1982-07-28

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Madam Speaker, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Department of Justice have had a complete and comprehensive study undertaken on the implications of a pardon for Louis Riel. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I move, seconded by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields):
That the government and the minister immediately make that report available to members of this House and the public in order to assist those who are interested.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, in light of the bombing in Beirut and the heightened danger to all civilians in the city as a consequence, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil):
That this House commends the unflinching devotion to duty demonstrated by Canada's ambassador to Lebanon, Mr. Theodore Arcand, and the members of his staff who, despite having to face danger both day and night, have remained at their post to serve as a channel of communications in both directions between the Canadian government and the Lebanese government and also as a means of obtaining information for Canadians about their relatives who may be in Beirut, and further, urges the government to give consideration, because of this response by those stout-hearted Canadians, to proposing their names for an appropriate form of recognition by Canada for their actions.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, I think we have all been moved these last few days by the outstanding
performance of Canada's ambassador in Lebanon and serving as a means of communication between Canada and Lebanon and reporting to Canada on the very significant and disturbing events which are taking place in that area. I feel it is right that this House should mark, by this motion, its recognition of that performance not only by the ambassador but also by his staff in the performance of their duty.
As one who has lived in Beirut in happier days, I find it very sad that these events should be taking place and that we should be watching the loss of life of Lebanese citizens, and the destruction of buildings. I feel that our ambassador and his staff deserve our highest commendation.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Madam Speaker, unfortunately, until this very instant I was not aware that my distinguished colleague and friend would raise this question. However, I cannot let this moment go by without adding a few comments to the words spoken by my distinguished colleague.
Madam Speaker, I am, of course, speaking only for myself, and certainly not in my capacity as chairman of the Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, and I do not think I am necessarily the spokesman for the Liberal Party of Canada. But 1 do know that I will be reflecting the views of many of my colleagues from all three parties in the House.
Madam Speaker, I think the time has come for us to realize, and I know many of us do, that we shall finally have to address ourselves to the problem: what are we going to do about the Palestinian question? What is now happening in West Beirut is totally unacceptable.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
I want to say, Madam Speaker, that I, too, share the great admiration expressed by my distinguished colleague for Ambassador Theodore Arcand, and I am asking too if the time has not come not only to send a letter of protest. I know how difficult it is to address ourselves to the question in Canada, but our consciences dictate that we should address the question of the Palestinians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Prud'homme: Madam Speaker, I want to say as a Canadian-and I repeat, as a Canadian-that I profoundly

July 28, 1982
believe that everybody should be allowed to live in peace in the Middle East. You may add in secure boundaries and you may add everything you want, but I must say, Madam, that the Palestinians also have a right to live in the Middle East.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Prud'homme: I am willing to say that the time has come when we should not only send a letter of protest to the Government of Israel for the incident that took place at our embassy and the search of our ambassador's car, but that perhaps the time has come to call our ambassador back from Israel for consultation. That is number one.
Number two, I believe that we should leave to Ambassador Arcand the decision on whether to withdraw from west Beirut for security reasons. He is one of the last ambassadors of the western world, if my information is correct, to carry a flag inside west Beirut, and that is the Canadian flag. That is why my colleague so rightly stood up to say that we are with him in these difficult times in showing the flag of Canada in a very hazardous place indeed.
I should like to add that if we truly believe, as many people in this country do, that we are friends of the state of Israel, that the best way to address ourselves to the important problem is to address the question of what is making things so difficult over there, and that is, what to do in regard to the Palestinians. It is not a question of absolutely taking sides; it is only a question of basic justice.
What is to be done with these people who are not recognized, who surely make a lot of noise, and who are known as the Palestinians, or the PLO? Is it not perhaps time to recognize them and ask people to put pressure on both sides so that they recognize each other's existence-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Prud'homme: -that the PLO recognize the state of Israel and that the state of Israel recognize that there is a group of people known as Palestinians who have a main spokesman? I am not going to waste the time of the House by saying that they are the only spokesmen, but they certainly are-


An hon. Member:: Don't talk it out.


Marcel Prud'homme: The hon. member is very impatient. I will sit down, Madam Speaker, because I know some of my colleagues want to address the question. I will leave it to my colleague in another party to join in the debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Madam Speaker, I simply wish to endorse what has been said today. I believe that the feelings of members of the House have been expressed. I should like to go on record as supporting the motion. 1 hope it
passes.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. The C.D. Howe Institute in its latest report has condemned the federal government and has blamed Canada's economic ills on a decade of federal economic mismanagement. It has also dismissed the latest budget as ineffectual, particularly in restoring sagging business and investor confidence. I ask the Minister of Finance what new initiatives his government is considering to address this very central problem which is key to economic recovery and the creation of jobs? Or is the minister and his government simply going to rely upon the restraint program and the threat of imposition of mandatory controls?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I read a good part of the C.D. Howe Institute's report. I do not agree with a good part of it, but I doubt whether the hon. member has read it himself. He must be relying on newspaper reports which I think, at least in part, misrepresented that report. So if the hon. member will quote a bit more from the report, I would like to read a few quotes myself.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I would be very glad to quote from it where it says:
The latest budget message is an abysmal stewardship report on the results of past economic policy for which the federal government must take responsibility ... This kind of leadership has placed Canada in a very serious economic predicament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Need I go any further, Madam Speaker?


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT WITHDRAW INTERVENTION IN ECONOMY
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, it would appear, with the federal government prepared to intervene further in the economy and the marketplace, that
July 28, 1982

that is part of the problem which now affects this country, the economic disaster we are experiencing.
Given the fact that the minister and his officials grossly misread the fortunes of Canada's economy as reflected in his latest budget, has he seriously considered the prospect of taking the opposite approach of withdrawing from further government intervention and encroachment? Does he not consider that perhaps that is central to the loss of business and investor confidence in this country? Would he not agree that the government should seriously consider a massive program of de-regulation, and thereby reduce the burden of government?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, maybe I should be permitted to read one or two quotations from the document which the hon. member referred to, as follows:
The budget was innovative in the face of the current severe recession-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Crosbie:: How did we get to the recession?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member has not mentioned that quotation.


Mr. Clark:: Do you have a better one, Allan?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, 1 will try another one. Perhaps it will better suit the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. member has been talking about intervention and intrusion by the government into the economy. The document goes on to say:
There has been no increase, and possibly some decline, in the federal government's share of spending in a high-employment, low-inflation Canadian economy.
They go on to say that at the present time productive resources are not being diverted to pay for the deficit. So I believe the hon. member ought to give a balanced account rather than rely upon what I consider to be a misrepresentation of a document which I find offensive in certain sentences.


GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance should listen to the question I addressed to him, which deals directly with the matter of sagging business and investor confidence.
If I may be allowed to quote again from the document, at page 5 it says, referring to the budget:
Little was done to restore badly sagging business confidence-
Need I go any further, Madam Speaker?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, please.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: In view of the fact that a large part of the business and investor confidence problem has to do with the massive amount of regulations and red tape which are part and parcel of the Canadian economy, would the minister
Oral Questions
seriously consider the suggestion of the Canadian Manufacturers Association for a two-year moratorium on further regulations? Would he consider looking at the costs imposed upon the Canadian economy as a result of duplication of services between the two levels of government, the federal and the provincial? Would he look at ways and means of reducing the over-all burden of government, which is hampering business and investor confidence and thereby job opportunities in this country?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member read half a sentence, and then asked the question "Need I read on?" Maybe I should read on. He read "Little was done to restore badly sagging business confidence-" Then he conveniently asked the question "Need I read on?" Why did the hon. member not read on? Why did he not complete the sentence if he were interested in a total report of the views of the C.D. Howe Institute? If he had read on, the sentence would have concluded as follows: "-but some indications of a shift in tone were signalled".


Charles Joseph Clark: A shift in tone? We don't know about the tone but there was certainly a shift.


EDUCATION
Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and it relates to the genuine future of this country, namely, the young people of Canada. The Prime Minister will know that as of July 23 more than 53,000 students in Ontario alone have applied for financial help to continue their education. This figure is up 25 per cent because these students cannot find jobs at the college and university level. Many of their parents are also unemployed at this point. What does the government plan other than the very inadequate budget proposals of November and December, last year, and of April and June this year, along with several other announcements? What real announcements is the government going to make to help the youth of this country continue their education?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, many of the hundreds of millions of funds set aside by the budget will be used to create jobs for the unemployed youth of Canada. The Minister of Employment and Immigration has given details of that and he will give more as money is spent.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Madam Speaker, the proposals are totally inadequate. We have an unemployment rate of 10.9 per cent and a youth unemployment rate of over 19 per cent.

July 28, 1982
Oral Questions


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT GIVE INCREASED ASSISTANCE
Blaine Allen Thacker: Madam Speaker, a problem has developed with the banks imposing quotas on students. This is because the banks are effectively subsidizing student loans by about 3 per cent or 4 per cent. Something the government could do-and the Prime Minister could make an announcement today in the House, if he just would-is to make up the 3 per cent. It is clearly in our best interests. If the government does not do that, the students will quit university and go on full welfare. Will the government, through the Prime Minister, give a commitment today to increase government assistance toward these subsidized interest loans?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is not only talking about young people but students. I would remind him of the figures that were made public at the time we met with the provinces in February to discuss federal assistance to post-secondary education. He will recall from those figures that, in the last five years, the federal government's share of the operating costs of post-secondary education across Canada had risen from 42 per cent to 58 per cent, whereas the provincial share had fallen from 43 per cent to something in the area of 30 per cent. It is the students who have to pay a higher percentage of the costs along with the federal government. This is in an area of provincial jurisdiction. Therefore, the hon. member should be expressing his concern, which is justified, not to the federal government, which is picking up an increasingly large part of the tab of post-secondary education, but to the provinces that have sorely neglected their duty in that area.


THE ECONOMY
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. We had another economic report recently. Yesterday the Conference Board of Canada noted that there had been virtual stagnation in the real income of Canadians and, as a consequence, there has been a fall off in consumer spending which has worsened the unemployment situation. Will the government admit that the principal consequence of its budget, with its wage control policy, will be to take even more money out of the economy, to reduce further consumer spending, and therefore to increase unemployment? Will the Prime Minister admit that the budget will worsen the unemployment situation in the country rather than help it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am afraid the hon. member during his absence did not take time to study the budget, which was perhaps too complex a document for him. If he did, if he took the time to do that, he would see that the Minister of Finance in his budget did not increase the deficit and did not reduce it either.
The deficit, through the operation of the June budget, has not been changed. The money which has been taken out of the economy is being put back into the economy by various ministers precisely to create jobs across the country. That is a perfect expression of what the government intended to do-to take money from those who have incomes and those who have jobs and to use it in order to help create jobs. Therefore it is not as though the government is reducing something. The government is just taking money from those who have it and spending it to give jobs to those who do not.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, before I ask my second question, I want the Prime Minister to know that I took the ten minutes out which were required to read and understand the budget. Even with that ten minutes of attention, one noted that with the increase in taxes on all Canadians, the reduction in pensions and the reduction in family allowances, there will be a major withdrawal of spending from the economy, no matter what the Prime Minister says.


UNEMPLOYMENT FORECAST
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, at the time of the budget the government refused to give us a percentage forecast of unemployment for the coming year. The Conference Board has now told us that in its judgment, in addition to the judgment of the New Democratic Party, unemployment will remain above 10 per cent not only for the rest of this year but all of 1983. Does the Prime Minister agree with this forecast of the Conference Board that it will remain above 10 per cent to the end of 1983? If he does not agree, why not?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member says that he took ten minutes to read the budget and concluded that there will be a major withdrawal. I submit that perhaps he needs more than ten minutes to understand what is taking place with this budget.


An hon. Member:: He can't concentrate that long.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Perhaps that is true.
Money is to be spent over the year by citizens who have incomes and pay taxes. It will be withdrawn from those citizens over the year and spent over the year in order to give jobs to those who do not, in order to give support to those who do not, and in order to create employment opportunities for those who are unemployed. That is the purpose of the budget.
If the hon. member wants to argue that we should have increased the deficit further and injected more funds into the economy, perhaps that would be an unsound economic position but at least it would show that the hon. member had understood the budget. I am afraid he has not, and I must ask him to return to the budget figures.
In so far as the forecast is concerned, I am not in a position to comment on those statistics. First of all, I have not seen them. Second of all, I would be very cautious in predicting any
July 28, 1982

reduction in unemployment because so much of the unemployment is caused by the fact that it is world-wide, that unemployment has gone up by five million over the past year in OECD countries alone, and that many of our trading partners are not in positions, as the hon. member knows, to buy the goods produced by our mines and our industry. Therefore one cannot be certain that, unless there is a world recovery, Canada will surge ahead.


John Edward Broadbent: The point is that we are all aware in the House, as indeed the people of the country are aware, that there are problems outside Canada as well as within our borders. But the point the Conference Board has made, and the point that we in this party have made, is that the budget produced by the Liberal Party of Canada, rather than improving the situation, only worsens it. That is the reality.


REQUEST FOR JOB-CREATION MEASURES
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, since we will have, between now and 1983, more than a million and a half Canadians remaining unemployed, and at least another
10,000	companies going bankrupt, according to the Conference Board-not simply according to us-when will the government produce a single measure which will produce an additional job for an unemployed miner, an additional job for an unemployed auto worker, or an additional job for an unemployed construction worker anywhere in the country? When will the government live up to its obligations to the workers of this land?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member asks when those single measures will be produced. I would point out to him that the measure which is now in committee and which is being reported to the House, today or tomorrow, 1 believe, will have that precise effect of creating jobs in Canada, because it will bring the cost structure in Canada down to a competitive level. It is important for the hon. member and his party to realize that the OECD figures, the figures of the Conference Board, the figures internationally accepted, indicate that inflation in the OECD countries will be at an average of 7.5 per cent in 1982. In Canada it will be around 11 per cent.
We will not be able to create jobs, nor will we be able to sell our products unless we can bring our inflation down. That is why we want to go from an 11 per cent society to a 6 per cent society. It is because the hon. member is not supporting that, that he is more guilty than the government in creating the kind of conditions which make recovery difficult.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In Lebanon, Israeli
Oral Questions
forces have cut off water and electricity to West Beirut. They have launched air attacks against West Beirut, including civilian targets. We are told that the Canadian ambassador's residence has been badly damaged. The Israeli Prime Minister says that he wants an unequivocal commitment for the PLO by Friday that they will leave Beirut.
As far as we can see, Canada has taken no initiatives or actions that might help arrive at a solution in that area. Would the Prime Minister tell the House what actions or initiatives we have taken, if any, other than protesting the destruction of our embassy? Could he tell the House why the Canadian ambassador is remaining in Beirut? Is he involved in important negotiations to help get a solution? Why is he being exposed to further danger there if he is not? Could the Prime Minister tell the House what is happening?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member honestly wants a recital of initiatives I will ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs to give the details of those initiatives. I must say that I welcome the hon. member for St. John's West, the opposition spokesman for external affairs. He has at last awakened to the reality of the situation in the Middle East. I think it is pretty shameful that for months we heard questions from both opposition parties about El Salvador, Poland and Afghanistan, but nary a word about the Middle East.


John Edward Broadbent: That is not true. You had better read your Hansard.


John Carnell Crosbie: I have asked the Prime Minister a serious question about a serious subject. On June 8 I moved a motion in the House at the same time that he sent a letter about this issue. I am asking him a question about a serious matter affecting the peace of the world. He wants to take some partisan political advantage out of it.


Charles Joseph Clark: As he did in Iran.


REQUEST THAT CANADA UNDERTAKE NEW INITIATIVES
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, I would like to give the Prime Minister another chance to take a serious attitude about this crisis. Would he tell us what initiatives he has taken? He met with a group, last week, including Mr. Stanfield and ex-ambassador Barton, who urged the Prime Minister to take a more active role in this situation in the Middle East. They appealed to him to do that. They asked for Canadian participation in new initiatives to negotiate a political settlement. Is the Prime Minister prepared to do this, or has he done so? If he has not, will he, and if so, when? The time is running out for the one half million civilian people living in West Beirut. It is time for the Prime Minister, the great international statesman, to act if he is concerned about this and not just about his own political neck here in the House of Commons.


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, we deplore the violence which has

July 28, 1982
Oral Questions
taken place in the Beirut area. Both because of this atmosphere of violence and the unprecedented statement over the weekend, which was a combination of a written statement by Mr. Arafat and an oral statement by Representative McClos-key, we took what I believe is a very important initiative in contacting the PLO to try to determine exactly what they meant by that statement. We have their reply. 1 regret to say that they were not able to confirm that the Arafat declaration represented any change in the PLO policy of non-recognition of Israel. This is a disappointment to us because we had hoped that this statement might open the way to a new series of developments in the Middle East.
In addition, I might say that we have now received a reply from Israel with respect to the bombing of our premises and the inspections of the ambassador's car. They have apologized, and have undertaken to try to ensure these things do not happen again.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. Some time ago I asked him about the practice of showing pornographic films in federal penitentiaries. At that time the parliamentary secretary told me, "I am told such films are shown. I therefore believe that prisoners are treated like people living in remote regions, in any case, in a community which is not like ours, I think that those prisoners should be treated like normal human beings, that is, capable of judging the merits of a film." In fact I thought that the practice had stopped. There is now a report that they are showing these films in Archambault and, I am told, in one of the western penitentiaries as well. There were topless dancers at Archambault.
First, is this report true, and does he agree with the practice of showing these films. Third, does he agree with the former parliamentary secretary that these people should be treated like normal human beings out on the street capable of judging the merits of these films?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, as far as the pornographic films are concerned, pornography is covered by the Criminal Code in Canada. There are censorship boards in virtually every province which pass films to be shown in the provinces. The policy which I have in place in the Correctional Service of Canada on that score is that any film which has passed all of the necessary inspections and can be shown in the community where the prison is located can be shown inside the institution. To do otherwise would involve the Correctional Service of Canada in establishing its own censorship agency with criteria which would probably be dubious if we were to leave it to wardens, and which would vary from one region of the country to the other without any rational basis for distinction.
The conclusion which I have drawn, and I invite the hon. member's comment on it, is to allow the normal censorship process to apply in full measure. So the suggestion that remote regions have different rules or that citizens there are allowed to make judgments that ordinary citizens in the country are not allowed to make about what they see, is without foundation. The same rules apply.
With respect to the topless performance at Archambault, I am looking into it. It is certainly contrary to the policy of the Correctional Service of Canada for any such performance to have taken place. I understand that on one occasion a couple of years ago a group of musicians were playing at Archambault and, contrary to the understanding with the Correctional Service, one of the performers began to undress. 1 am told by some individuals that the person who was undressing was not stopped by the officials who were present. She should have been stopped but was not stopped. The policy was violated on that occasion. I am looking into the matter further to ensure that pornographic or topless exhibitions do not take place in the institutions.


Benno Friesen: Naturally, the question is whether the classification regulations are stringent enough and whether the officials are, in fact, following them. I wonder if the Solicitor General can comment on that.


CORONER'S STATEMENT ON CYANIDE DEATHS
Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question relates to a comment made by the coroner of Montreal, Coroner Laniel. He is quoted as saying:
-he was alarmed by what appeared to be a growing incidence of cyanide use in jails in the Montreal area.
"The number of deaths that have occurred on jail premises where prisoners died by cyanide poisoning is worrying me", he said.
How can the Solicitor General, as the chief security officer in the land, explain the kind of administration in a penitentiary system which would cause the coroner in Montreal to make a statement like that?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, two important changes have taken place in prisons in the last several years that bear on the ability of a staff, however competent, to control contraband. One is the increased access of inmates to employment opportunities inside the prison, but, outside their cells. To an increasing degree inmates are spending less time in their cells and more time in retraining programs of one kind or another within the institutions. There is no getting away from the fact that that increases opportunities for guards, however careful their surveillance, to miss contraband.
The second is a recommendation by the preceding Parliament, in the form of recommendation of the justice committee on penitentiary reform, that open visiting should be increased in the institutions. This means that instead of having to talk to
July 28, 1982

a wife and family through a plate of glass by telephone, inmates can visit them in open visiting areas which have been established in most of our institutions. That has created a very difficult problem. I have come to recognize the difficulty of controlling contraband within the institution. I think an excellent job is done of controlling it, but it has not been totally eliminated.
1 read in the newspapers that the use of cyanide was suspected. 1 want to wait until the investigation is completed to see whether that was the case and whether we can obtain any evidence on how it got in, and whether any further measures can be taken to control it. But I would hesitate and very much regret to move to a situation where inmates were behind bars within their cells full time-


Madam Speaker:: Order.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: -and open visiting was discontinued.


Madam Speaker:: Order.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Jean-Guy Dubois (Lotbiniere):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Today, the minister announced in a press release that a series of direct job-creation programs worth $300 million would be set up by the Canadian government. My question has four parts. When will the constituency allocations be announced? How much has, in fact, been allocated to the province of Quebec? There has been some talk of an emergency fund of $41 million: how will this money be spent? And finally, what will be the deadline for submitting projects under the community development projects program?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, in response to the question, I think I should point out, for the interest of the Leader of the New Democratic Party, who asked a question earlier, that, as a result of the announcement today, 57,000 additional new jobs will be created for the workers of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: Within the next week or ten days we will be sending the allocations to Members of Parliament for their constituencies. In the case of Members of Parliament the minimum has been raised by 100 per cent to $200,000, and the maximum has been raised to $3 million.
[ Translation]
Last year, the province of Quebec received $50 million, and this year, it will be receiving $80 million.
Oral Questions

Finally, we have set aside a special allocation of $41 million, a special response fund, to respond to areas which are hard-hit by lay-offs or where there is a danger of workers being hit by exhaustion of unemployment insurance benefits. We will enlist the co-operation of Members of Parliament to keep us informed of those matters within their ridings. We are committed to working with them to help in direct job-creation programs in hard-hit areas.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Robert Joseph Ogle: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and concerns aid to Central America. The U.S. Congress has imposed a special condition on U.S. aid to El Salvador that substantial progress of human rights and reform programs must be certified by the U.S. President every six months. Yesterday President Reagan gave his certification to continue aid which will include, among other things, $81 million worth of military equipment. This was done even over heavy opposition from the members of the U.S. Senate and clear allegations that the Salvadoran National Police had tortured an official from the Green Cross organization in May. By the way, the Green Cross organization looks after displaced persons within the country. Could the Secretary of State explain to this House what measures he is taking to protest this move by the U.S. President?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, it is not our role to determine what U.S. policy should be in this situation. Our own view of what is happening in El Salvador is that, as a result of pressure from a number of governments outside and, of course, also because of many people within the country who are working to the same purpose, a decision has been made to continue the land reform movement, which we applaud. At the moment, we are not, ourselves, in the position to give any new development assistance to El Salvador other than that which has been slowly completed as a result of previous commitments, but we would want to encourage the government in its land reform. I can assure the hon. member that we are prepared to protest violations of human rights when and if they occur.


HONDURAS-AIRCRAFT EXPORTS FROM CANADA
Robert Joseph Ogle: Madam Speaker, on a question that relates more directly to the Canadian position, it has been announced that Canada has granted an export permit for three DHC-5D Buffalo aircraft to Honduras. At this

July 28, 1982
Oral Questions
particular time, troops are moving back and forth along the border between El Salvador and Honduras. There have been incursions into Nicaragua out of Honduras and military bases in Honduras are supplying soldiers for an attack on Nicaragua. Given those facts, is the Minister prepared to stop those permits until the situation is cleared up?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, I will certainly be pleased to look into that situation, but I will remind the hon. member that Buffalo aircraft are not military aircraft, and it is extremely unlikely that a permit to export Buffalo aircraft would have anything to do with the problems which exist in Central America at the present time.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. Last week Agriculture Canada announced that, effective July 19, there would be an increase in the cost to potato farmers for the charge of table stock inspection for export, from $6 a carload to 8 cents per hundredweight, an increase of 1200 per cent. On July 20 the President of the Treasury Board announced that price restraint in the federal public sector will apply to all prices established under federal jurisdiction, and any increase higher than the 6 per cent ceiling which was not implemented before June 28 will be rolled back. There have been numerous letters and telegrams. Could the minister advise the House and the potato producers of P.E.I. and New Brunswick whether he will allow this 1200 per cent increase, or will he be true to his own words and roll it back to 6 per cent?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, questions involving prices falling within the jurisdiction of a particular ministry should be addressed to the responsible minister in each case; in this case, the Minister of Agriculture.


Charles Joseph Clark: Is there a policy?


MINISTERS' STATEMENTS
Melbourne Alexander Gass: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question will be directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. The Minister of Agriculture is announcing one policy of a 1200 per cent increase, and the President of the Treasury Board is announcing an increase of no more than 6 per cent. Will the Prime Minister tell the potato producers of P.E.I. and New Brunswick which minister they are expected to believe?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I will take notice of the question.


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. Less than two weeks after the Minister of Finance brought down his budget in which he announced that the average senior citizens of Canada would be expected to accept a cut in their standard of living next year, the Secretary of State, in conjunction with the Minister of State for Small Business threw a lavish party in Montreal, paid for by the taxpayers, for the All-Star baseball game, at which French wine, free liquor, roast beef, lobster, rice and other delicacies were featured. Can the Secretary of State confirm to the House, as has been indicated to the London Free Press by one of his aides, that the cost to the taxpayer for this lavish extravaganza will be $100,000?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Secretary of State):: Madam Speaker, I am unable to confirm any such figure for the hon. member. Through you I can tell him that part of the fact is that for the first time in history the All-Star game between the American and National Leagues was held in Canada, and the meetings of the leagues that are associated with that were attended by a very large number of visitors from outside this country, as is the case with any convention. In such circumstances it is customary to help attract attention, by the federal, provincial and municipal governments extending a degree of hospitality. For instance, the Government of Quebec put on very extensive receptions and buffet dinners before and after the game; the city of Montreal also undertook certain responsibilities.
Through the various Departments of the Government of Canada that were involved, Canada undertook to extend some hospitality, recognizing the presence of 600 foreign journalists; recognizing the presence of leaders of amateur baseball from all of the major baseball countries, as well as Canadian officials, and recognizing the unique opportunity to attract attention to Canada during the height of the tourist season, before the largest television audience that could ever be achieved under such circumstances.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald Augustine Regan: Since the hon. member puts himself forward as being an expert on advertising, perhaps he would want to review the amount of favourable publicity at the destination point for visitors that Canada achieved as a consequence of the publicity we received, without having to buy space or television time. I will undertake to assure the hon. member that the program of providing such hospitality is very good business for Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
July 28, 1982


JUSTIFICATION FOR EXPENDITURE
[Stage Direction]
Elon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe): Madam Speaker, now that the Secretary of State, with the support of his Liberal colleagues, has recognized all those people, perhaps he can give some recognition to the taxpayers of Canada who have to foot the bill for this extravaganza.
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: Is the Secretary of State telling the House and the people of Canada that he threw this party at the taxpayers' expense without having the foggiest idea of what the cost would be, and is he telling the people of Canada that if the figure is, indeed, as his aide suggested, $100,000, that can be justified at a time when the Minister of Finance and his cabinet colleagues are demanding that ordinary Canadians take cuts in their standard of living?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member would be able to understand that if you put on a dinner for a very small convention it is going to cost less than if you put one on for a very big convention. We are coming right back to the point of principle as to whether it is or is not good policy for the Government of Canada, in common with the provincial government, to provide hospitality in such circumstances.


An hon. Member:: How much?


Gerald Augustine Regan: I can assure the hon. member that, in my view, it is in the interest of the Canadian taxpayers when you can attract to this country something that leaves, as this occasion did, $4 million in direct expenditures in the city of Montreal, plus all the publicity that was achieved; that is very worthwhile.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald Augustine Regan: I cannot give the hon. member an exact figure because my department was not the only department of government involved.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Order!


BEAUFORT SEA DEVELOPMENT DECISIONS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. As the minister knows, the Beaufort Sea environment assessment review has been delayed by Dome, Gulf and Esso by their failure to submit information, and by their dispute over the relative risks of tanker traffic and pipelines in the Arctic. The minister has denied access to funds in the energy envelope to the departments with responsibility in the north, and has now
Oral Questions
put pressure on his colleague, the Minister of the Environment, to come up with ways of making decisions before the environmental assessment is complete. Will the minister explain to the House how it is possible to make major drilling and production decisions when he has provided "no funds to discharge our own statutory responsibilities"?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: As usual, Madam Speaker, the hon. member is in error.


PROTECTION OF ENVIRONMENT
James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, as usual, I will be releasing the letter from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to the Minister of the Environment at the end of the question period to the press, and perhaps then the Canadian public can make its own decision.
The Minister of the Environment has objected directly to the minister regarding the pressure he has put on him. In particular, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has given $400 million to accelerate exploration in the Mackenzie Delta and $2 billion to assist the oil industry, while at the same time denying a few thousand dollars to intervenors and government departments in order to protect the most fragile environment in the world. The Minister of the Environment says, "we would be remiss to accelerate the review process unduly and then find that the economics of the situation do in fact preclude early development". Does the minister of Energy, Mines and Resources intend to take the advice of his colleague, the Minister of the Environment, or is he going to forge ahead and support the oil industry, regardless of the social and environmental consequences, and regardless of his and his colleagues' statutory responsibilities?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the Minister of the Environment and myself are working very closely together, and I support the steps taken by that minister.


FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW AGENCY
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, will the minister responsible for FIRA tell the House whether acceptance of FIRA applications by the federal government will now be conditional upon foreign companies or Canadian subsidiary companies implementing the government's 6 per cent and 5 per cent guidelines?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, we have not created any such stipulation. If
19780

July 28, 1982
Oral Questions
that is my hon. friend's recommendation, 1 would be happy to draw it to the attention of the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


BUDGET STATEMENT ON POLICY
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, will the Prime Minister tell us whether the statement in the budget in relation to FIRA that "the agency will confine its examination of undertakings to the key elements of the investment proposal" is still believeable, or will there be a new complication added to FIRA; in other words, the condition or leverage of the six and five rule?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the responsible minister just answered that question, that that was not part of FIRA policy, but that he would be happy to study the recommendation of the Leader of the Opposition.


FINANCE
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, this is quite a day. We heard earlier that all those baseball fans came to see Gerry Regan and not the Expos or the All-Stars and that is why we have to pay the tab.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Who did you go to see?


Charles Joseph Clark: I went to see Gary Carter.
Since we have had a clear indication by the Minister of Finance that the 6 - 5 rule is going to be applied to government grants, government subsidies and government agreements, and that guidelines are being prepared which the Minister of Finance thought would be finished this week, I should like to ask him whether those guidelines will be prepared this week, and will they be made public?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I told the Leader of the Opposition earlier in the week that the guidelines would probably, and "probably" was the word I used, be completed this week. That answer still stands, and when they are completed obviously it would be our intention to make them public.


REDUCTION IN SUNCOR TAX PAYMENTS-APPLICATION OF RESTRAINT GUIDELINES
Mr. Paul E. McRae (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Yesterday he announced a $35.5 million reduction in taxes to Suncor for additional spending for upgrading, efficiency and more production. Did Suncor give any undertaking that it would fulfil the six and five proposition?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I am indeed very happy to see Suncor proceeding with a $690 million investment, about half of which will take place in Ontario and the other half in Alberta. In return for the tax concessions granted by the Government of Canada, Suncor has agreed to adhere, within its own operations, both to the federal government's six and five wage guidelines, except for existing contractual obligations, and to the guideline respecting lower price increases during the next two years as the rate of increase in costs goes down and profit margins are restored as a result of the excellent budget presented by the Minister of Finance at the end of June.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Madam
Speaker, I have the honour to present the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, in both official languages.
[Editor's Note: For above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


TABLING OF DEPARTMENTAL RESPONSE TO REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON OIL SUBSTITUTION
Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 41(2), I wish to table, in both official languages, copies of the response of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources to the report of the Special Commons Committee on Oil Substitution.
July 28, 1982


TABLING OF 1981 ANNUAL REPORT OF CANERTECH, INC. AND DEPARTMENTAL RESPONSE TO REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE
Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 41(2), 1 wish to table, in both official languages, copies of the 1981 annual report of Canertech Inc. as well as the response of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources to the report of the special committee, which I tabled earlier.


PETITIONS
Melbourne Alexander Gass: Madam Speaker, this afternoon I have the duty and responsibility to present a petition signed by 1,251 residents of Prince Edward Island. The purpose of the petition is to protest the government's intention to discontinue rural mail delivery on Saturdays, thereby denying 17,450 householders of mail, newspapers and other material, and to close rural post offices on Saturdays, a move which will affect some 25,300 people.
The petitioners hope that in your examination of the petition you will find the petition in order and that you will exercise the discretionary powers vested in the office of the Speaker of the House to allow discussion and referral to committee of this issue at the earliest possible time.


Mr. John Evans (Ottawa Centre):: Madam Speaker, today I have the honour to present to the House a petition on behalf of over 600 members of the Canadian academic community concerning the imposition of martial law in Poland.
The petition respectfully calls upon the Parliament of Canada to protest the actions of the Polish military council, which are in violation of the 1975 Helsinki Accords, to demand the restoration of civil and human rights in that country and to assist in organizing an international effort of humanitarian assistances to the Polish people.


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, today I have the honour and privilege to present a petition to this House and to Your Honour on behalf of several hundred Canadians, asking that this House condemn Israeli actions of aggression against Lebanon, that the Israeli government withdraw from Lebanon and that this House use its efforts to call upon the Government of Canada to supply humanitarian relief and aid in the form of medicine and monetary relief to the devastated population of Lebanon.
Regulations and other Statutory Instruments
My petitioners humbly are bound and will ever pray and ask Your Honour to make sure this petition is referred to the appropriate standing committee.



POINT OF ORDER


Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As Your honour will recall, some weeks ago I raised the matter of the presentation of papers regarding emergency planning orders and an order by this House that the government table those. I have yet to see them, and I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith) to indicate to the House when those papers will be forthcoming.


Madam Speaker:: Well, I suppose the parliamentary secretary will become conscious and recognize the hon. member's-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: He will be conscious of the hon. member's request.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: He will eventually be aware of the hon. member's request-that is better English-and then he will be able to respond.



REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand indirectly from the government House leader that there might be a disposition in the House to concur unanimously in the twelfth report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments. It is my intention to call for concurrence in the thirteenth report, but if there were unanimous agreement with respect to the twelfth report which could be achieved immediately, I think that would have the approval of the House.


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, that is correct. The House leader of the Conservative Party raised this matter with me a few days ago, and I reported to him and to my colleague, the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), that we were willing to agree to the twelfth report of the committee without debate. I have just read a letter the hon. member sent to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Tobin) about the thirteenth report. I thought that was an error because that was never discussed. We are taken by surprise.

July 28, 1982
Regulations and other Statutory Instruments
We had hoped to be able to deal with Canagrex today rather than at the end of next week. I understand my hon. colleague is now asking for concurrence in the twelfth report without debate. Yes, provided we do not have to debate the thirteenth report.


Charles Joseph Clark: No relation.


Yvon Pinard: The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) says there is no relation. I make the relation.


Charles Joseph Clark: We will debate them all.


Yvon Pinard: I am saying that our consent will be given if we do not have to debate the thirteenth report today. If we have to debate the thirteenth report today, there will be no consent, and we will have to deal with Canagrex some time next week or in the following week.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, if that is the disposition of the President of the Privy Council, would you simply call the motion for concurrence in the thirteenth report, please.



CONCURRENCE IN THIRTEENTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, I should like to move that the thirteenth report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments, presented to the House on Tuesday, June 29, 1982, be concurred in.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Henry Perrin Beatty: I am disappointed that we so quickly hear "no" on the other side, before we have even had an opportunity to discuss the substance of the thirteenth report of the standing joint committee. The report was unanimously presented to the House of Commons. Members of all parties, both in the Senate and in the House of Commons were unanimous. I regret that the government House leader decided to attach conditions on his approval of the twelfth report. So be it. We will have to deal with the twelfth report at another time.
I believe it is essential, before this House recesses for the summer, that some of these motions for concurrence which stand in my name on behalf of the standing joint committee be called either to receive concurrence or at least so that we can have the opportunity to have a debate in the House of Commons.
Over the years we have found that for a series of motions for concurrence in unanimous committee reports which have sat on the Order Paper in my name, there has been no provision for assurance that the matter will be brought back to the House or no way of assuring support by Parliament for a bipartisan effort by the committee to draw to the attention of Parliament the deficiencies that we feel exist in the statutory instruments we have been asked to examine.
There is no issue that can be more important for Parliament than the question whether the government is acting within the
law and whether it has acted in a way consistent with the intent of Parliament. No Member of Parliament and certainly no chairman of a committee could stand by with any propriety, after a committee has found that the government has acted in a way which in the committee's opinion was ultra vires, and simply set that to one side when the minister responsible has written to the committee to say that, as far as he is concerned, he intends to take no action whatsoever.
Either way, as custodians of the public interest we have a responsibility to ensure that the government is held to account and that its actions are within the law. If we do not make sure of that, then no one is protecting the interests of the people of Canada. That is why I think it is essential, before the House considers breaking for the summer, that we look at some of these reports where a parliamentary committee has unanimously found that the government has acted in an improper way and that it should change its pattern of behaviour.
Another point I should stress is that we still do not know whether it is the intention of the government to put an end to this session of Parliament. If the government decides to call an end to this session, these reports will die on the Order Paper. There will be no way of bringing them before Parliament for the discussion and debate that is provided for in the rules of the House of Commons. That is why it is essential that we ensure that these matters are not simply left in limbo indefinitely. It is essential that Parliament consider some of them at this time.
On June 29, on behalf of the standing joint committee, I presented its unanimous report which deals with the regulations made under the Fisheries Act, the Atlantic coast marine plant regulations, SOR 81-363. The committee's concern about these regulations and the predecessor regulations goes back as far as 1979 when we first became aware of some of the problems with them. The act gives to the government the authority to make regulations and to issue permits for the harvesting of Irish moss, among other things, which is used commercially in Canada. That authority is given to the government and it is allowed to put conditions on the permits which are issued.
When we looked at the original regulations we found that they were written in such a way as to allow the government to suspend the right to harvest indefinitely. We found that that was not provided for in the Act of Parliament passed by this House and the Senate. We wrote to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc), bringing this to his attention and asking that action be taken to bring the government's regulations and its actions into conformity with the law. I think that is a reasonable request to make.
Ultimately, the government amended the regulations which were of concern. However, it attempted to do indirectly what it could not do directly, that is, to put an indefinite suspension of a right in place through a rewording of the regulations when it realized it could not do so directly. Instead of not specifying a time period in which harvesting would not be allowed, it
July 28, 1982

allowed the suspension to take place from January 1 of the year until December 31 of the year and to renew itself automatically on January 1. The government is using a subterfuge in this instance. It is attempting to do indirectly what would be against the law if it attempted to do it directly.
It might be useful to put on the record the report made by the committee, which is quite brief and explains more succinctly than I can the position taken by the committee. It states as follows:
1.	In accordance with its permanent reference, Section 26 of the Statutory Instruments Act, S.C. 1970-71-72, C.38, your Joint Committee has determined to draw to the special attention of both Houses Section 6(a) of the Atlantic Coast Marine Plant Regulations as made by SOR/81-363. In your Committee's judgment this provision is ultra vires Section 34.3(b) of the Fisheries Act. in addition, of Section 6(a) were to be held valid by the courts, your Committee's judgment is that it amounts to an unusual and unexpected use of the power conferred on the Governor-in-Council by Section 34.3(b) of the Fisheries Act.
2.	Section 34.2 of the Fisheries Act empowers the Minister to set conditions, of types there defined, in licences issued for the harvesting of marine plants. Section 34.3(a) of the Act empowers the Governor-in-Council to make regulations prohibiting, subject to the conditions of any licence issued by the Minister under Section 34.2, the harvesting of marine plants. Section 34.3(b) of the Act empowers the Governor-in-Council to make regulations prohibiting, notwithstanding the conditions of any licence, the harvesting of marine plants or any class thereof in any area or areas of the coastal waters of Canada for such period or periods as are specified in any such regulation. Section 6(a) of the Regulations under report prohibits the harvesting of Irish moss of the species Chondrus crispus, wire weed or horsetail notwithstanding the conditions of a licence issued by the Minister, during the period "from January 1 to December 31". To stipulate a period from January 1 to December 31 is to make the limitation or prohibition indefinite, or even perpetual, and to reproduce in substance the very provision in the original Section 6(a) to which your Committee objected in its Eighth Report for this Session (Statutory Instrument No. 13). That report was withdrawn when the Minister caused the then Section 6(a) to be revoked.
3.	The original form of Section 6(a), as made by SOR/78-867, failed to specify any period at all during which harvesting was prohibited notwithstanding the terms of a licence. The justification for this failure to abide by the requirements of Section 34.3(b) of the Act was that the failure to specify any period amounted to the specification of an indefinite period which complied with the requirement that harvesting be prohibited "for such period or periods as are specified". The line of reasoning that failure to specify any period amounted to the specification of a period, albeit an indefinite one, was rejected by Addy J., in the Federal Court of Canada in Dantex Wollen Co. Inc. v. Minister of Industry, Trade & Commerce [1979] 2 F.C. 585. To specify a period from January 1 to December 31 as has now been done appears to your Committee to be a further attempt to specify an indefinite period in contravention of the statutory requirement to specify "such period or periods" during which marine plants may not be harvested notwithstanding the conditions of a harvesting licence. If your Committee is wrong in its legal conclusion it is of the view that Parliament never intended, in enacting Section 34.3(b), of the Fisheries Act, to allow a licence to be in effect suspended indefinitely and that the attempt to achieve this result by specifying an indefinite period of prohibition amounts to an unusual and unexpected use of power. What Parliament has in contemplation was the imposition of prohibitions of certain duration. It is true that the indefinite period now provided for in Section 6(a) is limited in area. If, however, a power is needed to suspend a licence in a particular area for an indefinite period, Parliament should be asked to grant the power. The Minister has rejected this course as impractical. He has also rejected your Committee's suggestion that the conditions attached to licences be altered so that they specify on their face that they can not be used in the location now specified in Section 6(a) of the Regulations. By rejecting these suggestions the Minister is issuing or continuing in force licences which are in a sense counterfeit. Your Committee regards this as an abuse of Section 34.3(b) of the Fisheries Act.
That was the report I tabled in Parliament on June 29, along with the motion to concur.
I should like to deal with some of the substance of that report, Mr. Speaker. The issue at stake is important as it
Regulations and other Statutory Instruments
relates to the role of Parliament in holding the government to account and in ensuring that, where Parliament delegates power to the executive, the government acts in a way which is proper and is within the law. No issue in Canada can be more important than respect for the rule of law. When the government decides that, notwithstanding what the law says, it has the right to take actions which may very well be illegal or, as the committee suggested, to issue licences which are in effect counterfeit, then respect for the law by all Canadians suffers as a result.
This is an issue, Mr. Speaker, which has continued over the course of three Parliaments. It is one which has vexed the committee now since 1979, and it obviously is a concern of the minister as well. We suggested a number of alternatives which could have been considered by the minister. First, he could have considered changing the condition of a licence or amending Section 34(3)(b) of the act. This would have allowed the minister to do what he wanted but in a legal and proper way and within that which Parliament contemplated at the time it passed the legislation. 1 think that is an essential consideration for us to keep in mind.
We wrote to the minister-the correspondence is appended to various committee reports and is available for members to examine-to make the suggestion on October 23, 1981 and we did not receive a response until March 18, 1982, which reads as follows:
I apologize for the lateness of my reply to your letter of October 23, 1981.
I acknowledge the complaints that the Committee has raised on Section 6(a) and agree that the authority to make this regulation is Section 34.3(6) of the Fisheries Act. As requested by the Committee, I have taken steps to specify a period in which the harvesting of Irish moss, wire weed or horsetail in a specified area is prohibited. This period is deemed necessary for the proper management of this resource.
The concern of the committee, Mr. Speaker, does not relate to the question of policy and whether or not it is necessary from time to time to suspend the right of people to harvest Irish moss. The issue is whether or not the process being followed by the government is legal and within that which was contemplated by Parliament. The minister continues as follows:
The two options you have suggested-changing the conditions of a licence or amending 34.3(6) of the Act are not practical. Consequently, I am not disposed to making further changes to Section 6(a) of the subject Regulations, as with the amendments that have been made by SOR/81-363, Section 6(a) is, in my view, within the parameters of the regulation making authority set out in Section 34.3(6) of the Act.
The critical statement made by the minister was this:
The two options you have suggested ... are not practical. Consequently, I am not disposed to making further changes-
The issue at stake here is not the convenience of the government, not whether or not it would take time for the government to bring the law into conformity with what it would like it to be. The issue is the rule of law and whether the government has a responsibility to obey the law of the land and to act

July 28, 1982
Regulations and other Statutory Instruments
in the way which Parliament contemplated it should act when Parliament passed the legislation. If the government is dissatisfied with the way Parliament wrote the law, if it believes the wording proposed to and passed by Parliament was defective in some way, if it believes circumstances have changed such that it is necessary to have a change in the law as it stands, then it has the responsibility to come back to Parliament, to put legislation before Parliament and ask Parliament to make an amendment.
Again, Mr. Speaker, the concern of the committee is not with the policy being followed, the question of whether or not the right to harvest during some periods can be suspended; rather it is the question of the process being followed and whether it is in conformity with the rule of law. The committee found that it was not.
It is essential, Mr. Speaker, that we realize what the government was trying to do. Initially what it left out was a procedure whereby no time period was specified for a prohibition. In the finding of a court in a similar case, that meant that the prohibition could be indefinite. In that instance the court found that that was not contemplated by Parliament and consequently was an illegal action as conducted by the government. Then, rather than changing the act to bring it into conformity with what the minister would like it to be, he chose instead to try and find a subterfuge which would achieve the same effect, an indefinite suspension, without having to change the law. What he did was to specify the period from the first day of the year to the last day, automatically renewing itself on New Year's Day for the following year. So in fact we have a period of indefinite suspension.
There is a long-standing principle in law, which has been followed by Parliament in the past, that governments should not attempt to do indirectly what they are forbidden to do directly. It might be instructive to the House if I were to quote briefly from a decision made in a similar case by Mr. Justice Addy of the Federal Court of Canada. The case involved the Dantex Woollen Co. Inc. and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The issue was very similar, having to do with whether or not the government would have the right to suspend people's rights for an indefinite period of time when it was expected that there would be a limitation on the amount of time these rights would be suspended. Mr. Justice Addy deals with it on page 5 of his decision, where he said:
As to the goods mentioned in item 47, it is clear on the evidence that at no time was their importation, in so far as any order of the Governor in Council is concerned, made subject to any limitation as to extent, quantity or time. The first question which arises is therefore whether, since there is no limitation of the extent to which the goods will be restricted or any limitation as to the period for which the limitation will be imposed, the Governor in Council has failed to exercise the judgment and control which Parliament might have directed him to exercise under the above-mentioned subsection 5(2) of the Act, and whether, as a result of such failure, item 47 might have been improperly and illegally included on the Import Control List and, therefore, not subject to import control. The Applicant argues in other words that, when an item is put on the List pursuant to section 5(2), it is absolutely essential that the order in council state to what extent and for what time or period the importation of the goods in that item is to be limited and that, failing this, the item is to be considered as if it had not been included on the List, because the Governor in Council has not properly limited the importation as required by Parliament.
He goes on to deal with the history of the legislation and then comes back to the issue on page 9, where he says:
The Governor in Council was not obliged to accept the Board's recommendations following the two enquiries. But to say, as the counsel for the Respondents does, that from the mere fact that no limit as to duration has been mentioned in the order-in-council, one is to imply that the Governor in Council in fact exercised his discretion in favour of the restriction being imposed for an indefinite period, is a completely unacceptable argument: it flies in the face of all of the evidence as to how the List is in fact being administered. Furthermore, if failure to specify a time restriction means an indefinite period, then, failure to specify the extent means either an indefinite extent or amount or an absolute prohibition. Either of these two interpretations would directly contradict the express wording of the last paragraph of section 5(2).
Finally, where a statute restricts a basic right recognized by common law and is capable of two interpretations, the strict interpretation, that is, an interpretation against the restriction and in favour of the citizen must be given the statute. Since such a rule of interpretation is used against enactments by Parliament, it must apply a fortiori against legislative enactments of the Governor in Council, which complete restrictive legislation.
Orders-in-council issued pursuant to the Export and Import Permits Act are capable of greatly restricting and limiting the fundamental right of every citizen to fully engage in legitimate trade and business as he may deem fit. Its application in many cases might well remove from an importer, his sole means of livelihood or cause him very considerable losses.
Very clearly, Mr. Speaker, an analogy can be drawn between this and the situation of the harvesting of some marine plants off the east coast. Mr. Justice Addy continues:
Unlike some legislation such as customs and excise which is intended to provide a more permanent type of protection for local industries and producers, the Export and Import Permits Act, from its tenor, obviously appears to be legislation enacted to permit controls for a limited time and for specific and very limited purposes and by reason of the existence of certain special circumstances and conditions or international commitments or undertakings which outweigh the rights of certain citizens to trade as they wish. Notwithstanding its effects, which are potentially highly restrictive, Parliament has chosen to delegate to the Governor in Council power to legislate in this area by enacting section 5, because of the time ordinarily required to enact detailed regulatory legislation in both Houses of Parliament and because of constantly changing international arrangements and commitments and continually shifting conditions of the international market and of Canadian production and markets. Parliament, however, has also attempted to provide the strict limitations to which I have already referred, on the exercise of that power. Any delegation by the Governor in Council to the Minister of the legislative power to decide for how long and to what extent importation of any goods must be restricted and subject to control, is ultra vires and of no effect.
That was the decision of Mr. Justice Addy of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division. We believe, and the committee believes unanimously, on the advice of its counsel, that this decision was directly applicable to the situation that was before us when we considered these harvesting regulations which were proposed by the minister.
The minister appeared to accept that argument. He appeared to agree with the committee that not to specify a time period was ultra vires, otherwise he would not have changed the regulations themselves. He chose instead to proclaim new regulations. But the form that he chose of specifying a period that ran from New Year's Day to New Year's Eve and which renewed itself again on New Year's Day was a means of achieving through the back door what he simply could not achieve through the front door. That is why when the committee looked at this issue it found that what the minister was trying to do was likely ultra vires.
July 28, 1982

1 should stress to members of the House and to members of the public as well who are not aware of the committee's practices that a committee can offer an opinion as it relates to the legality of what the government is doing. In no way is that opinion binding; it is simply an opinion by a parliamentary committee that it feels the government is acting in a way that is illegal, in a way not authorized by law. Ultimately, the only institution that can decide whether or not the government has acted legally is the court.
Through evolution and development of the committee over the years the decision was made by members of the committee, and it was supported by Parliament, that the committee had an obligation to take a look at statutory instruments that were passed from the point of view of vires, of legality, and to offer an opinion, and that the government had the responsibility- and I should stress responsibility-where there was doubt, to bend over backwards to stay within the letter and the spirit of the law. Surely we should expect a standard of behaviour from government, which not only matches that which we expect of people in the private sector, but which surpasses it. Unless the government itself indicates that it has respect for the rule of law, it is impossible for us to expect that ordinary Canadians and institutions in the private sector would share that respect that all of us, as parliamentarians, feel is essential.
One of the reasons we felt it essential that the committee look at the question of vires and one of the reasons why the issue of vires, or legality, has been looked at by similar committees in the Commonwealth is that it is often extremely costly for individuals to go to court when their rights have been infringed upon by a government acting illegally. In addition to that, Parliament has a responsibility to keep an eye on what the government is doing to ensure that, when we delegate authority to the government to act by regulation, it acts in a way that is legal and proper and within the spirit intended by Parliament. If we do not do that, then we have no right to delegate this authority to the government; we are then simply negligent in terms of discharging our responsibility to the people of Canada.
For those two reasons the committee of long standing has taken the position that it had a responsibility to look at the question of vires to ensure that the government was acting in a way that was legal.
In our opinion, making the change in the way the minister did, trying to bring in through the back door something he could not do through the front door, does not make legal what would otherwise be illegal. Again I stress that only the courts would have the authority to make a final decision on that matter. But the minister is not disposed to send this question to the courts for a ruling. For anyone else to take the minister to the court would, of course, be a costly procedure, and it is one which Parliament cannot do. What Parliament can do is to look at it, to get advice from counsel, to seek opinions as broad as possible from people skilled in the law, and to advise Parliament to advise the minister when it believes that the minister and the government are acting in a way that goes beyond the law.
Regulations and other Statutory Instruments
I believe this is a minister who is committed to the rule of law and who would not want to act in a way which could be found to be illegal. Nor would the minister-and I fully accept his sincerity on this-want to take an action which could be demonstrated to be beyond the intent of Parliament at the time Parliament passed legislation. It is not enough to say simply that it is legal, even if one accepts-and we do not-that it was legal. But if it were an action beyond the intent of Parliament, if Parliament had intended that this statute be used in a very different way from the way being used by the minister, then obviously the minister would have a moral responsibility and obligation, as head of a department, as the person charged with the responsibility by Parliament, holding a very important responsibility and trust for the people of Canada, to act within the spirit of what Parliament intended and would not simply try to do an end run on Parliament. Surely if the consent of government and if the consent of the representatives of the people of Canada is to mean anything, the government has a responsibility first to consult fully with Parliament about its intentions and, second, to ensure that Parliament consents to what it is doing.
This is why the committee took the position that we believed that for the government to do indirectly what it could not do directly was beyond the powers which were given to it under the law. Second, that is why we make the decision to report to the House that even if the minister were to go to court and to find that he had acted legally, this sort of indefinite prohibition running for 365 days a year, for 366 days during a leap year, was clearly not something contemplated by Parliament; otherwise Parliament would have written the legislation in a way which made that explicit.
I do not think that it is asking too much to expect the government to bring what is relatively a minor technical amendment before Parliament. I suspect that if the government were to do that and bring the law into conformity with the wishes of Parliament, we would find that Parliament could pass that amendment very quickly.
The argument is often made by ministers of the Crown that it would be very time consuming to be proposing a whole series of amendments to legislation. But, Mr. Speaker, clearly the government has two options that it could consider when a committee has found that the government is acting in a way that is ultra vires and it has recommended that if it wants to act in a particular fashion it could change the law. First, it could introduce the legislation in the Senate. If House time is at a premium, then it is certainly possible for the government to introduce the legislation in the Senate, have the debate take place largely in the Senate and have committee study take place in the Senate, where the time of that House is much less at a premium than it is here. When that consideration has taken place, if the amendment being made is relatively unobjectionable, and in particular if a parliamentary committee with members of all three parties and with representation from both the House of Commons and the Senate have recommended it, and if it has been made at the request of a parliamentary committee, then it is reasonable to expect that the government

July 28, 1982
Regulations and other Statutory Instruments
could likely get speedy passage when the bill came to the House of Commons. That is one option the government could choose if it is concerned that introducing a specific bill on one particular measure in the House of Commons would be consuming too much time in the House.
The other option is that from time to time there are miscellaneous statute law amendment bills. It would be quite possible for the minister to communicate, I believe it would be with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien), and to indicate to him that he shares the concern of the parliamentary committee about this particular action, that he accepts that it may be ambiguous, that there is some doubt whether or not it is legal. Or if he wishes to maintain that it is legal, he could indicate that there is doubt in his mind whether or not it was within the intent of Parliament at the time, and that specifically he would like to acquire the consent of Parliament to act that way. The Minister of Justice could include this sort of relatively minor technical adjustment in a miscellaneous statute law amendments bill. These bills by and large get quite speedy passage by the House of Commons and do not tie up the House for a protracted period of time. They enable the government to make some pretty significant changes to the law from time to time.
That brings us to the question as to what 1 expect and what members of the standing joint committee expect will come of the debate this afternoon. There are a number of options that are possible for the government. It could continue to debate this issue throughout the course of the day. There are a number of members in the House who are interested in doing that. I know that the minister will want to follow me when I complete my remarks and I think members of the House will be looking forward to hearing from him.
Another option which the government could follow is clearly to attempt to seize control of this and to prevent Parliament from coming to a resolution of the matter. That was done once before with one of the committee reports, and it was regrettable because it meant that we were taking away from committees the right to have their unanimous reports debated in Parliament and the right to bring to the attention of Parliament in the case of a standing joint committee actions which we believe could very well be illegal.
The third option is the one which I hope will be followed by the government in this instance. It will expedite proceedings, and I think it will be the most positive course which could be followed by the government. It would be for the minister to say that he continues to maintain his reservations about the question whether or not the regulation was legal or illegal, the question of vires, but that he does accept that there is ambiguity here and that there is some question, at least in the committee's mind, as to whether this was intended by Parliament. He could indicate that he was prepared to recommend to his colleagues that this matter either be introduced in the Senate, to make an amendment to the law as it stands today, or that it
be included in the next miscellaneous statutes amendment bill that comes before Parliament.
If that could be done, I think hon. members of the House would be very pleased. We could certainly make much better progress in terms of dealing with this. We have an obligation. I have not often called for concurrence in committee reports which have been made, because of the fact that I recognize it takes the time of the House to do so and often there is very pressing legislation before the House which the people of Canada have the right to expect to be passed. I do so reluctantly in instances where the committee has come to the conclusion that the government has acted particularly in a way which may be illegal or where there is some serious deficiency in a regulation which has been passed. The committee has a very important responsibility placed upon it by Parliament to review statutory instruments from the basis of a series of technical criteria to ensure that the government is discharging its delegated responsibilities in a way that is proper, legal and conducive to respect for the rule of law in Canada.
If the standing joint committee does not discharge its responsibilities, if I as chairman do not discharge my responsibility when the committee makes a report and it appears that there is an impasse between a minister and the committee, and if Parliament itself does not consider a report where the committee has unanimously said it believes the government is acting in a way which is illegal, then we are deficient in discharging our responsibilities on behalf of Canadians and it is impossible for us to expect that Canadians would have respect for Parliament.
Hundreds and hundreds of orders in council and regulations are passed over the course of a year. Each one of them affects the rights of Canadians. Many of them affect the rights of Canadians in a very profound and fundamental way. Many of them affect the ability of people to earn a livelihood. This particular regulation before us today affects the ability of people to earn a livelihood. Where these rights are affected by delegated legislation and Parliament has given a broad grant of authority to the government to act in a particular manner, then Canadians have a right to expect that Parliament will discharge its responsibilities of scrutiny and oversight, hold the government to account, and ask that the government act in a way which is consistent with the rule of law.
I want to give the minister an opportunity to respond. I know hon. members on all sides of the House will be very interested in hearing his response. I hope the conclusion of this debate will be a positive one of which all members of the House and all Canadians can be proud, because we have taken an action to rectify something which, if left undone, would be an example of serious neglect on the part of Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc).


Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe that the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), as the
July 28, 1982

seconder of the motion, has the right to speak and address the House prior to the minister. If Your Honour wishes a precedent for that, 1 draw your attention to Hansard of December 11, 1975, at page 9934, wherein the Deputy Speaker ruled that, while the minister might wish to express his view early in the debate:
I know this report of the committee is a unanimous report and the minister might be anxious perhaps to support the report, I do not know, before any other member rises in criticism of him or the government. I understand his point of view, but in fairness I think I have to recognize, first, the seconder of the motion.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that you should recognize the hon. member for Provencher, the seconder of the motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: l appreciate the hon. member's comment, but the very essence of debate requires that we alternate from one side of the House to the other, irrespective of the matter just raised by the hon. member. Thus, having recognized the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, he now has the floor.


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, since 1 believe this is the first time you have presided in your new capacity, allow me to congratulate you, on behalf of the members from New Brunswick, upon your election to this prestigious office and this expression of confidence by Parliament.

I regret that I was only given notice that this issue would be coming up for discussion today at one o'clock. I especially regret that the legal adviser to my department who has been dealing with this matter is moving to another department and that in fact he is away from Ottawa. I have had very little time, considering the fact that I was here in question period, to try to prepare for this. I will not say that mine is a legal argument because I read somewhere that the man who acts as his own legal adviser has a fool for a client, or words to that effect, and I would not have that naivete, especially since the members of the committee are lawyers and I have heard their debates on two occasions in the past year.
The problem of regulating the fishery is recognized as one where we are, as the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) indicated, really affecting the livelihood of people. Occasionally 1 have told some of my officials that in fact we are in people's pockets, because when we regulate for reasons of conservation, when we allocate between gear types, types of fleets and types of boats, we are in fact affecting the livelihood and income of fishermen.
The regulations affecting marine plants are fairly recent. In fact, they have been the subject of considerable complication, as I am informed by the lawyers in my department. 1 recognize that the committee was concerned. We went the way we felt we could in attempting to meet the committee's concern by putting in a time definition.
The hon. member who spoke before me indicated that they did not accept this approach, which in fact was suggested by the legal advisers of my department. Although I have to say
Regulations and other Statutory Instruments
that I oppose concurrence in this report, 1 do it with regret because of the excellent suggestion of the hon. member who led the debate. His suggestion that we should approach these changes or these corrections, if corrections are required in the law, through a mechanism like debate in the Senate or an omnibus bill approach to what I might describe as housecleaning or housekeeping changes in the law, is one which recommends itself to me.
I might say very simply to the House that for some time I have been wanting to present amendments to the Fisheries Act. The House recognizes, as did the hon. member, that every minister who would like to make adjustments for new situations which arise realizes-and I am thinking of the amendments of 1977 which were adopted unanimously by the House, major amendments in habitat protection and in conservation of the fishery-that we reopen the act as infrequently as possible because we are competing with some 28 to 30 other departments of government which also say that they have urgent legislation to discuss.
In light of that suggestion and the fact that the committee was unanimous in its report, I would like to think that we could have found a solution. In fact, today I suggested to the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe that perhaps we could delay the discussion by a day and have some talks among ourselves so that we may find a way to prevent rejection of the committee report and agree to discuss it for some time in order to find a method to act within the law if we are not doing so, which is what we all want.
I find myself in a bind because 1 am advised by a legal adviser in my department that to accept the committee's approach would cause considerable impact on a number of areas in the fishery where we are trying to administer the fishery in terms of conservation through some rather complex and difficult regulations. If we were to accept the report of the committee, the impact on those regulations would cause us very considerable difficulty. Therefore, I find myself having to reject concurrence in the report although I have taken a very positive approach to these issues where we are all trying to achieve good conservation and management. We may differ occasionally on the techniques and methods to achieve this, but we certainly do not differ on the intention of the Fisheries Act, which is to conserve the species for the enjoyment of our future generations.
I am quite open to the possibility of the House finding a way to accept the third option of the hon. member to try to find a solution to the problem through further discussions. However, if it comes down to the crunch, I am afraid that due to the implications for other regulations in the fishery I have to recommend that we vote against it. As I said before, it is with some regret because I found the atmosphere of the committee quite non-partisan. The committee was trying to be helpful to departments which were led by people like myself who are not lawyers, but who are trying to do their job.

July 28, 1982
Regulations and other Statutory Instruments


Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, as the seconder to the concurrence motion moved by my colleague, the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty), I would like to put a few comments on the record regarding the motion. Initially, I want to thank the hon. member for Well-ington-Duffering-Simcoe not only for the lucid manner in which he again demonstrated to the House his grasp of the subject matter in the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments, but also for his attempts in the House time after time to make the government and the bureaucracy more accountable to members of the House and, through us, more accountable to Canadians generally. I believe all of us have been impressed with the manner in which he has approached his work in the committee, co-chairing it with a member from the other place.
Before I get into the body of my comments I want to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker. It is my first opportunity to do so since you have taken your position of presiding over the affairs of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: In his response to the mover of the concurrence motion, the minister raised the dilemma in which a minister finds himself in terms of fulfilling the responsibilities of administration in a department and having the necessary legislative and regulatory authority to fulfil that responsibility, on the one hand, and fulfilling as well the intentions of the House of Commons which are, of course, embodied in legislation that govern the minister's responsibilities in his administration. I think that those of us who have occupied those chairs and have had that responsibility have faced that frustration of how to find time in the House to open up an act, because when so doing it takes up so much time of the House that not only can the amendments not take place, but you become involved in so many other areas that even the limited intention is eventually lost as well.
I recall that when I was Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development there was a strong attitude expressed in the House and throughout the country generally that the discriminatory clauses of the Indian Act should be amended, especially Section 12( 1 )(b) which discriminates against Indian women. Our government made a commitment to amend that section of the act, and while other sections in the Indian Act needed amendment, we felt it was pressing that Section 12(l)(b) be amended quickly. However, we found there was not enough time in the House to bring that matter before it to get that section in particular amended.
Since that time history now shows that not only has the act still not been amended even though we passed the Charter of Rights, but we have also found that for the first time in Canada's history it has had an issue brought before the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations. Canadians, through the House and its legislative process, have been found to be discriminating against Indian women by that international forum.
The minister's statement about that frustration, conundrum or dilemma is very valid. I also appreciated the suggestion by the minister that a mechanism is needed in terms of finding House time whereby what is referred to commonly as housekeeping amendments can, in fact, be brought forward.
I intend to address that subject in my comments today as I support the concurrence motion, especially as it relates to parliamentary reform. I think that it is one of the questions that should be addressed by the special committee which has been struck to consider parliamentary reform when it sits again in the early fall of this year.
What is important for members of the House to understand is what is meant by the concurrence motion. This is the thirteenth report of the committee in which it specifically looked at the Fisheries Act and Section 34, subsection (2) and whether the regulations flowing from that section were in violation of or ultra vires the legislation passed in the House. The issue might be seen as an unimportant one by some. It concerns the harvesting of marine plants. Obviously, it is important to those involved in that enterprise. Some might ask why it is necessarily an issue which a committee, co-chaired by my colleague for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe, should take the time to study both in the committee and the House. It is an important issue and I intend to use another example to show Canadians that the work the committee does is vitally important.
You will recall that a year ago, Mr. Speaker, during the Christmas recess of the House, the government passed an emergency planning order. That was also done by the regulatory process. That issue has created a great amount of concern in many parts of Canada as to whether that type of planning order has not gone beyond the regulatory scope of government or whether that matter should have been brought to the House of Commons and debated in the form of legislation. You will recall that during the FLQ crisis in 1970, at which time the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) used the War Measures Act, he said that from then on he would bring in special legislation which would not be as draconian as the War Measures Act in order to deal with issues of a domestic nature.
Returning to the thirteenth report of the committee, the committee was looking at the Fisheries Act which has empowered the minister to set conditions for the issuance of licences for the harvesting of marine plants. But as well the committee pointed out that the conditions had to have a specified period of time. That was where the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments took issue with the regulations passed.
In an attempt to get around that difficulty, the minister did put in a time-frame, namely, from January 1 to December 31.
I do not think it takes too much imagination to recognize that that takes care of an entire year, and if no date as to year is set out, it means that the licence will not be issued because the omission has taken care of every day of every year. While in a very narrow sense it might be argued by the minister that he
July 28, 1982

did give a specified time-frame, the effect of so doing was such that it did not change the issue which the committee was examining. So it is that issue with which we are dealing today.
Considering the manner in which this matter could be addressed, the committee said in its report:
If your Committee is wrong in its legal conclusion it is of the view that Parliament never intended, in enacting Section 34.3(b), of the Fisheries Act, to allow a licence to be in effect suspended indefinitely and that the attempt to achieve this result by specifying an indefinite period of prohibition amounts to an unusual and unexpected use of power.
The committee has been very positive, and I think that has been the understanding of hon. members in general. Not only has it been the watchdog of Parliament in seeing that regulations are in keeping with legislation passed and within the spirit of such legislation, but the committee also went on to offer certain remedies or recommendations to the minister, and obviously did not accept the remedy which the minister thought would satisfy, at least in the narrow, technical sense, the wishes of the committee. The committee went on to state in its report:
If, however, a power is needed to suspend a licence in a particular area for an indefinite period, Parliament should be asked to grant the power. The minister has rejected this course as impractical.
Today in the House the minister again rejected it as impractical, because it means that he must open the act. It means that he must find time in the House of Commons to open up the prior Fisheries Act. He knows, I know and hon. members of the House in general understand that once one opens the act, anything relating to fisheries can be debated. Maybe that is also an area which we should be examining in the parliamentary committee. I see that the assistant to the Privy Council is here and he also sits on the special committee on parliamentary reform. We should perhaps examine how to pass housekeeping legislation.
The minister found it impractical and he has given his reasons, but the fact remains that even though that difficulty remains, it still did not satisfy the committee. The committee, in its positive way, went on to state that the minister:
-has also rejected your Committee's suggestion that the conditions attached to licences be altered so that they specify on their face that they can not be used in the location now specified in Section 6(a) of the Regulations.
There was another remedy given, that if one could get at the problem from the point of time, then possibly one could bring in regulations which would have changed the operation in view of the licences which were being issued. However, I think the committee makes its conclusions very pointedly when it states:
By rejecting these suggestions the Minister is issuing or continuing in force licences which are in a sense counterfeit. Your Committee regards this as an abuse of Section 34.3(b) of the Fisheries Act.
It is the responsibility of the minister to issue licences which are valid. He has the responsibility to issue licences which are within the legislation and within regulations which are not in violation of the legislation. That has not been done.
I take some hope from the minister's positive comments today that he is also looking for a solution. However, I think this question goes beyond the narrow confines of the Fisheries Act. This is a larger question which is twofold. One is the question of legality. Parliament must at all times operate within the confines of the law. The law gives power, but the
Regulations and other Statutory Instruments
law also confines. It is the responsibility of every minister and every hon. member in the House of Commons to consider that. In fact, 1 suggest that is why the committee was established in the first place. I do not want to impute any motives and I am not, but in any act the regulations can be seen to be ultra vires the legislation. That is why Parliament has seen fit to form the committee, in order that those conundrums or difficulties, if they develop, can be brought to the light of day and changed.
I also consider legislation which has taken a longer period of time to prepare. I call to mind the changes to the Immigration Act. Hon. members will recall that there was a controversial issue and changes to the Immigration Act were found necessary. We all recognized that. The government at the time was not sure of the best manner in which to approach it, so it introduced a green paper. I know there were some skeptics concerning the green paper approach and whether or not it would lead to good legislation or to any legislation at all, but after an extensive debate on the subject of the green paper in Ottawa, that committee hit the road. It was one of the most interesting experiences I had in the House because we very quickly found that every immigration issue seemed to be brought before the committee. There were times when we needed police escort out of certain Canadian cities because of the anger generated by the government's immigration policy. But we did give a majority report. Most members on both sides of the House agreed with the thrust of the report. Out of that report, the Immigration Act was then finally brought forward.
The point I am trying to make is that when the committee handed in its report-the legislation had gone to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration at that time-it was interesting to note that the members who had been through this long process of legislation-making, who were well-informed as to the issues, could look at a specific clause and very quickly realize the likely effect of such a clause. I forget how many amendments were brought forward at that time, but I know that the members of that committee from this party brought forward some 95 amendments. Many of them were approved. To this day, I still believe the reason was that there was a good spirit in that committee in trying to develop the best legislation, the best immigration policy we could.
But there was one lack even in that process. All of us recognized that while the Immigration Act brought forward intentions or gave general guidelines and rules as to how immigration would be administered in Canada, the nitty-gritty of that Immigration Act involved the regulations which would be promulgated by the government, flowing out of the act. Despite our expertise in the committee, we had no ability to persuade the government to state how those regulations might first be promulgated and then interpreted in view of the legislation.
In fairness to the government, and I want to be fair, it did bring in some draft regulations. It was possibly the first time the government brought in draft regulations and tried to show that, while they were not complete regulations, that was the

July 28, 1982
Regulations and other Statutory Instruments
manner in which the regulations would flow, and we were able to see whether they were in conformity with the legislation before us.
When we look at parliamentary reform one of the questions we have to answer is, is it not now practical that, for a large amount of legislation before us which requires technical regulation, draft regulations should accompany the legislation? I know it would put more pressure on the ministers and on the departments to produce those regulations in order to have the package much more complete than sometimes is the case now with legislation. Elowever, I do think this would avoid some of the difficulties which the committee, which my hon. friend cochaired, now has to examine.
In addition, I want to point out that regulations-and 1 think this is a view commonly held in the country-are very often more onerous than the legislation itself. One finds this especially in the business community. A seemingly innocuous and short piece of legislation often seems to cause the flow of a plethora of regulation, or what has been referred to as the paper burden. No one is more aware of this paper burden than those in our business community. In fact, a committee was struck by the Minister of State for Small Business (Mr. Lapointe) to reduce that paper burden. That paper burden is a direct result of regulations that flow from the legislation. Not only must the regulations be legal, they must also be within the spirit of the legislation that is passed.
We recognize very quickly that my colleague, as he speaks in the House on this issue, has developed a technical expertise in an area which many Members of Parliament might find tedious, he has taken his responsibility very seriously and is always guided by one rule, namely, the rule of law.
This takes me to the last point I want to make this afternoon, which is this. I believe the parliamentary reform committee has a very important role to fulfil, and that is to look at the global picture in this House of Commons regarding how legislation is passed. I agree with members opposite, and they might be surprised at this, that some legislation takes too long. It is sometimes because of that length of time and the fear that other legislation might take as long that housekeeping matters do not come before us. I have found that within the parliamentary reform committee there is a spirit of co-operation with an attempt to solve this dilemma, both from the government's point of view and the point of view of the opposition. This is a sentiment that I think was also expressed by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc).
I concur with the report, Mr. Speaker, and I commend the committee members for the manner in which they have approached the matter. I say to the government that we all recognize that regulations must both be within the spirit of the legislation and conform to the legislation in terms of law. The committee has found that this is not the case in respect of the Fisheries Act, and I recommend to the minister, as did my hon. friend, that he find a remedy other than the one he has tried, the one of which the committee did not approve.


Hon. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to add a few comments to this debate on concurrence in the thirteenth report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments. That report refers to an issue about which I have been concerned for many years.
I have had the courtesy of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) over the years on matters I have brought to his attention. He has always been very courteous in receiving me, listening to me and agreeing with the justice of a point of view.
One of the things we are struggling with in Canadian society today is the movement of the balance of power away from the House of Commons and the elected Members of Parliament, including ministers, to the bureaucracy. The type of regulation we are dealing with in this debate today on the motion for concurrence in the thirteenth report is at the heart of this issue. I have always thought that a person involved in widely diverse activities, operating under the rule of law, which my colleague the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) so ably put forward in his opening speech, should be free from the arbitrary interference by government or its officials. This debate today and this thirteenth report deal with that essential issue. I am sure I am not the only member sitting in this House as an elected Member of Parliament from a constituency in Canada who has seen all too many examples over the years, examples increasing in severity, of the arbitrary decision-making process by public servants, officials and inspectors that interfere with a persons's right under the rule of law.
We are moving into a legalistic type of society in this country in which the regulations coming through orders in council from government number some 3,500 per year. All too often law-abiding citizens and people who want to do what is right find themselves at odds with the law and outside what they believe to be the normal logical process.
I have had the occasion to be very courteously received on many occasions by the minister since I have been a member, and 1 thank him for that courtesy, in respect of the problems of my constituents, those people involved with fisheries and the environment on the west coast. The minister has been sympathetic toward the arbitrary nature of the decision-making process and the interference that has too often been the habit on the part of fisheries officials. We are really dealing with the freedom to choose and make a decision under laws as they are understood by the average Canadian. We are getting ourselves into such a complicated and legalistic type of world that no one any longer has that decision-making base.
I have recently been to the minister and he knows I am very concerned regarding matters of the environment. He knows I do not want to see the environment abused and that I am a very concerned Member of Parliament in terms of protecting biological species, particularly those pertaining to fisheries. I have also had to go to his department and ask why an arbitrary decision, under the specific type of regulation that is being discussed here in the thirteenth report, can be made when
July 28, 1982

scientists both within the department and in the university system agree that there is no threat to the habitat. I have asked why someone in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans can say, "No, you may not proceed with a pilot project because, because-",
It does not stand up to the learned opinion of scientists in that circumstance that someone should have the arbitrary power to say, "You may not proceed with a pilot project", and l refer specifically to two species of seaweed on the Pacific coast. One is an annual which clears out with the flow of water and the seasons out there annually. They are saying, "No, you cannot harvest that because that might interfere with some unknown factor within the fishery habitat." The other one is a biannual which grows in different stages as it comes up to the surface. What they were asking to harvest was something like
5.000	tonnes a year for a pilot project in order to develop a major breakthrough which had happened at the Simon Fraser University. Canadian scientists had finally been able to take this species of kelp and isolate into commercial chemical processes six, seven or eight different marketable components and compounds from that kelp. Years of work have gone into this, and the minister's officials will advise him that the science behind this is of a very high order. Very capable people are involved, and they just seek a pilot project, which in no way can endanger any of the species, in order to get some kind of delivery going with respect to this process of isolating compounds from this biannual species of seaweed.
The federal department is saying: "No, we don't think you can proceed until some other report which was started by the province of British Columbia can be delivered and we can study it." Why the department really is saying no is that if this pilot project is successful and it is desired to move beyond the
5.000	tonnes harvest, the department does not know how far down the line the project will go.
However, I can say right now that because of these arbitrary powers, not held by scientists in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans but by other officials, the season for 1983, the harvest of 5,000 tonnes of kelp species to put into this pilot project and the chemistry of isolating these seven or eight compounds, will be lost for another whole year. This is a Canadian technology, for which we have paid by way of grants from the federal government and the provincial government to our universities, which will be lost. Perhaps it will come about in 1984 or 1985, or maybe the scientist responsible for this breakthrough will just take it out of the country to somewhere else where it can become viable. This type of arbitrary power held by officials in the department seriously concerns and troubles me.
I am sorry the minister has to be in the position today of speaking against concurrence in this report because my colleague, the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe, has given him a couple valid suggestions, which I believe the minister acknowledged in his remarks. He said that the matter of this type of regulation and the amendment of the section within the statute could be dealt with by the Senate as an initiative so that it would not take up special House time for
Regulations and other Statutory Instruments
which he is competing with 29 or 30 other departments. We understand that, but we would like to appeal to the minister today that there be a miscellaneous statutes amendment bill brought forward. Surely this type of request brought forward in a unanimous report of a very responsible and important committee of this House can be responded to in such a way that, as an elected Member of Parliament, as I am, the minister can start to represent the people at large, protect their freedom of choice, protect their ability and right to make decisions under the basic rule of law of the land and start, as a Member of Parliament, pushing back the arbitrary powers that are being given to the public service as a result of the avalanche of legislation that is coming down.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans probably has more of a socialist mind-set than I. I am a Member of Parliament who is very concerned that because of all the regulation we have and because of the type of matter being addressed in the thirteenth report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments-specifically this issue-we as elected representatives are failing the people who sent us here.
In the tug-of-war going on in the standing committee addressing orders and procedures of the House of Commons, which my colleague, the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), just mentioned, I believe it was Professor John Stewart, one of our witnesses, who said that as we tug back and forth in the struggle for power, surely it is up to every single Member of Parliament to make sure that the knot moves toward the House of Commons and Parliament and away from bureaucracy. I think the minister will have to agree that that is a struggle which is very important. It is the struggle on which this debate today hinges.
That is why I stand and appeal to the reasonableness of this minister. 1 cannot refer to the reasonableness of all his colleagues, but I certainly can refer to that of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. I appeal to him to consider seriously the suggestions the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe has given him. I ask that the minister hear my appeal on behalf of the people of Canada. My goodness, surely as elected members we have a responsibility to protect the rule of law. We have put it into some jeopardy and confusion with our new Constitution. We will probably spend a decade or so sorting that out in the courts of our land. But surely as elected Members of Parliament believing in the representative democratic system this House delivers, we can start protecting the people at large and those interested in certain specific activities within this country from the overuse and abuse of the arbitrary powers we have given to the public service of this country. Let us pull that knot back into the House and let the minister give a second thought to, or have a second look at, his apparent gentle opposition to concurrence in measures of this nature, because 1 think this is becoming an issue of very serious concern to many people in Canada who perhaps cannot explain themselves.

July 28, 1982
Regulations and other Statutory Instruments
Perhaps I am not doing a good enough job for the minister, but this is a matter which keeps me on my feet and keeps me working pretty hard because I am afraid we are losing our freedom of choice as we move to more and more state control over our lives and as we move more and more to a sub-government which is removed from the checks and balances we should be demanding and protecting in this House of Commons. We are incorporating Crown corporations with agency of Her Majesty status, and these powers mean that these corporations we create do not have to conform to the laws of the provinces and do not have to conform to the laws of the federal government. They have the guarantee of the federal government in their borrowings. They are really outside the normal flow and balance of life.
I believe the debate today is an important one. It is true that the debate is on a very narrow issue within an act but, nevertheless, it is at the heart of our freedom to choose and our right to be protected from the arbitrary powers or the unnecessary use and overuse of arbitrary powers by too many civil servants today.
I have seen a sense of possessiveness which exists within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans which really troubles me. In other words, instead of the fisheries belonging to the people of Canada, the fisheries and the work of protecting the fisheries and harvesting seems to be more and more the personal property of either the state or the servants serving state organizations.
I know of a person who put half a million dollars into a fish hatchery under an agreement with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans whereby the eggs for that fish hatchery were purchased from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. After that investment was made, release and capture rights were denied, so the young fish brought out of the hatchery were put into pens out in the salt water and fed with feed which had to be brought in in pellet form from the United States. I have seen harassment of that individual to the point where he has lost his health and his money. His operation did have a chance. Had there been a spirit of co-operation from officials in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, it could have gone a long way to providing more protein to the people of Canada and the world. It troubles me that this sense of possessiveness exists today. I see it in the seaweed harvest operations that are interfering with and postponing a very valuable pilot project.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge the minister to sift out of my remarks the serious concern that I feel about these arbitrary powers and, in the tug-of-war between the bureaucracy and the people of Canada through their elected representatives, move that knot back into the House of Commons and thus bring a sense of service back to our civil servants rather than the sense of power which, in the realm of human nature, we all have the tendency to abuse.
That is the fundamental message I wanted to deliver to the minister, Mr. Speaker. I know he is a very reasonable person,
so maybe he will sift out of my comments some reason that would make him change his mind and not debate against concurrence of this very important report.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak in support of concurrence in this report. I should like to add to the kind words of some members who have already spoken about the excellent work done by the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) as co-chairman of the committee. With his co-chairman from the other place, he put a lot of hours and effort into making the committee work.
The thirteenth report of this committee focuses primarily on Section 34(2) and some of the problems involved. It has been fairly clear that either the intention of Parliament in regard to that section was not followed or that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, or the minister, has been creating regulations and making use of that part of the act in a way that was not intended by Parliament. This could jeopardize the livelihood of some fishermen or legality of some of the permits that have been issued or rescinded in many areas of the country.
I should like to touch on a matter which has been before the committee for the past 15 months, and that is the Alice Arm tailing deposit regulations, SOR 79-345. I bring this matter up because of some peculiar circumstances that have arisen since a split vote was recorded-and it is only the second vote taken in the 11 years of the committee. I think it is important to put on the record some of the events surrounding that vote so that many of the groups that have been following the issue know exactly what happened.
During the year that documents were going back and forth between the committee and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc), the minister appeared before the committee with his legal counsel. Many hours were spent examining a great deal of data on two principal points that the committee was concerned about, and that is whether proper notice was given in relation to these regulations and whether there was an unusual and unexpected use of power. The vote taken by the committee was to the effect that there was an unusual and unexpected use of power. I think it is important for the minister to respond to the events that followed, since he has indicated that he is going to debate against concurrence in the report.
This report is important in a functional way in that it aims to make certain that the minister and his department abide by legislation created by this House. It seems to me that there is responsibility on a minister to follow through when the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments comes to a unanimous or consensual position on regulations.
In regard to the Alice Arm tailing deposit regulations, what has occurred is a very unusual state of affairs in that the committee voted there was an unusual and unexpected use of power. In the following days after the lawyers had written the report, it became clear that various government members were
July 28, 1982

involved in what can only be described as an abuse of the committee-a kind of political blackmail that should not be used against committees. The parliamentary secretary made it clear to the co-chairmen of the committee and to the steering committee that, should the vote that was taken to report the unusual and unexpected use of power by the minister to Parliament today go ahead, then the Liberal members would simply march in a bunch of backbenchers and vote the report down. This would have been the first time that had ever occurred in the long history of that committee and it would have seriously abused the committee's ability to come up with the consensual reports that are necessary.
What the other members of the committee and I agreed to was that we would stand the vote. Essentially this meant that the vote that was taken would continue to stand, but that the formal report which would have come before Parliament today would not come forward.
Since that time it has become clear that for various reasons other parties decided they were going to interpret what the committee did in different ways. The co-chairman from the other place decided to send out a letter regarding the issue. I should like to read portions of that letter into the record because I think it is important that people who have followed this issue for so long have an opportunity to know exactly what happened regarding all the evidence that was taken, from the time the vote was taken in committee censuring the minister to the kind of blackmail that was used against the committee to put the report forward, to the kind of statements that are being made to the public. The co-chairman of the committee from the other place, Senator Godfrey, wrote to a Miss Dorothy Potts of Project North in Victoria, B.C. as follows:
-you stated "that at its June 30th meeting, the Standing Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments confirmed its earlier decision that the above named Regulations constituted an unusual and unexpected use of the powers conferred on the Governor in Council by Section 33(4)(b) and (13) of the Fisheries Act." 1 now understand why you made such a statement because it has been drawn to my attention that Mr. Jim Fulton, MP in the House of Commons on July 5, 1982, said that "last week the joint Standing Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments unanimously upheld the censure of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) for unusual and unexpected use of power in pushing through the Alice Arm tailing deposit regulations."
This statement by Mr. Fulton is not in accordance with the understanding reached at the Committee meeting on June 29. At a meeting of the Committee on June 3, 1982 (of which I am enclosing a copy of the proceedings herewith), the Alice Arm matter was extensively discussed, and the members of the Committee voted 4 to 3 that the Committee "report to their respective Houses that the making of SOR/79-345-Alice Arm Tailing Deposit Regulations-amounts to an unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the Fisheries Act."
In fact, that is what occurred and it is on the record of the committee. The report was supposed to come before the House today for debate. As I pointed out to you, Mr. Speaker, through the actions of the government it could not come before Parliament, and now these people are interpreting what occurred in the committee in ways that are not in accordance with the facts. The co-chairman continued:
The four members who voted in the 'affirmative' were Messrs. Baker, Hnatyshyn and Kempling-all Conservatives, and Mr. Fulton, an NDP. The three voting against the Resolution were Senator Hicks, Mr. Ken Robinson and myself-all Liberals. The Committee has always operated on a strictly non-
Regulations and other Statutory Instruments
partisan basis. In the eight-year history of the Committee, we have had only two votes, having otherwise always being able to operate on a consensus basis. If I remember correctly, this is the only time in the history of the Committee where there was a vote which was split on party lines, although I am not suggesting the Committee members were motivated by partisan considerations.
I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the committee heard evidence for over a year on the Alice Arm regulations. It was only at the end of that year that a vote was finally taken and it caused this split. The letter goes on to say:
You will note in the evidence on page 28, the statement that the Committee's Counsel, Mr. Graham Eglington, made that "I would presume, in my position as counsel to the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments, neither to express a decided view as to whether a regulation is a proper and reasonable use of power." You will note that I stated we would be delighted to have his opinion as to whether it was an unusual and unexpected use of powers, but as to whether we accepted his opinion was another matter entirely.
Possibly because of this remark, Mr. Eglington did, some days later, provide the Committee with an opinion, a copy of which I am enclosing herewith, which disagreed with Mr. Bernier's opinion referred to in the evidence. I should point out that Mr. Eglington has been Counsel to the Committee since its inception. After carefully considering Mr. Eglington's opinion, I came to the conclusion that if we had had Mr. Eglington's opinion before the vote was taken, the Conservative members of the Committee might well have not voted in favour of the motion and that the matter should be reconsidered by the Committee.
That is simply not the case, Mr. Speaker. I was present at a number of meetings where it was made clear that the Conservative members were not intending to change their vote in this matter. It seems passing strange to me that a co-chairman would take the opportunity of writing a letter to the public to make such an allegation. After all, a vote by members of the House is clearly of their own volition. The letter goes on:
In the meantime, a draft report to Parliament in accordance with the original motion had been prepared and distributed, which was to be formally voted upon at a further meeting of the Committee. I was informed that in view of Mr. Eglington's opinion, the Liberal members of the Committee, who were not present when the original vote was taken, would be present when the report was voted upon and would vote against the report, thus reversing the original decision.
The record seems to have slipped over time from the writer's memory, Mr. Speaker, in that the decision to come in and try and bully the committee was taken before Mr. Eglington wrote the legal opinion. Obviously the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans was going to be embarrassed by the reporting of this to Parliament and he decided to take action before that legal opinion was written. The letter goes on:
After some prior negotiation, a meeting of the Steering Committee of the Committee, attended by Mr. Fulton, was held at which an agreement was reached by way of compromise as to how the matter should be dealt with by the Committee, which was subsequently agreed to by the Liberal members of the Committee not present when the vote was originally taken. I am enclosing herewith copies of the pages from the typewritten transcript of the meeting held that afternoon of the Committee where it was agreed not to make a report to the House of Commons as was provided for in the original resolution passed by the Committee and, in fact, let the whole matter stand as it was at the present time. As you can see, in no way can this be interpreted, or was it intended (and my CoChairman, Hon. Perrin Beatty, MP agrees with me as to this), to be that the Committee "unanimously upheld the censure of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) for unusual and unexpected use of power through the Alice Arm Tailing Deposit Regulations."
I should say in closing that the Committee was considering this matter from a highly technical point of view under its terms of reference, and was not presuming to pass on the merits of the dispute.

July 28, 1982
Regulations and other Statutory Instruments
There are a number of interesting things which flow from that letter, Mr. Speaker, and I would hope the minister will take the time to respond. On May 28, 1981 Senator Godfrey wrote this letter to the minister and on page 2 he had the following to say:
It is apparent to the Committee that the prohibition imposed by Parliament in section 33(2) of the Act and the general rules set out in the Metal Mining Liquid Effluent Regulations will be of little value if special regimes come to be established to allow particular mining operations to dump tailings and effluents in enormous quantities. That such a situation might arise would seem to be altogether at odds with Parliament's purpose as expressed in section 33 of the Act. Consequently, the Committee must assess the Alice Arm Tailings Deposit Regulations carefully. It is clearly not the case that any or every exercise of power to set special standards or dumping limits is an unusual or unexpected use of power. What the Committee must address itself to is whether or not the deposits allowed in this case go beyond or are inconsistent with what reasonable men would consider to be anticipated under section 33. The general limits set out in the Metal Mining Liquid Effluent Regulations have clearly been drastically exceeded. There has been no mere accommodation of a minor problem, or even of an existing mine. Rather, there has been an accommodation of a mining venture which it appears to the Committee might have been deliberately planned so that a special regime inconsistent with the general prohibition of section 33(2) of the Act and with the standards and concentrations set out in the Metal Mining Liquid Effluent Regulations would be essential. This might be thought to come dangerously close to treating section 33(4) of the Act as a carte blanche to allow unlimited, unconfined and unrestricted dumping of toxic materials.
The Committee is also troubled by the effect that the latitude being allowed the Amax Kitsault Mine may have on the sentencing of those convicted of breach of section 33 of the Act or of exceeding the limits set out in the Metal Mining Liquid Effluent Regulations. Courts may be reluctant to impose sentences of any real deterrent value when defence counsel can point to dumping limits of the dimensions sanctioned in the case of the Kitsault Mine.
That, Mr. Speaker, is a letter from the co-chairman of the committee to the minister. A number of peculiar problems arose as we were taking evidence at the committee, in correspondence back and forth with the minister, and on more than one occasion the minister provided incorrect, misleading or in some cases perhaps something worse in terms of the information before the committee. On a couple of occasions that caused considerable alarm to the people most directly affected, that being the Nishga people.
On one occasion the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans provided a letter to the committee which indicated that counsel to the committee agreed with counsel to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. That is not in fact correct, Mr. Speaker.
I took the time in one of our recent committee meetings to question counsel to the committee on that very point and there was an interesting response. On page 66:29 of the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments, I asked the following questions:


James Ross Fulton: Under paragraph 8, on page 2, you indicate that counsel have never given an opinion as to whether the regulations are proper and reasonable. On page 2, at the bottom of Mr. LeBlanc's letter, he says, and I quote:
I would like to emphasize that in the view of the legal advisors consulted,
including your own, the Alice Arm Tailings Deposit Regulations are a proper
and reasonable use of this power.


Mr.   Eglington@: That is precisely what I was dealing with. I have never given that opinion-
So, Mr. Speaker, here we have the minister saying that he is not going to concur in the thirteenth report of the standing joint committee despite the fact that all parties by consensus have agreed that there were certain uses of his powers which were either unusual, unexpected or in some way not what
Parliament had intended. We also have the minister providing to the committee information which was completely inaccurate-on more than one occasion-making it very difficult for members of the committee to deal with the information provided by the minister. 1 am saying that I am not surprised that the minister does not concur. He does not seem to have that great an understanding or feeling for the importance of committees or the parliamentary process.
Mr. Eglington went on to say:
-and despite Senator Godfrey's invitation, I do not think that in nine years I have ever given an opinion as to whether the use of the power was proper or reasonable. That is not one of the committee's criteria, and I would never deal with it.
That brings me to an interesting point, Mr. Speaker, in that this same counsel provided, not publicly so that we could debate it but in a private sort of way, a legal opinion which has been put to great use by Liberal members. It seems passing strange to me that, after the vote is taken and a decision made to report to Parliament, all of a sudden all of these other complexities come into play; the government members suddenly decide they are going to blackmail the committee: "If you try and report, we will come and vote it down", and all those kinds of things. Then after the decision is made to let the vote stand, the co-chairman from the other place, who I cannot cross-examine in this House or even debate with, sends out a letter publicly saying that the decision to let the vote stand is not what it means. Clearly the vote censured the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. It was a four to three vote, a majority vote, and this is a democracy, so the majority rules. It was obviously an embarrassment to the minister. He put various and sundry other powers into play that, in my view, have seriously and perhaps for some time to come damaged the credibility and the viability of that committee in the eyes of many Canadians.
There were some comments made on the letter of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans by counsel to the committee that I think should be put on the record. The minister has decided not to concur in relation to the problems that have evolved under the Fisheries Act. Some of the problems are very serious. The first comment by counsel reads as follows:
The "parameters of the concept 'unusual and unexpected use of the power' as it applies to the Alice Arm Tailings Deposit Regulations" are not for Mr. LeBlanc to state or to restate. They are for the Committee to determine.
The committee determined that they were an unusual and unexpected use of power. The second comment is as follows:
That a detailed legislative scheme for a regulation is set out in subsection (13) of Section 33 only means that the Alice Arm Tailings Deposit Regulations, being in conformity with it, are intra vires.
That means within the law. They were legally created but not created in a way that was expected by members of this House when they made changes to the Fisheries Act and gave various powers to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and governor in council. The second comment continues:
July 28, 1982

A regulation conforming to its enabling power, however detailed, is not for that reason alone an expected and usual use of that power. Whether an enabling power has been used in an unusual and unexpected way goes to the purpose for which it has been used or to the consequences of its use, and not to whether the resulting regulations is intra vires or ultra vires. Similarly, the fact that a regulatory power has been used in the only way it may be, lawfully, and in accordance with its detailed scheme, is in no way conclusive of whether the use made of the power is unusual or unexpected.
What the committee was deciding was not whether or not the creation of the Alice Arm tailings deposit regulations in the middle of the 1979 federal election was legal or not; that question was not for the committee to decide. We had a number of other criteria that we were there to scrutinize.
Counsel goes on:
Since section 33(4) and (13) envisaged exceptions to the fundamental rule of Section 33, an exception is not of itself unusual. That the statute envisages exceptions being made does not mean that every exception is usual or expected. That an exception has been made, and deposits made in conformity with it, is irrelevant to the issue of unusual and unexpected use of power. The statement that there is no breach of the statutory rule of Section 33(2) goes to vires only. M. LeBlanc avers that the Alice Arm Tailings Deposit Regulations constitute exactly the procedure Parliament envisaged would be exercised when it enacted Section 33(2), (4) and (13). The parliamentary record would seem to negate this proposition and to point to quite other uses for Subsections (4) and (13) of Section 33. That a court, being required to ignore the parliamentary record, must govern itself by the words of subsections (4) and (13) in determining vires does not mean that the Committee cannot make reference to that record in determining what is the use to which subsections (4) and (13) might usually be expected to be put.
That is really the point and it is the point in relation to what the other speakers have touched upon. The committee heard various experts, officials, the minister and others say that the section was there and Parliament had various expectations of its use. The committee ruled after hearing lengthy evidence from the minister, his counsel and any witnesses the government side wanted to produce that it was an unusual and unexpected use of power and that they have in fact taken unusual steps to try and bully the committee and the public into believing that something other than what happened in the committee occurred. Counsel goes on:
That there has always been a prohibition on depositing deleterious substances, and a power of exemption, is only partially relevant. What is important is the nature and purpose of exemption. The particularized power which is now given to the Governor in Council is so substantially different from a blanket power in the Minister to "exempt ... stream or streams" as to be of only marginal use, at best, in assessing the uses to which the present powers can be put without becoming unusual or unexpected ones. Parliament has seen fit to resile to a very great extent from the old blanket power. It must have had some limiting purpose in mind. And, by reference to the parliamentary record one gains an understanding of that purpose: to beef up the prohibition and to allow exceptions to accommodate conflicting regulatory standards and to accommodate existing plants.
This is precisely the point. In 1977 when the metal mining liquid effluent regulations were brought in, they brought in very specific delimitations for the amount of various substances and the total quantity that could be dumped into any water system in Canada. For the minister to have used the sections he used, to put out SOR/79-345 was, as the committee ruled, an unusual and unexpected use of power for the simple reason that there was an existing regime under which the regulations could have been made. For the minister to have gone outside of that only comes clear when you realize that the amounts that the minister wanted to allow Amax Corporation
Regulations and other Statutory Instruments
to dump was 8,000 times what was allowed under the existing regulations.
It is a very serious matter. I would hope that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans will respond to it in this Flouse because the committee has ruled on it. Through various tricks and various forms of chicanery he has managed to hold the report from coming before the House. The reason I stepped back from forcing the issue was that 1 felt it would be an abuse of the committee. But instead I have discovered that the abuse of the committee has carried on despite the fact that 1 backed off from it.
Counsel continues:
The first five paragraphs of Mr. LeBlanc's letter are characterized as "legal arguments." Indeed they are, and, as such, they are not germane to the issue of the Committee's criterion 4.
Whether the use of the powers granted by Section 33 (13) to the Governor in Council (not to the Minister) is a proper and reasonable use is not a matter exclusively for the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
That was the argument put forward by some government members on the committee, that is, that we should be looking at the issue in another committee. Counsel's comments continue:
It is a matter which bears upon the Committee's criterion 4. This Committee may not consider whether it is desirable to exempt new mining ventures, or old ones for that matter, from the regulations of general application. Nor may it consider whether it is desirable to exempt the particular Amax mine at Kitsault. But what it can, and must, consider is whether the use of Section 33(4) and (13) for this last mentioned purpose is a use and that can or should be characterized as unusual or unexpected. In this consideration the Committee may very well wish to consider whether the use made of Section 33(13) in these particular regulations is a proper and reasonable use.
There was a definitive recommendation of the senior counsel to the committee and that is precisely what the committee did. It took a vote on that point. The comments continue:
Mr. Bernier and I have never given an opinion as to whether the Alice Arm Tailings Deposit Regulations are a "proper and reasonable use"-
This is despite the fact that the minister and his counsel said they did. They said they never did, and they said that before the committee. These comments continue:
-of the powers conferred by Section 33(13). I have repeatedly advised that the Regulations are intra vires that subsection, that is to say, that they constitute a lawful use of those powers. I would presume, in my position as counsel to the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments, neither to express a decided view as to whether a regulation is a proper and reasonable use of power nor to foreclose the Committee's own judgment as to whether a regulation is an unusual or unexpemted use of power.
1 could put a great deal more information on the record but there are other members who want to speak and there is not a lot of time left. However, I want to speak forcefully for myself and for members of my party in support of concurrence in this report and to encourage the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to take the necessary steps to bring the Alice Arm tailings deposit regulations before this House so that proper regulations can be debated and properly scrutinized in relation to the specific instances raised by the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe. They should not be held outside the purview of this Parliament simply because the minister does not want to concur.

July 28, 1982
Regulations and other Statutory Instruments


Mr. Brian Tobin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the comments made today by a number of speakers, but in particular to those made by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton).
First I would like to respond to some of the comments made by the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington). I appreciate the tone of his comments. They were constructive in nature and I can assure him that much of what he said was heard with an open mind and by people opposite who recognize that there is a great deal of merit in many of his comments.
At this point I would simply say to the hon. member opposite on the question of the harvesting of kelp that indeed the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is as eager as anyone else to ensure that, where possible, commercial harvesting of the resources of the sea takes place for the benefit of the people of the country. For example, in that particular instance, the very possibility, as remote as it may or may not be, that such an action could disrupt the food chain of a very important species in British Columbia makes us quite reluctant to proceed quickly and easily with the decision to go ahead.
On the question of the recommendations of the standing committee in its report today, I should like to say to the hon. member that we look with great interest at them. The question of making changes is a very difficult one. It is not easy to amend arbitrarily and quickly the Fisheries Act, which makes us reluctant to do so, but we are looking at the committee recommendations. We are looking at ways to improve the existing system and to improve accountability which could and should, perhaps in some instances if only from a visible public point of view, exist in the system.
Having made those brief comments, I want to focus my attention on the comments of the hon. member for Skeena, although it was not originally my intention to do so. At the outset I want to say that his comments today were, from the point of view of the committee and its report, totally irrelevant. He knows that and hon. members of the House know that.
Further, I want to say that selected recollections of committee meetings, selected readings or quotations from letters of various members of the committee or from the minutes of the committee itself, and subjective interpretation of what the committee meant in making certain decisions, such as the decision not to proceed with its report to the House of Commons on the question of Alice Arm, make very interesting entertainment in the House and, no doubt, serve the political objectives of the hon. member for Skeena, but they do not reveal the truth. I repeat that they do not reveal the truth. In fact, in my personal view they do just the opposite. They present a totally misleading picture of what in fact occurred over the last few months with respect to the particular question of Alice Arm and the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments.
I would imagine that all members of the committee, those present and those not present in the House of Commons, would
want to stand at the First opportunity to defend themselves against the charges by the hon. member for Skeena. 1 must say that I consider them to be scurrilous charges because he used myself as a particular example to show that somehow the committee was, to use his word, blackmailed, intimidated or bullied by one lowly rookie parliamentary secretary. He suggested that somehow I had this great ability and power- and I must say that I am almost pleased he would attribute to me such great ability-to intimidate the committee. Equally I am surprised that he would have the audacity to suggest that members opposite of long experience and ability in the House of Commons would be so easily intimidated by a man such as myself.
I know I do not need to say much more. I expect that hon. members opposite will defend themselves, but it was an absolutely ridiculous charge to suggest that the committee had been blackmailed carte blanche and had whimpered to all corners of the House, quietly withdrawing and pulling back its horns.
What took place with respect to Alice Arm is quite a different story. I should like to quote, because I think it is quite important, from a letter which was written recently.


An hon. Member:: I thought you said that it was totally irrelevant.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Well, it is relevant in the sense that this particular member has been slandered in my view and in the sense that hon. members of the Conservative Party have been seriously slandered. The very suggestion that members opposite were somehow open to blackmail is a serious slander which I think must be dealt with in the House. It cannot stand unchallenged.
I should like to refer to a letter which was written recently by the co-chairman of the committee, John M. Godfrey, to Dorothy Potts, Project North, British Columbia, in which he refuted the public statements of the hon. member for Skeena, and I am told that this letter is concurred in by the other cochairman of the committee who sits across from me now. He explained to the honourable lady that he was surprised to receive her letter, that the committee at its June 29 meeting had not reconfirmed a motion of censure, which had not in fact taken place, and that that was not the intention nor the understanding of the members of the committee as a whole.
I should like also to quote from the minutes of that meeting.
I want to quote the hon. member opposite who is a co-chairman of the committee, as well as the comments of the hon. member for Skeena who was present at the meeting. The cochairman said:
As members of the committee will recall, we looked at the whole issue of Alice Arm some weeks ago and made the decision that-on a divided vote, which was quite uncommon for this committee-the exercise of power-


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure the hon. member would like to withdraw the word "slanderous", as he will find on page 7777 of Hansard for August 8, 1960, that it is an unparliamentary word.
July 28, 1982


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, in the interest of ensuring that the statements of this particular member are answered thoroughly, I will withdraw anything which will allow me to get on with delivering the truth in this House of Commons.
As I was saying, the co-chairman said at that time:
-by the minister was an unusual and unexpected exercise of power, and we made the decision that we would report to the House. Since that time, it has become apparent to members of the steering committee that there exists within the committee a wide divergence of opinion on the whole issue; that it would be impossible for us to reach the sort of consensus that would be necessary for us if we were to make a report, and the steering committee in meeting today came to the agreement to recommend to the full committee that the matter not be pursued but be let stand at the point that it is at the present time.
The co-chairman said that the committee had taken a decision in the steering committee not to proceed to report to the House. That is not a reaffirmation of a motion; that is a decision to let matters stand at that point. This is my understanding from members of the committee, but unfortunately it is not the understanding in the case being put before the House today, and I must say falsely so in my opinion, by the hon. member for Skeena.
We then see that the other co-chairman concurs in the opinion of the member opposite. Now I should like to quote Mr. Fulton himself at that meeting.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Brian Vincent Tobin: I apologize for using his name. Not 30 seconds later during that same discussion, the hon. member for Skeena said:
It seems to me that it has been either seven or nine times that the matter has been heard before the committee.
He thanked the committee for allowing him to raise it, and then said:
I think it has been a most useful exercise, and I certainly concur with what was discussed at the steering committee and I certainly concur with both your remarks, that it would not be, in my view, useful to the committee to force the issue beyond this point.
Those were the comments of the hon. member on the day in question. The story which he weaved today with selected quotations and readings, the strands which he pulled from here, there and everywhere, was an attempt to indicate that there was some kind of blackmail. That was his word. I do not know whether it is unparliamentary. I did not bother to rise and challenge him at the time. What is fascinating for me is not that he would make the charge that I tried to blackmail the committee, but that he would accuse his own colleagues with whom he sat in that committee of being receptive to that kind of an attempt. If justice were being done in the House today, we would call the hon. member to attention to atone for his sins.
Let me simply say that for some time the hon. member for Skeena has used the House, in my personal opinion, by way of motions under Standing Order 43 and he has used the committee to suit his own political objectives and to try to weave a fairy tale to suit those political objectives. What is interesting is that as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries
Regulations and other Statutory Instruments
and Oceans and as a member who regularly and loyally attends fishery committees, I have never once seen the hon. member for Skeena. If he is truly interested in this issue, and it is a fisheries department issue, why have I not seen him attend one fisheries committee and ask to have this matter raised or debated in the fisheries committee of the House of Commons?


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. That is flatly untrue. I am sure the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans will confirm the fact that I have questioned him before the fisheries committee on this very issue.


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. colleague was perhaps fighting the wars of Newfoundland on one occasion when the hon. member for Skeena was present. But I would like to say that the hon. member for Skeena was noticed on that day, but never seen again.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I believe the minister has reinforced the point I am trying to make. While the hon. member should be interested in a decision of this nature because it is his responsibility to question and be concerned about these decisions-I certainly do not condemn that because I have great admiration for any member who is concerned about his area and the welfare of his constituents-I cannot respect- and this is what I find continually frustrating about the hon. member-the fact that he does not hesitate again and again to weave a fairy tale to suit his own purposes.
I would now officially and publicly, before the people of Canada, invite the hon. member to come to the chairman of the fisheries committee and to me as parliamentary secretary to organize a time when we can have this item debated. I extend this invitation to him if he is seriously concerned about getting at the facts and if he wants to reassure his constituents, which should be his concern. 1 am sure the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans would be prepared to come to such a meeting. 1 am sure that we could bring a panel of experts together to discuss this matter. 1 am making the invitation to him. I am amazed that he has not had the courtesy to make that simple request.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure the parliamentary secretary and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans would like to tell the people of Canada right now why his department will not release any of the documents on the Alice Arm tailings deposit regulations. They are hiding 186 of them. They have been on the Order Paper for more than a year. Let us get at the truth.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I should inform the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) that that is hardly a point of order. That is debate. The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.


Brian Vincent Tobin: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, those kinds of selected comments and readings and quotes again, in my view, are a very nefarious point. The hon. member knows that there may be 147 or 187 internal documents. He also knows that the

July 28, 1982
Regulations and other Statutory Instruments
environmental committee which was formed to look into this matter consists of scientists from the University of British Columbia who are very respected experts in their field. They have already reported to the minister on this matter and are now working on this whole question. These are the kind of people I am prepared to make available-people from his own home province who are recognized country-wide-for his cross-examination-


James Ross Fulton: How about the information?


Brian Vincent Tobin: -if the hon. member is serious about dealing with this matter in a responsible and mature way. Having made those comments, I will give the floor to members opposite.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, when 1 heard the exchange at three o'clock this afternoon I was motivated to stand and speak on this motion for concurrence, when I was first elected to the House of Commons in May of 1979 I had the good fortune to have a conversation with one of our more eminent parliamentarians, Ged Baldwin. He told me that as a new Member of Parliament one of the essential and constructive learning experiences 1 could gain for myself was to become a member of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments. It was excellent advice because it certainly taught me, as a new Member of Parliament, about the opportunities inherent in legislation as well as the difficulties and dangers which are inherent in legislation.
I think I will remember my first day in that committee to my dying day. At that time we were handed for our committee work a stack of papers which was about 18 inches thick. Each sheet dealt with a separate order in council or regulation that had been passed by the government. The very first item to be dealt with concerned the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, which is the topic of this thirteenth report today. I was shocked by the consequences involved in that regulation. The impact of that initial regulation on the top sheet of that pile was that a fisheries officer anywhere in this great country of ours could announce over a citizen's band radio, one time only, that a piece of fishing tackle, for example, was illegal. It is instant law made by one individual, not by the Parliament of Canada. Anyone who is caught breaking that brand new law which is announced over a citizen's band radio only once could lose their tackle and be subject to fines. That was the first regulation on that pile of paper. It was the result of behind the scenes negotiations between the committee on regulations and other statutory instruments and the minister and his officials.
Being a member of that committee has taught me that an important part of this parliamentary democracy is to have a committee which concentrates on the laws and regulations which are passed by Parliament, the governor in council and the cabinet. It forms an important part of the process.
While I was sitting in my place at three o'clock, the member who is co-chairman of this joint committee stood on a point of order to suggest to the House that there was concurrence in the twelfth report. The government House leader then stood
and said, "You can have concurrence in the twelfth report as long as you will not debate the thirteenth report". That concerned me. I am concerned when I hear a member of that cabinet say that if we give up our right to freedom of speech in the House he will do certain things.
I have in front of me the twelfth report. Do you know what the subject matter of the twelfth report is? It asks this democratic Parliament to give the committee on regulations and other statutory instruments the legal authority to examine every piece of legislation, every regulation, with a view to determining whether or not it runs contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights or the Canadian Bill of Rights. We have a committee of this Parliament seeking unanimous concurrence of the House to examine every piece of legislation and every regulation to determine whether or not it contravenes our Charter of Rights and our Canadian Bill of Rights. We have the government House leader standing in the chamber to say that the only way we can have that right in our committee is to relinquish the right to freedom of speech and to talk about the thirteenth report.
That was an incredible and very disturbing decision by the government House leader. Unless we are willing to give up our right to discuss a fisheries report, we cannot have the right, as parliamentarians, to examine a piece of legislation in committee to see whether or not it contravenes the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I hope that the backbenchers on the government side will go to their next caucus and, in private, behind closed doors if necessary, talk to the members of their cabinet and tell them that an important principle is at stake here.
Before this Parliament ends for the summer, the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments must be given the right in law to examine the legislation and regulations from the perspective of whether or not they contravene the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Failure to concur in that recommendation is to deny the struggle which all of us have been carrying out in this chamber for a considerable period of time in order to work out a system which would protect democracy and the rights of individuals. It is not a horse-tradable commodity. It is not something that can only pass this House if we give up our right to freedom of speech on a fisheries bill. I hope that the backbenchers opposite will bring pressure to bear on the cabinet concerning this issue to see that the twelfth report is passed.
Why do we have a Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments? We have a committee of that kind because parliamentary democracy needs the protection which it can give to the Canadian people. Today we have a classic example in this House of why Canadians need the protection which a committee of this kind provides. In this thirteenth report, we have before us the unanimous conclusion of 15 members from the Senate and the House of Commons that, in law, it seems likely that the cabinet has exceeded the authority granted it by Parliament. We have the unanimous
July 28, 1982

conclusion of 15 members that even if it has not exceeded that in law, it has exceeded the intent of the legislation, and the cochairman of the committee, in the first speech this afternoon, laid this out.
Fifteen members of the House of Commons and the Senate, from all three parties, sat down and spent considerable time with witnesses on these particular regulations and they have reached their conclusion unanimously. There is the protection to bring to the attention of the Canadian people and to hon. members of this Chamber the fact that cabinet is exceeding its authority. When we consider that a cabinet passes something in the order of 4,000 orders in council each year, that involves a lot of protection. To look at those 4,000 orders in council with the kind of thoroughness which each of them deserves is a gigantic task, but a necessary task.
The thirteenth report says to this House that this is a bad regulation in law and in its thrust. It runs counter to the intent of Parliament. We heard the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) speak today, and when we have the opportunity to read Hansard tomorrow we will find that the minister started by saying, "I have only had a couple of hours in which to prepare for this debate and I really feel handicapped because my legal expert is leaving my department and, in fact, is out of town". I commend the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for that honesty, but I bring to the attention of the House and to the Canadian people what lies behind those remarks. It is a clear-cut illustration of the dependency of ministers on the bureaucracy. The minister feels handicapped-


Roméo LeBlanc: I said I wasn't a lawyer, that's all.


Mr. Kempling:: That's not a handicap.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: -because of the weight of his own work schedule, the lack of preparation and the absence of a bureaucrat.
The regulation at issue today comes to us as an order in council. What does an order in council mean? It supposedly means that an entire cabinet met, examined and found it to be a good one. But remember that almost 4,000 are passed every year. Is it realistic to assume that the members of the cabinet look at each and every one of those 4,000 proposed regulations with the kind of care and attention that they deserve? I suggest to your Honour that it is not a reasonable expectation. It is not an accurate expectation. I suggest that the proof of that was evident in this chamber today.
The minister responsible for the department under which this regulation was issued felt a little nervous or a sense of disquiet about having to defend it because of his lack of time for preparation and the lack of a bureaucrat. I suggest that that is the common existence of a minister: many things to do, too little time, and quite frequently too little background to examine thoroughly a proposed piece of legislation and its consequences. The only protection for the citizens of Canada is to use this place the way it was intended to be used, as a parliamentary democracy, a house of commoners in which each member is equal. The system would allow it, but it is only
Regulations and other Statutory Instruments
allowable if the cabinet is forced, by all the other members in the House, to make the system operate in that fashion. It is only when the cabinet is threatened with lack of support by half the members of this House that a cabinet can be brought to heel. It is an obligation of those who are elected in a parliamentary democracy to perform that function and to make that threat when necessary.
Report number thirteen of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments is probably not the most important report ever to come before us in the history of this place, but it is an example of what has been going wrong for the better part of a decade or longer, and it is an opportunity for the government to signal a change in direction, that from this moment on it intends to listen to the elected Members of Parliament and benefit from the wisdom of that collectivity and that in future the legislation which is produced out of this House and the regulations which are produced out of cabinet will be subjected to the scrutiny which the collective wisdom of this House can provide.
That is the essence of our parliamentary democracy, and I suggest to hon. members who want to think that through a little more that they would be well advised to read the speech on parliamentary reform made in this House the day after the bells stopped ringing by the leader of our party, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark). That was a speech from the heart and from the experience of the only living former Prime Minister of this country. He spoke of the need for reform of this institution and some of its structures and rules. More importantly he spoke of the need for reform of ideas. If we were to adopt his thrust and attitude we would not be standing here today in this House debating this report, because the cabinet would accept seriously the wisdom of Members of Parliament and act on the basis of that wisdom.
I thank you for the opportunity of speaking, Mr. Speaker. 1 should like to go on at greater length but I know there are others who want to take part in the debate and I think I have made my point.


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, I see that I have an audience behind the curtains. I should like to add some comments to the discussion that has been taking place on this thirteenth report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments. I should say at the outset that until the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) spoke I thought this debate was on a very high level. I felt that members who participated were concerned about the matter contained in the report and that, in fact, we welcomed the comments of the minister because we believe he truly wants to see this matter resolved. Then the hon. member for Skeena spoke. As a member of the committee which presented this report I would suggest that an analysis of what the member said would indicate that he would have you believe those on the committee were blackmailed, coerced, intimidated or

July 28, 1982
Regulations and other Statutory Instruments
bullied into writing the report and making a certain recommendation. That, of course, is not at all the case.
It is a real pleasure to be a member of this committee because its work is carried on in a non-partisan way. There is a free flow of ideas back and forth. We do not have to vote but rather arrive at a consensus of opinion. The reason the committee decided not to condemn the minister again was that we could not reach a clear consensus but had a strong feeling that the minister was really trying to resolve the problem. We think he is a pretty honest guy though we may disagree with some of his politics. That is another matter. We agree with him on this issue and feel he is trying to make an honest effort. As a result we felt there was no need to condemn, censure or blame him, or to make partisan comments on the subject matter. We believe it will be resolved in due course.
My colleague the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) presented his usual brilliant analysis of the report before us. Tie read a large part of it into the record. The minister then responded. The hon. member for Welling-ton-Dufferin-Simcoe said in simple terms that what we are dealing with here is whether the government can do indirectly what it cannot do directly.
The minister said that his concern-and this says something about the humanity of the man-is that these regulations affect people and their livelihood. That is really what we are talking about here. We are dealing with the abuse of people by the bureaucracy. I do not suggest that abuse is necessarily intentional, but situations arise as a result of regulations over which we have no control.
My colleague the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) suggested that perhaps what we should do in reforming the affairs of this House is to carry out an examination not only of the statutes but the regulations at the same time. This is done in other jurisdictions and I see no reason why it cannot be done here.
Having regard to a mechanism to amend the regulations, let me say that in the short time I have been in this House we have dealt with two or three large omnibus bills dealing with a whole series of regulations in statutes that had to be changed and amended. I see no reason why that could not become part of the practice of this House, taking place once a year before the House rises. If that sort of practice could be followed, I think probably there would be an all-party agreement on such an initiative. I am sure my colleagues to my left would look at this idea very seriously.
Let me draw a parallel to this abuse through the arbitrary power of the government and its officials who are responsible for the drafting of regulations. Let me give you an example of how this power can be used to destroy people, and how, as the minister has said, the regulations affect people and their livelihood. I want to refer to the case of a gentleman in Toronto who, admittedly, is far from that matter concerning Irish moss, wire weed, horsetail and the like. However, he suffered abuse as a result of the arbitrary imposition of regulations.
This gentleman operated a manufacturing business. He had an agreement with the Department of Manpower and Immigration in relation to a training program as a manufacturer of bicycles. He held an excise tax licence as a manufacturer. He was classed by Statistics Canada as a manufacturer and was listed as a manufacturer by the province of Ontario. He imported machinery through the machinery board of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce duty-free as a manufacturer.
One day a man from National Revenue, a customs appraiser, walked into his place of business and said he was not a manufacturer but rather was an assembler. My friend asked if the appraiser could show him in regulations or statutes the definitions of an assembler and a manufacturer. The official replied that he could not do that because it was the subject of an interdepartmental memo between deputy ministers. My friend asked for a copy of that memo and was told it was confidential. This was a catch-22 situation. The result was that this dominion customs appraiser levied a tariff of 17.5 per cent on the products this man was importing, and presented him with a bill for $335,000. The man put together approximately $250,000 and paid that amount. He said, "1 don't know where I am going to get the rest, but I am going to go to Ottawa and appeal."
He them came here and spoke to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Rompkey) and a variety of officials but got nowhere. He just could not get to first base. The result was that the bank withdrew its support from his operation and he went into receivership. In spite of the fact that all his competitors were importing the same components as he was duty-free, he had to pay 17.5 per cent. That made him non-competitive and he went bankrupt. He lost his business.
I might say that he had a year's business sold in advance. He had 200 employees at his plant. He was turning out 200 bicycles a day. It was a going concern, but he went down the tube.
When he lost his home, he lost every asset which could be claimed, and finally he appealed to the Tariff Board, which is part of the Department of National Revenue. Twenty-four months later the Tariff Board ruled that the government had neither the regulatory or the statutory authority to impose the 17.5 per cent duty on this gentleman. Six months after that he received a cheque for about $250,000, but no interest. His money was gone for two and a half years but no interest came back to him. In the meantime, he was bankrupt. The money went to the receiver in bankruptcy and was disbursed among the creditors.
Just as an aside, when I began to look into this matter, I went to the Tariff Board and asked for a copy of its report. Strangely, the Tariff Board said it could not let me have the report. The Tariff Board referred me to a private stenographic service which had prepared the minutes. I called that service, which wanted $725 for a copy of the report. The service charged so much per word and I could not buy just the English
July 28, 1982

version. I had to buy the English and the French versions. I went to the Library of Parliament and asked if the Library could obtain a copy of the report. I felt something was being covered up. The Library could not get a copy of the report from the Tariff Board.
Finally, I called the Tariff Board secretary and said I would raise this subject on the floor of the House of Commons and "Do 1 get a copy or don't I?" The Tariff Board is an agency of the Government of Canada, and this was an out-in-the-open public hearing. I asked why the report was being withheld and why I could not read it. I had a copy within half an hour. The Tariff Board sent it over to my office by messenger. I read the report through and obtained a lot of detail.
I put all this on the record because I wanted to illustrate an actual case of abuse of regulation, abuse of power or indiscriminate and arbitrary use of power by an official not backed up by regulatory or statutory authority of any kind which absolutely ruined a man's business.
One might ask whether it was a very large business. Before the business went into manufacturing, it was earning net profits of about $400,000 a year and paying taxes on that to the government. A tax-producing operation was destroyed through the arbitrary use of power. Two hundred people were thrown out of work. Those people had to collect unemployment insurance benefits and so forth. All this revolves around the definition of whether something is manufacturing or producing and how those terms are defined in the mind of an official.
We should not allow arbitrary decisions like these to be made. Somehow we as members of this House have to find a mechanism. I am sure in a co-operative way we can find a mechanism whereby these matters can be dealt with, amendments can be made and some process can be found which would allow matters such as this to be handled, aired and resolved to the benefit of all concerned.
1 believe one of my colleagues wishes to make a further contribution, and I will yield the floor to him.


Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I think this has been a very important debate this afternoon. Some people might look on it as academic and rather esoteric or peculiar to the rules and the way business is normally conducted in this House, but the hon. member from Calgary who spoke ably made the point that what we are really talking about is the essence of the democratic system.
It is heartening to those of us who have had the opportunity to be here this afternoon that, by and large, the tone of this debate has been at quite a high level. The parliamentary secretary who spoke made reference to this and I think it is worth noting. I suppose the one exception I must make-and 1 find this sad-is the remarks of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton). The hon. member did not really use the opportunity this afternoon to make a contribution to the debate at a level which might be considered a high level. I find that unfortunate.
I have been at meetings of this committee-not as many as I would have liked, but a few-and I think it is a very useful and necessary committee of this House. When we have a chance to debate an issue such as this, I think it is important that we use
Regulations and other Statutory Instruments
the opportunity to discuss the real issues in as non-partisan a way as possible so that we have an atmosphere which brings out the best in the members who attend.
Government today is a very large operation. We have a saying in the cattle business that when we buy feed for livestock, the best is only half good enough, if we are to get performance from our livestock. In many ways that is true in this House. If we send the best representatives possible to the House, that is only half good enough in terms of getting what we need out of this place. If our system is not conducive to getting the best from Members of Parliament and if hon. members do not use the opportunities they have to put forward their best in debates such as this, we are all losers. When 1 say "we" I mean this chamber and the people we represent. I think everybody loses.
It is important that we keep some of those considerations in mind because government is very large today and becomes so involved with us on a day-to-day basis that it is very difficult for this place to do the best job it possibly can. As government governs more, the people who elected us have less an less say about what we do, because as government has more and more to do, almost by definition it has to delegate and set up boards, tribunals and regulatory bodies to enforce the regulations which are made.
The hon. member who preceded me made the point that he does not see why we could not more often have regulations attached to acts. 1 agree with him totally. As a new member 1 have seen that only once, and that was with respect to the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act. That was so long ago that I cannot even remember the number of the bill, but 1 think it was passed some two years ago. At the committee stage we had a chance to look at some of the regulations which would accompany that legislation. That was a very useful exercise because it gave the parliamentarians who would be passing the law a chance to look at the regulations which would flow from it. I see the chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport here today, and 1 know he would agree with me that it was a very useful exercise to look at the regulations at the same time as we looked at the bill, because we had a chance to discuss how the regulations would be enforced by the Department of Transport.
I do not see why that cannot be done more often, which brings me to the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments. It seems to me that it is the job of that committee to look at regulations and other instruments we use to enforce laws passed in this House. The number of orders in council we have has been referred to several times this afternoon. Orders in council are in addition to all the regulations passed and those which accompany bills which we pass. There are 3,500, 3,700 or 4,000 orders in council. I think we have passed 125 or 129 bills in this session. That amounts to a tremendous number of pieces of legislation and regulations passed each year or, in the case of bills, passed each session. If individual members are to do their job, then

July 28, 1982
Regulations and other Statutory Instruments
they must have an opportunity to assess how some of these regulations will affect people when the bills are passed. The hon. member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling) gave an example of this earlier.
In some ways we seem to have turned the responsibility placed in us by our electors over to officials. This is a contradiction of the old English system of law and the sense that the people who make the laws should be separated from the people who enforce them. But it sometimes happens that the people in the department who draft the regulations are in a position to interpret those same regulations. This is a contradiction in terms, like having the people who make the laws-the parliamentarians-enforcing the laws. We see that in the case of the Department of National Revenue and in some ways in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
In his response the minister did not actually say that he would not concur in this report. I do not want to use the word excuse, although perhaps it is the appropriate word to characterize his response when he said he thought it would take up the time of the House, that there were other things going on and that he was worried about how an amendment to the act would affect the time of the House. That is what the House is for, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that if an amendment were brought forward that would make the act easier to administer and easier for people to understand, the opposition would pass it very quickly.
The hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) made the point that this could be done with the bill to amend miscellaneous statutes. If there were discussions beforehand and everyone was familiar with the amendments proposed by the government, then I am sure that in the interests of fairness and expediency the opposition would pass several of the amendments very quickly. Actually, Mr. Speaker, that is what the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments was trying to do.
The thirteenth report of this joint committee of the House and the Senate was passed unanimously, Mr. Speaker. It is interesting that the government has set up a special committee to examine changes in the rules and procedures of the House. We all know that there are things that could be done to improve our procedures. I think that without even changing the Standing Orders, without changing the time limit on speeches and a lot of other things, we could achieve a great deal if there were a better attitude in the House. The government could demonstrate a change of attitude by concurring in this report from such a prestigious committee. I see no reason why it should not be accepted by the government almost automatically; in fact, I think there should be a compulsion on the government to comply with it as quickly as possible.
The hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) spoke on that matter and made the point that if the government took its job seriously and made sure that backbenchers on both sides of the House had a chance to do their job effectively, that would ensure that they know how regulations affect people and whether they express the intent of a bill. After such an examination was completed and if there was a unanimous report, what would be wrong with accepting it automatically? After all, the job of parliamentarians is to look at such things, and that is exactly what this committee has done.
This is a large country geographically and in the number of regions it contains, Mr. Speaker. When laws are passed and regulations are formulated to enforce them, it can hardly be expected that they will affect people uniformly from coast to coast. This makes it all the more necessary to have a committee such as this one assess the things that have been included in the thirteenth report.
The debate this afternoon has been useful but it is unfortunate that such discussion is necessary when common sense should deal with the matter effectively. Not only do we have problems with the amount of regulations and the number of orders in council passed by government officials, but too often in the area of foreign trade government officials are responsible for negotiating trade concessions, tariffs, etc. We are a trading nation, as the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is well aware. We have problems with the Americans on the east coast. Surely this is an area in which parliamentarians should be more involved. Rather than having the executive appoint officials to negotiate international trade agreements, I would like to see parliamentary committees and individual members become more involved.
In the interests of time and not wanting to talk the motion out, Mr. Speaker, I will close by saying that I hope the exercise this afternoon has been useful to the government and that it will see fit to concur as quickly as possible in the thirteenth report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker);: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. Members; Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.
July 28, 1982


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division. Motion (Mr. Beatty) negatived.
Regulations and other Statutory Instruments
my opinion the nays The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker): It being six o'clock and with the consent of the House, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
At 6 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, July 29, 1982