quite clear, Madam Speaker, that they are very uncomfortable today. My question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, in the absence of all of his colleagues. Most Canadians support increased Canadian ownership of industry in Canada, and particularly of the oil and gas industry. However, many are concerned-


Mr. Andre:: Except those in Windsor.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -by the way that the government has gone about increasing the level of Canadian ownership in Canadian industry, particularly as it relates to our trade relations, as my colleague has just stated, and in other bilateral areas, such as the question of acid rain.
Will the government withdraw the punitive elements of its Canadianization program and replace them with policies which encourage-I stress encourage-the greater purchase of shares of Canadian companies, by Canadians, and in so doing would not provoke the confrontation which is currently under way with the U.S. government?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, we do not believe that these policies are punitive. We believe they are fair and reasonable. We do not deal in a discriminatory way with any of our trading partners. If my hon. friend-


Harvie Andre: And the world is flat.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: -is giving more than lip service to the concept of strengthening Canadian ownership, he would not ask questions like that.


FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW AGENCY
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, we on this side of the House take a back seat to no one in encouraging Canadian ownership.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: If the hon. member-


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Where have you been, Herb?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: If the minister would read our amendments on Bill C-48, he would understand what I meant when I said that. The increase in the free flow of capital to the United States has resulted in a number of Canadian companies buying U.S. companies, and it is causing a problem with the U.S. Congress. The reverse is not true.
July 16, 1981


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Companies in the United States are not able to move capital up here as freely, as the minister well knows.
In the Speech from the Throne there was the stated intention to increase the powers of FIRA and increase the degree of intervention of FIRA into the Canadian economy. Will the minister consider withdrawing those three elements of increasing FIRA's powers, and thus put a blanket on the current feelings existing between the two countries today?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, we certainly do not agree that the proposals in the throne speech would increase the degree of intervention. They simply make it easier for the basic purpose of the act to be achieved, which is the attainment of significant benefit for the Canadian economy, the achievement of a good deal, both for the investor and for the Canadian economy.


Harvie Andre: And money to lend to Chrysler.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I am surprised that my hon. friend questions that. If he does, it is no wonder that the Canadian people put him and his party in the back seat last year.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Transport some questions. On June 29 I asked the minister if he intended to announce abandonment of 16 railway passenger routes, and he did not say either way; but he moaned about a $300 million subsidy to VIA Rail and that something had to be done about it. Are we to assume that only VIA Rail is to be victimized by cutbacks? Subsidies in 1980 for marine transport amounted to $320 million, and for air transport they amounted to $312 million. There has only been a 38 per cent recovery for air users, and a 45 per cent subsidy for highway users.
Is it correct that cabinet made a decision today on what routes are to be abandoned by order in council? If so, will the minister tell us which ones they are and, if not, when will cabinet decide? Or will the minister abandon the idea of rail passenger route abandonments instead?


Harvie Andre: They will only abandon western Canadian routes. Don't worry.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I am in no position to make an announcement today on that subject. Therefore, what is said in some quarters is hypothetical. However, I want to reassure my hon. friend that railway transportation, and rail passenger transportation in particular, has always been extremely well served by the Department of Transport. We know, however, that the rate of subsidization has grown 30 per cent in each year of the past
Oral Questions
two years. We simply wonder what the best way is to help VIA Rail to ensure the growth and progress of passenger rail transportation in Canada.


Harvie Andre: Abandon your western Canadian routes.


Jean-Luc Pepin: In that respect, the essence is to make sure that VIA Rail has updated equipment, the lack of which seems to be at the centre of its difficulties now. At the same time we must realize there are limitations on the federal government's capacity to subsidize transportation. We are just trying, and we are agonizing over it, to find the best way to help VIA Rail and its rail passenger transportation. In my view those, like my hon. friend, who want to protect every yard and every inch of route in Canada are doing a great disservice to VIA Rail. In some ways they are strangling it with love, and that is not the best way to help.


SUBSIDIZATION OF AIRLINE SERVICES AND FACILITIES
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, may I ask this philosophic version of Otto Lang whether it is correct that his ministry, which has jet engines for brains, in addition to present subsidies being made to airlines will grant a further $8 million subsidy to Eastern Provincial Airlines for operations into St. Leonard, Chatham and Fredericton, New Brunswick, and Sydney, Nova Scotia as well as paying the costs to upgrade those airports to handle Boeing 727s while the Atlantic Limited passenger train is being abandoned?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I would remind my hon. friend that 27 per cent of the department's budget goes to passenger railway transportation, which is quite substantial. Indeed, it is a half a billion dollars.
As to the question of St. Leonard airport, this is a subject to which I have given much attention. The idea would be to try, on a multi-modal basis, to give this particular area of New Brunswick the best possible transportation system, and we are working on that.


APPOINTMENTS TO VIA RAIL BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, the minister's assertions about the government doing its best for VIA Rail leave me a little bit cold. While I expect the minister to appoint Liberals, can he tell me which one, if any, of the six new appointees to VIA Rail Canada Inc. board of directors, including a former Liberal organizer, campaign manager, and MLA in Saskatchewan, knows a damn thing about railway passenger train service? Incidentally, legislation has not yet been introduced to make VIA Rail an incorporated company. One of these appointees is from Chrysler Corporation, one is from the University of Alberta, one is an investment dealer, one is a feed lot operator, and one is an industrial commissioner. Can the minister explain these appointments which, included an appointee from Windsor?

July 16, 1981
Oral Questions


An hon. Member:: They are all Liberals.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I have served on a number of boards in the past. In every case the objective of companies is to appoint people to those boards who have a diversity of experience having been in different sectors of the economy. It is this diversity of experience that is required.
I am really surprised by the concept which has been put forward here, that in order to serve on a board you have to be an expert in the field in which a company is operating. The experts are in the company and are part of its staff. People serving on boards of directors should be those who represent a diversity of experience and the public interest at large. The other day I met with the VIA Rail group and I was impressed with their dedication and their knowledge of the subject.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF THE RIGHT HON. THE LORD PROVOST OF THE CITY OF GLASGOW
Madam Speaker:: I would like to draw to the attention of the House the presence in our gallery of the Right Hon. Michael Kelly, The Lord Provost of Glasgow.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


COMBINES
Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Madam Speaker, my question, of which I have given notice, is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. He may or may not know that the former minister of energy, mines and resources, Mr. Donald Macdonald, was interviewed by the CBC earlier this week. At that time he confirmed, and I quote from the text of the transcript:
All the Canadian producers at the time ... all the essential producers were told that there was a government policy to maintain a floor price on uranium for export and were required to participate.
The minister is aware that with respect to commodities such as wheat, oil, and natural gas, we have a two-tier system of pricing. What system was in place to protect Canadian consumers from cartel prices during the early 1970s in circumstances where those prices were arrived at by way of bid rigging?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of not only one but three questions. Unfortunately, whether he has given
me notice or not of the questions that he wants to raise in the House, I must tell him that these questions are in relation to cabinet decisions and something that is now before the courts. Therefore the answer given by the Minister of Justice should suffice.


Chris Speyer: That is an absolutely astounding answer.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: That's stonewalling.


LEGALITY OF CARTEL
Chris Speyer: Madam Speaker, I will direct a question to the minister that I hope he will be able to answer. During the early 1970s when the cartel was being contemplated not only by the producers but by the government, there was considerable doubt about the legality of it. I have given the minister notice with respect to this question. Did Mr. Bertrand's predecessor, David Henry, prepare for the government any opinion which would cast doubt on the legality of the venture as it pertained to the domestic marketing of uranium?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, it has been repeatedly stated in this House by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice that any arrangement having to do with the domestic market was not correct and was not acceptable. 1 do not understand why the opposition is pursuing this course, knowing full well of the arrangements with relation to international activities which did not have anything to do with the domestic activity. The only problem is in the mind of the vicious opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


PREPARATION OF OPINION BY MR. DAVID HENRY
Chris Speyer: Madam Speaker, I am afraid the minister understands only too well why we want to know the answer to that question. It is part of a shameless cover-up by this government. I ask the minister again to tell us whether there was an opinion by Mr. Henry with respect to the legality of the cartel as it pertained to the domestic market?
[ Translation]


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, the opposition is clearly trying to cloud the issue and draw conclusions about an imaginary situation. In fact I find the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition and that of the hon. member particularly unfortunate, since they use their parliamentary immunity to ask questions and raise suspicion among the public. It is quite clear that this file was examined by independent lawyers, that they recommended legal action to the Minister of Justice, and this is exactly what has been done. It is completely irresponsible to try to raise doubts or cast aspersions on other
July 16, 1981

people, and I would say that the hon. member in particular is a drip.


REQUEST FOR TABLING OF OPINION
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, the minister is casting doubt and discredit on his own capability and performance as a minister by stonewalling these questions. I wish to bring to the minister's attention a conclusion which is based on fact. Since the minister's memory today is selective, I want to ask him about the advice of Mr. David Henry, the former director of combines, given in 1972, and released to a Congressional committee in 1977, contained in the minutes of a meeting which was called by Mr. Jack Austin. That meeting comprised all the people who had been charged in the indictment. At that meeting Mr. Austin said, and I quote from the minutes:
-that an opinion had been obtained from the Director to the Combines Investigative Branch that the arrangement is legal as it is presently understood by the Director but that it could later become illegal if orders have to be declined by Canadian producers as a result of the arrangement.
That was an opinion given by Mr. David Henry, now Mr. Justice Henry, the former director of the combines investigation branch in 1972. We are told by the Prime Minister that this matter did not come to their attention until 1975.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Aloysius McGrath: They did not act on that investigation until 1977. My question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who is responsible to this House for combines, is: why did the government not act on the advice of Mr. David Henry when he gave an opinion that this could be illegal if it combined to affect prices in Canada? Why did he not act? Will the minister now table that opinion because otherwise he stands convicted of cover-up and being negligent of his duty to Canadian consumers?


Madam Speaker:: Order.
[ Translation]


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, obviously, the case of the hon. member is so weak that he feels he has to shout to give more credibility to his question. I remind him that this matter is now before the court-


Some hon. Members:: Table the report!


André Ouellet: 1 remind the House that on the instigation- The Leader of the Opposition is getting into the habit of interrupting and cutting off those on this side of the House who are trying to reply to questions. I remind the House, Madam Speaker, that my predecessor himself asked the director of investigations to inquire into this area.


Harvie Andre: What year was that?
Oral Questions


André Ouellet: This certainly proves that the Canadian government decided to investigate the matter. It was then the Liberal government that asked the director to investigate. The investigation having been completed, the matter is now before the court.


Some hon. Members:: Table the report!	^


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I can speak in a very low voice if you allow me-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I think that we shall go on to another question.


REASON FOR NOT NAMING DEPUTY MINISTER AS UNINDICTED CO-CONSPIRATOR
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: Perhaps, Madam Speaker, you cannot expect much more from a minister who would phone a judge.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Aloysius McGrath: 1 would like to direct my question to the Minister of Justice in his capacity as Attorney General of Canada. It concerns the minutes of a meeting with some of the participants in 1972, which was called by Mr. Jack Austin, the deputy minister of energy, mines and resources. It took place at the departmental headquarters in April, 1972. All of the people present at that meeting, except Mr. Jack Austin, have been charged as indicted or unindicted co-conspirators, all the corporate citizens present and the others who were present. The Attorney General of Canada now surely knows the opinion of Mr. David Henry and surely must know the facts in that capacity. Why was Mr. Jack Austin not named in the information with the other two public servants who have been named as unindicted co-conspirators?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Attorney General and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, during the four years of inquiry by Mr. Bertrand and the lawyers he hired to do the inquiry they looked at thousands of documents and listened to hundreds of witnesses. Mr. Bertrand and Mr. Brown have recommended to me that six companies be prosecuted. They gave me the names of the non-indicted co-conspirators who are not accused. They are just there in a different situation. They are not accused. I have hired the same lawyers Mr. Bertrand hired. I have accepted their advice. I have taken action before the court. There is nothing else 1 can add to that because I believe hon. members opposite should be completely satisfied that I have accepted 100 per cent the advice of Mr. Bertrand and his

July 16, 1981
Oral Questions
lawyers. On top of that, these are the same lawyers I have hired as special prosecutors in the matter. The matter is before the court. There is nothing I can add, and I will not.


QUERY RESPECTING POSSIBLE OFFER OF IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, the government would have us believe that the con-siracy ended where the politicians began. I want to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has the government offered immunity from prosecution to any individuals in return for their agreement to testify on behalf of the government and, if so, to whom?
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I agreed to launch proceedings against the persons and companies as recommended twice by Mr. Brown and once by Mr. Bertrand, and never did I speak to a witness or a person involved in this case. I received Mr. Bertrand's recommendations. I accepted them and took action before the courts. I never discussed the evidence with anyone in the House or elsewhere.


INVOCATION OF CROWN PRIVILEGE TO WITHHOLD DOCUMENTS
Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, I wonder whether the minister would now answer the question. Has the government offered immunity from prosecution to any individuals in return for their agreement to testify and, if so, to whom?
Second, in order to ensure that the trials can take place without interference by the government, will the government give the House the assurance that under no circumstances will it invoke the doctrine of Crown privilege to withhold documents or to withhold testimony from the courts?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, on the second question, I have replied many times in this House that there is a decision of the appeal division of the Federal Court which says that the decision of the cabinet that documents should not be available to foreign courts will not apply to domestic courts, so it clear as it is the decision of the court. I am not faced with any requirement by any court at this stage. When there is a requirement by the courts, I will deal with it according to what I said to this House.
On the first question, I have replied that I do not know of any deal with anybody. I have not made any deal with anybody. The decision I have taken is to accept 100 per cent of the recommendations of Mr. Bertrand, who, a month ago, was a hero to hon. members opposite, and now that I respect the judgment of Mr. Bertrand, hon. members opposite do not agree any more.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, my question today is for the Minister of State for Finance. I hate to bother the minister with another interest rate question, but today the Conference Board predicted that high interest rates will prevail until at least the last quarter of 1982. Since there is wide recognition that these monetarist high interest rate policies have only contributed to high food prices, record housing costs and record bankruptcies, would the minister indicate that the Conference Board is wrong and that the government does not intend to starve pensioners, bankrupt businesses, and throw low and middle-income Canadians into the street as a basic policy?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member fails to make a distinction between causes and effects. We must keep in mind that if we have high interest rates it is because we are in a situation where inflationary expectations and inflation rates are very high as well.
The Minister of Finance did indicate in his budget that he would proceed gradually in his effort to dampen inflationary expectations and inflation rates. As long as we fail to lower those expectations and to reduce real inflation rates it is quite obvious that we will be saddled with higher interest rates.
However, the inflationary expectations can be reduced only in a climate of consultation and I am convinced that the understanding of the economic situation will prompt him to support the measures implemented by the Minister of Finance.


EXPECTED DURATION OF POLICY
Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, the real defect is the minister's interpretation. High interest rates are causing high inflation rates. The defect also is the Speech from the Throne, which promised to protect those Canadians who need protection most from those high interest rates. The other defect is the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, there in the back seat, because of the promise he made and did not keep.
Those kinds of policies will continue for three years if they go to the end of 1984. How long does the minister think Canadians will continue to submit to this kind of repressive monetarist policy? When does the minister think the people of Vancouver and Toronto will be in the streets saying that they have had enough of this crap?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, in his preamble the hon. member mentioned needy Canadians and how callously the government is treating them. I think that he has forgotten what was done during the
July 16, 1981

past year especially for the poorest Canadians. I wish only to remind him that income tax indexation and all social measures were maintained, that the guaranteed income supplement was increased and so on. It shows the government's concern for needy Canadians and that steps have been taken to bring them some relief in a difficult economic period which we are now experiencing. As for his question, Canadians realize that it is only over the medium and long term that we will overcome those difficulties. If we continue to fight with effective means against inflation as Canadians, we will improve our economic climate and conditions, instead of looking for magical shortterm and drastic solutions, the results of which we cannot anticipate.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Lang (Kitchener):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. There is continuing evidence that the practice of the Hooker Chemical Company of New York of dumping dioxin is causing dioxin to seep into the Niagara River. We are all aware that dioxin is one of the most toxic chemicals known to man and, being aware of the very serious medical consequences of this chemical, I would like to ask the minister what action he is going to take in this situation. Has he consulted with the Minister of National Health and Welfare and Minister of Fisheries and Oceans regarding a ban on fishing in Lake Ontario?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, as hon. members of the House know, we take this situation very, very seriously. Meetings took place yesterday and today among officials from both the United States and Canada to assess the health hazards in this situation. I believe my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, may be able to make some announcement about the results of these meetings in the very near future.
We have also expressed our concern to the United States administration in meetings which have taken place between officials of my department and those of the relevant American authorities about examining not only the possible origins of dioxin in the Great Lakes system but also the means of responding to the situation. There will be meetings again in Washington and again on the site of the Hooker Chemical plant within the next few days-I believe next week-in order to assess thoroughly that situation and to be prepared to take remedial action, if such indeed is necessary, in whatever way it can be done.
Oral Questions COMBINES


URANIUM CARTEL-MINUTES OF 1972 MEETING
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice, and it relates to his apparent refusal or neglect to answer any questions about matters which should have been brought to his attention with respect to the laying of charges. The minister was asked last Friday about the advice given by Mr. Justice Henry, who was then director of combines investigation. The minutes of a meeting of the cartel called in 1972 by Senator Jack Austin on behalf of the Government of Canada clearly indicate the contents of that memorandum of opinion. Is the minister now saying he knows nothing of this opinion and there is no indication in his mind of the implication of Senator Austin in this whole matter? If he is doing that, he is really pressing our credulity.
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I have answered that question about a dozen times. The inquiry into the matter lasted four years. All those facts were made known to the investigators. They came to the conclusion, first Mr. Bertrand then the lawyers who were working for him, that six companies should be prosecuted. That is precisely what I did. They were able to discuss the matter with Mr. Austin and all the persons involved in the matter. They had access to all the documents they wished to consult. They came to the conclusion that legal proceedings should be instituted against the six companies which may at some time have tried to fix prices on the domestic market, which is illegal. During the oral question period the Prime Minister repeatedly pointed out that there is a difference between an international agreement between countries and the internal situation, that is, whether or not companies may agree within Canada to fix prices for the domestic market. That is forbidden and always has been by the law. I ordered proceedings taken under that act against the six companies involved that are alleged to have agreed to set the price of uranium in Canada, which is illegal under our laws. The opinion referred to by the hon. member was surely examined by Mr. Bertrand and the lawyers he retained, and I did as well later on. They reached the conclusion that proceedings should be instituted against the persons involved, and I did as they advised.


REASON FOR NOT NAMING SENATOR AND MINISTERS
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, this matter stinks to high heaven, and I do not mind saying that to the minister's face and members of the cabinet. The minister was a member of that cabinet, and there is an apparent conflict of interest when he is the only one who decides who should be prosecuted. The fact of the matter is that there is a clear implication that Senator Austin, the

July 16, 1981
Oral Questions
deputy minister, and the ministers he served were involved, and this a political matter. I am saying to the minister that this is a matter of ministerial responsibility-


James Aloysius McGrath: And legal culpability.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Has he satisfied himself that there were no ministers aware of the cartel arrangements impacting on Canadian prices, and is he prepared to release the recommendations of Mr. Brown so that we can see the basis for his prosecution recommendation, or at least tell us on what basis he decided not to include Senator Austin and the ministers involved at the time in the information?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I said the reports of Mr. Brown and Mr. Bertrand will be-


An hon. Member:: Let us see them.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: -as is traditional, the basis for the prosecution. The material they have gathered will be used by the prosecution to try to have the six companies found guilty of the charges we have laid against them. That is the situation.
I have seen the report. I am satisfied that Mr. Brown has done a very competent job while working for Mr. Bertrand. That is the reason 1 decided to hire him as a special prosecutor in this case. 1 am satisfied he will put all the necessary facts in front of the court and will do his best to have these six companies found guilty of illegally combining to fix the price of uranium.
I have no reason not to accept their judgment. I think they know much more than any one of us about this situation. Their recommendations were valid and I have accepted them. It is now up to the courts.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REPORT SUBMITTED IN 1972
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, the great danger, of course, is that the six companies charged will plead guilty, keep the matter out of the courts, and the report will never become public in any fashion at all. Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, responsible for combines investigations, having to do with the state of knowledge of ministers or other persons not yet charged.
Will the minister answer a very simple question? Will he tell this House whether Mr. David Henry, then director of combines investigation, submitted to the government in 1972 a report which raised the possibility that the cartel would be illegal if it affected domestic prices? Was there such a report prepared by Mr. Henry?


An hon. Member:: Yes or no?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, the questions asked by the Leader of the Official Opposition are, of course, hypothetical. The Leader of the Opposition cannot infer that nothing will come out of the proceedings because we do not know whether the companies are going to plead guilty or not. So that is a hypothetical question.
Secondly, with regard to the so-called report from Mr. Henry, then director of combines investigation, that is also a hypothetical question, since he is asking whether, under different circumstances, this would violate the competition act. So we are dealing here with a hypothetical situation, which clearly shows, Madam Speaker, that the opposition is overstepping its parliamentary privilege and dealing in hypotheses.


MINISTER'S POSITION ON 1972 REPORT
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, there is nothing at all hypothetical about a question concerning a document whose existence has been attested to in the Congressional Record of the United States, a country whose government by the force of things is much more public with documents than is this government, a government which was forced to abandon its practice of secrecy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: We know, Madam Speaker, that we have one hidden report, the Bertrand report. It now appears we have a second hidden report, the Henry report. My question to the minister is very simple. Does he deny there was a report presented by Mr. Henry in 1972 which raised the possibility that the international cartel could have an effect on domestic prices which would be contrary to the law? Does he deny the existence of such a report?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, the report the Leader of the Opposition talks about is a report, taking the words of the Leader of the Opposition, which says it could possibly contravene the act-


James Aloysius McGrath: Now you are coming out with it.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: So it does exist.


André Ouellet: -if there were arrangements for a national market.


James Aloysius McGrath: That is right, that is what we have been saying.


André Ouellet: Now, it is quite clear, taking the very words of the Leader of the Opposition, that Mr. Henry himself at the time was not saying it was illegal.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Well, produce it.
July 16, 1981


André Ouellet: That he was, according to the very words of the Leader of the Opposition-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: No, no.


André Ouellet: -saying that it could become possibly illegal if there were arrangements later on in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Let us see the report.


André Ouellet: So I clearly recognize the hypothetical questions and hypothetical evaluation of the opposition. If that is the only basis for their line of questioning, their point is very weak.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT 1972 REPORT BE TABLED
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, three minutes ago the minister said the existence of the report was hypothetical. Now he admits it exists.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Will the minister table that report in the House of Commons? If he refuses to, if he keeps that report as secret as the Bertrand report, will he tell us on what possible grounds other than cover up, other than to protect former ministers or deputy ministers, does he keep from public knowledge the Henry report which he now admits exists, and which he now admits raises the possibility of illegal action flowing from the cartel? Will he publish it and, if not, why not?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, the matter being before the court-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


André Ouellet: -is clearly an indication of government action. There is a series of events which took place that cannot be denied by the opposition even if they try to twist the facts. The very first fact is that the inquiry was conducted by the director of combines investigation at the request of the government. That is a fact.


James Aloysius McGrath: Two years after.


André Ouellet: This is not a cover up; this is a fact. The second fact is that following this inquiry lawyers were retained to evaluate the evidence, and lawyers recommended a charge be laid. This is again a fact.


An hon. Member:: How do we know?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The charges are there.
Oral Questions


André Ouellet: The government allowed the process to take place. The document was referred to the Department of Justice and charges were laid.


Charles Joseph Clark: Against some people.


André Ouellet: The only point which troubles the hon. Leader of the Opposition-


Henry Perrin Beatty: We want the truth.


André Ouellet: -is that he would like to charge Senator Austin.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


André Ouellet: But I could add my own speculation to his, and say that if Senator Austin is not charged it is certainly because the lawyers who have looked at the matter have not recommended to the Department of Justice to lay charges.


Charles Joseph Clark: Publish the documents.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Last week the minister in his capacity as Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs had two important days. One of them was a red letter day when he brought in Bill C-83 which will provide benefits to more than 20,000 widows of disabled veterans. However, as Minister of National Defence, is he aware of the fact that under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act long-service personnel serving in the armed forces, are denied the right to leave a pension to their widows if the marriage took place after the date of retirement? In view of the unfairness of the situation, and in view of the fact that many later or second marriages are lengthy ones, will he do his best to get this situation corrected?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, 1 think the question concerning the pensions of retired armed forces personnel must be looked at very seriously, but I believe it is related to the global situation of pensions in the government and in other sectors. At the moment I think there is a task force looking into pension questions. I will take the question of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre under consideration and submit to the task force the possibility of improving such conditions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thank the Minister of National Defence for his interest in this question.

July 16, 1981
Business of the House


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Solicitor General. He is aware that the same situation applies to personnel of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. They can retire early but if a marriage, whether it is first, second, or what have you, takes place after the date of retirement there is no pension for a surviving widow. In view of the fact that this is unfair, will the Solicitor General join with the Minister of National Defence in seeking to get it corrected, and will they both make representations to the President of the Treasury Board to bring this whole proposition up to date?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, like my colleague, the Minister of National Defence, I will look into the situation but I would not want to agree, without having done so, that it is a unfair situation. For example, I would like to consider the way all retired public servants are treated and the way people outside the government in the private sector are treated generally with respect to pensions. This is the subject of the study. I do not think that public servants, even members of the RCMP, should be receiving benefits very far ahead of those outside the sector.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is up to the government to show leadership.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, with respect to the business of the House, I had a conversation earlier today with the minister. At that time he indicated his intention to call the adjournment motion standing in his name for today and tomorrow. Could I ask the government House leader his intentions with respect to the business of the House next week?


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, the question is hypothetical but I will answer it anyway. It is indeed a correct assumption to say that today and tomorrow we will be dealing with motion No. 51, in the hope that it will be agreed to as soon as possible. Next week, if necessary and unless indicated otherwise, we will resume consideration of Bill C-48.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, I wish to present a petition signed by more than 50,000 citizens of British Columbia requesting that the British Columbia Telephone Company be placed in the hands of a Crown corporation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INTEREST ACT
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-639, to amend the Interest Act (credit card holders).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Madam Speaker, 11.5 million Canadians use Visa and MasterCard. The purpose of this bill is to offer some protection to credit card holders from interest charges which pile up when postal services are disrupted. The bill provides that for every month in which the holder does not receive a statement of account from the creditor, except on advances of money, no interest shall be charged on the amount then due.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2,235, 2,389, 2,439, 2,455, 2,507, 2,657 and 2,707.
I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is it a requirement that the Advisory Council on Public Records hold at least one meeting in each quarter?
2.	What are the dates of all meetings held since its inception?
July 16, 1981


Hon. Francis Fox (Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: I am informed by the Public Archives as follows: 1. The Public Records Order (P.C. 1966-1749) states that there shall be at least one meeting of the Advisory Council on Public Records in each quarter.
2.	The dates of all meetings held since the council's inception are as follows:
July 17, 1967 October 19, 1967 January 30, 1968 April 30, 1968 July 31, 1968 November 14, 1968 April 29, 1969 June 20, 1969 November 21, 1969 November 5, 1970 January 28, 1971 October 5, 1971 July 12, 1973
April 27, 1978 July 4, 1978 September 21, 1978 November 7, 1978 January 24, 1979 April 11, 1979 August 16, 1979 December 5, 1979 March 3, 1980 July 9, 1980 July 17, 1980 October 7, 1980 November 25, 1980 March 17, 1981
From July 12, 1973, until April 27, 1978, the council as a whole did not meet. During that time its activities, including meetings, were carried out by a number of committees formed to work on specific projects such as drafting legislative documents regarding access to public records; translating records management terminology into the French language; developing standard records management forms; examining equipment for the destruction of security classified records; studying the systematic downgrading of security classified material and developing bench-mark position descriptions for inclusion in the Treasury Board's "Classification and Selection Standards".


Mr. Cossitt: Since and including the date of the discovery of the missing pages in the diaries of the late Right Honourable William Lyon Mackenzie King, were any items found missing from the Public Archives and, if so (a) on how many occasions (b) in each case (i) what were the items (ii) were they recovered and, if so, in what location?


Francis Fox: I am informed by the Public Archives as follows:
(a)	The missing pages of the diary of the Right Hon. Mackenzie King cover the period November 10, 1945, to December 31, 1945. These pages never came to the Public Archives; they were not found after Mr. King's death and it is not known if Mr. King kept a diary for the period in question. (There is a note in the Public Archives from Fred McGregor, one of the literary executors of Mackenzie King, to the effect that pages for the period November 10 to December 31, 1945, were not found among Mr. King's effects). Archivists
Order Paper Questions
responsible for the care of the papers of the Right Hon. Mackenzie King that came to the Public Archives are certain that no documents in the King papers are missing and that the entire unit as received is intact.
(b)	No systematic search of archives holdings in general has been undertaken to document that items are missing. Archives staff monitors holdings on a regular basis in order to identify items which are misfiled or misplaced in the stacks. When items are found to be out of place, they are returned to their proper location. This monitoring process has revealed only one instance of material accessioned by the Public Archives having been unlawfully removed from our custody. That was a case of two maps having been cut and removed from a bound volume in the late 1960s. The maps were never found. Two instances are on record of items stolen from an archives exhibition. In one case, the item was a printed map and was later replaced. The other case, also in the 1960s, involved two manuscript items stolen from an exhibition on loan to another institution. These items were unique and could not be replaced.


Mr. Blenkarn: 1.	Does the Department of Fisheries and Oceans monitor the annual hunt of harp and hooded seals in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador and, if so, what is the cost?
2.	Have some scientists compiled biological data on harp and hooded seals that claim the seal herds are increasing and, if so, what are their names?
3.	Was research done with respect to determining the population of the seals and, if so, what are the details?
4.	(a) What was the quota for the seals to be taken in Canadian waters during the most recent seal hunt (b) was a portion of the quota given to Norway and, if so (i) what portion (ii) did it increase or decrease over the past five years?


Hon. Romeo LeBIanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: (1)	Costs of monitoring the 1980 hunt of harp and hooded seals in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and off the coast of Newfoundland were $163,000. This figure includes wages for enforcement staff, ship and helicopter time but is exclusive of icebreaker costs.
(2)	The Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) provides the forum for international scientific review of data on seal populations. It is the advice of the NAFO scientific council rather than individual scientists that forms the basis for management of the seal hunt. At the November, 1980, meeting of the NAFO scientific council, the population of harp seals was projected to consist of 425,000 pups and 1.70 million seals aged one year or older (assuming a continuation of current harvest levels) by 1985, representing an annual growth rate of 1.7 per cent.
(3)	Research by Canadian scientists in 1980 to determine the population of seals included mark recapture experiments on harp seal pups in both the front and gulf, an investigation of age-specific variation in age determination of harp seal teeth, a
11598

July 16, 1981
Order Paper Questions
thorough review of historical commercial sampling data and a variety of other biological studies.
(4)	(a) 1981 quotas for seals to be taken in Canadian waters were as follows:
Harp seals-	170,000
Hooded seals	15,000
(b)	(i) The Norwegian allocation of harp seal quotas
in 1981 was 22,500. Of the 15,000 hooded seal quota, 6,000 was allocated to both Canada and Norway and the remaining 3,000 was available to vessels of either country.
(ii) The allocation of harp seals to Norway for 1981 was increased from 20,000 in 1979 and 1980 but remains below the 35,000 in 1977 and 1978. Hooded seal allocations to Norway have remained constant over the last five years.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	(a) On what date was the answer to question No. 1,852 transmitted to the government by the Canadian Film Development Corporation (b) was there a delay between receipt of the answer by the government and tabling of the answer in the House and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Did Mr. Michel Vennat, chairman of the Canadian Film Development Corporation, discuss with the Secretary of State and Minister of Communications the effect of section 5 of the Canadian Film Development Corporation Act upon his ability to serve as chairman at the same time as he maintained an interest in a private law firm with clients in the film industry and, if so, on what date?
3.	Did the Secretary of State and Minister of Communications receive a legal opinion from the Department of Justice concerning the effect of section 5 of the act upon the eligibility of Mr. Vennat to serve as chairman and, if so, on what date?
4.	Did the minister inform Mr. Vennat, following advice from the Department of Justice, that he was satisfied that Mr. Vennat was not in conflict with section 5 of the act and, if so, on what date?
5.	Since his appointment, has the present chairman of the corporation withdrawn from participating in decisions relating to clients of his law firm and, if so (a) on how many occasions (b) were the clients (i) successful (ii) unsuccessful in their applications for assistance?


Francis Fox: 1. Crown corporations do not answer parliamentary questions. Ministers, who are members of Parliament, answer such questions and take full responsibility for such answers.
2,	3 and 4. Mr. Michel Vennat disclosed to the previous secretary of state his situation as member of the board of the Canadian Film Development Corporation and as partner of the law firm of Stikeman, Elliot, Tanaki, Mercier and Robb. During the term of office of the previous government, Mr. Vennat requested and received, on a informal basis, an opinion from legal counsel in the Privy Council Office. The opinion received was to the effect that he was not precluded from being a member and chairman of the board of the Canadian Film Development Corporation by the provisions of section 5 of the Canadian Film Development Corporation Act. The previous secretary of state was obviously satisfied that there
was no conflict of interest in the case of Mr. Vennat. Mr. Vennat disclosed the above information to the present Secretary of State and Minister of Communications in the spring of 1980. The minister has not received a formal opinion from the Department of Justice. In view of the importance of this question for both candidates and the government, in the case of future appointments to this position, the minister has asked officials of the Department of Communications to obtain a formal legal opinion. In the meantime, the provisions of section 5 will be rigidly interpreted and applied to future appointees.
5. Mr. Vennat's term as a member of the board has now expired. I am informed by the Canadian Film Development Corporation as follows: while chairman of the board of the Canadian Film Development Corporation, Mr. Vennat did not take part in the decisions relating to clients of the above-mentioned law firm in their dealings with the Canadian Film Development Corporation.
(a)	and (b) Canadian Film Development Corporation records and procedures are not organized in such a way as to provide the information requested.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	Does the Department of National Defence conduct experiments subjecting dogs to radiation and, if so (a) for how long will a dog survive from the time of radiation (b) what is the radiation dose (c) what symptoms will the dogs have?
2.	Did the military perform similar experiments on cats in the 1950s and, if so, for what reason are the experiments being duplicated?
3.	Will meaningful results be obtained by destroying fewer than 40 dogs?
4.	Will there be follow-up experiments?


Ursula Appolloni: 1. The Department of National Defence has not conducted experiments where dogs are subjected to ionizing radiation. However, the department has issued a notice in the Supply & Services Canada, Research and Development Bulletin of its intention to contract for a study on radiation-induced nausea and vomiting using rats and dogs. Past medical research elsewhere has established that only the canine species has a sensitivity to radiation which approaches that of man, and the dogs' ability to vomit makes it an ideal test animal to be used in the proposed study which includes the testing of possible antidotes.
(a), (b) and (c) The exact detail of the study is presently awaiting proposals by the contractor, who has not been selected as yet. However, laboratory dogs would be used in the experiment in accordance with the Guide to the Care and Use of Experimental Animals prepared by the Canadian Council on Animal Care. The experiments would also be reviewed and monitored by an animal care committee to ensure the humane treatment of the dogs.
2.	No. No reference to studies where the department has exposed cats to ionizing radiations has been found.
3.	It should be possible for the contractor to obtain meaningful results using 40 dogs or less.
July 16, 1981

4.	The decision whether any follow-up experiments will be required cannot be determined at this time.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	With reference to the answer to question No. 2,385, for what reason did the Sherbrooke Airport receive $106,000 in the fiscal year 1978-79?
2.	Were requests made for assistance in the fiscal years (a) 1979-80 (b) 1980-81 and were they turned down and, if so, for what reason?


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. Sherbrooke Airport received $106,000 in 1978/79 which represents 90 per cent of the $118,000 cost of temporary repairs as follows:
Cost
Repairs to runway	$60,000
Runway lights	$33,000
Access roads	$25,000


[Stage Direction]
2. Requests for assistance were turned down in 1979/80 and 1980/81 because the capital assistance program had been terminated.
Mr. Corbett: 1.	Is Miss Nancy Jamieson employed by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and, if so (a) in which position (b) what is her present employment status (c) is she on sabbatical and, if so, for how long and for what purpose (d) what is her job description?
2.	Was she hired through Public Service competition or by ministerial appointment?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Miss Nancy Jamieson is not employed by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, July 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pinard:
That, when the House adjourns on the day this order is adopted, it shall stand adjourned until Wednesday, October 14, 1981, provided that at any time prior to that date, if it appears to the satisfaction of Madam Speaker, after consultation
Summer Recess
with the government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time, Madam Speaker may give notice that she is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time; and
That, in the event of Madam Speaker's being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker, the Deputy Chairman of Committees or the Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees shall act in her stead for all the purposes of this order.
Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Madam Speaker, I rose on the adjournment debate last Friday, my leader had just indicated the determination of the Progressive Conservative Party to keep Parliament in session until we had an indication of a serious determination to restore mail service in the country.
Last Friday there was a postal deadlock; neither the government nor the union showed any movement toward settling the strike. Thousands of Canadians were left without hope that there would be an early restoration of their mail services. We insisted that Parliament stay and do its duty to Canadians.
As a direct result of our keeping Parliament at work, there have been three major developments in the postal situation. First, the parties agreed to negotiate about mediation. Second, that negotiation was successful and mediation was agreed to. Third, an excellent mediator has been named in the person of Judge Alan Gold.
One thing is crystal clear. If Parliament had gone home, there would have been no mediation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Scott Fennell: If Parliament had gone home, we would have been no further ahead today than we were last Friday. The very presence of Parliament doing its duty led to mediation, and my party and I are proud that we achieved that result.
We want the mediation process to proceed. We know Judge Gold cannot meet the parties until tomorrow. We hope he will find success in this work as he has found such distinguished success in other work in the labour field. He is a first-class choice. The question is whether the two parties, the union and the government, are entering this negotiation determined to find a settlement. We hope they are. We look forward to seeing the spirit in which they meet Judge Gold tomorrow.
We believe Parliament has a duty to encourage both parties to enter into the mediation in good faith. Parliament also has a duty to monitor the attitude of the union and the government, and to ensure that mediation is successful. My party and 1 look forward to the meeting between Judge Gold and the parties tomorrow. We hope it will result in a settlement.
In order to avoid in any way impeding successful mediation my party deliberately did not raise any question today about the postal situation during question period. We intend not to discuss the postal situation in the adjournment debate today or tomorrow, except to point out Parliament's presence. We are determined to make the mediation process work. We hope the government and the union share in that determination.

July 16, 1981
Summer Recess


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Scott Fennell: But, Mr. Speaker, we do want Parliament to work. This Parliament has a duty to the people of this country, a duty to the people whose businesses and firms are either in bankruptcy or almost bankrupt, a duty to people who are being forced to lose their homes.
During this period that we are sitting here in Ottawa there are many issues we can debate. The first one I would like to talk about has to do with high interest rates and the effect they are having on this country. High interest rates are not solving the problem of inflation. They merely provide greater revenue to the government from taxation. However, that really does not solve the problem because the government can spend it faster than it can collect it.
During this period of high interest rates I want to ask the government if it will consider this proposal. It is not only a proposal to protect those with mortgages coming up for renewal at this time but a proposal to protect new home owners, to give them the right to buy, to encourage the construction industry and construction workers back to work.
I would request the government to steal our mortgage deductibility program. It was a sound program. That program would have covered this period of time so well had we remained in office. I request the government to take this concept and use it, if only to implement it during this time of high interest rates. It was a sound program, one which has been used in every other country in the world. Canada is the exception. If the government were to put it in place for six months to a year it would assist home owners renewing their mortgages and it would assist new home buyers in buying their homes. In turn, that would assist the economy of our country.
The next point I would like to bring up is the small business development bond program. As we all appreciate, this was one of our proposals. Unfortunately, the government stole only part of it. Why would it not steal the rest of the program? Why will it not include unincorporated businesses and farms in the program? This is a time when these people are going out of business. Why should they not be included in the program?


Mr. Evans:: For the same reason the hon. member for St. John's West did not include it.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Perhaps he had a reason then. I am saying at a time when interest rates are 22 per cent that these people are going out of business and they need assistance now.
The small businessman is the lifeblood of our country. Small businessmen employ two-thirds of the work force in this country. The government must adapt the small business development bond program for unincorporated businesses. This group will solve the productivity and unemployment problems of our country. Regrettably, it cannot solve the inflationary problems of Canada since that responsibility falls squarely on the shoulders of this government. Small businessmen are the modern-day heroes of Canada. They have the guts to stand up and try to make this a better country and a great country. They are the people who create jobs. They are the ones taking
the risk. Government never takes any risks, it just takes the money. These are the people, the great segment of Canadians, who are keeping the economy on track. These are the people whom we should discuss in this House.
I presented a program before which received some acknowledgement but I have not seen the results of it yet. It would have dealt with this situation. As I said before, the small businessmen cannot solve the inflationary spiral which has created chaos for all Canadians. This has really been a bloodletting situation for all Canadians. Senior citizens are losing their assets which are being eroded by inflation.
It is interesting that we continue to blame high interest rates on inflation. That is not the case. In the United States Americans have mortgage deductibility. They also have the same prime rate as us, within a point or so. In the United States, since high interest rates have come about inflation has been reduced to 8.5 per cent while our inflation has increased to 12.5 per cent. Again, the only one to blame for this situation is the government which is placing on the citizens of this country the cruellest handicap. It is hitting the poor and the middle class. It does not hurt the rich or the government, but it is the guts of Canada which is tearing apart.
Yesterday in a press interview the Prime Minister stated that each of the seven members of the OECD countries are trying different economic measures to solve their inflation problems. Before the summit takes place all I can say is that obviously Italy and Canada are trying two economic systems which are not working. These systems should be abandoned. We should stay here all summer and listen to measures which the opposition will put forward to improve the situation in this country.
This is a very serious time. Once government members received their pay raise it was interesting to see how rapidly they were prepared to pack it up and get out of the House. Now that they have their pay raise they have that much more responsibility to the citizens of this country. They have a responsibility to be here to do a job for their constituents. I have noticed that in many other countries there are Congresses and Parliaments still sitting.
What is the bottom line as a result of the National Energy Program? There is a very serious bottom line which is starting to surface. I was south of the border on Monday trying to find out what was happening. It is a very subtle course that the Americans will be following. They have been hurt by Canada and the National Energy Program. In one respect they have been helped since many of our drilling rigs have crossed the border. In another respect they have been hurt. American oil companies are suffering losses which enables the government to buy them up at distress prices.
The subtlety which will come through has nothing to do with oil or petroleum. It is another subtle trade embargo; not an announced one, and not an open one, but a very subtle one. They are not going to sit down and take it laughing. They look at Dome and how they got Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas away
July 16, 1981

from them. They are fighting Seagram's as hard as they can, Canadian interests. Why should Seagram's have the right to go down to the United States and buy up a major American corporation when in Canada they are being expropriated from the same people? I am sorry, but they have a point. The only thing that this program is doing is bringing this country to the same state that England is in and is now suffering from as a result, namely nationalization.
I believe we should stay here for days to debate this. I plead with the government to abandon the National Energy Program now before we feel the full economic impact of the word of mouth which is travelling around the United States. Please abandon it now before the United States decides to abandon its part of the auto pact, leaving tens of thousands of automobile workers in the unemployment ranks. 1 plead with this government to go back and look at what it is doing. Its favourite, PetroCan, has been able to collect other oil interests from other countries. It is big enough now. Let the free market system work, because it is only the free market system which will resolve the economic problems of this country. Government intervention does not solve the problems, as has been proven in Sweden and in England. Now we have a Prime Minister imposing it on us here. Let the free market work; abandon the energy program.
In my riding, I have watched the havoc which has been created over expropriation. My riding encompasses the Pickering airport. 1 am talking about expropriation. This havoc is going to spread over the entire north of this country, as well as the east and west coasts of this country, if Bill C-48 is permitted to pass. That is a straight expropriation bill. If it is passed in this House, it will change the lives of every single Canadian, and we will be down in the ranks, below Italy, below the lowest of socialist countries which have tried it. Socialism has not worked in the other countries. Why are we attempting to try it here? It will not work here, either.
Once the government gets Bill C-48 through, the next thing it will do is bring in a new bill to expropriate 25 per cent of all farms, and it will be called "farmcan". Eventually it will go on, without the right of property rights in the proposed Constitution, to take 25 per cent of everyone's homes. The government will call that "Homecan". Therefore, we will have PetroCan, farmcan and homecan. Then the citizens of this country will be left with only one choice: to kick the can of the Liberal government out of Ottawa. That is the only choice we have. I would plead with them to do it today and not wait too much longer.


Mr. McDermid:: Put the boots to Coutts!


Thomas Scott Fennell: Good point!


An hon. Member:: Keep your head, McDermid.


Thomas Scott Fennell: I would like to touch on one of the other points which have come up during this period because it is very close to my heart and my feelings. This is the year of the handicapped. What has this government done to assist the handicapped this year?
Summer Recess


An hon. Member:: It is the most handicapped government we have ever seen.


Thomas Scott Fennell: That is right. My colleague refers to it as a handicapped government. Maybe it should start by helping itself become unhandicapped, first of all; but let us help these people who need the help. The government does not need the help. I am talking about people like my constituent, Mike Overdyk, who had to sit in the Toronto-Dominion tower for 36 hours. I told him to go home and we would work it out here. I have now sent three letters to the Minister of State for Finance. I have received the most Mickey Mouse replies. One did not even answer the first letter. Now I understand that the matter is being studied. If it is being studied and we are staying here, let us bring in new legislation to help the handicapped of this country who have been severely hurt for many generations-since the beginning of time. That is one place the government could start.
All one has to do is look across this country. Do not feel that you are the great white fathers because of what you have accomplished this week which is of such importance: having the handicapped games here in Ottawa. Look at those people and realize how much more help they need. We are fortunate. We can stand on our two feet and use both our hands. We have no handicaps. Those are the people we must look after.


Mr. Chenier:: That is what you think.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Part of the problem of inflation is that the government keeps blaming it on petroleum prices. It is a wonderful way to be; but has it ever looked at the amount of money it is taking which is creating the inflation? Out of a litre of gasoline, the government now takes almost 23 cents out of 36 cents. That is two-thirds of the bite. The government is taking so much money in petroleum taxes that it could afford to provide mortgage deductibility for every home owner in this country for the next year. Give the people a break. Get the country working. Get the construction workers back on the job. This is a great opportunity, while we are sitting in this House, to read and to do something positive. This government does not care about Canadian citizens. It cares about itself. It has looked after itself. Now let us look after Canadians.
I could go on, but I still say that there are many things we can very usefully debate in this House between now and October 14. Perhaps we can get the message across there, because there is an old saying in advertising that if one hits the message frequently enough, it finally sinks in. Perhaps we can get the message across that by our staying here through this summer, we might resolve the economic dilemma of the country.


An hon. Member:: Come on!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Scott Fennell: The country is in an economic dilemma.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

July 16, 1981
Summer Recess


Thomas Scott Fennell: Hon. members say, "What a laugh". They just want to go home.


An hon. Member:: Where have you been for the last two weeks?


Thomas Scott Fennell: I have been right here for the last two weeks, and I plan to be here for the next two and a half months because we have a lot of problems to solve. It would be a good thing if those hon. members would stay home. Then we could sit here and get something done.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: You had it a year ago. What did you do with it?


Thomas Scott Fennell: There is a danger-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Ontario has the floor.


Thomas Scott Fennell: There is a danger in our sitting here. The Minister of Finance keeps threatening the deindexing of income tax. Does Your Honour realize that it will raise an additional $1.7 billion? Soon the government will have 60 per cent of the GNP. If it does not introduce deindexing, it will probably try wage and price controls. This did not work five centuries ago when the Divine Rights of Kings were operating. The government has tried so many bad things that it is time it did something positive.


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: Get rid of the PCs!


Thomas Scott Fennell: I would say that to kick the Liberal can would be far better.


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: That is a new one.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the time I have had-


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: Time you have wasted!


Thomas Scott Fennell: I have not wasted any time. I have put my time to great use. My time has been wasted, to a great extent, by ministers not answering queries of mine. Yes, that time has been wasted. However, I have created productive time for my constituents, and I have worked hard on behalf of them, as we all have on this side of the House. Believe me, if we had stayed in government, this government would be sailing along a lot smoother road than with the Liberal intervention.


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: We saw that last year. You sailed right past the election!


Thomas Scott Fennell: Thank you for the time, and thank you, Liberals, for the insults. You can continue with the insults, because you cannot do anything else in this House of Commons, so keep it up. You are making fools of yourselves. You are making fools of Canadians.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Would the hon. member please address the Chair.


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to participate in this adjournment debate, I thought it unfortunate that the previous speaker, the hon. member for Ontario, became so incensed about a little matter. Maybe he got out of bed on the wrong side this morning, but some of the things he said during the course of his remarks sounded to me like an equal combination of Greek mythology, Walt Disney and science fiction. I do not think he should have allowed himself to become quite so incensed over the inventions of his own mind.
What has happened in this House over the last few days has been both irresponsible and new. The Conservatives have said they will not allow this motion to come to a vote, and they will not allow the House to adjourn for the normal summer recess when members can become reacquainted with problems in their constituencies and do the work that is important there enabling them to represent their constituents here in Ottawa. The Conservatives have said they will not allow a recess until such time as the government brings in legislation taking away the rights of the workers in the Post Office dispute and of the Post Office itself and putting an end to the strike. I say it is not only irresponsible but it is new and unusual because, in fairness to the Conservative party, never until this past year has the Conservative party when in opposition played this irresponsible role.
I have to say in fairness that the attitude of the House of Commons during major labour disputes over the years has been pretty well unanimous in its approach to keeping parliamentarians' hands off negotiations and the work of mediators and professionals who attempt to bring most settlements. I believe that an examination would show that the tendency is to allow the industrial relations system to function.
Why is it different this time? Why is it that an opposition party is doing something under the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) which did not occur when Bob Stanfield was leader of the opposition or when John Diefenbaker was leader of the opposition? Why is it that it has only occurred now at a time when the Leader of the Opposition is under very great pressure in relation to his future role from some of his erstwhile supporters?


John Horton McDermid: You have had experience in that.


Gerald Augustine Regan: As a matter of fact, I will mention more because this time, for some cheap purpose, their past relatively public spirited record has been allowed to go right down the drain. To keep Parliament sitting until the strike is settled is for those involved more than unsettling. It does much to guarantee that the strike will not be settled in the negotiating process. Having Parliament looking over the mediator's shoulder is not at all helpful.
The hon. member for Ontario said just a few moments ago that Parliament must continue to sit day by day and that we
July 16, 1981

must monitor what is happening in the mediating sessions. I assume the Leader of the Opposition means by sitting day by day that he will continue to demand that the government pass legislation ending the strike and thus taking away the rights of individuals in that regard.


Yvon Pinard: What an insult to Judge Gold.


Gerald Augustine Regan: As the President of the Privy Council has pointed out, this is an insult to the ability of Judge Alan Gold who has just been appointed mediator of the Post Office dispute. It is not helpful to have Parliament peering over his shoulders.


John Horton McDermid: Get back to Bill C-48 then.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mediation in a difficult dispute when the parties have strongly entrenched positions is not something that is usually or ordinarily achieved in a day or two. There are members who are here who are familiar with industrial relations, and who are fully aware that the task of a mediator is a very delicate one. Sometimes it may take a week, sometimes two weeks, sometimes even longer than that to reach a settlement.
One of the great mediators and conciliators of the past few years is Senator Carl Goldenberg. He participated in many important disputes and was able to resolve a good percentage of them. I want to put on the record what Senator Goldenberg once said. It is applicable to the situation with which the Leader of the Opposition has confronted us today. He said that you cannot mediate in a goldfish bowl. No one can mediate if the parties have someone, an organization or a group, such as this, peering over one's shoulder every day.
The hon. member for Ontario seemed to admit this when he said that they had held back today from asking any questions on the subject of the strike so that Judge Alan Gold could start his mediation tomorrow. At the same time the Conservatives are reiterating again and again that they will not allow Parliament to rise, that parliamentarians will be here to peer over the judge's shoulders and that they will insist upon legislation being brought in.
Let me discuss the dispute and the system we have for settling disputes between parties in the public service. The question arises whether people in the public service should have the right to strike. Often you hear the basic question as to whether people should have the right to strike at all. There is no question that people would give you many arguments on both sides of the question.
I will go into the merit of the right to strike in the public service in a moment, but first let me say that if you allow people in the public service to have the right to strike, if the law says that the Post Office employees, if they are unable to come to an agreement, after a vote, after the passage of conciliation, after a certain time period, are allowed to take strike action, then surely it is cynical to take away that right to strike the instant it is used. It is just like a bullfighter with a cape. If we are to follow a system-I believe we should and I
Summer Recess
will say why in a moment-that allows the collective will of groups of people, following statutory pre-conditions, who are unable to reach an agreement with their employer in rare cases to take strike action, then we must not be cynical. We must allow that strike when it occurs to be settled in the proper manner by the parties in negotiation and where necessary with the help of a mediator.
If the Conservative party does not believe in the right to strike, if it does not believe in the right to strike in the public service, then let it say so. Mind you, when the Conservative party was in government, it did not do anything to take that right away or change the system. Indeed, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition has said in the past, in opposition, that there should not be the right to strike. However, when his party formed the government, he said that this question must be very carefully approached and that without the closest and fullest consultation with the parties no changes should be made to the system. I guess that eight or nine months was not enough to have that amount of consultation.
Suppose that one did not have the right to strike. I have to admit that there are many people who have not been intimately involved with the problems of workers getting their rights and good working conditions. They feel that the right to strike should be done away with. They are in error when they say that.
We must remember that this has been tried in various countries. I will give the example of Australia. A number of years ago Australia passed legislation to the effect that strikes would not be allowed and that compulsory arbitration would apply to the renewal of collective agreements. Well, Australia has one of the highest records of man days lost through strike action of any country in the world.


Mr. Oberle:: Except for Italy and Canada.


Gerald Augustine Regan: All of these strikes are illegal, but they continue to exist. My friend opposite talks about Italy and Canada. Perhaps he should talk to some of his friends running the provincial governments in this country, because that is where you find the highest statistics. With regard to federal jurisdiction, we have a very low record when it comes to man days lost through strikes.
The question of outlawing strikes and ordering compulsory arbitration sounds simple. However, it has not worked where it has been tried elsewhere. Instead of having legal strikes, you have illegal ones. That is a bad system because illegal strikes can happen at any time. There is not the degree of responsibility in approaching the settlement that there is if you have a proper system of law and order.


Mr. Huntington:: It is a rubber stamp system of law and order.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Listen to him! I want to quote from Walter Stewart who wrote a public service disputes article a few years

July 16, 1981
Summer Recess
ago. He talks about those people who would pass a law to do away with the right to strike in the public service. I quote:
Jelinek's bill would allow the Public Service Staff Relations Board and the Canadian Labour Relations Board to declare any work at all to be an "essential service" and to order strikers back on the job forthwith. Great stuff, but before MPs turn aside from really pressing tasks... they should ask themselves whether legality is relevant in public service strikes. After Parliament passed the Public Service Staff Relations Act in 1967, it became possible for the first time for federal civil servants to walk off the job legally. Before that, strikes had been frequent, but had lacked the official stamp of approval. Now, for most groups of bureaucrats, they are legal. The Special Joint Committee on Employer-Employee Relations in the Public Service reported to Parliament in February 1976 that there had been sixty-one federal public service strikes since the passage of the act, eleven of which had been legal and fifty outlaw ... Without it, we would have had sixty-one illegal strikes instead of fifty.
The only thing his statistics show quite clearly is that there are situations in which the dissatisfaction of people cannot be settled by the arbitrary judgment of one person acting as an arbitrator. There are situations in which strikes will occur whether they are legally allowed or not. Strikes certainly were not and are not, unless there has been a change in the last couple of months, allowed in Poland, a communist country. However, the will and the grievance was sufficiently strong that it did not stop Solidarity from being formed and strikes from occurring. It is all very easy to talk about outlawing strikes, but it is just not that easy to do.
One can argue that we would have less disruption if there were no strikes, but I believe it is better to allow strikes to occur. At the same time, we should take every possible step through mediation, improved industrial relations and the development of good health and safety standards to minimize strike situations and to have, as we have in our system, arbitration to determine the final settlement of disputes that occur during the course of a collective agreement.
The great advantage we have in the system in the provinces of Canada and in the federal government, and in much of the United States, as contrasted to that in England and much of Europe, is that we have statutes which determine where a strike can occur. They provide that a strike can legally occur at the end of a collective agreement and when efforts to renew with the help of mediation have failed. It can only happen then. This provides a period of predictable stability during the contracts. The price we pay for that system is the occasional strike, but it is a price we pay for the best industrial relations system in the world.
A lot of people are focusing attention now on the postal strike. However, we never hear anything about the strikes that are avoided or all of the collective agreements that are renewed without work stoppages. For example, when this House was sitting last December 17 and 18, some members were frightened they would not be able to get to their homes for Christmas because of the threatened strike of the air attendants of Air Canada. The mediation services of our Department of Labour settled that dispute and prevented a strike. There is not a question asked in the House as to how it was settled or why, and there is hardly a thing about it in the newspapers once it was settled.
We do not seem to realize that we have a system which brings a very high percentage of settlements without work stoppages and a very high percentage of quick settlements of those work stoppages that do occur. Occasional strikes are the price we pay for the best industrial relations system in the world.
Both unions and management must realize, and I think it is applicable to this case, that a strike is a two-edged system. When a strike occurs, it applies pressure to try to get better terms. It brings the parties to the critical point where they are sure to give their bottom line and are more likely to reach agreement. However, a strike does not guarantee success. Some strikes are lost and some are won. Some lockouts are lost and some are won.
When the postal workers go on strike, they should not feel that after a week or ten days there will be legislation to get them or the Post Office off the hook. Nor should the government feel that if a strike occurs, they can legislate an end to it after a very few days. If workers have the legal right to strike, and if they strike despite the best efforts, the matter must be settled at the negotiating table, as Judge Alan Gold will now be striving to do following his appointment. He will try to get these two parties to settle.
Back to work legislation should occur only when very serious and widespread damage is being done to society. I will give an example in that regard. I want first to say I have been fortunate that in all the years I have been involved in government, both as a minister and as a premier, I have not been involved in any back to work legislation. I have always faced the fact that a situation may arise where that becomes necessary, but in my view it is not something we should run out and do just because a strike happens to occur. We either give workers the right to strike or we do not; and if the legislation provides, as it does, that there is a right to strike, then that is the case. They should be allowed to do so, and the settlement should be achieved at the table. I think that is in the best long run interests of both parties in future negotiations.
What is happening here? Why is it that members of the Conservative party in this instance are taking a different position from the position they have taken while in opposition in the past? Many public service strikes have dotted the years. Never before have they taken the position that Parliament cannot adjourn until legislation is passed to end strikes. But do hon. members know what is unique? At this moment the Leader of the Opposition is under fire. We have a man whose supposed supporters-and one of them is laughing now-


Mr. Malone:: At you.


Gerald Augustine Regan: -are not allowing him to leave. He is not allowed to leave. I believe he has many of the better instincts, but he is not being allowed to follow those instincts because the right wing-the red necks, as they are called-are ruling the day. He is in such jeopardy in relation to the continuation
July 16, 1981

of his leadership of his party that he has to give in to the ill-founded and ill-advised pressure of this particular group.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Gerald Augustine Regan: This year his job is in jeopardy. I happen to be one who believes his job should not be in jeopardy. I have a very high regard-


Some hon. Members:: We want Joe.


Gerald Augustine Regan: I am serious. I have a high regard for the right hon. gentleman, but there are more leaks from his caucus than there is in a sieve. Everyone around here and most of the people across the country know his job is in jeopardy. He therefore makes the human, but highly regrettable, error of being led into a position, reactionary in nature, which is harmful to the parliamentary process, destructive to the collective bargaining process and, indeed, one which inevitably will have the effect of prolonging the strike because it will prolong the expectations of the parties that a legislated settlement may let them off the hook and may put them back to work. But that is not going to happen.


Arnold John Malone: Your speech writer drinks too much.


Gerald Augustine Regan: There is no speech writer in the world who writes in a hand like this, my friend.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald Augustine Regan: The Leader of the Opposition is interfering in the process of attempting to achieve a settlement. This affects postal service for all of the people of the country and the working conditions and salary levels of a great number of workers across the country. It is not the role of Parliament to interfere with the settlement of this strike. A taxi driver drove me here this morning, and he said exactly that. He said, "Why is Mr. Clark messing around with this thing? Why does he not let the parties get on with negotiations?"


Henry Perrin Beatty: That was Peter Stollery, was it?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: What have you got against taxi drivers?


Gerald Augustine Regan: They are against taxi drivers. Or maybe they are against senators. It is one or the other.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Was he driving an Austin?


Gerald Augustine Regan: I can understand why hon. members opposite want to distract me from my main purpose, because they are hurting. However, I say seriously that the Leader of the Opposition is serving the main purpose of satisfying his backbenchers instead of following his better judgment, and he is harming Canadians as a whole.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Summer Recess


Gerald Augustine Regan: His solution of passing legislation to end the strike can thwart the achievement of a fairly bargained settlement.
What has been the story when there has been legislation passed-and it had to be done-to end strikes in the past? It has left a residue of bitterness. It has not made for better relations. Sometimes it has to occur, as I said. I was going to use the example earlier of the fact that Allan Blakeney, as Premier of Saskatchewan, was faced with a hydro workers strike in the middle of a blizzard in February, and even he had no choice but to legislate them back to work. Those situations can arise. But when those situations do arise, as unfortunate as they are, there is no question that legislation does leave that residue of bitterness. It is not the foundation for building better industrial relations between parties.
The small businessmen of this country with whom I have talked are condemning the Leader of the Opposition for the position he is taking. Let us make no mistake about that. Some hon. members opposite know that because they have been hearing it, even though the mail is not pouring in because of the strike. They have been hearing it in other ways, and they know that what small business in this country is saying is that it is extremely unfortunate and painful to them and that the strike is costing them a lot of money. But they fear that a legislated settlement will breed more strikes each time the collective agreement comes up for renewal. If one side declares a strike or the other side allows a strike to occur and if the parties find that no one will legislate them back after seven or ten days and they must work out their differences rather than face a quick, convenient legislated settlement, then strikes will not be as likely to occur next time and in succeeding years.
The small businessmen I know in this country are taking the position that this strike should be fought out by the parties. Let them reach an agreement as best they can at the table with the help of good mediators, and let us not have Parliament interfering in that process. They believe that if this process is followed rather than the legislative process, we are much more likely to have the foundation for better industrial relations in the Post Office as it becomes a Crown corporation and in the years ahead than otherwise.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald Augustine Regan: I want to summarize four or five points. First, in my view, by keeping Parliament sitting for this sole purpose, the Leader of the Opposition is showing no confidence in Judge Alan Gold. He is undermining him, and Judge Alan Gold has an enviable record as a mediator.
Second, the Leader of the Opposition is prolonging the strike by allowing the parties to believe that they may get a legislated settlement.
Third, the Leader of the Opposition is setting an undesirable precedent which could lead to more of the same in the future. If hon. members in the opposition keep Parliament sitting because there happens to be a strike in the Post Office, in the future they may find that they will have to keep Parliament

July 16, 1981
Summer Recess
sitting if there happens to be a strike in some other industry in the country.
I hear the voice of reactionary essential services legislation. I have already dealt with my view that people should have the right to strike legally, and under the controlled provisions of the statutes such as we have at the present time rather than the jungle of illegal strikes which inevitably flow from the hon. member's particular approach.


Henry Perrin Beatty: You just want to have your summer vacation.


Gerald Augustine Regan: The hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) says I only want my summer vacation. I want to assure him, as he knows from his own not so lengthy career as a minister, that the fact that Parliament rises does not do away with the work which has to continue in the department.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald Augustine Regan: The next point I want to make in summary, Mr. Speaker, is that having Parliament sitting is not helping to bring those parties to a settlement. Unfortunately the Leader of the Opposition is not interested in a negotiated settlement; he wants something which is achieved by Parliament so that he can appear to have played a political role in it.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Finally, Mr. Speaker-


Arnold John Malone: Hear, hear!


Gerald Augustine Regan: -without much hope of results but in very good faith, 1 want to implore the Leader of the Opposition to stand up to the rednecks in the backbenches. I want him to recede from the position he has taken which is interfering with the settlement of the strike, to abandon that position and recognize that the best interests of the postal workers, the Post Office and its customers, and the Canadian public in general-


An hon. Member:: And the Liberal party.


Gerald Augustine Regan: -would be served if he allows Judge Gold to mediate not in a goldfish bowl, but rather in the normal circumstances which would occur if Parliament followed the schedule it agreed to earlier last week.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I hope it will be appropriate if I try to speak in rational terms and try to keep cool. My doing so may not attract as much of an audience as the last two speakers, but we are debating a very serious matter.
In case those who might be watching us on television wonder what the motion before us is-they probably think it must in some way relate to the postal strike-I would point out that the motion in the name of the President of the Privy Council
(Mr. Pinard) calls for this House to adjourn on the day the motion is passed, whenever that might be, and to stand adjourned until Wednesday, October 14. In other words, we are debating the possibility of a summer break for the House of Commons.
The motion includes a provision that is always in such a resolution, namely that if the Speaker, after consultation with the government, feels there is an issue about which Parliament should meet, Parliament can be recalled. I have abbreviated it, but that is the whole motion we are debating this afternoon. We debated it last Friday and we will debate it until it is finally disposed of one way or the other.


An hon. Member:: Does that mean closure, Stanley?


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend asks if that means closure. I hope it is in order for me to say that I have been told there will be no closure on this motion. There cannot be a Standing Order 75c-


An hon. Member:: Standing Order 75b.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There can be no Standing Order 75b or C on a motion. Standing Orders 75a, b and c can be applied only to a bill.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I think it is understandable and quite natural that the debate has turned to the postal strike. However many speeches there may be in this debate this afternoon or tomorrow, most of them will probably deal with that situation. My colleagues and I are as concerned as every other member in this House, and most of the people in Canada, about the seriousness of the strike of CUPW. We earnestly hope this situation can soon be resolved, and the place we think it should be resolved is at the bargaining table through negotiations. We regret it has gone on as long as it has. We are aware of the inconvenience and suffering being experienced by many people, and we earnestly hope that the appointment of Judge Alan Gold and his acceptance by both sides is a good omen. He has a reputation as a very effective mediator, and I think if we give him the chance there is reason to believe the postal strike might soon be settled.
Having said that, I suppose it follows almost automatically that I believe we should give him the chance. I do not think it helps for us to stay here monitoring this situation, watching it, standing over the mediation proceedings and giving the impression that if they fail Parliament is ready to jump in with back to work legislation. I think the Minister of Labour (Mr. Regan) was quite right in the position he took. He added a few political barbs which perhaps will not shorten the debate, but he was quite right in the position he took that we should not be interfering with that bargaining process by staying here when it was our intention to leave.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I hope we can come to an agreement without too much debate to take our planned summer break, and leave it to Judge Gold, the Treasury Board and CUPW to reach a settlement as soon as possible. The motion provides that if the government decides that Parliament should
July 16, 1981

come back, it can be done very quickly. However, it is quite different to have Parliament out there having to be called back, rather than having it sitting here. I earnestly hope we can reach agreement on this very soon.
As I say, the Minister of Labour indulged in a few political barbs which were enjoyed on his side of the House and laughed at on the other side. However, it seems to me we are faced with the fact that the Leader of the Opposition and his party have themselves in a bit of a box. They made the statement, almost a threat, that the House would not leave until the mails are moving. That puts them in a spot now, even though there is some hope this might be done. Can they accept that hope and let us go, or do they have to keep us here day after day until the mails are actually moving again?
I would like to say that I would be prepared to refrain from casting any barbs at them for having changed their minds if they become responsible and agree to let this motion pass, and let Judge Gold get on with the job. I would also like to remind all members of the House-and I received the material from the Library just a few moments ago to confirm my memory- that we are dealing with a piece of legislation, namely the Public Service Staff Relations Act, under which the present strike is taking place and which was agreed to unanimously. It is not to be called Liberal legislation; it was supported by all parties in this House, and at that time there were four. As a matter of fact, there were no recorded votes in the House at any stage with respect to that legislation.
In those days we had an additional stage which we do not have now. We had a resolution preceding the introduction of the bill. It was debated in committee of the whole and supported unanimously. Then came second reading, it was debated, and supported unanimously. I have the relevant page of Hansard right here on my desk. It was then sent off to a special joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons and considered at great length. I remember the experience very well. David Lewis and I were the members of our party on that committee. One of the leading spokesmen for the Progressive Conservative Party at that time was Dick Bell, who had very strong views. However, we found the give and take and back and forth in that committee a very useful experience.
May I say we had several votes in that committee as we moved amendments, and had them accepted or rejected. However, when that committee finally reported the bill with amendments, it came back to the Committee of the Whole House, was considered again and no more amendments were made. It was then debated at third reading and passed without a recorded vote.
The Public Service Staff Relations Act, more so than many pieces of legislation, clearly represented the will of the whole of Parliament at that time. The Senate agreed to it as well, very quickly; they had no votes over there and some of their members were on the joint committee.
For people to argue now that we should deny the rights which Parliament gave so unanimously to public servants is
Summer Recess
hardly playing the game. Therefore, I hope this will not be looked on as a partisan matter. I know the arguments that come up when a strike is prolonged and so on. I support the position taken by the government that this is not the time to talk about back-to-work legislation. This is the time to leave it to them as though they have to settle it. If we stay here, that will not be the situation. Therefore, I hope we will agree to the adjournment motion.
If I thought that by staying here we could get some legislation on other matters which I regard as important, that would put me in a dilemma but I would probably come down on the side of staying. We all know that if we stay we will be debating Bill C-48. What do we have? There are more than 50 report stage amendments and third reading after that. Although the debate on third reading is not supposed to come until fall, if we debate the report stage for a number of weeks it will be fall. I do not see any point in voting to stay here for the purpose of dealing with Bill C-48. There are too many things about that bill to which we object. We think that too many of our people, especially our northerners, are being defrauded in that legislation. To stay for that bill does not make any sense at all.
If I thought I could get action on some of the points that I raised today, such as inequalities and unfairnesses in the Public Service Superannuation Act, in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, and in the Canadian Armed Forces Superannuation Act, I would be glad to stay. If I thought I could persuade the Minister of National Health and Welfare to do something for women between ages 55 and 60 and between 60 and 65, if I thought we could get something a lot better for women between 60 and 65 than the spouse's allowance, I would stay. There is no sign of that. I regret it.
I think the way the government has put the country off with respect to pensions, by having a pensions conference a while ago from which nothing seems to have flowed and by telling us again today that there is a task force, is a disgrace. The task force has been around for a long time. We are told that the economy is strong, that there are billions of dollars around, and that there is money for some things when we want it, but that pensioners just have to wait. I regret that position very much. If by staying all summer I could make a speech on some aspects of the pension subject every day, I would be glad to stay. I do not see that happening. All that will happen if we stay is that we will continue to debate Bill C-48. We will get it closer to being passed, which my party is opposed to doing. In my view, our presence here will hamper the important negotiations in which Judge Alan Gold will be engaged with CUPW and with the officers of the Treasury Board. Therefore, I hope we can cool down and not be bound by things which may have been said in the heat of the past. I hope we can realize that it makes good sense for us to support the motion.
I do not think it is unfair to say as well that members of Parliament and their families have certain rights. I am not involved in this way at my particular status, athough I have grandchildren I would like to see. But I think it is worth considering younger members with their families whose holidays have been upset. This may sound strange coming from

July 16, 1981
Summer Recess
me; I do not always plead the cause of members. A week ago tonight I made a speech the other way. The more I think of it, the more I wish I had made it a lot stronger, I wish I had been more effective, and I wish the hon. member for Davenport had had more supporters over on that side. That is gone; but all told it seems to me that reason, common sense and fair play suggest that it would be the better part of wisdom for us to get out for a while and, in particular, to let Judge Alan Gold do the job we want done for all the people of Canada.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, this particular debate follows a long parliamentary tradition. It is an adjournment debate which is strangely brought forward by the government at this point in time. I will comment on that in a few minutes.
Essentially the purpose of an adjournment debate is twofold. First, it is to provide for the recess of the House to a particular point in time.


Some hon. Members:: To adjourn!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I know hon. members on the government side are preoccupied. They sit there mute and silent and simply say, "aye, ready, aye" to whatever their leader does regardless of the stupidity of what he says.


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: What do you do to your leader?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I can understand their desire to get back to the comforts of home.
The second purpose of an adjournment debate is to allow individual members of Parliament, without constraint or without any limitation respecting the relevancy of any particular bill, to raise and articulate the grievances he or she has with respect to what is happening in Parliament, with respect to government policy, and with respect to suggestions they have which may aid the government of the day better to administer the affairs of the country. This latter responsibility on the part of parliamentarians is very important. It should be considered at this point in time. The fact of the matter is that there is no particular limitation on the extent of the debate and hon. members are given reasonable opportunity to express their points of view.
Every once in a while there are rules which reflect the fact that parliamentarians are sent here to represent their constituents and the interests of the public at large. I think there is a very interesting, ongoing phenomenon. It has been stated and generally accepted across the country that parliamentarians cannot work in a vacuum, that occasionally parliamentarians must be ready to serve in the public interest at times when the public interest determines and dictates it. I am rather proud that we in this party were prepared, unlike hon. members of the other parties in the House who wanted to get out into the country, to stay here and were successful in influencing the commencement of three significant events which took place in the postal dispute.
Up to very recently the government indicated that it was its intention to allow the postal strike to carry on all summer and
into the fall. This was the position of the President of the Treasury Board. The government knows that at least certain hon. members of the House of Commons are concerned that there be serious and positive negotiations on the postal front. We have now influenced the government to take these negotiations seriously, and we have now seen the commencement of negotiations with mediation. The government and CUPW have indicated that they are agreeable to the mediation process, and an eminent Canadian, Judge Alan Gold, in whom we have the greatest confidence, has now been designated to act as mediator with the agreement of the parties.
A novel proposition was put forward by the Minister of Labour, who is a very unusual spokesman for the government in this particular debate because he has been shut out of almost every aspect of the negotiations on the postal issue. He simply has not been included in this matter so far, or at least he was not deemed to be appropriate for involvement in this issue. He now appears as the great spokesman of the Liberal party. But the novel proposition he put forward, which gives us all food for thought, is that somehow whenever there is a collective bargaining process going on between the Treasury Board and any public service union, Parliament should adjourn. Somehow he seems to think that because Parliament is sitting that will influence the negotiations. I think this is what he is saying. It is the most preposterous proposition ever put forward. The parliamentary secretary nods his head in agreement with me.
It is incumbent upon us to examine the real reason why the government wants us to adjourn this House. First, I want to point out the fact that when the adjournment motion came forward, it was debated for a limited period of time. The government then had an opportunity to consider whether it was really serious with respect to adjourning the House or whether it wanted to play games. Unfortunately, it took the latter option. The government revealed itself immediately upon the conclusion of the first day on the adjournment debate. It did not carry on with the adjournment debate. Today the government members have been heard to say that they want to get out of here. They had the opportunity to carry on with this motion. It is the government which calls the orders of the day, not the opposition or the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. It was the government which decided to move into other government business. This was done notwithstanding the commitment which was given personally by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre. He was told that Bill C-48 would not be discussed until the fall.


David Michael Collenette: That is not true.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The parliamentary secretary knows it is true yet he continues to protest. The fact of the matter is, when it comes down to the question of who I believe as between the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, I will take the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre every time.
July 16, 1981


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The government has now been heard to say, "Let us get on with the adjournment". It had the option of carrying on if it had been really serious about this matter at the beginning of the week. The government decided to play games and it brought in Bill C-48. All this did was underline the fact that there are a number of serious issues which should be debated by the House of Commons.


David Michael Collenette: Name them.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre indicated that he, too, thought there were many pressing issues which should be brought forward. I agree with him on that point; there are a number of pressing issues which face our country. It does not hurt us to sit back and have the government inconvenienced once in a while, while pressure is brought to bear on it which will, in effect, bring forward legislation which will be beneficial to Canada, rather than the legislation and discussion which has been brought forward to date which will be detrimental to the people of Canada.
There is a matter which has been before the House of Commons on different occasions for which our party was severely criticized some time ago by the government led by the Prime Minister. This issue is one of the most serious matters, as far as I am concerned, which has taken place since the present Prime Minister has held office. It is an issue on which, on every front, the government has attempted to avoid its responsibilities. It is an issue which appeared again today on the floor of the House of Commons, one on which the government continues to stonewall. I refer, of course, to the very questionable and serious lack of action on the part of the government with respect to the uranium cartel.
I have never seen the government, and the Prime Minister in particular, look so bad in terms of their performance on the floor of this House at any time in my experience as a parliamentarian. The matter is a scandal, one which the government is feeling very sensitive about. It is the only time I have ever seen the Prime Minister go to such extraordinary lengths to conceal information from members of the opposition and the Canadian public.
I can well understand why the government wants to adjourn the House as quickly concealment which has taken place with respect to the political responsibility it should bear on the issue of the uranium cartel.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I can understand why members opposite are shouting and attempting to interrupt what 1 am saying. This is a very serious problem, one which I take most seriously. The fact of the matter is members opposite are extremely embarrassed about this issue. It is one which they wish would go away. We remember what the Prime Minister said when we tried to question him in the House with respect to the uranium
Summer Recess
cartel. He told us to shut up. That was his response. Now he is trying to get rid of Parliament so that he will not have to answer any more questions from the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The uranium issue has been a particular thorn in the side of the government as the result of a very serious situation which was announced by the Minister of Justice in anticipation of the adjournment of the House. Only two days before the House was destined to adjourn the Attorney General was obliged to indicate that on his recommendation charges had been laid. It was a very convenient time for those charges to be laid. Parliament would be away for the summer recess and there would not be the questioning from the floor of the House, before television cameras and before the nation, with respect to the government's involvement in this matter. Legitimate questions with respect to the political responsibility of this government would thus be avoided.
The way in which this particular announcement was made was a very convenient-


David Michael Collenette: Look at the press gallery.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: To my knowledge the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council has only made one or two speeches off the seat of his pants. Unfortunately, the only time he really speaks is when he is sitting down.
Canadians are growing more interested in this cartel issue now.


David Michael Collenette: Even the CP stringer is not there.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the only thing the parliamentary secretary wants to do is interfere with the right of a parliamentarian to speak. If that is his view about the way in which Parliament should be run, I am afraid it is a very sorry commitment-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Saskatoon West has the floor.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; I appreciate your assistance in this regard. As Your Honour well knows, I always listen attentively whenever government members make their contributions. I would expect a reasonable courtesy on their part.
I wish to review briefly the history of this cartel. In the years prior to 1970 there was a slump in the industry. The reactors were going up but the short-term demand was flat. The Americans restricted access to the U.S. market. Maybe I can best describe the circumstances with regard to what was happening by referring to an article by Mark Gayn of the Montreal Gazette, who wrote:
The secret planning began in 1971. Joe Greene was the minister of energy, and the deputy minister was Jacob "Jack" Austin, later a principal aide to the Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau and now a Senator.

July 16, 1981
Summer Recess
From Ottawa's point of view, there were two reasons for going ahead with the scheme:
First, there was a slump in the uranium mining industry.
Second, the United States, also going through a period of glut, declared an embargo on imports of uranium. There was fear that the Americans might begin dumping their stocks in the world market, and thus undercut the already threatened Canadian uranium industry ...
In the even these fears were vastly exaggerated. In Ottawa, specialists kept advising the government that the slump was temporary and that as new reactors went on stream the demand for uranium would soar.
One of these experts was William Gilchrist, who between 1958 and 1975 was president of Eldorado Nuclear ...
This is a Crown corporation. He was answerable to the former minister of energy, mines and resources, Mr. Greene.
In a deposition made in Toronto for the U.S. District Court of Virginia on September 16, 1976, Gilchrist testified under oath that from the early sixties on he had expected the prices to begin rising around 1973, at the lively clip of about 17 to 22 per cent a year. He said in his deposition that the government agreed with his view.
He said that the government agreed with his view.
Nor was the fear of uranium dumping by the Americans any more valid. The Americans did not dump; they took advantage of the cartel to raise their own prices; and U.S. utilities even made some purchases from Canada, anticipating a lifting of the embargo. It was eventually raised.
The article goes on:
Austin's handprints, all marked 'Secret' or 'Confidential,' seem to be spread over the early history of the cartel. He cajoled or browbeat Canadian producers into joining the combine, he negotiated with foreign producers and governments, and he presided over some of the cartel's secret meetings.
After Austin left, he was replaced as the Canadian overseer of the cartel operations by Gordon MacNabb, assisted by O. J. C. Runnals, a senior uranium expert who acted as a transmission channel to and from the cartel secretariat in Paris.
The article goes on to point out that:
Living in fear of U.S. anti-combine laws, Gulf was most eager to join the cartel, but it wanted to be seen as having been dragged into it, kicking and screaming. One of its officers even told the congressional sub-committee in Washington that Ottawa's pressure on Gulf Minerals was such that a 'push was turning into a shove'.
It goes on to point out that in april of 1972 the principal actors were France, Britain, South Africa and Australia.
In April, 1972, all these people met at the French Commissariat a 1'energie atomique at 31 rue de la Federation in Paris. They set up a secretariat concealed behind the innocent name of Uranium Market Research Organization ...
The Club was to gig the price of uranium and to decide on the quota assigned to each producer country ...
The cartel also agreed on how it was going to make phony bids.
That is the essence of the cartel arrangement which was entered into by officials representing the Government of Canada, along with representatives from other uranium companies around the world and other government agencies.
Canada did take a lead role in forming this international cartel. In the aftermath of the cartel, according to the information that we now have with respect to Canadian interests, it is alleged to have affected prices to domestic consumers in Canada between 1970 and 1978. I think those dates are very significant and important with respect to the history of this matter.
We all remember the history in terms of what the reaction of the government has been and the attitude which it has taken with respect to this arrangement over the years. In the first place, I should point out that this arrangement in the cartel was born and created in the utmost secrecy. There was an element of secrecy and confidentiality which pervaded the whole setting up of this cartel. There was no public announcement about the arrangement of an international marketing agreement, as one might have expected, which would have been similar to what has happened in terms of the international wheat agreement, where the discussions are confidential, but in each and every instance there is publicity with respect to the meetings, and a release made on every occasion as to the conclusions arrived at by the participants of those marketing arrangements.
Second, what happened was that a gigantic lawsuit, the Westinghouse action, was commenced in the United States. This anti-trust matter was initiated with respect to the cartel operations and the effect that the cartel had on prices paid by American consumers. There were substantial amounts claimed in these actions under the American anti-trust laws. There was very substantial apprehension, of course, with respect to the consequences on the Canadian uranium industry as a result of this particular anti-trust action.
I think it is important to remember the dates. The response of the government was to pass what I would term unprecedented orders in council; unprecedented in the sense that these orders in council, passed under the provisions of the Atomic Energy Control Act, in secret, without parliamentary examination, did a couple of things. One, it was made an offence for people in Canada to deliver documents, inside or outside of Canada, related to the activities of the uranium cartel and uranium exports.
The second thing the government did was to make what I call a gag order. It is extremely important to understand the gravity of this whole matter. This regulation by government, unilaterally imposed, made it an offence for Canadians to even discuss the operation of the uranium industry with respect to their marketing activities. I am talking about Canada, not some dictatorship, not some country in which there is not a democratic process. This was the Liberal government, in Canada, passing that kind of law which, in effect, made it an offence for Canadians to even talk about what was happening in terms of the marketing of uranium. I simply ask Your Honour and the Liberal members who are listening to consider the importance of what I am saying.


André Ouellet: It was done to protect workers in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: For the first time since I have been in the House, the spokesman for the consumers of Canada has at least said something on behalf of the consumers. I have never seen him act on behalf of consumers in this country.
There are other things that happened. At the time that regulation was discovered by members of our party, our party
July 16, 1981

commenced an action attacking the validity of those regulations as being offensive, oppressive and contrary to the principle of natural justice we have come to expect in Canada. I think it is interesting to remember exactly what happened after that action took place, because today, to hear the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Oueliet) stand in his place and suggest that this government, vigilant as ever, moved as quickly as possible with respect to its responsibilities regarding price-fixing in Canada, seems to imply that the government did it on its own volition. As demonstrated by the facts, the only reason there was any action on the part of the government was because of the legal action commenced by members of our party to force the government-


André Ouellet: A farce.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: -to open up its files with respect to its implication in this cartel. That is the only reason.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The government was not going to gag the opposition as it wants to gag the opposition now by getting rid of Parliament. We demonstrated that we were prepared to stand on hard issues in the interests of the consumer of our country-


André Ouellet: What a joke, a big joke.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: -at a time when the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs remained mute and did nothing on behalf of consumers.


André Ouellet: That is what you did when you were minister. You did nothing.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: As a member of the cabinet, he clearly took no action. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) admitted on the floor of this House that in 1975 the impact of the cartel on domestic prices became known to the government, that was on admission of culpability, in my view. The Prime Minister has admitted that in 1975 the government learned of the impact on domestic prices. He admitted, as well, and it is shown by the record, that the only time the government started to act was after pressure by us in 1977, when it initiated an investigation.


An hon. Member:: How can you lie like that and not blush?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I can always tell that I am getting through to members of the government side when they resort to unparliamentary language. I think so little of that intervention that I am not even going to pay attention to it, because the fact of the matter is that it is patently absurd, as the hon. member knows.


Mr. Kempling:: That is the only time he speaks.
Summer Recess


An hon. Member:: I am not going to say any more.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: In 1977, the director of combines commenced his investigation, and this took some four years to complete. A report has been given. The Attorney General and Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) considered the report and the recommendations. We now find that six companies, including two Crown corporations, have been charged. The charge is not that they engaged in a cartel for purposes of controlling the price in an export market. These charges are that they conspired, each with the other, for fix prices domestically. In addition, there were the phony bids to which I referred earlier, the gigging up of prices to which I referred earlier, all of which affected the Canadian consumer. Those are the facts. One thing the government cannot avoid is that charges have been laid.
We have a number of concerns with respect to this cartel. Our concern is, of course, with respect to the effect on the Canadian consumer. We are not worried about the attempt the government might make to aid an ailing industry. We are not concerned about protecting Canadian industry against foreign tribunals. We are prepared to take our position on that matter. We are concerned about the government's decision to use a secret bid-rigging cartel making no provision to protect the consumer. The Minister of State for Mines (Mrs. Erola) should pay attention to this because she has some particular responsibility. We are concerned about a situation when in secret, against the law of our country, we have a situation where Crown corporations are now charged with breaking the law of Canada by involving themselves in price-fixing operations affecting the cost of electricity to Ontario consumers, a province from which the Minister of State for Mines comes. She should be particularly concerned about the cost of her electricity bill.
We are also concerned about the actions by the government and its senior officials as well as the political responsibility that must follow those actions. We are concerned because there appears to be now, on the part of the government, a cover-up and some stonewalling. Most important in parliamentary terms, because this is the forum in which we operate, there is a refusal to acknowledge ministerial responsibility.
What is the situation that we have today? Two Crown corporations are charged. One of those Crown corporations, as I have pointed out on different occasions, is Uranium Canada Limited. This company is just a shell. It has no staff. All but one of the directors and officers currently are senior officials from either the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Department of Finance or the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
If hon. members read the 1980 Annual Report of Uranium Canada Limited, they will find that the present incumbents to positions in that corporation include Mr. Gordon M. Mac-Nabb, president, who is also the president of natural sciences and engineering research council and a former deputy minister for the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. Then we

July 16, 1981
Summer Recess
find the senior assistant deputy minister of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, the senior assistant deputy minister for the Department of Finance; assistant deputy minister, Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce; senior adviser, legal, Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, adviser, uranium and nuclear energy, Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and a professor of energy studies, University of Toronto. These are senior officials, not only from the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, but other departments which are fully involved in the operations of that particular Crown corporation.
Because this company is a shell, there is no staff. The operations of the company are being carried on by officials and members of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. They are fully aware of what is happening with respect to this company's operations.
Under the terms of its incorporation, what this company does is subject to order in council. I simply point out to members of the House when the government attempts to suggest there is no government involvement that every time a Crown corporation, such as Uranium Canada Limited, takes any step, the government has to pass an order in council on the recommendation of the minister. There is a responsibility here directly to the cabinet which has the authority under our parliamentary system to pass orders in council.
Eldorado Nuclear Limited is another Crown corporation which reports to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. He takes responsibility for answering for that corporation. He follows it. I know from my own experience that I was briefed on what each company was doing, and I am sure that practice was the same during the period 1970 to 1978.
There are two unindicted co-conspirators who are named in the charge as well. These are Mr. Gordon MacNabb, whom I have already mentioned, and Mr. O.J.C. Runnalls, who was a uranium adviser. My colleagues and I want to speak about that later on.
The government's response thus far has been the most curious evasive action I have seen on the part of the government during the time I have been here. It gets curiouser and curiouser, as Alice said. There has been a refusal to acknowledge whether the unindicted co-conspirators, Messrs. Runnalls and MacNabb, have operated with government authority. This was the simple question I asked the minister of which I gave him notice. He has been put on notice with respect to all of these questions. But the Minister of Justice refuses to tell us whether or not these two gentlemen were operating within the authority of the government or whether they were operating outside that authority. That is not a difficult question to answer.
When I questioned him about whether the government will provide legal advice to these two public servants who have been operating in a senior capacity in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and who are enjoined and named as unindicted co-conspirators in this particular operation, I was refused answers. The government has refused to release any information as to the basis on which it laid charges
and how it was decided who should be charged and whether or not any individual persons should be charged. In this instance, I think of the harbour dredging case where officers of the company were charged.


An hon. Member:: They are in jail.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Why were no individuals charged in this case? What does the government have to conceal? Why can we not get some information from the government as to the basis on which charges were laid? The government has refused to explain why it did not take steps to protect the consumers of Canada. The government is waffling and back-tracking on questions about when it knew this price fixing impacted domestically. All it has told us is that in 1975 the government became aware of it. There is a refusal to explain what happened and what action the government took or did not take. What about the question of when the notice of the impact on domestic prices took place? There is a refusal to repeal the gag regulations. They are still in effect.
It cannot be argued that somehow gag regulations are required because for all intents and purposes the legal proceedings outside of Canada are finished. The only protection that can be afforded by this order in council is with respect to keeping documents away from any domestic prosecutions or lawsuits that might be commenced in Canada. That seems to me to be the only reason the government wants to keep these gag regulations in force. Why does the government not repeal the order in council at this time?
I want to come now to the fundamental question of what this issue is all about. On a number of occasions I have raised questions on the basis that we are witnessing an attempt on the part of the government to avoid what I call parliamentary and ministerial responsibility. Just for the edification of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in particular, I refer to MacGregor Dawson's book "The Government of Canada", fifth edition, revised by Norman Ward. We read there:
The minister at the head of every department is responsible for everything that is done within that department; and inasmuch as he will expect praise or assume blame for all the acts of his subordinates, he must have the final word in any important decision that is taken. Only if the minister can clearly demonstrate his initial ignorance of the offending act and convince the House of the prompt and thorough manner in which he has attempted to remedy the abuse can he hope to be absolved from at least opposition censure. R. L. Borden, when leader of the opposition, aptly described the ideal situation as follows:
A Minister of the Crown is responsible, under the system in Great Britain, for the minutest details of the administration in his department; he is politically responsible, but he does not know anything at all about them. When anything goes wrong in his department, he is responsible therefor to Parliament; and if he comes to Parliament and points out that he entrusted the duty to an official in the ordinary course and in good faith, that he had been selected for his capacity, and ability and integrity, and the moment that man has gone wrong the Minister had investigated the matter to the full and punished that man either by degradation or dismissal, he has done his duty to the public. That is the way matters are dealt with in Great Britain, and it is in that way, it seems to me, that our affairs ought to be carried on in this country.
There is a very appropriate lesson for all of us with respect to ministerial responsibility which I want to relate to what
July 16, 1981

happened in this case. The government has consistently refused to acknowledge any implication or involvement.


Mr. Althouse:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the hon. member would entertain a question at this time, or does he prefer to wait until he has completed his remarks?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I would be glad to entertain a question at the end of my remarks, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Rossi:: He was never any good at answering questions, even when he was a minister.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: At least some of us attained the position of minister, but some never will.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I am perfectly willing to accommodate the hon. member whose right it is to determine whether or not he wishes to entertain a question. Will he advise the Chair whether he wishes to or not?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Go ahead.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: I wonder if the hon. member would enlighten the House as to whether he considers himself, having been a minister, as being equally culpable in this matter since he has just outlined the responsibilities of ministers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I can tell the hon. member one thing. As far as we are concerned, without the help of the NDP and the Liberal coalition, which the hon. member is aware of, familiar with and supportive of on a number of issues, including the Constitution, if we had been in power this matter would have been resolved to the satisfaction of the public. There would have been no concealment by our party. We take our responsibilities seriously. What is happening here is an attempt to cover up and deny responsibility on the part of this government.


Mr. Masters:: Answer the question.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I have answered the question. There would be no cover up as far as we are concerned. The member knew nothing of cover ups until he supported this government for a while.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, could we have a little order in the House? The fact is that the member never speaks, he never does anything except vote in favour of the government.
There are a number of indications that the government was fully aware of the operations of this cartel and the impact that occurred. There is in the public record a Gulf memo of March 8, 1974, which indicates that energy, mines and resources officials recognized that Canadian utilities must be prepared to pay the export prices. That is the fixed gate price.
Summer Recess
Second, as I have indicated, the companies initially were very concerned about the effects of the combines law. They were given assurances by this government that no action would be taken with respect to this question of combines law as long as it was in power.
The third indication was that the cabinet apparently discussed the possible domestic consequences with the cartel. The simple fact is that Messrs. MacNabb and Runnalls are now named as co-conspirators. The Minister of Justice can say that they do not stand accused of anything, but as far as this is concerned, they are accused of being co-conspirators.
I can understand why the government wants to adjourn. It is embarrassed. It is therefore attempting to get Parliament out of Ottawa. It wants to shut down for an extended period of time. During the time the Prime Minister is entertaining the other leaders of the western industrialized world, he does not want questions on the floor of the House about the participation of this government with respect to a cartel and the responsibility it bears in that connection. I can therefore understand why the government wants Parliament out of Ottawa.
We take our responsibilities seriously in terms of the role of the opposition. Our responsibility is to ensure that it cannot be perceived in this country that anyone, including the person who holds the highest political office in this country, is above the law.
Second, we have a legitimate interest in terms of finding out exactly what the political responsibility is with respect to this matter. We should learn from what has happened in the past and indicate that that action is not acceptable as far as political activity in this country is concerned.
I have outlined some of the incidents and the background. This is a vital issue because it goes right to the heart and credibility of this government. I say in all sincerity and with a sense of sadness that there is a heavy smell of scandal regarding this matter. The people of Canada are entitled to the information with respect to the political activities of this government and what action it took as soon as this matter was brought to its attention.
An adjournment will clearly take the pressure off this government. It will not be subject to questions on the floor of the House of Commons and it will not have to discuss ministerial responsibility. This issue is making the government very nervous. As I have indicated-


Mrs. Erola:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the hon. member if he has any knowledge of how many jobs were saved by the actions of this government.


Henry Perrin Beatty: The whole cabinet.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I was going to indicate to the hon. member that his time had expired. I can only permit him to entertain a question with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?

July 16, 1981
Ajournment Debate


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, as far as the speech of the previous speaker is concerned, I would like to point out that since the question period early this afternoon, he has been making vague accusations, using words such as cover-up and stonewalling, saying that there is a bad smell of scandal and trying to implicate an honourable and respectable senator. I feel that he is taking undue advantage of his parliamentary immunity to question the integrity of someone who is not here, who cannot defend himself in the House and who cannot rise on a question of privilege. Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) or any one of his colleagues are not drips and are really serious about their accusations, they should not only rise in this House, where they know that they are very well protected, in an attempt to injure the reputation of the government and of individuals, but also make the same accusations in a direct and straightforward manner outside the House before the press. I believe that members opposite are trying to create bogus scandals and that is why they would like the House to continue to sit, because they will not have the guts to repeat their charges and innuendos outside the House.
Mr. Speaker, the discussions and speeches that we have heard from members opposite lead me to believe that they do not have much to do except try to tarnish reputations without good reason. I believe that the House should adjourn as soon as possible because we have the impression that they are being over-critical to no avail since they use the House of Commons to protect themselves. As for the uranium case, I believe that if Senator Austin or anyone else had been directly involved, he would not have been spared by the investigators.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member for Shefford, but it is now five o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Chateauguay (Mr. Watson)-External Affairs-Southeast Asia-Abuses of human rights; the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields)-Energy-Future of Alsands project at Fort McMurray, Alta, (a)
Possible commercial arrangement with oil companies; the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight)- Canadian Wheat Board-Query respecting initial wheat prices for new crop year.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely notices of motions (papers), private bills, public bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
[Stage Direction]
Orders Nos. 22, 5, 4, 35, 43 and 1 allowed to stand by unanimous consent.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, April 2, 1981, consideration of the motion of Mr. Herbert:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of ail correspondence, minutes of meetings, studies and other communications of the Department of Justice relating to the comparison of the application by the various provincial courts of federal laws.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I must draw to the attention of hon. members the fact that the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) is not present in the House and that the motion cannot be withdrawn in his absence except by adjourning debate on the particular motion by unanimous consent. I am not sure whether other hon. members want to pursue the debate or not.


Ursula Appolloni: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: 1 will recognize the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence (Mrs. Appolloni).


Ursula Appolloni: Mr. Speaker, the motion gives us an opportunity to discuss the general subject of disparity in sentencing by judges in our criminal courts. Members of the public and others who were not able to gather full information on criminal cases have to rely on reports in newspapers and the other media for information on sentences. Such reports inevitably are condensed and cannot cover all the facts of a case. They cannot describe all the circumstances of a crime, and they cannot portray the background and criminal record of an offender. The information which is available to the public at large is necessarily incomplete, so when apparently similar offenders are reported to have received widely different sentences for apparently similar crimes, these may not be examples of disparity at all, for the offenders may not in fact be
July 16, 1981

similar at all. Neither may the crimes be similar at all in their circumstances, the value of property stolen or the degree of injury caused to a victim. It is not possible to judge whether disparity in sentencing really exists or the extent to which it may exist across Canada from the incomplete information presented in media reports.
Differences in sentencing from time to time and from place to place at the same time are entirely to be expected. Indeed, such differences are normal reflections of the differences in sentencing requirements from one court to another and from one time to another. One can imagine in a small community a wave of vandalism occurring caused by a few offenders. In that community and at that time the judge may decide, and properly so, that deterrent sentences of punishment are needed to discourage others from committing vandalism. In another town or at another time vandalism may not be a problem, and a judge sentencing an offender may feel that considerations other than general deterrence can form the basis for an appropriate sentence in that case and may see a fine, probation or community service as the best of the alternatives. So as crime conditions in a community change, so the sentences for similar crimes may have to change, depending on the view the judge takes of the seriousness of the crime situation and the chances of deterrent sentences influencing or discouraging other people from committing crimes.
I am sure we all recognize that sentences imposed in one place are quite likely to be different from those imposed in another, even for similar crimes. Sentences are neither expected nor supposed to be exactly the same across Canada. Rather, appeals against sentences in criminal cases are decided in the provinces where judges in appeal courts are more familiar with the local conditions and can reflect the feelings of the public and concerns about the crime situation in their sentences.
It is interesting to reflect on the fact that despite the expectation of variation from province to province in particular cases, a study of the leading cases in sentence appeals across Canada shows a remarkable consistency. I refer to the consistency in principles which have been enunciated by the learned judges in appeal courts in dealing with sentence appeals. In every province, these leading cases have declared the principles on which an appropriate sentence is to be determined, and these principles are the same in Newfoundland as in Ontario and the same in Quebec as in British Columbia. It is indeed a remarkable fact that while sentences for the same crime, or apparently the same crime, may vary from province to province, the principles on which those sentences are imposed are the same.
Among the principles which are applied in every criminal court in Canada when offenders are being sentenced are the following four main ones: first, the legal gravity of the offence proved against, or admitted by, the offender. This, of course, determines the upper limit of the sentence in accordance with the penalties laid down in the Criminal Code of Canada. Second, the circumstances of that particular offence-the degree of injury caused to the victim or the value of goods dishonestly obtained or damaged. Third, the circumstances of
Application of Federal Laws
the offender-his background, including any previous criminal behaviour, his lifestyle and his prospects for the future. Fourth, the public requirements in such a case-does the public require protection from the offender by prison sentence, or can public outrage be satisfied by a sentence served in the community?
Naturally, when these main principles are taken in combination, several sentences may seem to be appropriate. And other principles-such as the prevalence of that type of crime in the community-are also considered.
The variations in sentences spring from the different perceptions of the local community expectation and needs for sentences. In one place deterrent sentences may be needed while, in another, given different conditions of crime and public feeling about crime, rehabilitative or community-based sentences may suffice. We can see that what is sometimes called disparity is really no more than the expected variation in sentences reflecting local conditions and the needs of the local community.
Another reason for the so-called disparity in sentences may arise in other types of cases. Let us consider a hypothetical example of a young, unemployed, married man who commits a breaking and entering. He is caught in the act. He pleads guilty and is found to have three previous convictions for theft. Such a man is a marginal case for sentencing. One judge reviewing the facts may decide that on balance the offender could still benefit from, say, the supervision of a probation officer and, by careful control, could be encouraged to lead a good and useful life. Another judge reviewing an exactly similar case may take a slightly different view. He may think that the offender is marginally too involved in crime to risk probation, that, rather, a short prison term may be expected to pull him up short and that this, on balance, is marginally more likely to help him lead a good and useful life in the future.
Each judge wants the same result; the balance between the choices of a long probation or a short jail term is marginal. One judge choose one way; one the other. Each may be right in the outcome: the offender does not commit crime again. One cannot term such variations in sentences "unwarrantable disparity". Rather, such variations are the normal differences in opinion, in perception and in decisions which reflect the careful consideration of a problem and the search for a solution. Here indeed we can truly say that wise men may differ in the solutions they find.
Let me take this example a little further. Suppose the judge who decides to sentence this hypothetical offender to a short prison term takes another factor into account. In his area he knows that the probation service is overworked, and in this particular case he believes that to succeed on probation the offender would need careful and intensive supervision, which just cannot be provided. In such a situation, we would not be surprised at all to read that a prison term was imposed, because the judge must take into account the necessary protection of the public. Nor would we be surprised about a long sentence of probation supervision being imposed by the other judge in an area where the correctional facilities are over-

July 16, 1981
Application of Federal Laws
crowded, no adequate training programs are in place in the prisons, and where probation supervision being imposed by the other judge in an area where the correctional facilities are overcrowded, no adequate training programs are in place in the prisons, and where probation supervision is sufficient to assure the safety of the public.
It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that much of what is referred to as disparity may arise from an awareness on the part of judges of the conditions in the local area of prison overcrowding, or of overworked probation officers. Further disparity may arise where a program is not available at all to the judge. For example, there are many areas in Canada where there are no programs of community service or of supervised restitution to the victim.
Another illustration may be found in fine option programs. These programs permit an offender who cannot pay a fine to work instead of going to prison. Judges who have fine option programs in their area can, with more confidence, sentence an offender to be fined, knowing that if he eventually cannot pay, he can still serve the community, working off his sentence in the community. Judges who do not have access to this program may decide it is in the offender's interest to send him straight to prison for a period commensurate with the fine which might have been imposed, rather than delay the inevitable. In such a case, the offender may benefit by having the matter concluded as quickly as possible.
The variation in the availability of these different sentencing options, and others, such as intermittent or weekend prison sentencing, or psychiatric or psychological services to probationers or prisoners, leads inevitably to variations in sentencing practice from one area to another. These variations can be reduced only by the provision of the support programs on which they are based. This may itself be impractical, by reasons of geography, population, local working conditions and so forth. Nonetheless, we can welcome the extension of the programs to different areas, as their value is demonstrated and as facilities become available, as one further way to reduce certain disparities in sentencing.
Thus far, Mr. Speaker, I have referred to variations in sentencing which, when all the facts become known, are explainable in rational, principled terms. There are, however, some residual cases where the sentences imposed are, apparently, widely different, and where the sentences are so extreme that they are not, apparently, explicable in terms of the normal variation. If the sentence seems too severe, of course, the offender can, and with the advice of his legal adviser would, appeal against the sentence. On the other hand, if the sentence is so light or inadequate as to be wholly out of proportion to the seriousness of the crime, the Crown may feel obliged to appeal. There seems little doubt that the appeal courts can, in such cases, do much to smooth out unwarrantable disparity. And, to judge by reported cases, appeal courts do, indeed, vary sentences when it is clear that the judge at first instance has gone wrong in the principle of the sentence imposed. The
capacity of appeal courts in the provinces to remedy errors of principle is a most important guarantee in our system of criminal justice, one of which we can be justly proud.
Some people may still object that, despite the efforts of the courts of appeal, there are still a proportion of sentences imposed or confirmed on appeal which may show evidence of unwarrantable disparity. If such cases exist, I am convinced that they form only a very tiny proportion of cases in which sentences are imposed. So far as we can tell, there is only a very small proportion of appeals against sentence; naturally, from this one can infer that the group of cases which might be classed after an appeal as still unwarrantably disparate is indeed very small.
We may be assured, Mr. Speaker, that the judges themselves are very conscious of their responsibilities in sentencing. To ensure so far as possible that appeals are not required, because the sentences at first instance are warranted, understandable, and in accordance with clear and definite principles, judges across Canada are holding seminars in which they discuss sentencing problems. In this way, the judges can reflect on the problems and have the benefit of the advice of all other judges in the province on the most appropriate sentence to be imposed in particular types of cases. To assist judges further, I understand a sentencing handbook is in preparation, and this will be available to assist all judges by providing an account of the services available in their areas, and the programs and training facilities to which offenders may be referred.
On the basis of the information we have at present, Mr. Speaker, it seems that we in Canada are very far from the problems which are reported to be found in some jurisdictions in the United States. Sentences there are, of course, not usually subject to appeal. Often the sentences are indeterminate in length, between wide lower and upper boundaries set by the judge. Naturally, with so much latitude left to the judge, unwarrantable disparities have been described. Some jurisdictions have attempted to deal with the problem by mandatory or fixed term sentences. If an offender is convicted of a crime, say robbery, he serves the statutory sentence-perhaps, ten years. This system takes no account of the circumstances of the robbery; it might range from a well thought out, planned raid on a bank, with many thousands stolen, to a spur of the moment wallet snatch in the street where the victim is pushed over and only a few dollars stolen. For each of these crimes of robbery, the same sentence would be imposed under a mandatory sentence scheme.
This seems to be far worse than a sentencing process where all factors in the crime can be considered. Other jurisdictions in the United States have legislated guidelines where the discretion of the judge is narrowed. Sentences may vary only by a few months, no more than a year or so. These schemes, too, have run into problems and have, in some areas, had to be abandoned, often because of overcrowding in the prisons. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the Canadian position is a good balance at present.
It is extremely unfortunate that we do not have at the moment enough information to satisfy ourselves that all is
July 16, 1981

well, and that all cases of unwarrantable disparity are, in fact, caught at the appeal stage and rectified. Nonetheless, the strong impression is gained from what information we do have that in general terms sentencing in Canada is a just, equitable, and fair process for the offender; and that the needs of the community are being well balanced against those of offenders. The judges are regularly considering among themselves the principles of sentencing and the factors they take into account in each case. The police report of the crime; the evidence brought out in court; the defence plea in mitigation of sentence; the pre-sentence report on the background and circumstances of the offender; the judge's perceptions of community requirements and local conditions: all these combine to give an appropriate balance in the final process of sentencing. The judges have, and rightly so, a wide discretion in sentencing. They are given a great deal of information on which to exercise that discretion and, if they err in principle, senior judges wait in the appeal court to correct any errors.
I feel, Mr. Speaker, that the Canadian criminal justice system is far from being unjust, unfair or capricious, but is rather a fine example of the common law tradition of equality before the law, of fairness, and of the appropriate balancing of competing interests by the principled exercise of judicial discretion. Indeed, we have much for which to be grateful to our criminal court judges.


Mr. Bruce Lonsdale (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue the discussion along the lines of some of the comments the hon. member for York South-Weston (Mrs. Appolloni) was making. Elowever, first of all, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) for bringing to the attention of the House the question of the need for consistency and equality before the law for all Canadians.
The particular aspect of this subject on which I would like to concentrate this afternoon is the extent to which we are equipped to reach any conclusions on this important question. Earlier speeches have pointed to the important distinction which must be drawn between justified discretion in order to reflect local and regional differences, an unjustified disparity which leads to injustice and unfairness. Some statistics, mostly gathered by the national task force on the administration of justice, or by Statistics Canada, have been cited in this regard.
The point I should like to make this afternoon is one that has been made repeatedly over many years. The present state of criminal justice information and statistics in Canada makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to reach any valid or reliable conclusions on this question.
As long ago as 1938 the Archambault commission recommended:
A complete revision of the method of preparing statistical information.
It went on to recommend:
Provisions should be made for uniformity of statistical information in regard to all phases of the administration of the criminal law-
Application of Federal Laws
Some 31 years later, the report of the Canadian Committee on Corrections commented:
In Canada as elsewhere the official statistics on crime are an uncertain measure of the actual number of crimes or the characteristics of offenders.
The commission went on to note:
Unreliable reporting is not confined to victims but may be found at each official level. Individual police officers and police districts may report inaccurately or incompletely to their headquarters, which may in turn distort the figures through their own reporting practices. Similarly, court officials responsible for recording data and sending in reports may make incomplete or inexact returns to the central body compiling the statistics. The reader of the final published statistics usually has no empirical basis for assessing reliability. He cannot tell, for instance, whether a reported increment results from more actual crime, more efficient law enforcement, more zealous reporting, better record keeping, or some combination of these.
In its 1976 Report on Dispositions and Sentences in the Criminal Process, the Law Reform Commission of Canada summed up the problems resulting from the continuing lack of national statistics with respect to criminal justice in the following words:
The state of statistics and information on the nature of crime and the administration of justice in Canada is simply deplorable. There is a clear agreement on this situation even by those charged with the collection and dissemination of data. Dispositions and sentences are especially vulnerable, since these now depend largely on beliefs on what are effective measures against criminal acts. The public, legislators, administrators, and judges are largely at the mercy of hunches in assessing the total picture of crime, and are forced to rely on their personal work experience. There are a great number of myths and misunderstandings in areas such as bail, leniency and sentencing and release on parole. Even where data are available they are not published in a form or with sufficient speed to check assumptions, mitigate exaggerations, or even more important, indicate pressure points and identify reasons for crises.
The continuing concern about this state of affairs on the part of both provincial and federal ministers responsible for criminal justice has resulted in a number of efforts to remedy the situation. Most recently, federal and provincial governments established the National Project on Resource Co-ordination for Justice Statistics and Information. This group reported in May 1980 the following:
In Canada, nationwide information about crime is so fragmented, unreliable, untimely and varied that it is impossible to state, with any reasonable degree of confidence, conclusions about the state of crime or the justice system of the nation.
The report went on to outline a number of efforts which have been made in the past decade with respect to the broad problem of inadequate justice information and statistics, a problem which in large part derives from the split jurisdictions and fragmented nature of the criminal justice system in Canada. This was ably described by the hon. member who just spoke about the varying degrees of sentences, varying cases, and the mitigating circumstances surrounding decisions of judges in the terms of penalties they impose.
The national project on resource co-ordination went on to suggest the establishment of a Statistics Canada satellite in order to meet the needs for information which had been identified. The report recommended that all justice ministers and their deputies in each jurisdiction in Canada make a commitment and an appropriate allocation of resources to support and encourage the development of national justice statistics which are comprehensive, accurate and timely; the

July 16, 1981
Application of Federal Laws
development of management information systems; the collection of operational information, especially that relating to jurisdictional and sectoral expenditures and staff complement; that the deputy ministers in the justice field, together with the Chief Statistician of Canada, constitute a justice information council to establish the objectives of, and formulate policies and priorities for, an agency which should be responsible for developing national statistics and information. Also it set out the series of steps it saw as necessary to accomplish those goals.
Following the acceptance in principle of the recommendations of the NPRC, working groups were constituted of provincial and federal officials with specialized subject matter knowledge of the different sectors of criminal and civil justice statistics and information. These working groups have prepared program outlines which, when accepted by provincial jurisdictions, should provide mechanisms for the timely gathering of the necessary information in a comparable format.
Consideration is being given to the system of setting up a centre for justice statistics which will be a satellite of Statistics Canada to handle this work efficiently and effectively. The main task of the proposed centre would be to assemble, distribute and publish justice statistics derived from the responsible jurisdictions. The submitting jurisdictions, whether they be provinces or territories, would have the responsibility to provide the needed information in an agreed format and at an appropriate time. To aid the provinces and territories in setting mechanisms in place, the proposed centre would also provide a technical assistance service for the first few years. This service would be needed only until each submitting jurisdiction has developed a satisfactory mechanism and the essential information is found to be flowing smoothly.
These steps had to be instituted to correct the deplorable position to which I alluded earlier. Some very good examples of this were given by the hon. member who spoke last. The centre for justice statistics will be carefully evaluated over a three-year period to ensure that it is reaching its objective. It may, however, not be possible even after three years of intensive work to provide all the information needed by members of the House and the public to have a satisfactory appreciation of the justice system in Canada. Nor will the needs of policymakers and program managers be satisfied within the first three years. Indeed, it seems likely that the complexity of the work to be undertaken will require at least five years before we have the types of information so urgently required.
But the complexity of this task must not deter us from undertaking it. In particular, we have an urgent need for information that can assist us in a fundamental review of the Criminal Code which the ministers of justice, in co-operation with the solicitors general and provincial ministers responsible for criminal justice, will be undertaking shortly based on past and current work of the Law Reform Commission of Canada. Accordingly, selected research work will be undertaken with the co-operation of the provinces in the short term to provide information to support this work.
But the major point I wish to make this afternoon is that this very fundamental work must be undertaken before we will be in a position to reach conclusions about the extent of disparity as distinct from the extent of variation in the application of federal laws in Canada. While we do have some information-and other hon. members have made reference to it-it seems apparent we are not presently in a position to draw the kind of fundamental conclusions which some critics of the criminal justice system might draw. This is not a recipe for complacency; far from it. I have outlined some of the plans of the federal and provincial ministers responsible for criminal justice for remedying this lack of information.
I would also mention in this context the work of the national task force on the administration of justice to which reference was made earlier. In addition federal and provincial ministers responsible for criminal justice, as well as their deputy ministers, meet on a regular basis to review issues of joint concern in this field of shared responsibility. Similarly, the commissioners of uniform law gather on an annual basis to discuss many of the issues which bear on the basis of the motion before us today.
The elaboration of this intergovernmental machinery of co-ordination and co-operation has come about only in the past decade or so, with the exception of the uniformity commissioners. The increasing degree of co-operation between orders of government in this important field is evidence of the fact that clear recognition is given to the need to eliminate unjustified disparity in so far as possible within the judicial system of Canada. That this should be the case is not surprising. The central place of criminal law and criminal justice in our society, the need to ensure equality of access to the law and equality of treatment before the law, are principles of fundamental importance to all Canadians.
I have briefly mentioned the fundamental review of the criminal law which will shortly be undertaken under the leadership of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien). It is my understanding that this review will examine fundamental questions such as those raised by the hon. member in his motion in the sense that principles and objectives of sentencing will be the subject of intensive examination, as will all other aspects of Canadian criminal law. The kinds of concerns raised during this discussion will no doubt be taken into account by those responsible for carrying out this review.
The last point I should like to make in this connection concerns the role of the courts themselves in eliminating unwarranted disparity in sentencing. While it is true that no basic principles on sentencing appear in the Criminal Code itself and that general principles such as those indicating that "the punishment should fit the crime", or that the sentence should be broadly proportionate to the harm done, are so general in their nature as to be unhelpful in predicting precise sentences in individual cases, hon. members are no doubt aware of the fact that specific sentencing principles about what should be taken into account when sentencing an offender have been set out in leading cases from jurisdiction to jurisdiction in Canada.
July 16, 1981

Despite the fact that no appeal lies to the Supreme Court of Canada on sentence per se, the specific principles in many cases set out by provincial courts of appeal are broadly similar from province to province. By the declaration of these principles some attempt is made to limit the discretion of the sentencer further than that provided by the law itself. Sentencing judges, of course, have differing views on the purposes of sentences. Some judges sentence with a view to "doing the utmost for the offender" in a forward looking way, while others go strictly by some real but unstated tariff, fixing the sentence in relation to a retrospective look at the offence committed, without too much consideration to the future prospects of the offender.
To balance these differing approaches, appellate courts sit to consider too severe or too lenient sentences in an effort to strike a balance. The efforts of these appellate courts in this regard are aimed at ensuring that the objectives of sentencing in a particular case are consistent with the over-all aims of sentencing, which themselves should be congruent with the objectives of the criminal process and the criminal justice system itself.
Efforts in improving the quality of justice in Canada are continuing on the part of ministers and officials responsible for the administration of justice, and on the part of the judiciary. The development in recent years of sentencing conferences and seminars by organizations of judges are further evidence of the fact that the judiciary is keenly concerned with providing the highest quality of justice to Canadians. We in Canada have been well served by an independent judiciary of which we can be proud and which we hope will continue.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my appreciation for the opportunity to participate in this discussion and to thank the hon. member for bringing this important matter to the attention of the House and to the attention of all Canadians who are concerned about the criminal justice system in this country.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform hon. members that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) has elected not to make the customary five-minute speech under the provisions of Standing Order 48(2). He feels the arguments have been well made by members on our side this afternoon. Therefore, I would ask that you call upon the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) to conclude.


Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, my objective in bringing this motion before the House was to illustrate, as I think has been well illustrated by all the speakers, that since the various departments of justice in the provinces are responsible for the administration of justice and the application of federal laws, there will be, inevitably, some inequalities. I believe the various speakers have illustrated the steps which have been taken and are being taken to attempt, as far as is possible, to eliminate these inequalities in the administration of justice. I feel that the subject has been well aired. 1 therefore
Summer Recess
ask, Mr. Speaker, to have the unanimous consent of the House to withdraw the motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) seeks the unanimous consent of the House to withdraw his motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is there a disposition to call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At 5:34 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Pinard:
That, when the House adjourns on the day this order is adopted, it shall stand adjourned until Wednesday, October 14, 1981, provided that at any time prior to that date, if it appears to the satisfaction of Madam Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time, Madam Speaker may give notice that she is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its "business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time; and
That, in the event of Madam Speaker's being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker, the Deputy Chairman of Committees or the Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees shall act in her stead for all the purposes of this order.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. When the debate was interrupted at five o'clock this afternoon, the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) had the floor.
Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The question is as follows: Mr. Pinard, seconded by Mr. Lamontagne, moved:
That, when the House adjourns on the day this order is adopted-
Shall I dispense?

July 16, 1981
Summer Recess


Some hon. Members:: Dispense.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Does the hon. member rise on a point of order? The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour).


Mr. Kilgour:: Mr. Speaker, it will be abundantly clear what kind of a charade is going on in here. The government does not want to hear us talk about the uranium matter.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


An hon. Member:: The motion has been put!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Whatever the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) may chose to raise, one thing that the Chair cannot tolerate is the imputation of motives. I would ask the hon. member, if he has a point of order, to reach the point of order.


An hon. Member:: The motion has been put!


David Kilgour: If Your Honour is going to come in at 30 seconds after eight-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: For the second time, it is neither acceptable under the rules of the House that motives be imputed to hon. members anywhere in the House, nor is it acceptable that motives be imputed to the Speaker. The Speaker arrives at eight. If the hon. member has a point of order, I would ask him to get to it very quickly; otherwise, I shall read the motion.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, it is perfectly clear to everyone what is going on in here.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, this side is obviously not in favour of the question being put, and we have other hon. members who wish to speak with respect to the motion. I am one of them. I would therefore wish to speak on the matter.


David Michael Collenette: On a point of order. Your Honour has read the question. Your Honour has put the motion, and it is incumbent upon the Chair to put the question. Your Honour recognized the fact that the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) had the floor before five o'clock. He chose not to proceed. Your Honour then put the question. Your Honour is in the middle of putting the question, and I submit that Your Honour has no right to entertain any points of order. Your Honour must put the question forthwith.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Kilgour: I do not have to tell Your Honour that you know perfectly well that you have not put the question. Your Honour asked if you should dispense with reading, and at that point an hon. member stood up on a point of order. Obviously, my point of order is that we wish to continue this debate. The
question has not been put, and we wish-I wish, indeed, to continue the debate. If the premise of the hon. member for York East (Mr. Collenette), the parliamentary secretary, is that the question has been put, he has just admitted-it is patently obvious that the question has not been put. Therefore, any hon. member in this House, I think it goes without saying, has the right to speak, and I wish to-


An hon. Member:: Question!


David Kilgour: No, the hon. member cannot call for the question until the question is put. The question has not been put, and I wish to speak on the matter.


Gordon Edward Taylor: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, when the debate ended this afternoon, there was an hon. member speaking. When we started tonight, the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) was on his feet. Consequently, he should have been recognized, to continue the debate. The hon. member was on his feet, and he was not recognized. Therefore, he has the right to speak.


An hon. Member:: That is not true.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, again. Mr. Speaker has been consulting with the Clerk. Would Your Honour wish to continue that consultation before 1 speak to my point of order? I wish to speak on the motion, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member has risen on a point of order. I would ask that he address himself to the Chair on a point of order.


David Kilgour: My point of order, as mentioned-well, I will wait until Your Honour is finished.


Some hon. Members:: No, no!


David Kilgour: I do not dance for you fellows!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Obviously, the Chair is faced with a difficulty. I need not go through all the procedural aspects of this operation. I can simply indicate that what has happened is as follows: I asked whether or not the House was ready for the question. There was an indication that it was, and I began to read the question. Somewhere during the first few seconds of reading the question, I indicated that I would ask whether or not the hon. members wished me to dispense with the reading of the question. Having done that, there was some indication that I should dispense.


David Kilgour: Not from this side.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It makes no difference from which side the suggestion to dispense comes. What is important is that hon. members later have the opportunity, after the question is put, to determine whether or not they object to the procedure or, rather, whether they object to the question.
July 16, 1981

I think I have to come to some solution. Either, on the first part, the conclusion that I would come to is that, having asked the House whether it is ready for the question, I should then proceed without the interruption of points of order; or, on the other hand, some way, through putting the question to the House, I should observe any hon. member who wishes to rise and put a point of order, and that that point of order might somehow or other affect the proceeding of putting the question. I have tried to have a little advice while I have been listening to the points of order, and I do not feel comfortable with the situation. Therefore, I will proceed as I think best, and I will have to live with the result.
It is my feeling that once the House is asked whether or not it is ready for the question, and the question has begun to be read, and at that point the question is put to the House or is in the process of being put to the House, hon. members have a perfectly legitimate and perfectly parliamentary and free opportunity to consider whether or not they accept the question. I think that gives those hon. members who may object to the question being put, a reasonable opportunity to declare that they do not wish the question to be put at this point. Therefore, 1 think, given the rights of all hon. members who may want to object to the question being put or who may want to vote against the question, it seems to me that we ought to continue in a procedural fashion; and those hon. members who are discontented can rise in their places in due course and express themselves.
I think I have to indicate-I thought I had just done so- that if I am in the process of putting the question to the House, I will not recognize a point of order. The hon. member has no end of opportunities, within seconds, to express his opinion. I do not see that it disadvantages him in any way to have the question put.


Gordon Edward Taylor: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. Once again, this hon. member was on his feet, and if he is not recognized, it is nothing more than a dirty trick. He was on his feet before Your Honour started reading-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I would ask the hon. member for Bow River to take his seat-


Gordon Edward Taylor: I am in my seat.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: -and only under such circumstances as he is recognized by the Chair, to stand. If there are hon. members who want to make a point on this-my view is that there is no question. Once I have asked whether or not the House is ready for the question and have begun to read the question, it seems to me that we ought to proceed.
However, I will listen for two or three minutes, or a few minutes, to perhaps two or three hon. members-and 1 would ask that hon. members be very brief-and then I will make a ruling on the decision, because I understand there are some hon. members who feel strongly about the point. I have heard the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona, and I will now hear the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath).
Summer Recess


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I was not here, but it is my understanding-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


James Aloysius McGrath: We know what is going on here tonight; but it is my understanding that the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour), at the moment Your Honour put the question, tried to get the floor. The hon. member nods his agreement. If that is the case, then I submit with great respect that Your Honour must cease and desist putting the question until you hear the hon. member. That is the point of order I wish to raise, because the hon. member tried to get the floor at the moment Your Honour put the question.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, when you started the question-


An hon. Member:: You were not here.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Quiet down a minute. What are you trying to do? Are you trying to run this country with a steam shovel or something? Look at the rules.
The hon. member was on his feet asking for the right to speak before the motion was put.


An hon. Member:: That is not true.


Gordon Edward Taylor: And the hon. member has the right to speak even if the motion has been partly read. If a member stands up and expresses the wish to speak, he has that right. Hon. members should look at the rules.
I submit that the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona has the right to speak. He was on his feet. The Chair was not looking his way, but the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona was on his feet, and hon. members on the other side know it.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite clear. Beauschene's fifth edition, Citation 217, reads;
When the debate on a question is closed, and the House is ready to decide thereon, the Speaker says: "Is the House ready for the question?"
Which is exactly what you did, Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago. The citation continues:
If it is evident that no member claims the right of speaking, the Speaker proceeds to put the question by reading the main motion, and then the amendment or amendments in their proper order. He then takes the sense of the members of the last of these by saying: "Those who are in favour of the motion-


An hon. Member:: You have answered your question.


David Michael Collenette: I submit, Mr. Speaker, that you are now in the middle of putting a question and any point of order, even the one on which I am rising, is entirely out of order. You have admitted by your own ruling a few moments ago, Sir, that you must put the question now.

July 16, 1981
Summer Recess


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, there is a question of equity and fairness here.


Mr. Gauthier:: Look who's talking.


Henry Perrin Beatty: It is your responsibility as Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Henry Perrin Beatty: We hear shouts of derision from the government side when we talk about equity and fairness. I do not have to talk to you about your responsibilities, Mr. Speaker. You are fully aware of them. You know full well that it is the responsibility of the Speaker to protect the rights of Parliament and to protect the rights of individual members of Parliament.
My colleague said he was on his feet prior to the commencement of the question. Even if there is a grey area, and even if there is debate or question as to whether or not the hon. member rose to his feet during the commencement of the question being put, as opposed to being on his feet prior to that, the question with which the Chair is faced is one of fairness. If a decision is to be made, is it to be made on the side of terminating the debate thereby depriving members of Parliament of the opportunity to be heard? Or is it the Speaker's responsibility to protect the rights of Parliament. And, in particular, to protect the rights of freedom of speech of the individual members of this House?
The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council just read from the rules. It is very clear from Beau-chesne's Citation 217 that the Speaker is to put the question only if no member wishes to seek the floor.
We know now at this point, without the question having been put, that at least one member of Parliament seeks the floor.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Henry Perrin Beatty: Let them shout on the other side. However, I do not think they will succeed in gagging Parliament because it is your responsibility, Mr. Speaker, to protect the rights of Parliament from an oppressive majority and from trickery. A member of Parliament, duly elected to this place, is seeking the floor to debate a motion that is before the House at the present time. It is clear that the question has not yet been put.


An hon. Member:: You were not even here.


Henry Perrin Beatty: A member is seeking the floor.
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that you have no choice, nor would any other incumbent in that Chair have any choice but to make the decision on the side of freedom of speech and on the side of the rights of an individual member of Parliament to be heard on an essential issue. To do anything else would be to deprive members of the most important function in this Parliament, which is here to talk about the issues facing the country. To take away that right from a member of Parliament deprives all members of Parliament. It is indeed a great undermining of the whole function of Parliament itself.
An hon. member seeks the floor. The question has not yet been put; I submit that, in fairness, in equity and in defence of the rights of Parliament, you will choose to recognize my colleague from Edmonton Strathcona, because there is no other option.


Mr. Fleming:: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to point out that I was here when the bell rang, as were a number of other members on this side. When we came into the House there were two members on the far side of the House. As I understand it, the rules are the rules and you cannot roll back history any more than you can roll back a vote taken in December, 1979.
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that you came into the Chamber and took your chair. The bells started. We came in. When a certain number of members are in the House, the bells stop. You rose, you went to recognize the hon. member who was speaking at five o'clock. That member did not rise. Some voices on this side said, "vote, question, question." You rose and said "Is the House ready for the question?" There was no voice from any side of the House opposed to the question. Therefore, you rose and began to read the question, at which point the hon. member rose. Those are the rules of the House. That is what took place. You cannot roll back history. I must say that if anyone is good at working edges, rules and points of order and other games in this House, it is members on the other side and not members on this side of the House. We were here and we work within the rules.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Look at the sneaky way you do it.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I was not in the House.


Mr. Deans:: Sit down then.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: And I agree with members on the other side, I was not in the House. But I happen to have available to me cable television. If you want to go into sport, and I do not think you want to, sir, but occasionally referees and umpires have reviewed the electronic media. I came into this House when you were standing and I saw you put the question, but heard an hon. member saying "Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker". I am sure that you would like to review electronic Hansard or the video of the proceedings of this House, and following that you would then arrive at a fair decision. I know that in your capacity you would not want to deny any member of this House his right to be heard on an issue that is very important to him and his constituents.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, to begin with I would like to say that I have never in my life, or in the ten years I have been a member of this place, seen a government so anxious to leave Parliament.
The only thing which causes me to believe the government wants to leave is because it has something to hide. What this government has to hide is what we have been debating all afternoon, namely the mess with respect to the uranium cartel. That is what this government has to hide.
I think I should put this day in its proper perspective.
July 16, 1981


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The Chair is in great need of assistance on the point of order.


Walter David Baker: I was about to come to that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I think I can establish the point of order or what the considerations are.
The first consideration is whether or not an hon. member rose to speak before the question was put. In that regard, my impression is the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona rose only after I began to read the question.
The second question that is germane is whether or not, once having begun to read the question, the Chair ought to allow any hon. member to interrupt, whether by point of order, by way of discussion or by way of debate, or whether the question having been started makes it impossible procedurally for hon. members to intervene.
if the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton would address himself to either one of those two subjects, I would be most appreciative. I did indicate that the intervention of two or three members would be adequate to meet the point. Time is passing. At a certain point I will have to either come to a conclusion or ask the House to give me adequate time to consult. It is one or the other. I will recognize the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) and possibly two or three other members. But I would ask that hon. members be brief and address themselves to one of two questions. First, the facts. I think I am accurate in saying that I believe the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona arrived after I had put the question. The second issue procedurally is whether or not once I have begun to put the question, it is feasible for hon. members to interrupt and continue the debate.


Walter David Baker: As I understand the situation, Mr. Speaker, after you began to put the question, the hon. member rose in the midst of your putting the question- that is the first point-before there was any question then in the sense that the Chair would deal with it before the House of Commons, the complete question. If that is the case on the first point, I respectfully suggest that the Chair has indicated that the Chair was aware of an hon. member standing. With respect to continuing the debate, the Chair had an obligation to recognize the member standing. That is the first matter I want to put.
As to the merits, what is the obligation of the Chair? I do not think under any interpretation of the rules of this House, that it is the obligation of the Chair to take any action that would cut off the right of a member who wishes to speak. That is the fundamental question, that the Chair has now acknowledged in the House that the Chair knew that at least somewhere in the midst of putting the question an hon. member was trying to speak. If that is the case, it is incumbent upon the Chair to allow that member to speak.
One of the fundamental duties of the Chair is to protect the right of members to speak. It is a duty of the Chair, and that
Summer Recess
duty is covered in many ways. One is with respect to a tie vote in the House of Commons. Normally the Chair operates in respect of a tie vote to maintain the continuance of the institution. Part of that institution is the right of the member to speak.
I recall in my experience here-and I say with respect it is as long as yours-that under Mr. Speaker Lamoureux, under Mr. Speaker Jerome and under Madam Speaker Sauve, the Speakers have been very careful, even when they were on their feet. If a member rises for some reason or other, whether it is a point of order, a question of privilege or to intervene in the debate or in any other way, the Speaker is never legalistic and never turns his or her back on a member who wants to speak. In fact, that member is given the full right to speak.
If I have not moved you with respect to that, Mr. Speaker, then I think from the point of view of the preservation of the institution of the Speakership, there ought to be time taken by the Chair to consider this very carefully and to consult with Madam Speaker and the other officers at the Table, which is done regularly, to see that there is a resolution to this.
This, just as important, does not just end the debate. This effectively ends this part of this session of Parliament. That makes it fundamentally important.
I have a great respect for the Chair. It is out of that respect for the Speakership, the Chair, the institution of the Chair, that I respectfully suggest that you, sir, that you reflect upon the enormity of the decision which you may make one way or the other and take whatever time you may need in order to consult with the officials at the table and your colleagues in the chair, particularly the Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton has put the point very well. In the first instance, while his statement does not apply to any other member of the House, he does appear to agree with the Chair that the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona did in fact intervene after the question had begun to be read. As far as I know, there should not be any dispute in that regard. In any event, I do not think it is terribly important.
The more important issue seems to be, first, the one that was raised by the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe who pointed out that it is the responsibility of the Chair to protect the minority. That is an obligation that I understand and accept. I do not want to go into a long dissertation on the Irish question, but we understand that the minority can become a tyranny at some point. That, too, is a question that has to be looked at.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: If hon. members disagree with my observation of history, they can form their observations of the basis of a study of British parliamentary history and the thing that is called the Irish question. I do not want to go any further on that.
What I thought was an excellent suggestion by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton was that the Chair take some

July 16, 1981
Summer Recess
time to reflect, consider, and consult. That is something to which I referred a little earlier and I think is a rather good idea. If hon. members are agreeable, I would suggest that the House be adjourned until the call of the Chair, which I suggest would be approximately at nine o'clock. The Chair will consult with the Speaker and the Table officers. May I have that indulgence on the part of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Do I need to have a vote on that or may the Chair have that courtesy?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that you have accepted the suggestion. However, just before you leave the Chair I notice that the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona and the hon. member for Burlington would like to say a few words to you, sir.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair has already made the decision not to recognize several other hon. members who have stood in their places to be recognized. The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona has been recognized twice or even three times tonight. Before recognizing him, I would certainly recognize other hon. members who wished to contribute to this debate. Therefore, if the House is agreed, I will adjourn the House until the call of the Chair, which will be at approximately nine o'clock.
SITTING SUSPENDED At 8.28 p.m. the sitting was suspended.


SITTING RESUMED The House resumed at 9.09 p.m.
Madam Speaker:: I am now prepared to rule on the incident which took place some time ago in the House and on whether an hon. member should be heard on the motion which was about to be put.
Technically speaking, I think we can say that the process of putting the question had really begun when the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) rose, but I also think hon. members will recognize that the process of debate had not been concluded, and I want to remind hon. members what constitutes the full process of debate. I refer to Erskine May, who says that the essential stages in obtaining a decision of the House are, first, the moving of a motion; second, the proposing of a question by the Chair; and third, the putting of the question and collection of voices by the Chair. That process has three stages which are very clearly defined.
The nearest precedent we could find in the very short time available to us is dated December 4, 1962, when the House had agreed to a motion. The process of debate had been completed, as hon. members will see from the precedent I will quote, and there was then a request from someone in the House to revert to the prior business of the House, a member
having alleged there was too much noise and turmoil in the House and that he could not properly follow what was taking place. On that occasion the Speaker said, and I quote from Hansard for December 4, 1962, at page 2287:
For one thing, of course the Chair will not accept any suggestion that it is moving too rapidly. The Chair is following the well established practices of this House. In fact, if the hon. member will consult with me I can tell him the practice of some of my predecessors as to at what stage they were when the words "Adopte; carried" were put; they were almost around the back of the chair. However, there is no question that the bill was called. Third reading was moved and seconded, and I called it. The Clerk gave it third reading and it was adopted and carried. The house cannot toss its business back and forth.
That too is an important principle which I would like to recall to the House. However, the difference between that particular case and the one we have before us tonight is that the question had been fully put and the House had made a decision on that question, which had been fully put.
In the case we have before us tonight the process had begun, no doubt, and I think the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) admitted that the process had begun, but if hon. members will recall what constitutes the full process, the three stages of that process, then that process had not been completed. An hon. member interrupted it seeking the floor at the time the Speaker was asking for dispensation with respect to reading the question in toto.
I quote in support of my ruling Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 63 at page 51 which says:
When the debate on a question is closed, and the House is ready to decide thereon, the Speaker says: "Is the House ready for the question?" If it is evident that no member claims the right of speaking, the Speaker proceeds to put the question by reading the main motion, and then the amendment or amendments in their order as the case may be.
I think we have adopted the practice in this House that even if the process has commenced and an hon. member rises to ask a question or make a point or order, the Chair, when the process is not completed, has always recognized a member and allowed him to express himself.
My ruling is very much based on the right of hon. members to express themselves in the House. This is the most sacred thing the Speaker must protect, and I am sure hon. members will understand that my whole approach to this particular incident was to try to protect the right of members to express themselves, which is not only given to them for themselves, but also for their constituents who have sent them to Parliament to represent them. The key words in Beauchesne, of course, are "If it is evident that no member seeks the floor". In this case it was certainly evident that a member sought the floor since an hon. member did rise and interrupted the Speaker in a process which had begun. I quite admit that, but it was evident that a member wished to speak. Therefore, I must recognize the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Kilgour: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I am pleased to be able to participate in this debate which, contrary to what some observers might think, is on a motion to adjourn the House until October 14, a
July 16, 1981

three-month period. It is not my purpose here to say anything about the postal dispute. Our party's and leader's position was stated earlier by my colleague, the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell). We sincerely wish Judge Alan Gold, whom we all respect, and the parties to the mediation every success in getting the mail moving again, which is in the greater public interest.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Kilgour: There are countless other matters of real concern to Canadians which should and might be discussed in this House this summer. Some of these include the past and present federal government fiscal and monetary policy which, I believe, has caused much of our current inflation of 12.6 per cent. I remind hon. members that Chancellor Schmidt, who is visiting here today, has inflation of approximately 5.5 per cent in West Germany, or less than half of that which we have in Canada. We do not have to have 12.5 per cent inflation. We do not have to be second from the bottom on the list of OECD countries in terms of keeping inflation down.
Second, we could discuss interest rates of 20 per cent plus which, as surely as tomorrow's sunrise, sooner or later will affect adversely virtually every Canadian in this land, and none more than home owners, present or would be, and the small business community. I remind the House that the small business community creates approximately two of three jobs nowadays in our country but obviously cannot continue to do so with interest rates of 20 per cent plus.
We might discuss energy policy which, in present form, has already cost western Canadians enormously in terms of lost jobs, and it will cost Canadians in my region and in other parts of Canada more jobs in the future. The policy is also costing us in terms of oil and gas self-sufficiency in the future. I remind the House once again that oil and gas are Canadian-made products. We do not have to continue to import more and more oil from Mexico, Venezuela and the OPEC countries. We could have self-sufficiency in Canada.
We might discuss national unity. We all might discuss national unity and why the federal government of the most fortunate nation on earth and the NDP could amend their joint constitutional package just before it went to the Supreme Court of Canada to provide that voter majorities in fully three western or three Atlantic provinces are necessary to block an Ottawa-proposed constitutional amendment. At the same time, a simple majority in Ontario or Quebec is of equal weight, this despite the fact that the Federal-Provincial Relations Office of the federal government concedes that it knows of no other parliamentary democracy in the world which weights the votes of its citizens for constitutional referenda on the basis of place of residence. If this is the Liberal-NDP idea of a just society in which Canadians everywhere can feel that they are full partners in their own country, I do not think many Canadians in or outside Ontario or Quebec will buy that idea of a just society in the future.
Summer Recess
Next we might talk about crime prevention. We have a crime conference going on this very day in Winnipeg, which I had hoped to attend on behalf of my colleagues. We might talk about why, for instance, senior citizens, as we hear from the conference, are evidently more and more afraid to leave the safety of their home out of fear of being mugged. We might talk about why violent crime is increasing. In part, because of legislation of the past decade, in part because of some-I stress some-of the government's more unsuitable appointments to various benches and to the National Parole Board.
However, Mr. Speaker, we cannot discuss everything at one time. So in the time remaining 1 propose to discuss the uranium issue which makes me very mad, and very sad for my country. It will be the thrust of my argument that, perhaps better than any other issue we have today, this issue shows how little this government estimates the intelligence of Canadians, and how it deserves their contempt. To put it another way, Mr. Speaker, the government shines on the issue. It shines like the eyes of a long dead fish on a moonlit beach. From a long distance in the dark, the eyes of the fish look far better than it smells close up.
Let me begin with some history of this matter. 1 will try to avoid the facts raised by the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn). Most of the facts have come out despite the best efforts of this government to prevent at every turn the truth from coming out about what they have been doing this last number of years. A little history, Mr. Speaker.
In the fall of 1970, the Canadian energy minister of the day, while in Japan, said it was time for uranium producers to get tough. In late 1971 and the first eight months of 1972, conversations took place between persons in Australia, South Africa, France and between various multinational mining companies. The details as to the cartel's workings were agreed upon in February, 1972-a long time ago, Mr. Speaker. For the rest of 1972, little information was provided by the participants as to the cartel's existence. Press reports noted only there had been meetings between government officials, but nothing as to the existence of a cartel. It operated, in fact, in a concealed manner with prearranged bidding practices, quotas dividing international markets, and a secretariat concealed in the French Atomic Energy Commission.
From 1973 to 1975 there were no references made to the workings of that cartel in the general press. There were vague references in some trade journals. In the period from September 1975 to March, 1976, Westinghouse announced its inability to fulfil uranium contracts. The U.S. Department of Justice established a grand jury investigation into the uranium activities of U.S. oil companies. In the summer of 1976, a U.S. congressional subcommittee initiated an inquiry into the international uranium cartel. In August of 1976 Mary Kathleen Uranium, known as MKU, documents were leaked in Australia, and transmitted to the California Energy Commission which in turn passed them on to the U.S. Department of Justice and a Congressional investigation.

July 16, 1981
Summer Recess
In September of 1976, the U.S. Department of Justice sought testimony and evidence from Canadian mining officials and companies. The Eldorado Nuclear president at the time, Mr. Gilchrist, gave a deposition to U.S. authorities. In September again, Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada, the government of all the Canadian people, denied the existence of a cartel. On September 22, 1976, the energy minister of the day, Alastair Gillespie, released a statement outlining the history of what he called a uranium marketing arrangement. Again, no admission of a cartel. On September 23, 1976, the cabinet, of which not a few of those sitting opposite us tonight were members then, passed an order in council entitled "Uranium Information Security Regulations", ostensibly for reasons of national sovereignty. They rejected the cover-up argument. That was the gag rule.
One month later, Westinghouse filed a $6 billion law suit against 29 uranium producers worldwide alleging an illegal cartel. In the summer of 1977, the U.S. congressional subcommittee released formerly confidential documents involving communications between Messrs. Runnalls, Austin, and Canadian uranium producers, documents marked "specially confidential", despite objections by the U.S. State Department at the request of the Canadian government. The subcommittee rejected the Canadian government's request that the documents be kept secret. Freedom of information really does exist south of the border, Mr. Speaker.
In August of 1977 our party began to mount pressure in Parliament. We felt so strongly about it that we launched a suit in the Supreme Court of Ontario challenging the validity of these gagging orders in council. The judge reserved decision. In the meantime, the government simply revised its regulations to apply only to civil servants and employees of the private sector companies. Again in September, 1977, the Supreme Court of Ontario upheld the validity of the regulations on the gag. In October of 1977, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand), one of the few people wearing a white hat, so to speak, in the whole process announced a combines act investigation. Perhaps that is why he is no longer a cabinet minister. That was widely interpreted as putting the issue out of the public spotlight, at least for the period of the investigation.
Going ahead now to late 1977 and the first six months of 1978, Westinghouse sought evidence in the United Kingdom, but the Canadian government and some cartel companies applied strong diplomatic pressure to the House of Lords, I understand, to prevent the release of cartel documents. The House of Lords rejected Westinghouse's request for information. Shortly thereafter, the United Kingdom amended a statute to prevent the extra-territorial application of U.S. antitrust law. In May of 1978, Gulf pleaded nolo contendere and was fined $40,000 by the U.S. courts in a criminal action. From 1975 to 1978, there have been numerous legal actions in the United States with respect to the cartel, but the U.S. Justice Department had decided not to proceed with civil actions arising from its investigations due to the controversy surrounding some of its early decisions.
In early 1979, the U.S. Senate judiciary committee sought access to the information held by the U.S. Department of Justice. The Canadian government-true to form-once again opposed the release of documents, and the court ruled that confidential intergovernmental information need not be released.
Those are only some of the facts, but the more important matters of course are the public issues involved. One of these issues is respect for this country's institutions, including the administration of justice at the highest level, and more important, the issue that justice not only be done, but that justice shall be seen to be done.
We have, we are told, Mr. John Brown of Blake, Cassells in Toronto as our special prosecutor. In contrast, even president Nixon had the courage at the time to appoint an outstanding American lawyer, Archibald Cox, and give him a free mandate. He was subsequently fired, but another outstanding trial lawyer one of America's best, was then appointed, namely, Leon Jaworski. The reason the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) tells us that he appointed Mr. Brown is that Mr. Brown worked with Mr. Bertrand for four years. Why do we not go to a fresh counsel, an eminent counsel, an experienced trial counsel? There are 30,000 lawyers in this country. Why does he not go to a number of the best lawyers and say, "In order that justice be seen to be done in Canada, here is the file, here is the Bertrand report. Go out and charge whomever you like. If it is our colleague, if it is this person or that person, do it. This issue is just too important to do otherwise."
My colleagues who have sat on the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs know that the Minister of Justice does not have the faintest appreciation of matters such as specializing in law, the finer points of law, what sub judice means, or anything about the more substantive points of law. The Minister of Justice tells us that he wants Mr. Brown because Mr. Brown worked with Mr. Bertrand.
As a matter of fact, I appeared on a constitutional case against Mr. Brown a number of years ago in the Supreme Court of Canada. We were both junior counsel and neither of us said much. Mr. Brown may be a perfectly competent lawyer, but is he a competent special prosecutor for this case? I did not know, so I telephoned a senior trial lawyer in the city of Toronto yesterday to verify that Mr. Brown was at least a competent prosecuting counsel. The lawyer in Toronto did not even know that John Brown was a lawyer in Toronto. He has been in practice for approximately 25 years, and he has never encountered John Brown in any court, in any trial at any level, in the city of Toronto. Mr. Brown may be a good civil litigation-constitutional lawyer but if he, like the Minister of Justice, knows nothing about the finer points of criminal law, is he the best person for a case fraught with half the problems of this one? We should have a special prosecutor at whom every Canadian can look and say, "That man will do justice for all Canadians, no matter what the cost to whomever". I suggest that this is not the case here.
July 16, 1981

The lawyer in Toronto asked a junior colleague if he knew Mr. Brown. This lawyer, with five years' call, had never heard of Mr. Brown or encountered him in any courtroom in Toronto. Then I consulted with Martindale-Elubble, which the lawyers here will know lists the specialties of lawyers, and I could find no specialty with respect to Mr. Brown's practice.
In my respectful submission, this is the most difficult case which has ever arisen in Canada because it very closely involves the government of Canada. If there ever was a case to appoint someone with supreme integrity, skill and a sense of justice and fair play to represent the people of Canada, this is it. As of now, no one has any indication that John Brown is the best man to conduct the case.
But the Minister of Justice tells us that Mr. Brown worked with Mr. Bertrand for four years and therefore he will continue with Mr. Brown, whether or not Mr. Brown has ever been involved in a criminal case in his life before. One thing which makes all of us who have been full-time Crown attorneys angry is the fact that the government appoints its friends-this is generally speaking; there are exceptions-to conduct its prosecutions badly, unprofessionally, and too frequently like legal patsies.


Mr. Dion:: Oh!


David Kilgour: It is true. I concede that there are cases where there are first-class lawyers doing patronage legal work, but let me tell my friend opposite that there are many who do not know anything about the cases they are prosecuting. The police are embarrassed, the witnesses are embarrassed, and those who have to stand in court are embarrassed to watch them chopping up their cases. This is not a case in which to appoint anyone other than the most competent lawyer who is respected across the land. If the hon. member knows of any other more important case, I wish he would tell me.
The really vital issue here is whether anyone's head is above the law including that of a senator and possibly other politicians. About 400 years ago, Sir Edward Coke established in another country that no one is above the law; not the king, no one. At the very least, I suggest that we will hear more about this matter in the weeks to come. There will be many Canadians wondering whether one individual, at the very least, is not above the law as far as this particular prosecution at this stage is concerned, namely the former deputy minister of energy with whom I will deal in a moment.
The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) read from some minutes of a Moss commission meeting which took place in the office of the then deputy minister, now Senator Austin. At the time even the youngest child in the gallery tonight would have asked himself, "Why are Mr. Runnalls and Mr. McNabb named as unindicted co-conspirators, and why is not Senator Austin at least named with them as an unindicted co-conspirator?" There has been no answer to that. We are told that it is sub judice. Mr. Chretien does not have the foggiest notion of the concept of sub judice.
Summer Recess


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. May I suggest to the hon. member that it is the practice of the House to refer to hon. members of the House by their constituencies or by their functions as members of cabinet.


David Kilgour: In my experience with the Minister of Justice in many meetings of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and in the House, he does not have the foggiest idea about the concept of sub judice, what it includes and does not include. I think hon. members opposite know perfectly well that I am telling the truth.
Incidentally, "unindicted co-conspirator" is a legal euphemism. Let me advise the Minister of Justice that two people did not have to be named as unindicted co-conspirators. They could just be called as Crown witnesses. Someone with a little experience in criminal law should sit down with Mr. Chretien and explain that to him. Perhaps he could look at some of the cases on conspiracy.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


David Kilgour: I am sorry, the Minister of Justice-
[ Translation]


Mr. Cousineau:: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member persists in transgressing our rules, even after having been warned. Enough is enough.


David Kilgour: I have a couple of comments to make on what is conspiracy, which I think the hon. member might like to hear. Criminal conspiracy occurs when two or more people plan together for an illegal purpose. If the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) hears the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday) and myself forming a common purpose to perform an illegal act, the Crown does not have to name the hon. member for Red Deer as an unindicted co-conspirator; he can be called as a witness. The law of conspiracy is fairly clear on this, and I say this for the benefit of hon. members opposite.
Another issue is the question of freedom of information. Some of the members who are present tonight are on the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. They know we have spent a lot of time discussing a freedom of information bill, but everything the government has done since 1972 has been obviously aimed at preventing freedom of speech with respect to the matter of its involvement in a cartel which it now suggests by charges was illegal within Canada.
What is the definition of hypocrisy if it is not to say one thing and do something different? For ten years until today the government has tried to conceal information about these allegedly illegal activities. At the same time, it is pretending to believe in freedom of information in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Section 429 of the Criminal Code talks about conspiracy and conspiring to do an act contrary to any statute of Canada. I remind members opposite that the provincial attorneys gen-

July 16, 1981
Summer Recess
eral enforce the Criminal Code. If members opposite really believe in justice being done, why do they not refer the Bertrand report, the Henry report, and all the other data to the relevant attorney general of the province to see whether or not he lays a charge of criminal conspiracy under the Code, if a criminal act has been committed against the consumers of Ontario? If members opposite believe in freedom of information, why do they not have the courage, the honesty and the candour to send the material along to the relevant provincial attorney general?
I remind hon. members that the attorney general of the province in which this House is located has recently instructed his Crown attorneys to reveal everything in their cases to defence counsel. Crown attorneys who are worth anything do not hide matters from defence counsel. For the most part they show them all of their cases. Why will the Attorney General of Canada (Mr. Chretien) not follow the same rule? Why will he not be up front about this matter and show everything to everyone? What is it in the Bertrand report that can cause him grief? Everyone knows that an attorney general, a provincial attorney general, or a Crown attorney does not pull fast ones, he does not hide things; he is as open with the defence as he can possibly be. I submit, given the indicated circumstances, the Bertrand report should be made available to members of Parliament, to the defence, and to all Canadians,
The next point 1 wish to deal with is why only six companies are charged? You will notice, Mr. Speaker, that there is not one single flesh and blood person charged in this case. Why? Hon. members will, for example, recall the dredging scandal case in which companies and individuals were later charged as parties to the offence. Why does the same not happen in this case? 1 think we are entitled to ask this question. The Canadian people are entitled to know the answer to it. Is the reason they do not charge anyone that if they were to do so, they would have to charge someone whom they do not particularly wish to charge?
We are told that only six companies are to be charged. Companies are merely legal fictions. I believe one of the defendant companies is only a shell. I suggest to the House that if the government were really trying to see justice done, it would at least explain to us, as members of Parliament, why it is that only companies are being charged and not individuals.
Would the government at least let us see part of the Bertrand report if it will not let us see the entire report? During ten years as a Crown attorney I cannot recall a case in which I was involved where a company was charged and the president of that company was not also charged. What is the point in charging the company with committing a commercial fraud and not charging the president of the company if he was the actual principal in the alleged crime? Often convicted companies are fined a nominal amount of money and the president of the company who was its guiding mind in the fraud gets away with it. Is that just? Is that the way to carry out a system of criminal justice which will win the confidence of Canadians?
I think I have raised some important issues, Mr. Speaker, which show that the matter before us is very important. It is an issue which will not go away. It did not go away for a certain gentleman south of the border. You cannot conceal things in a free society for very long despite the efforts made by members opposite. The Bertrand report will come out sooner or later. It cannot be locked up forever. I put it to hon. members opposite that if and when the Bertrand report is released, it shows anything different from what we have been told on faith to accept-and we do not have much reason to accept anything on faith on this matter from members opposite-that they will rue the day. We on this side will not let this issue go.
Some members here know that my political hero is Abraham Lincoln. I have a picture of him on the wall of my office. I recently had occasion to read Carl Sandburg's biography of Lincoln. I cannot believe that if Abraham Lincoln, or anyone of nearly his stature, had been confronted with this problem, as has the government opposite, he or she would not have said that this is too important for our basic institutions. He or she would get the best man or woman as a prosecuting special counsel, or a group of counsel. I think what Abraham Lincoln, or anyone who aspires to be like him, would have said, "Go ahead. Charge me. Charge my colleagues. Charge anyone whom you think should properly be charged in this matter."
I will end on a soft note. Members opposite do not live up to my standard of what a true statesman should do on this vital matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, after hearing the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour), I am convinced Abraham Lincoln would rather be in another office than his this evening.
Why are we here when all provincial legislative assemblies have adjourned for the summer? Why are we here preventing employees, honest workers of this House, from taking their summer holiday as they had planned? Why are we here keeping hon. members on both sides of the House from enjoying their vacation with their families as they had hoped? Because a handful of ultra-Conservatives have assumed control over the opposition. And also because, since the February convention, as we know, the Leader of the Opposition is no longer really the leader but only two thirds of a leader. As a consequence, those ultra-nationalists, those untra-Conserva-tives, rather, force Parliament to sit here because they have accounts to square with their own leader. I submit it is unacceptable that a bunch of ultra-Conservatives should try to coerce Parliament into denying postal workers their right to negotiate, that those ultra-Conservatives should want to oblige the government to make public reports that will harm innocent citizens who have not been accused of wrongdoing in the
July 16, 1981

uranium cartel case, and also do irreparable damage to the accused who, until proven guilty, must be considered innocent. Mr. Speaker, every Progressive Conservative member who rose and spoke in this House today on the uranium cartel issue has flouted the most elementary justice, the fundamental rights of anyone who is deemed innocent until proven guilty before our courts of law.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept that this situation be allowed to last any longer. Last week it was to force Parliament to legislate the postal workers back to work. I quote an article published in the newspaper Le Droit and headlined:
The Leader of the Opposition gave in before an ultimatum from his backbenchers ... a week ago by extending the length of the session because of the postal strike.
That is what the rednecks in his party have said. The member for Halton (Mr. Jelinek) in Ontario stated that the caucus meeting was a lot more serene this week than last week because his leader, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), had to eat his words to the effect that back-to-work legislation was not necessary. A Canadian Press article by Mr. Alan Arbuckle also says:
The member for Halton said that his leader even thanked him for having forced the Conservatives to renege on an all party agreement under which the Commons would have been on holidays since last Friday.
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that we are witnessing disorder, anarchy and total chaos among the Progressive Conservatives. Their leader no longer leads them. They no longer have a leader. There is not even two thirds of a leader. There is a whole bunch of ultra-Conservatives who are prepared to hold up to ridicule the rights of the citizens, the rights of the postal workers, as well as the rights of the accused in the uranium cartel case who are now before the courts. Mr. Speaker, at the next sitting of the House, immediately before the order of the day for resuming the adjourned debate on motion No. 51 in the name of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard), I will move a motion that the debate shall not be further adjourned. This notice is given pursuant to Standing Order 33.
I think it is absolutely important that we say, today-


Charles Joseph Clark: What a coward!


André Ouellet: -that the only reasons given by the opposition-


Charles Joseph Clark: What a coward!


Walter David Baker: Coward!


Charles Joseph Clark: Afraid of debate! Afraid of the truth!


André Ouellet: -for keeping this House sitting are absolutely irresponsible, and it is trickery on the part of the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Summer Recess


André Ouellet: Last week the opposition pretended that it wanted this Parliament to stay on to force us to legislate back the CUPW workers of the Post Office. That was the reason given last week, to carry on the discussion.


Walter David Baker: Closure!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Closure!


André Ouellet: Now that members of the opposition fully realize that they are on the wrong side, that the public has realized that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark)-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


André Ouellet: -is playing the game of Mr. Parrot, the leader of the postal workers, that he is playing his hand, and that, in fact, the Leader of the Opposition has become the best ally of the leader of CUPW, they now rush to find another subject, to find another reason for the House to carry on. Their view of last week is now forgotten. They no longer want Parliament to sit-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: What a disgrace!


André Ouellet: -to deal with the postal strike. They have found another reason.


Charles Joseph Clark: We have achieved mediation.


André Ouellet: They were not happy to replace the normal and legitimate process of collective bargaining. They now want to replace the legitimate rights of justice to be carried by the courts of this land. Today, opposition members, one after the other, have risen here, irrespective of the rights of accused, arguing that there was something wrong, that these people were already condemned, and there were probably other people who should be condemned.


Harvie Andre: Like the sugar refineries, eh?


André Ouellet: I want to say that it is quite clear that the opposition is completely at a loss-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


André Ouellet: -that the leadership campaign is already on-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


André Ouellet: -among numerous opposition members. The poor Leader of the Opposition does not know where to go. Is he going to have the support of the one third, or is he going to keep the support of the two thirds? He is moving, week after week, from one position to another position.
[ Translation]
That is exactly what happened in the famous question of the debate on capital punishment to which I personally-
11630

July 16, 1981
Summer Recess


Jack Wendele Shields: I just want to identify myself, Mr. Speaker, as a sitting backbencher, and I fully oppose the indecent act the minister is about to introduce.


André Ouellet: There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that this hon. member belongs to the ultra-conservative wing, to those who keep this Parliament running while all the other legislators in Canada are away taking their normal summer vacations.
I want to say that in relation to the Post Office-


Walter David Baker: Very uplifting debate.


André Ouellet: -the intervention of the Leader of the Opposition has been absolutely irresponsible. If, today, we still have a strike in Canada, we could thank the Leader of the Opposition. There is no doubt that as long as Parliament would be sitting, there would be no incentive on the part of the leader of the union-


Charles Joseph Clark: We achieved mediation. We achieved mediation.


André Ouellet: -to arrive at the table to negotiate a collective agreement. There is absolutely no incentive. Now that a mediator has been appointed, it is even worse. The Leader of the Opposition made a statement to the effect that he only wants to check whether or not Mr. Justice Gold would be successful. I find it absolutely unbelievable-


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


André Ouellet: -and irresponsible on the part of the poor Leader of the Opposition who is currently so shaken.

Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that the Canadian public who is witnessing this shameful spectacle of the opposition which has been going on for over a week will realize the futility of their action and their intervention. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it must be recalled that the opposition has kept us in the House one extra week and not one single important piece of legislation has since been adopted. The hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) used up the precious time of the House this week-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Ian Watson (Chateauguay):: Mr. Speaker, this week in New York City 87 countries are meeting under the auspices of the United Nations to discuss the future of one of the world's most unfortunate countries, namely, Cambodia or Kampuchea. This show of activity is in strange contrast to the lack of activity that we have found at the United Nations during those years when Pol Pot and his henchmen were running rampant, killing, it is alleged, three million of their own countrymen, which represents one third of the total population of that tragedy stricken country.
An editorial in the New York Times today summed it up very well. In part it reads:
Vietnam's crimes in Cambodia are real, and deserve the denunciations of a special United Nations conference this week. But the accusers pass too quickly over the crimes of Pol Pot, whose regime may have caused the deaths of three million Cambodians. He is "our" monster in this propaganda battle and his representative speaks for Cambodia at the U.N., thanks to an unholy understanding between the United States and China.
My purpose in rising tonight is to ask our Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) whether we will be part of that unholy understanding which affects so tragically the people of Cambodia. Last autumn I asked the minister why Canada saw fit during the last session of the United Nations last autumn to vote for the seating of the Pol Pot regime at the United Nations. The minister's answer did not satisfy me and I asked for an opportunity to discuss the matter further. Prefacing that question, I referred to a motion which had been put in the House approximately three years ago which reads:

-when the House of Commons agreed unanimously to the following motion:
-[that] all members of the Canadian parliament express their horror of that genocide, which is one of the worst crimes in the history of mankind, and ask all parliamentarians, and governments which maintain relations with our country to protest against that slaughter which has astounded the entire world.

That motion unanimously supported by this House, was presented by the present Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. De Bane) when he was still a private member of this House.

In September of that year, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, Mr. Jamieson, demanded at a meeting of the General Assembly of the United Nations in New York that the UN give particular consideration to the conditions in Democratic Kampuchea where murderous, brutal and massive repression was occurring and where human rights were being ignored. How can the Canadian government justify such a reversal? This is what I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The government submits that the vote in support of granting a seat in the United Nations to the Pol Pot faction is the lesser of two evils and that this in no ways
July 16, 1981

indicates that Canada approves or supports the Pol Pot regime. In that case, what does this vote mean? On the one hand, it means that we have forgotten what all the countries which made up the United Nations shortly after its establishment had sworn never to forget, namely the horrors revealed by the skeletal survivors of Hitler's camps.

I see that my time is running out, but I have more to say. There have been a number of tragedies with regard to our treatment of Vietnam. We have made mistakes and we are continuing to make mistakes. I cannot believe that Vietnam is not ready to come to some sort of accommodation on Cambodia. She is prepared to come to terms with her neighbours. The present course recommended to Canada by Vietnam's southeast Asian neighbours will inevitably fail. It will make Vietnam even more dangerous. Most important of all, it will prolong indefinitely the human tragedy in Cambodia.
If anyone at the United Nations should speak for the tortured and dispossessed Cambodians, Canada with its image of a protector of the underdog should. It is obscene to have gone along once again with the Vietnam bashing that seems to have become the habit over the last 15 years by our friends south of the border. That elusive Vietnam victory has caused innumerable tortures for the Cambodian people. I would suggest to the minister tonight, in the name of human decency, that the next time the UN considers the matter, Canada remain neutral, that we do not cast our vote in such a way as to take sides. The southeast Asian situation is one we should keep clear of unless we are there on behalf of a humane, decent solution that will benefit the people of Cambodia.


Mr. Roy MacLaren (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, Canada has supported the seating of democratic Kampuchea in the United Nations General Assembly, because to have done otherwise would have lent legitimacy to the invasion and occupation of Kampuchea by the armed forces of a neighbouring country. This action does not imply Canadian government approval for the Democratic Kampuchean regime of Pol Pot or Canadian acquiescence in the abhorrent human rights abuses perpetrated by that regime during its tenure in power. In 1978, Canada played a leading role in denouncing the deplorable human rights record of Democratic Kampuchea. This was done by a submission to the UN Commission on Human Rights and by subsequent statements in the UN General Assembly.
The unseating of the Democratic Kampuchean regime in the United Nations might have been interpreted as a move towards the legitimization of aggression and the use of force by one nation to overthrow the government of another. This is why Canada along with a majority in the United Nations General Assembly last autumn voted for the continued seating of Democratic Kampuchea, much as we dislike what that regime did when it was the undisputed government in Kampuchea. It has been made clear that Canada would not be
Adjournment Debate
involved in any effort to restore the Pol Pot government to power.
Current efforts to seek a peaceful solution to this situation in Kampuchea are centred on the International Conference currently taking place in accordance with the United Nations General Assembly resolution of last autumn. Vietnam and U.S.S.R. are not attending the conference. In the circumstances, it is recognized that the conference will not be able to provide definitive solutions to the problems in Kampuchea.
Canada believes that the proposals presented to the conference, which include a cease fire agreement among the conflicting parties, the creation of a United Nations peacekeeping force, the supervised withdrawal of foreign troops from Kampuchea, and the holding of United Nations supervised free elections, are sound proposals which could offer the necessary guarantees for the parties involved. Canada is prepared to give serious consideration to these proposals but recognizes that they may need amendment or adjustment. They are, however, a first step in the right direction. It is also hoped that the conference will establish a framework for continuing discussions, which will, hopefully, in time, as the situation evolves, lead to genuine negotiations by the parties directly involved in the situation in Kampuchea.


ENERGY-FUTURE OF ALSANDS PROJECT AT FORT McMURRAY, ALBERTA (A) POSSIBLE COMMERCIAL ARRANGEMENT WITH OIL COMPANIES
Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to question a reply given to me in response to a question I asked on July 13. I asked specifically if he was working on a commercial agreement with the companies currently contemplating development in the tar sands in northeastern Alberta, particularly Imperial Oil and the Alsands consortium. The minister replied:
As far as the question of arriving at a satisfactory commercial arrangement is concerned, this is what we are negotiating with the government of Alberta at the present time.
Nothing could be more blatantly false than that statement. I must point out that a commercial arrangement must be made with the participating companies. Those companies are willing to invest at this point $12 billion in each of two separate plants, but they first must know what they will get for their production, what the taxing regime will be and what the royalty structure will be so that they can do an ordinary cash flow study and determine whether they will get a rate of return on this massive investment of $12 billion per plant in order to make it economically viable.
Both the Alsands consortium in Fort McMurray and Imperial Oil with respect to the project at Cold Lake have clearly indicated to this government and to the government of Alberta that they must have a rate of return of 20 per cent on a discounted cash flow basis because in the case of Imperial Oil it is investing nearly its total net worth in this project. It is

July 16, 1981
Adjournment Debate
asking for a rate of return which will compensate it for this massive investment.
We all know now that the Cold Lake project has been suspended. Imperial has suspended it, primarily because of the Liberal energy policy and its Canadianization factor which were brought in in October.
Since 1963 Imperial has been working on the technology for in situ production. Imperial wants to retain 50 per cent ownership in the project, but under the present National Energy Policy it is not able to do that. Imperial's rate of return is in the neighbourhood of 8 per cent on a discounted cash flow basis, and Imperial is saying clearly that it cannot continue on that basis. Therefore, it is postponing the project. If Imperial postpones the project, it has to get rid of its technicians. It must reassign them to other jobs, and that process is going on right now. In fact, Imperial Oil is attempting to reassign all its people before September 1 because they are married men with families in most cases, and their children have to be in school by September 1.
Once this group of key people is dispersed literally throughout the world to Imperial Oil projects elsewhere, it will take at least two years to reassemble a team, get a new contract and go through the bidding process again. We have lost at least 140,000 barrels a day for two years. That is a direct attack on the balance of payments of this country of somewhere in the neighbourhood, in today's dollars and at today's prices of $4 billion.
There is something much more drastic than that. All the components of the Imperial Oil plant about which we are talking are brand new. The technology is a radical departure from the technology already known in northeastern Alberta, and that is open pit mining. Most of the tar sands and the oil sands in northeastern Alberta are under too much overburden and oil must be removed in another way. The in situ process has been developed by Imperial Oil since 1963. This technology makes Canada the leader in the world with respect to the in situ process for the removal of oil from tar sands and oil sands. We are the leader of the world in this technology. Venezuela has tar sands. The United States has tar sands. There are tar sands literally in all the oil producing countries of the world, and we are the leaders in this technology. We have 200 years of domestic supply locked in the oil sands. We have technology which is saleable around the world, and we are letting this plant die. I find it incomprehensible that this government would allow that. This is the first plant of its kind in the world. There is a gamble which goes along with it, a gamble of $12 billion, which in two years will increase to at least $15 billion to $18 billion. It appears that the government has put its eggs in another basket. It is saying, "We will not develop the tar sands; we will go with the offshore and with the Canada lands". The Liberal energy policy of last October clearly has scrapped all activity in the western basin and in the tar sands and moved it out into the Beaufort Sea, to the Hibernia field off Newfoundland and to the offshore.
I think, Mr. Speaker, the government should clearly rethink its energy policy because they are gambling with the very security of our country. Every other nation in the western world has made a secure supply of oil a priority. We are the only country, by allowing the Imperial Oil tar sands plant to fold, to say, "no; control is our primary objective, not security of supply".


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, on several occasions in the past when the hon. member has raised the question of the future of those oil sands operations now in the developmental stage, it has been pointed out to him the federal government was fully prepared to see these projects go ahead last year. Unfortunately, the Alberta government refused to negotiate an arrangement that would permit them to proceed independent of a settlement on other issues. What the federal government wanted was to have an agreement on pricing and related matters which would meet the needs of these projects, but this was something that the Alberta government was unfortunately not prepared to negotiate. We are nevertheless working as expeditiously as possible with Alberta to get an agreement which, among other things, would permit these important projects to proceed in the national interest and with full regional benefits as well.
The hon. member has raised his question specifically in relation to the Alsands project. As he must know, the participants in the Alsands consortium are meeting in the near future to make plans for the project for the coming months. I do not propose to try to forecast the result of their upcoming deliberations but the sponsors have given much indication in the past that they are serious about the project and would like to see it proceed as soon as possible.
With reference to the Alsands consortium, we are pleased to note the favourable evolution of this project towards a greater degree of Canadianization. The fact is that an analysis made only a short while ago would have put the Canadian Ownership Rate, COR, at 32 per cent. Today, the COR is approaching the 50 per cent level. The recent new memberships represented by Husky and Dome constitute an expression of confidence in the project on the part of the private sector.
Regarding the question of commercial arrangements being negotiated, this is part of the federal-provincial negotiations which are proceeding expeditiously. From a commercial point of view, the impact of the federal tax system on a present value basis is essentially neutral, after taking into full account the petroleum and gas revenue tax. The availability of grants to member companies of the consortium under terms of the petroleum incentives program is a major plus for this project. On the other hand, Alberta would take considerable amounts out of the project through its present royalty system.
The project will have the advantage of a made-in-Canada price designed to take into consideration the various cost circumstances associated with its development and production. We want to see this project proceed, but not in terms dictated
July 16, 1981

by companies controlled from outside Canada. We want to see it proceed in a way that will provide maximum benefits to Albertans and to all other Canadians, and make a good contribution to the security of supply objective of the NEP.


Jack Wendele Shields: Don't you get tired of that garbage?


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD-QUERY RESPECTING INITIAL WHEAT PRICES FOR NEW CROP YEAR
William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bockstael), who is here to answer my question this evening, will pay more attention and give a reply with a little more enthusiasm than we just had from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. MacLaren).
I rise, Mr. Speaker, on the important question of initial payments to wheat producers in western Canada who fall under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board. I asked a question in the House last Monday. As I am sure the parliamentary secretary will recall, I asked the minister at that time to confirm or deny that the price for Canadian red spring wheat would be $4.75 per bushel and that for durum it would be $4.75 per bushel. The minister declined to answer the question.
The announcement made yesterday by the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board in the Senate indicated that those prices were correct. In the case of durum, it is a reduction of $1.75 per bushel. It is down to $4.75 from the $6.50 which was the initial adjusted price wheat producers received in the 1980-81 crop year. This means that 27 per cent has been taken out of the pockets of the producers of western Canada in the case of durum. In the case of red spring wheat, 60 cents per bushel has been removed. We must look at all this in the context of rising costs, rising energy costs and rising interest costs because of the high interest rate policy of the government.
The reason that this offends those of us who are from wheat producing areas of the country under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board, every farm organization, hon. members of this party and hon. members of the New Democratic Party, is that early on they had called for the government to continue the policy established in 1971 and to make the announcement for initial payments prior to seeding. This would have enabled the producers and farmers in western Canada to have a very important management tool in order to make decisions on what they would plan or on what they would grow in the spring, because they would have an indication of the pricing.
The senator in the other place, the assistant to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin), spoke in the Standing Committee on Agriculture. As reported at page 26:11, I asked the minister the following:
Adjournment Debate
If the farmers are going to be denied this management tool, they cannot dig up their crop in July, they cannot change their summer-fallow acreage, they cannot change their stubble acreage, they cannot change their crop in July; they have been deprived of something that is very important in managing their farms and their farm income. If that is the definition of orderly production or orderly marketing, I strongly disagree with it.
Senator Argue said:
Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to respond to that question. My own judgment is that in the recommendations that I have made, namely for an increase in acreage for wheat of some 10 per cent for spring wheat, ...an increase in acreage for barley of some 10 per cent-
By the way, barley was reduced by 15 cents per bushel from the initially adjusted payment in the next crop year. He indicated that these increases and the maintenance of the acreage in durum were strong indications to the producers of western Canada that the market will be there and the price will continue.
It appears from that statement and the reduction in the initial payments about which we heard yesterday that the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board deliberately deceived the producers of western Canada. He told them to increase their supplies and acreages. That was a signal that we would have strong prices. Then he turned around and took $1.75 per bushel off durum, 60 cents per bushel off spring wheat, and 15 cents per bushel off barley.
This is something the producers will remember, but of course in this instance they cannot take out their revenge on the Senator. The senator is not an elected member. The senator is ensconced safely in the other place and does not have to face the wrath of the farmers and wheat producers in western Canada.
One of the reasons we were given is that the price has gone down. We all have some respect for the Soviet Union in the way that they market and purchase products. Let us suppose that Russia goes around and buys grain from Canada, Australia, Argentina and some countries of the European Economic Community at a lower price, and let us suppose that it does not buy from the United States. Why? Because the minute it makes a large purchase from the United States, it is reflected on the Chicago market, which is what our Canadian Wheat Board uses to price its grain. An increase in the price of grain would follow. 1 think we can build a scenario that this will probably happen. In the meantime, the wheat producers of western Canada are paying 21 per cent and 22 per cent interest because of the high interest rate policy of this government. The government and the minister do not have the desire or, indeed, the inclination to put any faith in the ability of obtaining a great price for wheat from western Canada. It should be expected that the Government of Canada and the taxpayers of Canada should take some risk in underwriting initial payments, since the producers of western Canada, when the two-price system was in effect in the domestic market, were subsidizing consumers up to $100 million a day.
There is no way that this government is taking any steps to increase sales, unless I misunderstand the situation. If I do, I

July 16, 1981
Adjournment Debate
hope the parliamentary secretary will tell me differently. This year sales will have to be increased by 25 per cent. We had record sales last year and we will probably reach close to the same level this year. This 25 per cent increase in one year will be necessary so that the wheat producers can maintain their incomes because the price of grain has been lowered that much. I hope the parliamentary secretary will tell me what steps this government is taking to move an additional 20 per cent or 25 per cent so that the farmers will have the same income they had last year.


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Mr. Speaker, when making comparisons of initial payment levels, it is important that we compare equivalent levels. The initial payments announced yesterday by the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board have been compared to both the levels established in July, 1980 and the adjusted levels of last February.
The hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight) is attempting to aggravate the situation by comparing only with the revised adjusted prices of last February. I suggest that the only fair comparison is with last July's levels. On that basis, the new initial prices are the same as, or in most cases higher than, they were last year except for durum. In announcing the new prices, the minister stated that if international prices strengthen in the next six months, as they did
within the last year, he will certainly consider adjusting the initial prices as he did this year. The initial payment is contingent upon market forecasts, estimated crop yields and sales trends.
The hon. member knows, probably better than most of his colleagues, what the initial price system is designed to do. As some would have us believe, it is not designed to guarantee that a producer's income exceeds his income of the previous year. There are other programs which provide income stability, such as the western grain stabilization program and crop insurance. The initial price system does, however, provide security in the sense that a farmer is guaranteed a minimum price for the current year. But that minimum must reflect the fluctuations in international prices. This year durum is a case in point. Durum is traditionally volatile, and its present soft international price is necessarily reflected in the initial payment levels announced.
The hon. member can be assured that the realistic and responsible initial prices just announced provide producers with the best return on delivery of grain that is possible at present.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
At 10.29 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, July 17, 1981