1982-08-04

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, with the welcome and ever-growing number of Liberal backbenchers openly criticizing and questioning government policies, now joining the ranks of letter-writing cabinet ministers who have disagreed publicly with the government, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That Liberal members, including the cabinet, not be intimidated by the Right Hon. Prime Minister but continue to question and criticize policies which are destroying the economic and moral fibre of our nation, and further, that these brave members be congratulated by our giving unanimous consent to this motion now.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


METRIC CONVERSION
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, on May 14, 1982, the federal PC party moved in part the following motion which was opposed by the Liberal and NDP spokesmen, "that the government immediately implement a moratorium on all metric related prosecutions and action be taken to abandon compulsory metrication in Canada."
How pleased we are today that a Consumer and Corporate Affairs lawyer, Mr. R. G. Thompson, advised that both imperial and metric measure are legal and that it is not considered illegal to use imperial measure. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor):
That the government acknowledge and support this action, and give support to Consumer and Corporate Affairs for not prosecuting anyone for using imperial measure as demonstrated by the actions taken in dropping charges against Zoritza Kasparian, a Calgary carpet dealer who continues to advertise legally in imperial square yards.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, added to the many knowledgeable voices predicting an even worsening economy as a result of the mismanagement of this country, is the view of officials from the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce who, only yesterday, forecast unemployment reaching a record level of 12 per cent of the work force, and a continued gloomy economic future for the nation.
Canadians themselves clearly understand what all these financial experts are saying, that this government has caused and is continuing to cause our financial woes and is doing little to solve them. This understanding by the average, financially pressured Canadian, is reflected in the latest Gallup poll which shows the government at an all-time low in popular support, 19 percentage points behind the Progressive Conservatives. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Erie (Mr. Fretz):
That the government show some concern for the state of this nation and some respect for the plight of Canadians by putting the welfare of both ahead of its desire to cling to power, and immediately call a federal general election, or at least the three byelections.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Madam Speaker, in March, 1944, Nazi Germany partially occupied Hungary and dispatched Adolph Eichmann to organize the deportation of the
20004

August 4, 1982
last substantial population of Jews within Nazi influence. Eichmann quickly completed what he proudly called "a deportation surpassing every preceding deportation in magnitude". Some 437,000 Jewish men, women and children were sent to concentration camps on 148 trains between May 14 and July 8, according to a Nazi report.
A young Swedish diplomat by the name of Raoul Wallenberg, arrived in Budapest in July on a rescue mission and in the ensuing months saved perhaps as many as 100,000 persons, including many Canadians of Hungarian origin. Arrested in 1945 by the Soviets, reports still persist that he is alive. Today, August 4, would be the seventieth anniversary of his birth. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean) and the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie):
That this House, on the occasion of Raoul Wallenberg's seventieth birthday, recognizes his heroic deeds on behalf of all humanity and urges the Government of Canada to continue its efforts to obtain information about him from the Soviet Union.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, in view of the increased hostilities in West Beirut in the face of the UN decision to send observers into that region, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Chateauguay (Mr. Watson) and the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn):
That the Government of Canada react forthwith in a positive manner by unequivocally endorsing that decision and offer any assistance which may be available to us to participate in that move in an effort to bring some relief to those innocent children, women and men whose blood, even now, is being shed and whose suffering is unimaginable to most of us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: No.


DEMAND THAT ISRAEL STOP BOMBARDMENT OF BEIRUT- MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I, too, have a motion on the important subject which was just raised by the hon. member in the Conservative Party. Given the official position, taken both by the official opposition and the government in the past on this important human question, I hope it will have unanimous support today.
Considering the continuing refusal of the Government of Israel to comply with United Nations resolutions calling for a withdrawl of its troops from Lebanon and, in particular, considering the horrible suffering and deaths which the siege of Beirut is continuing to cause for the half million innocent civilians entrapped in that city, I move, seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett):
That this House demand that the Government of Israel instruct its armed forces to cease their violent bombardment of Beirut.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: No.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Hamilton-Went-worth.


HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, in view of the refusal of Liberal members of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs to allow a smaller subcommittee to examine the urea formaldehyde foam insulation crisis, and since the government has only scheduled five days of hearings on UFFI, beginning as late as October 2, and since there appears to be political direction to government members from the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) to minimize their embarrassment over the UFFI mess, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly):
That this House instruct the subcommittee on agenda and procedure of the standing committee to meet before the summer break, preferably within the next 24 hours, in order to priorize witnesses on UFFI and to prevent this investigation from being a whitewash and a further disservice to UFFI homeowners.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?
August 4, 1982


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, I, too, rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. One week ago the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) said that he rejected wage controls, yet last night he voted for them. Last night provided a unique opportunity to defeat the Liberal government on its economic policies, However, some 41 Conservatives refused to attend the vote, thereby bringing Conservative support of Liberal policies to a cunning all-time high in Canadian history, reflecting the 47 per cent Gallup confusion. Since the Conservatives have now voted on major legislation 66 times in support of the Liberals since the 1980 election, while the Liberals have voted with the NDP only 36 times, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly):
That this House give unanimous support to the formalization of this homopolitical alliance.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CALL FOR COMMITTEE STUDY OF SURROGATE MOTHERHOOD-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen):
That this House ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare to provide the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs with the necessary reference to enable it to inquire into and report recommendations to the House on the subject of surrogate motherhood and human artificial insemination.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. I have been advised by a government official that under the terms of the Maislin bailout the government has given a $34 million guarantee on the condition that Maislin can forgo interest payments on nearly $24 million of its loan for two full years. The financial position of this company is incredibly weak. It has a net capital deficit of $24 million. That is $24 million in the red. The Enterprise Development Board of the government has turned down this loan. Did the minister withhold the fuller information on the details of this loan on the condition that he could save this type of sweetheart deal for other friends of the Liberal Party?


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Madam Speaker, the House has already been informed of the fact that several considerations led to the decision to help Maislin under the loan guarantee component of the Enterprise Development Program. One of these considerations, to which the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce referred yesterday, was that the government was very concerned about the company's 2,500 jobs in Canada. I feel that the agreement we concluded with the bank that is financing Maislin, that the investors themselves and that the entire restructuring of the enterprise were satisfactory, and we have therefore decided to grant aid as requested.


FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS OF OTHER COMPANIES
[Stage Direction]
Hon Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre): Madam Speaker, this saving of jobs is a red herring across the whole issue. Those jobs would have been provided by other trucking companies which have 20 to 30 per cent of their people laid off. There are 15,000 trucking companies in Canada, responsible trucking companies which are suffering badly, operating at about 50 per cent capacity and, as I said, with about 20 to 30 per cent of their people laid off. These people must continue to make the whole interest payments on their bank loans. Does the minister feel it is fair to help one large company forgo interest payments on its bank loan while the other 15,000 companies are struggling to survive?
Charles Lapointe: Madam Speaker, under the loan guarantee component of the Enterprise Development Program, each case is examined on its merits, and if other companies apply for assistance, their application will be considered.

August 4, 1982
Oral Questions


INCREASED COSTS FACED BY OTHER COMPANIES
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, let us look at that particular offer right now. Another part of the deal in the Maislin bail-out is that they have agreed to limit their price increases to 6 per cent. Because this is a very competitive industry, other companies will be forced to limit their price increases to 6 per cent. This is in the face of 25 to 30 per cent increases in their gasoline costs and in the face of having to pay all, not just 50 per cent, of their interest costs. How can the other trucking companies apply for the same sort of sweetheart deal so that they too can forgo paying their interest costs on 50 per cent of their bank loans?


Charles Lapointe: Madam Speaker, 1 already answered this question in my previous reply. Regarding the commitment by Maislin and its employees to remain within the 6 and 5 per cent maximum, 1 would like to inform the hon. member that the company is merely joining the ranks of the mayors of Canada, Canadian housing corporations and Canadian businessmen and women who have already agreed to support this program. If the hon. member wants to continue these rear guard skirmishes, that is entirely up to him.


ROLE OF CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK OF COMMERCE
Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and it is related to the question of my colleague about the financial implications of an interest-free loan to Maislin which is, in effect, a two-year interest-free loan of $19 million. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister, who has just now come into the House, has talked quite a bit about leverage, I would like to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources if he can assure the House that in the negotiations affecting Dome Petroleum and its financial indebtedness, part of the sweetheart deal to get the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce to go along with a two-year interest-free loan to Maislin was not part of the carrot to help the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce out of its Dome difficulties.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: No, Madam Speaker.


QUERY RESPECTING POSSIBLE REPRESENTATIONS TO MINISTER
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same minister. The minister has taken the Privy Council oath. He flew with Bronfman in 1974 and knows him very well. When I refer to Bronfman, I mean Bronfman, Kemp Investments and Leo Kolber. Can the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources
assure this House that he has received no representations, either written, verbal, bilingual or otherwise, from anyone involved with the Bronfman interests, and that he has not been the one carrying the can for Maislin because of the longstanding connection between Maislin and the Bronfman interests?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I would be very happy to leave the hon. member in the gutter he seems to enjoy and tell him I have never at any time received any representation from either Mr. Charles Bronfman or anyone connected with the Kemp Investment group, or anything of that nature. I can say that categorically and emphatically, and the hon. member can stay in the gutter he seems to enjoy.


SHIPBUILDING
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance, and it concerns the more than 15,000 man-years and the jobs we have lost in the Canadian shipbuilding industry, which have affected employment in the Atlantic provinces, Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia directly. Yesterday an industry spokesperson pointed out that the contention of the minister last week that the shipbuilding industry in Canada is uncompetitive is competely false. Earlier a report prepared for another government department by a government-hired expert also indicated that what the minister contends is false. The report indicated that the Canadian shipbuilding industry is quite competitive.
In light of this, I would like to ask the minister if he will guarantee that all the shipping requirements in relation to resource project needs in many provinces in the years ahead will be met by ships produced in Canada by Canadian workers.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, first I would like to clarify what has been attributed to me as a sweeping indictment of the Canadian shipbuilding industry. In the comments I made in Halifax on the Canadian economy, those particular comments were directed to the general economic situation in the country, including the over-all productivity performance of Canada in comparison with other countries and including the competitiveness of the Canadian economy in comparison with the United States as demonstrated by our rate of inflation and as demonstrated by the level of our wage settlements. Those comments were made in general terms about the Canadian economy, and at no point did I enter into an analysis of the competitive position of the Canadian shipbuilding industry in comparison with the industries in other countries.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, we hope what the minister has said is the case, and that the government has no intention
August 4, 1982

of castigating a particular sector of the Canadian economy which in fact is performing quite well.


REQUEST THAT OVERSEAS PURCHASES BE CURTAILED
John Edward Broadbent: More specifically, Madam Speaker, 1 would like to ask the minister whether the government will live up to its 1980 election campaign promise, which was to produce an industrial strategy overall, by implementing it with specifics in terms of commitments in the shipbuilding sector. More specifically, will the minister guarantee to the House, that is to say to the people of Canada, that ship requirements-and there will be thousands of them in the years ahead-will no longer be met by purchase offshore, whether from Belgium or Korea, to name two countries that are getting significant orders in the near future, but in fact will be met by Canadian producers so that Canadians and not those offshore will get the needed jobs?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has underlined one of the objectives of the Government of Canada, namely, to ensure the highest possible Canadian procurement in the offshore industry. That is one of the objectives that has been followed by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and it will be pursued. 1 ask the hon. member to reflect a moment on his question. Is he asking the government to give an ironclad guarantee-


John Edward Broadbent: Don't use that phrase. A real guarantee, not an ironclad one.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -an ironclad guarantee that, regardless of costs, all equipment required will be purchased in Canada? If he is making that suggestion, then who does he expect will pay the additional amount? I cannot give the kind of guarantee that the hon. member wants me to give in light of the condition of the Canadian treasury.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MINISTER OF EDUCATION AND CULTURE OF ICELAND
Madam Speaker:: I should like to draw the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of the Hon. Ingvar Gislason, Icelandic Minister of Education and Culture.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF DIRECTORS OF QUEBEC AMPUTEES' ASSOCIATION
Madam Speaker:: I also wish to draw the attention of the House to the truly remarkable presence in our gallery of Mr. Oral Questions
Gilles Cedillot and Mr. Henri Gagne, who are, respectively, founder and director general, and chairman, of the Federation d'entr'aide aux nouveaux amputes du Quebec, and have almost finished a trip of some 4,000 kilometres they undertook in order to help amputees.


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, my question is supplementary to the industrial strategy question and concerns the government's prodigal son, Dome Petroleum.

Now that the superport project at Gros-Cacouna has been abandoned and there is a possibility of lay offs at the shipyards of Davie Shipbuilding Limited in Lauzon, and considering that Dome Petroleum intends to have five tankers built in Japan for the British Columbia gas project, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Will the government, to balance its assistance to Dome Petroleum, take over the shipyards in Lauzon and, as part of an industrial strategy, set up a shipbuilding project, either in Lauzon or elsewhere in Canada, so that we will be able to transport our own resources?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, first of all, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway on the excellent results of his course at Laval University in Quebec City. I can inform the hon. member that negotiations with Dome Petroleum have not been finalized, and that no decision has been made to the effect that the Government of Canada is going to help Dome Petroleum. However, among all the possibilities considered, we did not consider taking over or acquiring this particular shipyard. The issue raised by the hon. member is, of course, a very important one, namely, opportunities for Canadian businesses to expand their share of profits resulting from sales of natural resources, especially abroad. Regarding the Dome Petroleum project, and especially the sale of liquefied gas to Japan, I have already had some discussions on the subject with representatives for Dome Petroleum and the Japanese interests concerned, and I recently received a message from Dome Petroleum to the effect that they would see to it that there were balances in the agreement concluded with the Japanese so that, especially as far as the methane tankers were concerned, Canada would have at least a 50 per cent interest. As for the rest of the project, Canadian ownership will be around 80 or 90 per cent.

August 4, 1982
Oral Questions


INDUSTRY
Hon. Bill Jarvis (Perth):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce who held forth the Enterprise Development Program as a possible solution to those companies whose continued existence might be preserved were the government to guarantee existing debt. Having now had a chance to read the regulations under that program in the brochure, I presume the only part of the program for which such companies could qualify would be the loan insurance for adjustment projects. There is no indication that service companies qualify under that particular project. As a matter of fact, it mentions specifically manufacturing and processing only. Can the minister advise whether that program has now been enlarged so that many thousands of Canadian companies that could be saved from bankruptcy in the service industries could make application?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, we are working now on the question of appropriate changes to the regulations so that, if they are accepted, consideration can be given to applications made by service sectors in support of manufacturing and processing activities. I think this is consistent with what I was saying on earlier occasions.


William Herbert Jarvis: Madam Speaker, I am sure the minister will take this opportunity to advise when those regulations will be changed, because he invited applications yesterday. It seems rather foolish to make application for a program whose regulations do not provide for any possible acceptance of the application.


FORGOING OF LOAN INTEREST PAYMENTS
William Herbert Jarvis: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. We heard today that, as part of the Maislin deal, that company will enjoy the luxury of not paying interest for two years under the government guarantee program. The minister has held forth the Enterprise Development Program as the counterpart to smaller businesses-thousands of them across the country. Does that same deal apply elsewhere? In other words, if a corporate constituent of mine makes an application, will he be afforded the opportunity of postponing or forgoing interest for two years under any guarantee from the Enterprise Development Program?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, with respect to the kinds of companies
mentioned by my hon. friend in his earlier question, I said that if applications came I would be happy to draw them to the attention of my colleagues in cabinet for consideration.
With respect to the matter of postponement of interest, that is a matter to be negotiated between a company and its bankers which would then be seeking the government guarantee. The postponement of interest is not a matter that involves payment or nonpayment to the government; we are talking about guarantees of loans made by private sector institutions. If that is part of the package negotiated with a lender, and if on balance, on the merits of the matter-


Mr. Clark:: And if, and if, and if.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: -it is found that there are reasonable prospects for restructuring with the help of loan guarantees which will assist the company to return to viability, then this is certainly something that can be considered.


Charles Joseph Clark: And if they can find a Grit friend.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Yesterday the minister informed a press conference that the move of naval reserve headquarters from Halifax to Quebec City "will cost practically nothing for Nova Scotia but will have, by contrast, a very important impact on Quebec". There will be a loss to Halifax of 44 servicemen and women and a substaff of approximately 20. Does the minister expect us to believe that the economy of Halifax is so buoyant that this is practically nothing?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, I am very suspicious of the fact that when people in the opposition raise that question they have motives, other than for the good of the Armed Forces.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: That is unparliamentary.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Withdraw.


Mr. Lamontagne:: As I said the other day, nobody will lose their job in Halifax due to this move. On the military side, this decision involves strictly a posting so they will not literally be giving up their jobs. There are about 20 civilians who might be moved from Halifax if they want to be moved. Hon. members opposite know all about the flexibility of the public service. If they do not want to move to Quebec, then someone else will be hired, and they will be offered jobs elsewhere in the organization.
August 4, 1982

By the way, yesterday I received a letter from the president of the Maritime Defence Association of Canada who is located in the riding of the hon. member for Victoria, who wrote:
-on the move of the Naval Reserve to Quebec. I had assured him-
He was referring to a conversation with me personally last year:
-that MDAC would support the move, and certainly our position has not changed.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Maurice Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, I think it is very important that we clarify the situation to show that we are not playing politics with defence. I want to mention also that we have the agreement of most of the 18 naval reserve divisions across the country with respect to the move. I think that agreement certifies that there is no politics involved. It is a move to help francophones better serve their country in the navy.


Charles Joseph Clark: What leverage did you use?


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, I am sure that on reflection the Minister of National Defence might wish to withdraw those remarks he made concerning questions asked by the opposition. As for the matter of getting concurrence from people who serve under the minister's command, it is fairly easy if they serve under his command to get concurrence.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CONSULTATION WITH SECRETARY OF STATE
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, I am a little puzzled about what is going on over there.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: I thought I might have equal time, considering the rather lengthy reply the minister gave.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Bruce McKinnon: I know that the United States has Reaganomics and it appears that Canada has a form of "Reganom-ics" wherein the Secretary of State feels that he is serving Halifax well by spending $100,000 on a bash for 600 sports writers at the All-Star game in Montreal while his seatmate is stealing 60 jobs from his constituency in Halifax.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Could the minister inform the House whether he consulted with the Secretary of State about this move? Could he also tell us whether, before last Friday, he had permission of the cabinet to go ahead with the move?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, I think it is very clear, and I believe I said before, that it was strictly an administrative move on the part of the Armed Forces. I do not think this represents a change of
Oral Questions
policy. It is moving and organizing so that francophones can better serve their country in the Navy. That is not a change of policy.


Mr. Andre:: Just like your leader.


Maurice Lamontagne: It is a confirmation of a policy to give both francophones and anglophones a chance to serve at all levels of the Armed Forces.
As far as the question about whether I had consulted with my colleague who sits next to me is concerned, yes, I did. He understood the position of francophones in the Navy very well and he was very broadminded about the issue. It is the same as the one I have just cited. When the hon. member for Victoria said that some people under my command in the reserve are following just like sheep, I hope he will realize that he said that in the presence of all these people.

[ Translation]


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.

Earlier on today the House in its generosity, on Raoul Wallenberg's seventieth birthday, recognized his heroic deeds. That motion was moved by the hon. member for Laurier, seconded by the hon. member for Waterloo and the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill. Everybody agreed to that motion. But the House seems to have been less generous with another motion, and that leads me to my question. It seems the person who said no to the other motion presented by the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party is ready to reconsider-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Does the hon. member have a question? He cannot revert to a motion the House has already dealt with.


Marcel Prud'homme: Madam Speaker, will the minister agree to this House demanding that the Government of Israel instruct its armed forces to cease the violent bombardment of Beirut?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I think no useful purpose would be served in attempting to revert to a motion under Standing Order 43 on this, but I am very happy to state our position. Yesterday we made a demarche to the Israeli government,

August 4, 1982
Oral Questions
protesting the bombardment up to that point of West Beirut and saying that the process should be seen as reflecting a deep and growing concern in the Canadian Parliament and public over the impact upon civilians of the Israeli bombardment of Beirut.
I want to say today, having yesterday brought a message of restraint for Israel to the United States Secretary of State, and having stated that position publicly there, that the new bombardment today is an extraordinarily unfavourable development for peace. It is hard to understand how the Government of Israel thinks it can advance the cause of peace in this direction, at a time when negotiations appear to be taking hold. We are very disturbed by it. We protest in the strongest way against this resumption of hostilities, and we hope that it will cease forthwith.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. For the past two years the House and the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs have been considering legislative proposals to overhaul Canada's archaic and ineffective rape laws. The minister knows that we on this side of the House were and are prepared to consent to a speedy debate on these long overdue amendments, despite the fact that some Conservative members, the dinosaur wing of that party, have so far blocked passage of the bill.


Mr. Chenier:: You are to blame.


Svend Johannes Robinson: If the House does not pass this bill tonight, which would be a travesty of justice to thousands of victims of sexual assault, will the minister assure the House that this session will not be prorogued in the fall until the bill, with all the amendments to which we agreed yesterday, including those on previous sexual history and spousal immunity, has finally been approved by the House?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, I think the great majority of hon. members of the House would like this bill to be passed. I am still hopeful that there will be an agreement so that we could pass the bill between six and eight o'clock tonight. I think everyone will be happy if we can achieve that goal.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, surely if we can pass pay increases for Members of Parliament in two hours, we can do the same with rape legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: Don't be stupid. You will kill the bill.


Charles Joseph Clark: You are trying to sabotage the bill again.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Sleazy.


Madam Speaker:: Order.


REQUEST THAT SUPREME COURT DECISION BE REVERSED
Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same minister. Over
22,000	Canadians from coast to coast, as well as every national and provincial women's organization, have expressed their outrage at the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Regina v Pappajohn, endorsing the defence of honest belief without reasonable grounds. Despite the fact that the Conservative Party supports the Pappajohn decision, will the minister finally agree to amend Canada's rape laws to reverse this decision, called by some the "rapist's charter", which denies the fundamental principle that "no means no?"


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I think it is evident that, if the hon. member were to be more moderate in his statements, it would be easier to pass bills.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: But I think he has matured a little; yesterday he agreed with me for the first time in his life, so I will not say any more.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Madam Speaker, the Minister of National Defence will be aware that when he uttered the great words that he does not play politics with defence, he was the one who in fact moved the 880 Squadron to Summerside and followed it up with the 420 ARS, which is now for all intents and purposes defunct and dead. I would like to have it absolutely clear as to whether or not the question of the first step toward bringing about a greater naval presence in the province of Quebec, in principle, was discussed by cabinet. If not, why was it not discussed by cabinet? The simple explanation that it is administrative in its intent and in its end is not sufficient to answer the growing fears in the Halifax-Dartmouth community.
While he is on his feet, he might as well respond to the very open invitation left by the Prime Minister yesterday when he invited ministers-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Madam Speaker:: Order. Order.


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, 1 think the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East should know better tfran to ask a question about
August 4, 1982

what was discussed in cabinet. As far as moving anything else from Halifax is concerned, there is no plan to move anything at the moment, not more than we have done before. Perhaps the hon. member is aware that we are spending at the moment over $260 million for new facilities in the dockyard in Halifax. This provides 3,850 man-years of work in that area. I do not think he can argue much about that.


J. Michael Forrestall: The minister has complained about the extravagance of defence spending in Nova Scotia for two or three years now. Frankly, 1 am just a little fed up with it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT
J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Speaker, I asked a very specific question as a result of an invitation by the Prime Minister yesterday, as reported at page 19948 of Hansard, in which he said:
-I would be happy if any minister wanted to raise this in full cabinet. We have a full cabinet meeting on Thursday and, if any minister wants to raise it, I would be happy to deal with it.
I ask the Prime Minister whether or not the Secretary of State, or any other minister, has had the guts to take this in front of his full cabinet, because you are not telling the truth.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Madam Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East knows that he has to rephrase his question, or would he simply withdraw the last part of it?


J. Michael Forrestall: When the minister indicates to the House that he does not play politics with national defence-


Madam Speaker:: I need a simple withdrawal.


J. Michael Forrestall: -1 wonder if he has the courage to answer. I do withdraw.


Madam Speaker:: Thank you very much; it is withdrawn.


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, it is true that there is a cabinet meeting tomorrow. If any of my colleagues want to raise the question, I have no objection. But I think it probably takes more guts to accept the truth that in Nova Scotia the Department of Defence is spending a lot of money. It is treated better than any other province in the country. This is the truth about Nova Scotia, and the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East should know that is the truth.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. It arises from today's startling story that a large quantity of illegal drugs with a street value of several million dollars, which were seized last year by the RCMP, disappeared as a result of a
Oral Questions
foul-up at a Toronto incinerator, and found their way into the hands of individuals who were arrested just last month by the Toronto metro police. Can the minister tell the House whether a spokesman in his office, who is quoted as saying that the Solicitor General will not be making a ministerial investigation into this matter, was reflecting accurately the minister's lack of concern about this serious incident?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, 1 do not know who the spokesman is supposed to be, but 1 do not agree with that statement. I can assure the House that 1 have already asked the RCMP for a full report on the matter. 1 will see, when 1 get the report, if any further investigation is justified.
1 understand from the investigation to date that, of the
13.000	pounds of drugs which were sent to be burned, it is now established that only 35 pounds are unaccounted for. This is far from the $10 million value shown in The Toronto Star. But, I am looking into the matter, and I hope to be in a position to decide shortly whether any further inquiry is justified.


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL INVESTIGATION
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, surely the minister is aware that there is quite strong disagreement, to put it mildly, among at least two police forces in this country as to exactly what quantity of drugs are missing, and therefore, obviously, whether it has all been recovered or not. Considering the impact of this upon the reputation of the RCMP, for whom the minister is responsible, surely he should be giving this matter his most serious personal attention with some type of ministerial investigation, apart altogether from the RCMP investigating the RCMP. Surely, for the sake of the continuing fine reputation of the RCMP, something more than an internal investigation is required.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, that may well be the case. I would be prepared to consider further inquiries, but I think the proper place to begin is with the RCMP by asking them for their explanation and for an analysis of exactly what has happened.
The article in The Toronto Star seems not to be founded since, as I say, the current view-and more investigation is under way as 1 mentioned-is that only 35 pounds of the
13.000	pound are not accounted for.


CHARTER OF RIGHTS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Madam Speaker, since 1978 the federal government has
[Stage Direction]
August 4, 1982
Oral Questions
helped citizens and groups finance legal actions against provincial legislation which contravened Sections 93 and 133 of the Constitution. With the new Charter of Rights and the Canada clause, will the government now provide financial assistance to individuals in Quebec who are seeking admittance to English schools this fall under the Canada clause? The Prime Minister understands that, if the Charter is to be effective and meaningful, citizens must have means to enforce these rights in the courts, even to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I do not think that I could give a blanket guarantee that the government would guarantee in advance legal costs of any and every citizen using the Charter of Rights to plead their rights. That would entail unknown costs and uncalculated expenditures. But if the hon. member is suggesting that we look at the guarantee of a particular section, I am prepared to discuss the matter with my colleague, the Minister of Justice.
There again, I am sure that many citizens and groups, now that we have a full Charter of Rights for the first time, will be claiming that their particular rights are the ones that should be defended at the public's expense. 1 am afraid that it might open a door that even the treasury of the Government of Canada could not easily enter. However, I am prepared to look at the particular aspects suggested by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East.


EMPLOYMENT
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The minister recently announced the allocation of $270 million for the Canada Community Development Project. Only 6 per cent of these funds will go for jobs in British Columbia. Will the minister explain why British Columbia rated such a low priority for jobs when unemployment there has more than doubled over the past year? There are 50 per cent lay-offs in the forestry and mining industries, and in my riding of Vancouver East, like many others, claimants for unemployment insurance have risen by up to 240 per cent. Most of these people are now off unemployment insurance and going on welfare. Will the minister explain why we received such a low allocation and what he will do about it?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, we certainly are very well aware of the serious problems faced by the people of British Columbia, particularly those in the mining and forest industry.
I find it very surprising that the hon. member would say that there is such a low increase when, in fact, we increased the allocation to the province of British Columbia by 162 per cent, which seems to be a fairly generous contribution to help the unemployment problems in that province.


ROLE OF LOCAL ADVISORY GROUPS IN ALLOCATING FUNDS
Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. During recent weeks Liberal Senators in British Columbia and Saskatchewan, acting under directions from both the minister's and the Prime Minister's office, have been playing pork-barrel politics with the allocation of employment funds within opposition constituencies under the guise of the Immediate Employment Stimulation Program, ignoring the nonpartisan priorities established by local advisory boards and often over the objections of the minister's own regional and local officials.
In view of this experience, and other information from within his department, is it now the intent of the government to wipe out the role of local advisory boards with regard to the allocation of employment funds under the Canada community development program and to return to the old Liberal-Tory style of wasteful and insensitive arbitrary allocation?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, if we clear away the verbiage, the fact remains that the system which we established two years ago, after the previous government cancelled all the direct employment programs, was to return the responsibility to the constituency and to the Member of Parliament to give advice on the projects in those areas. That is still the case and it has not changed.
1 do not know exactly what the reference is by the hon. member other than that through the budget allocation of the Minister of Finance, there are certain departments where projects which were on the shelf could be put into job creation in an immediate way are being allocated. It is only normal for the regional minister to make those announcements.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS REQUEST FOR FIRST MINISTERS' MEETING ON PROGRESS OF GOVERNMENT RESTRAINT PROGRAM
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Some provincial governments have committed themselves to the federal government's 6 per cent and 5 per cent restraint policy and program. Some have accepted variations and are pursuing them and some are still silent. Would the Prime Minister advise the House whether he is planning a second meeting with the premiers in the near future, and particularly before the start of the new session on October 27, first to brief the premiers collectively on the relative progress of the restraint program and, second, again to solicit their collective and individual support for the national restraint program?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I do plan to do that very thing in correspondence with the Premiers before their meeting in late August. I do not plan to do it in a personal meeting, but through correspondence.
August 4, 1982

The agreement that we reached when we last met at the end of June was that it was generally felt that it was inappropriate to have another federal-provincial first ministers' meeting before the premiers met in Halifax in the last week in August. But hopefully enough progress will be made there that we will find it useful to meet again sometime in the fall on the very subject which is of concern to the hon. member and, I hope, to all members of the House. Therefore, the answer is, no meeting, but a communication very much along the lines suggested by the hon. member.


CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION APPLICATION OF RATE SETTING GUIDELINES
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I have a brief question for the Prime Minister. Would he confirm that he has received a letter from the chairman of the CRTC expressing doubt as to whether or not the CRTC could be required to abide by the 6 per cent guidelines in rate setting cases? If so, has he asked for and received a legal opinion on this question? Can he tell the House of Commons what was the result of that inquiry?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am not aware that I have received such a letter from the chairman of the CRTC, but I may well have. I do know that the problem is actively being discussed by members of the government, that some lawyers have expressed doubts along the lines suggested by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition and others have expressed the view that there is no doubt. I know that we are looking into that matter.
Parallel to that, it is hoped that, even without that action of the CRTC, various public companies which are in the rate setting business will heed the government's guidelines and will act regardless of whether they are asked to do so by the CRTC.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. I now have a confirmed report that at one of the western penitentiaries the inmates are apparently holding regular midnight soirees viewing erotic video tapes. For example, I understand that "Deep Throat" is considered too tame. They are looking for some heavier erotica. Is it the minister's position that these men who, in free and open
Petitions
society, have not been able to maintain constraint in their lifestyle, are now expected to have free access to material which, in open society, is severely restricted to those people who have maintained constraint on their passions?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, with the tragic incidents which have occurred in Canadian penitentiaries in recent days, it is astonishing to me that the hon. member repeatedly returns to his favourite obsession, pornographic movies. I will undertake to look into the matter and see if there is any truth at all to the allegations he has made today.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Despicable.


Benno Friesen: If the minister conducts the affairs of the institutions in the flippant manner he exhibits in the House, there is no wonder that we have problems in those institutions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Weak applause.


COUNSELLING AND DISCIPLINARY ROLES
Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same minister. There is only one institution in society where a person can be both counsellor and disciplinarian, and that is in the home, in the family. All other institutions avoid that kind of doubling up of roles. Does the minister believe that the correctional service can operate in opposition to conventional wisdom and outside society, and confuse the two roles of counselling and discipline?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, in fact I do believe it. It has been the practice in the Correctional Service of Canada, which was fully supported by the opposition during the short time that it was in office, that custodial and rehabilitative programs can be maintained side by side.


PETITIONS
[Stage Direction]
MISS MacDONALD-RECONSIDERATION OF BILL C-124
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the 318th Report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) on Tuesday, August 3, 1982, and finds that it meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.

August 4, 1982
Indian Affairs


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: On a
point of order, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: The President of the Privy Council, on a point of order.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, there have been further negotiations and agreements among the parliamentary House leaders.

On my first point of order, if I may, there seems to be unanimous consent for the disposal without amendment or debate of Motion No. 83 on the Order Paper, which stands in the name of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), and it is to refer two Notices of Ways and Means Motions to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. Therefore, if Your Honour were to call Motion No. 83 on the Order Paper, I think you would obtain unanimous consent for the adoption of that motion without debate.


Madam Speaker:: Does the House agree to the suggestion of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) with regard to the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That the notices of Ways and Means motions to amend the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Application Rules, 1971, tabled in the House on June 28, 1982, be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, and that the committee shall report its findings thereon no later than September 30, 1982; provided that, if the House is not sitting when the report has been completed, the report may be deposited with the Clerk of the House and shall thereupon be deemed to have been laid upon the Table.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Yvon Pinard: On a
second point of order, Madam Speaker, there has also been agreement among House leaders in relation to a motion which is not on the Order Paper but which has been circulated to those interested. It is standing in the name of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro). It is rather long. If hon. members insist that it be read, it can be read. If not, I can assure my hon. friends that the copy I will give to the Clerk is the copy which was circulated. But if hon. members prefer that the motion be read, I understand that the minister is willing to read the three pages.


Some hon. Members:: No, dispense.


Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, we have had an opportunity to review this order before this moment, and we would be in agreement with it being tabled and reprinted in Hansard without being read.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, we would also be prepared to have the motion tabled and printed in Hansard without it being read.


Madam Speaker:: It is agreed and so ordered.
[Editor's Note: The motion referred to above is as follows.]


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) moved:: That:
1.	The Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development be empowered to study the provisions of the Indian Act dealing with band membership and Indian status, with a view to recommending how the act might be amended to remove those provisions that discriminate against women on the basis of sex.
2.	The committee shall report its findings thereon no later than the first day the House resumes sitting, provided that, if the House is not sitting when the report has been completed, the report may be deposited with the Clerk of the House and shall thereupon be deemed to have been laid upon the Table.
3.	The Standing Committee be further empowered, following its report to the House on the aforementioned subject, to review all legal and related institutional factors affecting the status, development and responsibilities of band governments on Indian reserves, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing:
(a)	the legal status of band governments;
(b)	the accountability of band councils to band members;
(c)	the powers of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in relation to reserve land, band moneys and the exercise of band powers;
(d)	the financial transfer, control and accounting mechanisms in place between bands and the Government of Canada;
(e)	the legislative powers of bands and their relationship to the powers of other jurisdictions; and
(f)	the accountability to Parliament of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for the moneys expended by or on behalf of Indian bands;
and make recommendations in relation to the above questions in regard particularly to possible provisions of new legislation and improved administrative arrangements to apply to some or all band governments on reserves, taking into account the various social, economic, administrative, political and demographic situations of Indian bands, and the views of Indian bands in regard to administrative or legal change.
4.	The committee, in carrying out its review, take into account:
(1)	the jurisdiction of the federal government under Section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867;
(2)	the recognition and affirmation of existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples in Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982;
(3)	the current economic restraint program of the government;
(4)	the fact that a First Ministers' Conference will be held for the purpose of identifying rights of the aboriginal peoples.
5.	It be an instruction to the committee that it appoint a subcommittee for the purposes mentioned in paragraphs 1 and 3 respectively;
6.	Each subcommittee, where it is deemed necessary, travel to major centres to hold hearings;
7.	Each subcommittee be empowered to employ administrative and clerical staff as may be deemed necessary.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
August 4, 1982

Yvon Pinard: On a
third point of order, Madam Speaker, there is a very short bill which is not yet on the Order Paper entitled "An act to amend the Financial Administration Act", and it deals with credit unions. The bill has been circulated to those interested and it seems there is unanimous consent for the notice to be dispensed with and for the bill to be introduced now, that it be dealt with when we reach Orders of the Day as the first item of business and that it go through all stages, second reading, Committee of the Whole and third reading without amendment or debate. If that bill could be introduced and receive first reading now, or when we reach Orders of the Day, second reading could be called and we will dispose of all stages without debate and go into Committee of the Whole.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Yes, Madam Speaker, since that bill is an exact replica of the bill introduced as a private member's bill by the hon. member for Nepean-Carle-ton (Mr. Baker), we are in agreement with its passage.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, you will recall that I have been attempting to get the government to bring this bill forward for the better part of the last two months. I am therefore delighted to join in the unanimous consent necessary to have the bill dealt with in all stages.


Madam Speaker:: If the House will give unanimous consent to waive the notice, then I will present the bill to the House when we come to introduction of bills.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I might rise on a fourth point of order later on to deal with some amendments to the Criminal Code. We are working on the deal, but the reason I mention it now is that if we reach agreement, which is likely, we might have recorded divisions before eight o'clock, between 7.30 and eight o'clock.
V *	*


POINT OF ORDER
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, I would raise a short point of order. In reply to a question of mine today, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamon-tagne) at the start of his reply said: "I question the motives of the opposition questioners." I would like to point out to Your Honour that that was unparliamentary. Beauchesne's fifth
Tabling of Documents
edition, at page 103, states that any member, while speaking, must not:
-impute bad motives and motives different from those acknowledged to a member.
I gave the minister the opportunity to withdraw those remarks, and I now feel that Your Honour should ask him to withdraw them.


Madam Speaker:: I have not seen the blues, but I did distinctly hear the minister say that he was suspicious. I did not catch the word "motives".


Charles Joseph Clark: I did.


Madam Speaker:: If the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) says that the minister did say "motives" and if the minister recognizes that, I must say to the minister that it is unparliamentary to impute to any member or members unworthy motives for their actions in a particular case. So I will leave it in the hands of the minister to withdraw his remarks now, if he recognizes that he has questioned motives. I am sure he did not do it deliberately. At any rate, certain words sometimes come out unexpectedly during the course of conversation.


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, being a man of peace and not a man of war, if I have said anything improper this afternoon I withdraw what I have said.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, with leave of the House, I wish to table a document under the heading: "Policy Statement on Western Grain Transportation", which is the government's first reaction to the Gilson report on the same subject.


ATOMIC ENERGY
[Stage Direction]
TABLING OF NUCLEAR INDUSTRY REVIEW: PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS, 1981-2000
Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I wish to table, in both official languages, copies of a report entitled: "The Nuclear Industry Review".

August 4, 1982
Point of Order-Mr. Mazankowski


POINTS OF ORDER
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand that the minister has just tabled the government's response to the Gilson report. Again we have witnessed in this House a practice which has become increasingly frequent during this session, that is, the failure of ministers to make announcements of substantive policy measures in this House. Instead they have merely tabled a document or issued a press release outside the House. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) has demonstrated today once again his contempt and disregard for this institution and for all hon. members of the House of Commons.
This is the third occasion on which the minister has, in dealing with a question of very substantive policy, namely the future of the Crowsnest Pass freight rates in this country, avoided the House of Commons. On February 8 he issued a statement in Winnipeg and that was a substantive statement of policy. The members of the House of Commons did not have an opportunity to respond; they did not have an opportunity to question the minister or to seek clarification on a very important and complicated subject. The opposition had to use an opposition day to get this issue on the floor of the House of Commons.
On June 28 when the Gilson report was released, once again the House of Commons was circumvented. A statement was made in Winnipeg; the minister held a press conference; once again the Members of Parliament and this House of Commons were not involved.
Today we have a statement that has been tabled by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin). We do not know what it contains but we do understand that it is the government's response to the report of the Gilson task force. What is further rubbing salt into the wounds of all hon. members is the fact that the minister is going to go outside of this House of Commons and hold a press conference. I believe that is contemptuous and totally disregarding the role, the responsibility and the obligations that we have as Members of Parliament. He merely tables the report today. There is no statement, no opportunity for opposition members to respond. There is no opportunity to seek clarification. He is doing it by press release by tabling a document and holding a press conference outside of this chamber.
We all know this same Minister of Transport a year ago waited until Parliament recessed to make a very substantive announcement with respect to VIA Rail. This has been a habit with this minister and I must say it has been shared as well by other ministers of this government.
I am sure that you realize, Madam Speaker, that the issue of the Crowsnest Pass freight rates is a very fundamental and important issue to the people of western Canada and particularly to the farmers, the producers and the grains industry of
western Canada. We all acknowledge that this government does not have any members in this House west of Winnipeg, but that should be no reason why this Parliament should be left out in the cold. We on this side of the House find, the action of the Minister of Transport contemptible. We believe that it constitutes an abuse of the rights and privileges of all members of this House of Commons. We believe it impairs the ability of each and every one of us to discharge our responsibility and to serve our constituents and our region.
I ask you, Madam Speaker, as one who presides over this chamber and who has the responsibility of ensuring that rights and privileges of all Members of Parliament are preserved, to seriously look into this matter and take the necessary steps to see that this practice cease and desist.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Madam Speaker, on this issue I think the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) is perfectly right. Since about 1975 we have had nothing but a litany of bypassing Parliament on the issue of the Crowsnest Pass statutory grain rates. We have had nothing but a total ignoring of the Hall royal commission by the government. We have had a total refusal by the government to let the Transport Committee-could it be because there are no Liberals from the prairies?-deal with this matter. The minister stacks the deck with organizations that he knows are opposed to statutory grain rates, namely, the private enterprise section of the grain industry. He refuses to consult the grain producers by way of a referendum to give them a choice whether they want the recommendations of Gilson or Mr. Justice Emmett Hall.
This business of using press releases and statements tabled in the House indicates to me that the minister does not want to make a statement on motions so that members of the opposition parties can respond. Instead of that, we have to work in our offices or down in Room 130S to respond to something that is so fundamental to the whole country, as well as western Canada.
Surely the minister should be bigger than he has been in dealing with this matter and should not continue to run around behind the backs of Members of Parliament in dealing with this issue on the last day of this House sitting.


An hon. Member:: With no chance to question it.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: There is no chance to question and for the next three months he will spend the summer, as he did with VIA Rail last year, machinating to undermine the western grain producers and the statutory grain rates. That is not the way for a responsible minister of the government to behave on an issue of this magnitude, and I hope the minister will take that into account the next time he has something to say on this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Nystrom:: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker.
August 4, 1982


Madam Speaker:: I cannot hear any more interventions on this particular point of order because I think all hon. members will agree that it is not a valid point of order.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


An hon. Member:: If it is not, it should be.


Madam Speaker:: I must remind hon. members that the members of the executive, the government, have the choice of announcing whatever they want to announce in any way they choose unless they are required under the Standing Orders to do otherwise. Of course, this particular area and this particular matter is not covered by the Standing Orders, and therefore although members might not approve of the way the minister has decided to announce a particular policy or to table a document in lieu of a statement on motions, the hon. minister has the choice of his means. Members might disagree, they might have a formidable grievance; all of that might be true, but it is not a valid point of order and it is not a question of privilege either.


MR. WADDELL-TABLING OF NUCLEAR INDUSTRY REVIEW
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Madam Speaker:: 1 just want to remind the hon. member that he must not come back on this particular point of order.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) has also just tabled a report on a controversial matter, the nuclear review, equally exciting for the country; the country is interested in this. I cannot even get a copy of it, Madam Speaker. I asked the page to go up to the Table and get a copy-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Surely I am entitled to a copy.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member is rising on a point of order which is quite similar to the one on which I just ruled. He is not happy about the fact that the minister has tabled the document. He is complaining that he cannot find the report, that he has to run after it. That is legitimate, but it is not a point of order.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Madam Speaker, I feel there is a question of privilege before this House on the matter of tabling the Gilson report. I feel you have not had an opportunity to take a look at whether privilege has been breached, whether we have been denied as Members of Parliament the opportunity, on something that is very
Petitions
important to my constituency and western Canada, the opportunity to ask the minister questions on something that is as important as the Crowsnest Pass freight rates is to my position as a Member of Parliament. The minister himself, in answer to a question on July 17, 1982, that I asked him, told me that we would have this report on July 29.


Madam Speaker:: Order, order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member as well but I am afraid he is arguing the same point under a question of privilege. I am sure he is very unhappy that he cannot ask questions but there are periods in the course of the sittings when members may ask questions of a minister, if they are lucky enough to get recognized, of course. But the hon. member has had his turn. However, that is not a question of privilege.


PETITIONS
Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington):: Madam Speaker, this is a petition of the undersigned residents of the city of Burlington who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that this honourable House will therefore provide a remedy.
The 126 citizens of Burlington who have signed this petition state that:
We oppose the proposed tax on employer contributions to private health services plans and ask that this proposal be withdrawn immediately.
The tax proposed in the November 12 budget and carried over in the June 28 budget is a measure which will hurt low and middle-income families in Canada at a time when many of them are struggling to survive.


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, the petition which I present here is on behalf of a number of troll fishermen in the province of British Columbia who have been forced, through the narrowness of the plan of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, into a situation which will undoubtedly lead them to bankruptcy and the loss of their vessels. They have appealed to the Canadian government. Their fisheries officer suggests that if they continue fishing or begin to fish outside the fishing plan, the Royal Canadian Navy will be used against them.
In the petition they request that the government, through the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) or senior officials in his department, meet with them to find a more acceptable solution to the impending economic crisis which they face.

August 4, 1982
Introduction of Bills


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, in addition I have a petition asking that the Canadian government stop its sale of Buffalo aircraft to the government of Honduras, which is supporting Somozista guerillas who have invaded the country of Nicaragua and launched a rocket attack on aircraft in the port of Corinto. They sent in invading aircraft which attempted to bomb an oil refinery inside Nicaragua.


Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, it is appropriate and perhaps even ironic that I present my petition on the day the government tables its reaction to the controversial Gilson report. People in my province are concerned about the historic Crow rail rate. Therefore, I have the honour to present a petition signed by residents of that province protesting changes in the Crow rate. These residents support their position by pointing out that the changing of the Crow rate will reduce farm income, contribute to the break-up of communities on branch lines and increase trucking and road costs. They therefore request that the Crow rate be maintained in perpetuity, as presently guaranteed by statute.


Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Madam Speaker, 1 have the duty and the honour to present this petition on behalf of the Eastern Kings Fishermen's Association and fishermen from the fishing ports of North Lake, Morell, Savage Harbour, North Rustico and Malpeque. The purpose of this petition is to request the equal division of the blue fin tuna quota for Prince Edward Island.
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 Speaker of the House to allow discussion and referral to a committee of this issue at the earliest possible time.



RAILWAY ACT


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-662, to amend the Railway Act (hours of work).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Sidney James Parker: Madam Speaker, I will be very brief. This bill to amend the Railway Act is intended to increase safety in Canada of the operation of trains. At the present time the railways in the United States have a law that railway workers operating trains will not work more than 12 hours if they
require rest. When they cross the border to come into Canada, that act is no longer in effect. Sometimes they work as many as 20 and 25 hours without obtaining rest. If this act is accepted by the House, the existing agreements in the United States will carry on when they work in Canada. It is similar to the Canada Labour Code. I think it would be a very worthwhile bill to adopt.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board)
asked for leave to introduce Bill C-126, to amend the Financial Administration Act (No. 2).
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
['Agreed.']
Madam Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the second time? Later today?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1,877, 4,258 and 4,468.


Mr. Lewis: Is Astra Trust Company presently an approved lender for the purposes of purchasing, making and administering approved loans under Part I of the National Housing Act and (a) if so (i) on what date was such a designation approved (ii) who approved the designation and on what basis (b) if not, has the Company ever been so designated and, if so (i) on what date was such a designation approved (ii) who approved the designation and on what basis?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: I am
advised by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows: Astra Trust Company was designated an approved lender by an order in council on November 22, 1979. CMHC reviewed all pertinent information and documentation submitted by the applicant and was satisfied that this applicant met all criteria established by the corporation. On this basis CMHC sought an order in council designating this company as an approved lender.
August 4, 1982


Mr. Crosby: 1.	Does the Department of Justice have written rules or regulations governing the conduct or standards of behavior for employees of the department and, if so, are they embodied in a code of conduct or other specific document and is the code or document available to the public?
2.	In the five years preceding April 1, 1982, were any employees of the department disciplined by way of suspension, dismissal or otherwise for violations of any rules or regulations governing the conduct or standards of behaviour for departmental employees and, if so, in each case, what was the name of the employee and the date of the disciplinary action?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. A code of ethics, governing standards of behaviour for employees, is published in the Department of Justice Personnel Administration Manual, to which all employees have access. In addition, all employees are provided with a copy of the public servants conflict of interest guidelines together with an explanation of the particular application of those guidelines with respect to Department of Justice lawyers. A copy is available to the public.
2. In the five years preceding April 1, 1982, only one employee has been disciplined for violation of any of the rules contained in the above documents. The disciplinary action was taken on January 15, 1982. To be consistent with the provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act we are not providing the name of that individual.


Mr. Crosby: 1.	Since confederation, has any member of the Senate of Canada had his or her place in the Senate vacated by reason of a conviction for felony or any infamous crime and, if so, who was the senator and what was the conviction?
2.	What is the procedure or process by which the place of the senator in the Senate is declared vacant if a member of the Senate is convicted of felony or of an infamous crime?
3.	Who is the officer of the Crown in right of Canada, or of the Parliament of Canada, responsible for taking action when a member of the Senate is convicted of felony or of an infamous crime?
4.	Has the government or any one member of the government examined into the charges under the Criminal Code of Canada against Senator Irvine A. Barrow, following his committal for trial on the charges by a provincial court judge, to determine whether his conviction will constitute grounds for his expulsion from the Senate and, if so, what conclusion was reached?


Yvon Pinard: 1.
According to Beauchesne this question is not in order because it (a) is intended to "seek, for purposes of argument, information on matters of past history"; (b) is intended to "seek information set forth in documents equally accessible to the questioner, as Statutes, published reports, etc." and (c) is intended to "relate to matters which passed outside the walls of the House and do not relate to any bill or motion before the House".
2.	This matter relates to the procedure of another place, which is the master of its own rules and processes which the House of Commons may not interfere with or comment upon.
3.	See part 2 supra.
Order Paper Questions
4.	In addition to the answers given in parts 1, 2 and 3 supra, this question is out of order because it "might prejudice a pending trial in a court of law".
Note: All words quoted in parts 1 and 4 supra are from Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fifth edition.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, if Question No. 89 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Which departments, agencies, boards, commissions, Crown corporations or any other government entity, issued charge cards to employees for any job related expenses including transportation, car rental, hotels, meals, etc?
2.	In each case (a) how many cards are currently authorized and (i) to whom (ii) what is their position (b) what is the credit limit of the card?
3.	In the case of a commercial card, what company issued the card?
4.	In each case, what individual has the authority to grant the issuance of such cards and to set the policy for their use?
5.	What general government guidelines or regulations govern the issuance and use of such cards?
6.	What was the total amount charged on such cards in (a) 1975 (b) 1976 (c) 1977 (d) 1978 (e) 1979 and (i) what was the highest amount charged by an individual during each period and who was the individual (ii) have there been any cases of such cards ordered withdrawn and, if so, from whom, for what reason and by whom?
Return tabled.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Madam Speaker, I would like to take another run at the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council in connection whith Question No. 4,229, which I placed on the Order Paper on April 6 at the request of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It really is not that difficult a question to answer. It simply asks about the cost of a number of metric kiosks across the country, who is to be working in them and whether those jobs were advertised through the Public Service Commission.
On two occasions the parliamentary secretary told me that he would be quite happy to look into the matter. I presume I am making him quite happy a third time. I would very much like to know why I cannot have the answer to that question, particularly since this is probably the last day of the sitting of this Parliament. When will I get the answer to Question No. 4,229?


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I am sorry, but 1 do not have an answer for the hon. member today. I will be extremely happy to look into this matter on his behalf.

August 4, 1982
Point of Order-Mr. Gustafson
I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



POINT OF ORDER


Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just asked the pages of the House for a copy of the Gilson report tabled by the government which is so important to the farmers in my area. I was told that they cannot give me a copy of that report now. It is very important to me as the member representing that area because I have to give an account to the largest wheat-producing constituency in Canada. The minister is dealing with a most important subject that could relate to the future of the farmers in my constituency. 1 rise on this point of order to ask when this material will be available to members.


Madam Speaker:: We have the copy which was tabled. The pages are right, and it has been confirmed by the Clerk, that we have no other material for distribution. I want to assure the hon. member that as soon as that material is distributed, 1 will have it sent to all members as soon as possible. There is nothing else I can do unless the material is given to me.


Leonard J. Gustafson: Will that be today, Madam Speaker?


Madam Speaker:: 1 cannot answer that. As soon as I get it, 1 will distribute it. 1 cannot answer the hon. member. Only the minister can answer that question.


Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I think documents which are tabled should be made available to hon. members at the time they are tabled. Hon. members are being deprived of information which has been tabled here. Presumably it is available to the press. The press can comment on it, but Members of Parliament are unable to do so. Therefore, I think we have a question of privilege.
1 am surprised that either the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) or the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) should dare table in this House reports which are not immediately available to members of this House. I think the House should rise up in anger that this affront to Parliament should take place at any time, let alone at this particular time in the session.


Madam Speaker:: There is nothing unusual about what is happening today. There is a copy of the document the minister tabled, and any member can come to the table and consult it.
Therefore it is available. As soon as I get copies, they will be distributed; but the document is there and can be consulted.


Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. We have just been advised that copies are arriving, so the hon. member will be satisfied.


Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, prior to their arrival just now some of my colleagues went to the Table and asked to see copies of the document. They were not available at the Table at that time. I presume that was about 20 minutes ago, so during the last 20 minutes members of this House have been deprived of a document tabled in this House. I therefore insist that my question of privilege stand.


Madam Speaker:: I can only ask the Clerk at the table right now what happened to the document, which was supposed to have been available for consultation.
The Clerk tells me the document was sent down to Journals to be recorded, as is necessary with any document that is tabled, but it came back immediately after it, had been recorded to become available to hon. members. I think the matter is now resolved because we do have extra copies, and we will be more than delighted to distribute them to hon. members.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I wonder if you might consider during the recess whether it would be appropriate to require of those tabling documents that they table them in triplicate in order that there would always be one copy at the Table so that hon. members can in fact have access to it in the event it needed to be photocopied or sent to Journals.


Madam Speaker:: I have no objection to any such practice, but the rules require ministers to table only one copy. 1 cannot force them to table more. If hon. members want to adopt the practice of letting me have more than one copy, I would be delighted, but the rules have been obeyed.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Madam Speaker, I ask that Motions Nos. 53, 55 and 74 be called and transferred for debate.
[ Text]



COPIES OF ALL SOCIAL SURVEYS FINANCED BY DEPARTMENT OF SECRETARY OF STATE

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 53-Mr. Herbert:
That an order of the Flouse do issue for copies of all social surveys financed by the Department of the Secretary of State in the past five years that enquire about what "nonreaders'1 would like to find in their regional newspaper.
August 4, 1982
[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]
Harold Thomas Herbert: Madam Speaker, I ask that Motion No. 53 be transferred for debate.



COPIES OF ALL COMMUNICATIONS RESPECTING WINTER CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 55-Mr. Herbert:
That an order of the House do issue for a copy of the evaluation of the operation of the Winter Capital Projects Fund Program including all memoranda, letters and minutes of meetings resulting from the evaluation.
Harold Thomas Herbert: Madam Speaker, I ask that Motion No. 55 be transferred for debate.



AGREEMENT BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AND PROVINCE OF NEWFOUNDLAND UNDER CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 74-Mr. Herbert:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of the latest signed agreement between the government and the province of Newfoundland under the Canada Assistance Plan.
Harold Thomas Herbert: Madam Speaker, I ask that Motion No. 74 be transferred for debate.


Madam Speaker:: Shall all remaining notices of motions for the production of papers stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board) moved: that Bill C-126, to amend the Financial Administration Act (No. 2), be read the second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

Donald James Johnston: that Bill C-124, respecting compensation in the public sector of Canada, be read the third time and do pass.
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act


Hon. Gerald Regan (Secretary of State):: Madam Speaker, in rising to participate in debate at the third reading stage of this bill I want simply to say at the outset that "six and five" is an exciting opportunity for Canada. It has been recognized by Canadians as an exciting opportunity to lead us on the path of recovery in the country.
We know that the problems which afflict the economy are far-flung and that their origins can be found in a complexity of causes, international as well as national. We know that a large part of the solution can be achieved only as a result of actions taken beyond the borders of Canada, particularly in the United States but also in other countries of the western world and, indeed, the world in general. However, we also know that if Canada is to be in a position to benefit from recovery as soon as that can be achieved, we have to do those things which will enable the maximum recovery to occur here and the maximum benefits to accrue to our people. Specifically, that means reducing the rate of inflation in this country.
1 do not think there are hon. members who seriously would contend that the rate of inflation in Canada, running so far above that of the United States, is not the major problem and the major threat that is unique to Canada. We have in common with the United States, Germany, England and other countries a tragically high level of unemployment. We are afflicted by the same high interest rates those other countries have. And, as has been said many times, the dominance of the economy of the United States over those of other countries means that the change in interest rates must, to a large degree, be initiated there.
But what this bill is directly aimed at is that problem which is more grave in Canada than it is in the United States, and that is the problem of a rate of inflation that is higher here than in the area in which we sell our goods. If we are to sell our goods in that area, we must compete against United States domestic production. That is the situation with regard to many Canadian products being sold into the American market.
I think I speak safely when I say that the vast majority of the Canadian public recognize the threat inflation constitutes. The interesting factor in relation to this bill, perhaps the most important bill with which we have dealt in this session-and, indeed, for some period of time- is the opportunity it presents to Canadians to aim their efforts directly at combating inflation. It is not that the statutory provisions of this bill alone, by any means, affect a large enough part of the economy to bring about the amount of reduction in inflation that will be necessary in order to maximize the opportunity for Canadians in the recovery period. Rather, it sets a good example. It shows the way, the way that Canadians are already seeing and the way to

August 4, 1982
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
which Canadian workers, businessmen and professional people react positively in vast numbers all across the country.
It is interesting to contrast the different positions of the two opposition parties on this bill. As I have heard and read the remarks of the official opposition, they are to the effect that restraint is good. The opposition is in favour of the principle of restraint but members say they cannot go along with the bill because it is presented by the government and the system is such that they have to try to make the government look bad and disagree with what it is doing. Since they cannot disagree with the principle of the bill, they try to attack the credibility of the government and spend their time trying to find some group not covered by the six and five as fully as the government intended.
This has been an interesting exercise. As they sought to do that, to their surprise, instead of defending any legitimate exception that has been found, the government has reacted by agreeing to plug such loopholes because it believes all Canadians must share in the sacrifices that are necessary if the program is to work.
I understand the approach of the opposition. That is its role. It is not its function to make the government look good. Even in difficult times when it is important to the country to have a program which can provide possibilities for recovery, as this one can, it is hard for a member of the opposition to say he is 100 per cent behind the program. Hon. members opposite know in their heart of hearts that it is an important program at this time for the country. They hear what the people in the country are saying. Perhaps a great number of people are surprised at how well the public of Canada is reacting to the principle of six and five-to the principle that in general we have to limit what we can take out of the economy if we are to create a climate in which it can grow.
The challenge for the minister who introduced this bill and for all of those on the treasury benches-and I recognize that there are difficulties in the challenge-is to establish our credibility. The challenge is to establish that we are not only reducing the increase in salaries for civil servants to six and five per cent over the next two years, but in the same way that we have cut back on the salaries of Members of Parliament and cabinet ministers, we are seeing to it that the regime, if you like, of six and five applies in every way it possibly can. Certainly it is a question of using leverage.
I was surprised at the criticism made by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). The Prime Minister said that taxpayers' dollars are used for programs to provide special assistance to industries that have particular problems-he called that leverage-and that we ask in return that they join this crusade, since they are getting this benefit of special assistance, in helping to cut back by undertaking to keep prices and wages within the six and five margin in their operations. I think that is a very legitimate undertaking. I think it is the responsibility of government to do everything possible to see that this voluntary system works as it applies to the private sector in the
country and that as many organizations as possible are encouraged to join and make that element of sacrifice that is necessary if we are going to build for the future in this country and if we are to solve the economic problems that the western world shares with us at the present time.
I was vastly encouraged by the polls conducted by the Gallup organization that showed that something like 80 per cent of the Canadian people would be prepared to take a decrease in pay, let alone a limitation on the amount of increase, in order to work together in the common cause of building a better tomorrow for our country. That is the Canadian way and perhaps we should not be surprised that the public is often ahead of the politicians-it is their world and their country. 1 am delighted that so many large and small companies and business associations have already endorsed the principle of six and five. I think that is important.
Let me come back to the question of credibility. I want to say to members of the House and to the people of this country that those of us who are in government are determined to do everything we can to see to it that within the government's operations there are no unnecessary exemptions to this program and that everyone shares in the sacrifice that needs to be made.
1 would be quick to admit that obviously, as someone said about wage and price controls in the mid-1970s, they constitute rough justice. They do, because if a person is living on a more comfortable level of income then they can stand the gaff of restraint and can cut back to a greater degree than someone who has a limited income. Still, the percentage approach, in dollar terms, hits the person in the higher-income bracket much harder than it does other people.
There has been a lot of debate on this bill. I think hon. members opposite, whatever their approach may be to the exact terms of the bill, will have to agree that the minister has shown a commendable flexibility in relation to its terms. It is not a bill that has been returned for third reading unchanged from its original form. Rather, it has been altered in a number of ways, thus demonstrating the flexibility of the minister and the government. We are not so concerned about the exact wording of the bill; what we are concerned about is that we achieve legislation that will bring about a restraint program within the government service that is an example to the rest of the country and that will achieve the desired goal. There is flexibility in relation to bargaining wages, benefits and nonmonetary items.
I could talk about other changes that have occurred but 1 am satisfied with the reaction of the various organizations in the country and with that of people generally. Hon. members opposite know well what I am talking about when I say that the reaction of the public to this program is very positive.
There is a mood in this country that in my \9Vi years in public life I have not seen before. There is a mood of being prepared to share, of being prepared to make the sacrifice and
August 4, 1982

of recognizing that we have to get on with seeing to it that Canada does not lag behind the other countries of the world in building a more prosperous tomorrow and overcoming the incredible economic problems which we have today.
1 have said a word about the reaction of the official opposition to this bill. I have spoken about the fact that members of the official opposition do not question the principle. They have tried to find loopholes or have suggested that we were not serious about it or that there would be exceptions and so on, because they have to talk about the bill.


Walter David Baker: And improve your bill for
you.


Gerald Augustine Regan: I suppose to some degree we would have to say that, sure, in their own way they have attempted to improve the bill. I have already pointed out the minister's willingness to examine areas for improvement and what has been done in that regard.


Walter David Baker: That is with Motion No. 3.


Gerald Augustine Regan: But the attitude of the public is one that poses a real problem for the New Democratic Party.


Walter David Baker: You are right.


Gerald Augustine Regan: The public of the country is saying that it is better to have a 6 per cent limitation on wage increases than no job at all. People are recognizing the importance of sharing.


Sidney James Parker: That is what they said in the 1930s.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Yes. My hon. friend and so many of his associates are stuck right back in the 1930s. Ideologically they have never escaped the 1930s, nor have they recognized that these times are different. The Regina manifesto lives forever in their hearts and in their minds so that they cannot deal with today's situation.
I want to say to members of the New Democratic Party that they, unfortunately, have structural encumbrances preventing them from dealing with the wisdom of this bill.


Mr. Murphy:: Can you define that?


Gerald Augustine Regan: The New Democratic Party never looks better than when it is defending the widows, the poor, the unemployed or the unorganized. As a former Minister of Labour I am fully cognizant of the problem of the unorganized who by far make up the vast majority of the workers, in fact, nearly two thirds of them. They are the people who suffer particularly from inflation. It is the widows, the unemployed, the people on pensions and those with special disadvantages who suffer from inflation. There is no question about that at all. If you look, Mr. Speaker, through the speeches made by members of the New Democratic Party at the different stages of this debate, and there have been ten or 11 of them, you would think that inflation did not exist as a problem, that all we had to do was go blithely along having an inflation rate 6 per cent or 7 per
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
cent higher than the United States and that that poses no problem to Canadians.


Mr. Miller:: Who has been in government all those years?


Gerald Augustine Regan: My goodness, Mr. Speaker, when members of the New Democratic Party start to yell, it means we are getting close to the bone.


Walter David Baker: You have hit a soft spot.


Gerald Augustine Regan: I have not started to get close to the bone yet. But let me say that the New Democratic Party never looks better than when its members are speaking for the disadvantaged, the unemployed or the poor. However, they have a structural encumbrance in this issue which prevents them from properly representing those they claim to be their clientele. Do you know what they have to decide, Mr. Speaker? They have not done so in this debate but they have to decide whether their primary clientele is going to be the poor, the people who have less in this world and need government help to a greater degree, as we recognize on this side, or whether their primary clientele is the structural alliance that they have with a certain portion of the trade union movement of this country. They are not even allowed by that structural encumbrance to represent the views of the individual members of those unions, let alone the unorganized-the 66 per cent of the ordinary workers- because they cannot displease that small minority who are union leaders. They are a very integral part of their organization, a very important controlling part of their organization. How can they stand and say: "We believe in sharing. We believe all Canadians should share and, therefore, those who are organized and who have the clout to take from the economy more than the economy can properly give at this time should not be allowed to do so but should be restricted to six and five also?"
Do you know what the union leaders say to them, Mr. Speaker? They say: "We are the business agents and if we are not able to go out and bargain and get more and more wages, and if there is going to be some restriction even for a short period of time, then how can we justify our existence to our members?" That is the problem which they confront. Consequently, with this bill the New Democratic Party is in a quandary.


Edward Allan Miller: We are the only ones who voted solidly against this bill. This bill split the Tories and the Liberals.


Gerald Augustine Regan: They are solid all right, from one end to the other. 1 only want to say that they are blocking their ears to what the people of the country are saying. I do not mean to suggest that members of the NDP are a dull lot because there are some very, very able people in that party. As long as the people can be assured that no one is cheating and that everyone is going to sacrifice, that is what they want.


Edward Allan Miller: You are 28 and going down.


Gerald Augustine Regan: The reason the New Democratic Party cannot do that is that the minority, that part which provides so much

August 4, 1982
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
of the financing for the NDP, the organized-not all organized labour but part of organized labour in this country-are telling them they cannot do that.


Edward Allan Miller: What do the banks tell you to do? Are they telling you to keep interest rates high? Is that it?


Gerald Augustine Regan: What is the result? The result is that the NDP has to say no and oppose the bill. Its members have to say no to the widows and to the poor. But they know who is affected most by inflation. They know which people inflation hits the hardest. Members of the NDP should look at speeches they have made in the past about that problem. I might say that the constant chatter that emerges from the New Democratic Party benches mean that we are even closer to the bone now and that they are really concerned about the conflict in which they are involved.


Walter David Baker: You have hit a soft spot.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Yes, as the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) has said, I think we have hit a soft spot. I appeal to members of the NDP. They are elected here as Members of Parliament to represent all of their constituents, not to represent the union leaders of some of the unions of this country. I ask them, as we come to third reading of this bill, to think about the 60 some per cent of the workers of the country who are unorganized and who do not have the ability to get continuous increases in ever larger amounts to keep up with and get ahead of inflation. I ask them to recognize the lack of justice in a system that allows inflation to go unchecked, when those who have the benefit of clout can negotiate renewals and agreements which overcome that problem. But the pensioners, the unemployed and the unorganized of the country are not in positons to do so. That is why they should support this bill.
Inflation attacks those in our society least able to defend themselves, such as the elderly and others on fixed incomes, but it also attacks our valued social institutions like hospitals, schools, churches and charitable organizations.
We have heard, by my count, 11 NDP speakers at second reading and several more at committee stage. None of them has really come to grips with the problem of inflation. They either want to ignore it altogether or declare, as an article of faith, that wages have nothing to do with inflation. I want to say clearly that I am not one who believes that inflation, as it exists in the country, was originally caused, in its latest upward spurt, by wage demands. Certainly I do not believe that it was caused by wage settlements in the public service. However, I do believe that from the point a year and a half or so ago when wages caught up with inflation and started edging ahead we have entered into the extremely dangerous period where wage increases feed on the already existing inflation and spiral it upwards, with devastating problems in the groups of society which I mentioned. Thus we have a situation where wages become a very important part of what must be restrained if we
are to achieve success in combating inflation and making a better economic opportunity for Canadians.
In that circumstance the government concluded that because federal public servants are in the service of the public they have a responsibility to set an example and to help show the way. I do not think it is simply because of the fact that it can be argued that they do not face the same danger of lay-off as people in the private sector where, suddenly, there is no money to operate a business and the jobs are gone. I suppose some could say that that is a factor, but I think it is simply that they are a part of government and the public expects an example from government. As long as the example comes from everyone in government, then I believe, as we are seeing, the rest of the country is prepared to follow.
I want to appeal even yet-and I guess it is in vain-to hon. members of the New Democratic Party to recognize not just their responsibility but everyone's primary responsibility to the unorganized, the elderly and pensioners who cannot combat inflation by negotiating a big new increase.
For us to abandon the bill, for us to follow the system that we have, means we would simply end up with the organized and the powerful moving further and further ahead and the squeeze on the rest of our citizens becoming greater. This is why I think the bill is good.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks-and I am now at the conclusion of them-the bill does not begin to touch enough of the over-all economy to bring about what must be achieved in bringing inflation down to 6 per cent. It is not designed to do that. It is designed to show the way, to provide an example by government. My gosh, every day we pick up newspapers or go out into the streets of our home cities and find example after example of how people are reacting. I dare say the minister is surprised-I am-at how positively the Canadian public has reacted to this and what has been the response. You fellows over there in the New Democratic Party should get your heads out of the sand and recognize the real world out there. The NDP should recognize their primary responsibility, overcome their structural encumbrance with their affiliation with trade unions and payment from the trade unions, and recognize that they have a responsibility to the unprotected and the unorganized.


Mark Willson Rose: Like the pensioners you limited to 6 per cent.


Gerald Augustine Regan: That is right, like the pensioners. They have brought in their reinforcements over there. Now they have another member who is feeling a little upset by the remarks being made, but I will not repeat them for the hon. member's benefit; this is a serious matter. I appeal to the NDP to act responsibly, in the interests of the nation, and to stop playing politics to curry favour with union leaders.
The passage of this legislation is an important signal to the Canadian public that we are serious in this restraint program.
I appeal to all hon. members, as they go forth from this place and return to their constituencies in different parts of the country, regardless of their political affiliation, to recognize inflation. Let us be honest and say that inflation is a very big
August 4, 1982

problem, and if all Canadians share in a cutback and combat inflation in that way, then we can bring it down. If inflation comes down rapidly from 11 or 11.25 per cent or whatever to 6 per cent, no one will have lost anything as a consequence. But, above all, we will have all shared together.
We live in a country with a magnificent potential. The Canadian people out there are way ahead of us in Ottawa. They are willing to sacrifice and work together to realize that potential. Again my message is that that includes union members. They too are willing to sacrifice, as long as they figure someone is not ripping off the system. Let us all do our job to try to see that there are not exceptions by way of people ripping off the system.


Mark Willson Rose: Like Bell Canada.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Bell Canada is a good example. Let us try to see to it that Bell Canada does not succeed in ripping off the system. Let us try to see to it that no one does. Let us try to see to it that there is no increase of more than 6 per cent unless there is absolutely no way out and credible, legitimate reasons.


Mark Willson Rose: What about oil prices?


Gerald Augustine Regan: The hon. member indicates that they may be a problem. That is something with which the minister has to deal. We all recognize that contractual undertakings with provincial governments may pose a problem. The hon. member should remember in relation to the oil prices which he mentioned that we still have oil prices in the country that are below world prices. Also he should remember that through the National Energy Program we have had a program of subsidizing the price of much of our oil in the country and keeping the over-all price, through negotiations with the producing provinces, below what it is in world markets. That is the situation in relation to oil.
Finally, I want to say it is incredibly important that we do not allow a sense of gloom or pessimism to ride in the country. We are on the path to recovery with this program-not the Canadian government, but the Canadian people by the way in which they are reacting to the six and five policy. They are the ones who are doing it, not us. We are on the path to recovery.
There are things being done in the country. Opportunities lie out there. There are things underway. Let me mention my city as an example. We could use any area across the country and find the great potential which exists there. Yesterday we saw people being terribly concerned about 35 or 40 members of the naval reserve being transferred from one city to another; from Halifax in the east to Quebec City. At the same moment the very same organization, the navy, is expending-and hon. members can go down to the waterfront and see it if they visit the area this summer-$260 million on new facilities in Halifax to modernize the navy, to show once and for all that its headquarters are there permanently. This is providing over 3,500 man-years of employment.
While 1 talk about optimism, I find it strange that no one goes out into the streets to scream the headlines or issue news reports when new jobs like those are being created or when
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
there is an undertaking which means that the area will be economically sound for a long time as a consequence of that investment. Announcements like that do not seem to gain media attention. Media people do not come to the door of the House of Commons to talk to me about those 3,500 man-year jobs. Instead, they talk to me about the fact that 35 or 40 people will be transferred.
In that great city of Halifax, if you walk about 100 yards from where that $260 million is being spent, you would arrive at the Halifax shipyard where this government has given $43.9 million, along with the provincial government, to create a Panamax drydock which will create 360 new jobs. That drydock is under construction now and will soon be providing permanent employment which will enable Halifax to handle the repairs on types of ships that it never had before.
To me, these projects are very exciting. We have just completed and opened our second container pier, again with the assistance of a great amount of federal money. At the moment, extensions are being built at our airport which indicates how our area is thriving. Three and a half million dollars have been spent on runway improvement and $4 million are now being spent on an entirely new taxiway.
I will not use all of the time talking about Halifax but I use it as an example, as one who loves Halifax. It is an example of the excitement and the opportunities which exist in that city along with the incredible new activity in our offshore. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) was there last week to announce a $500 million drilling program. 1 have to be very excited about the potential in that area when 1 see those rigs sitting in the harbour and venturing out to conduct their drilling. 1 am very excited about the future of all the other sectors.
What we must do in this country is overcome our inflation problems by self-sacrifice and discipline. We must lower the interest rates in common with the United States and other countries. We may then realize the potential that can be used for the young people in this country who can build Canada into what is its destiny as the best place on earth to live.


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would the minister allow a question since he still has a couple of minutes left?


Gerald Augustine Regan: I would be honoured to receive a question from such a distinguished member.


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State (Mr. Regan) must be aware that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Caccia) has not spoken on this question in the House yet. He has been muzzled in the House since the introduction of the bill and he has been muzzled in the committee. We have not heard a word from the minister. The Secretary of State, being a former Minister of Labour, must know the rules of the mediation officers, the conciliation officers and the Labour

August 4, 1982
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
Relations Board. The government has insulted the mediation officers who have mediated for years, signed contracts in good faith which now will be destroyed and rolled back. These contracts were signed, sealed and delivered by companies, the government, the mediation office and employees. Is this the reason we have been unable to question the Minister of Labour or hear him speak on the bill in the House?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, I want to say two things to the hon. member. First, I would say to him that the Minister of Labour is a man for whom I have great admiration. I think he will speak for himself on this subject when the occasion arises. I had admiration for his dedication to the working people of this country long before he came to cabinet, because I have known what his commitment in that regard has been over the years.
The other comment I have to make in answering the hon. member is that when he talks about how this system will upset the regular operations of the mediation and conciliation officers, 1 want him to back away from the problem and take a broader perspective so he may recognize that we are not talking about something permanent. This is a bill which provides a two-year special program for 6 per cent and 5 per cent. What he has to recognize from afar is that we have an incredibly serious crisis in the western world. Inflation in Canada is a very serious problem. We are talking about a way to try to help all Canadians overcome this problem. If that means interfering with mediation procedures for that period of time, if it means cutting the hon. member's salary for that period of time, then these are the sort of changes and sacrifices which must be made if Canada is to win this battle against inflation. I ask the hon. member to think about that.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, this is the second time during the debate on this bill that I have had the privilege of following the Secretary of State (Mr. Regan) in debate. I say that kindly and honestly. During this debate on Bill C-124 I have listened to him talk about his optimism and his feeling for the innate strength of the country. I want to tell him that I share the same sense of optimism and the same feeling for the innate strength of the country. I believe that most Canadians share that feeling as well.
Having said that, I think we must ask ourselves a couple of questions. What has happened to the realization of these goals over the last few years? Can the failure to achieve those goals be blamed on the Americans, the Europeans or the weather, or have we lost some of the gold and glitter from the opportunities Laurier spoke of?
Perhaps the reason is that there have been some rather disastrous policies, policies for which this minister is not personally responsible since he has only graced us from the wreckage of his own government in Nova Scotia some years before. I do not say that unkindly. I am glad that he came here.
As 1 reflect on the changes which have occurred in our country which have required us to be asked to lower our
expectations, I believe the fact that the country is strong, worthy and has a long-term stability to which it can look forward has been true during the past 14 years. However, what has happened is that during that time, unfortunately for Canadians, we have not had a government which has been worthy of the country and its potential. That has been the problem.
When the minister says that it is the opposition who desire to make and are trying to make the government look bad, I would suggest to him that we have not had to work at making the government look bad. In fact, the propaganda from the other side has been that we have been ineffective in that attempt. If that latter statement is true, and Canadians think the government is bad, which I generally accept, the government has done that all on its own. They can credit it to no one else.
When the minister says that the great challenge that faces the government is credibility, he is right. That is the great challenge it faces. As a Canadian who wants to see the country prosper, as a Member of Parliament who does not want to see men and women come to my office because they cannot find jobs after they have trained for them, as a Canadian who does not want to meet desperate farmers who have accepted the government's advice to invest only to find their investment going down the drain, or to see small-business men beside themselves trying to save their dreams, I want the program to succeed. I want the country to succeed. The people want the country to succeed. If groups of Canadians are gathering around this program, and I think there is some indication that they are, it is not in support of the government. They have given up on the government.


Stan Darling: It is despite the government.


Walter David Baker: It is despite the government and in support of the country. That is the mood, if there is a gathering around. I believe there is, and I hope it continues.
1 am astounded, relieved and delighted to know of the intimate knowledge of the Secretary of State of the structural problems of the New Democratic Party because I have really wondered about that party during the course of this debate. I will be speaking about that in a few moments. I must say to the New Democratic Party that if the Secretary of State is right, and I believe he is, that the New Democratic Party is out of the mainstream of thought in this country, then its members must very seriously consider their position with respect to this bill, because not only do they have a responsibility to their constituencies, but also to the country. Before this debate is over, I hope that its members will be moved from the position which they have taken with respect to this matter, which is to deny the existence of a desire, a mood, a feeling in the country that something must be done, not to save the government but, rather, to save the country.
August 4, 1982

i want to call the attention of my good friends to what happened in the province of Saskatchewan to a New Democratic Party government which left the mainstream. Many hon. members to my left-this applies to some from British Columbia-will have to go back to the good, solid, clear-thinking, clear-headed people of Saskatchewan and tell them that when the country required their aid and assistance, they did not stand forward and say, "Ready, aye, ready." That is important to them as a party. I want to call that to their attention because I believe they should be able to say to the good, solid people, who demonstrated their strength, solidity and good sense not too long ago in an election which was held in that province, that it is important that there be a gathering together of the strengths in this country.
1 want to read part of the most moving testimony heard by the miscellaneous estimates committee. I believe it sets the appropriate tone for this debate. This was testimony given by Dr. Carl Beigie, who is the chairman of the C.D. Howe Institute, one of the most noted policy analysts in North America. I would like to read what he said about the state of the country. This is not what a member of the House of Commons said, not a Liberal, Conservative or New Democrat. It was a policy analysis by a person whose job it is to report and analyse the appropriateness of policies of government.
I should say to the House that the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey) was present at the committee hearings. He will know that of all the witnesses who appeared, Dr. Beigie was the only witness who met with the spontaneous applause of all the members of that committee. It was one of the most impressive pieces of evidence that I have ever heard at a committee hearing. In the report of the miscellaneous estimates committee for July 22, 1982, issue No. 92, at page 92:47 Mr. Beigie states:
There is no magic formula, no theory, no formula, no overwhelming historical evidence which exists to tell us how we can get out of the situation we find ourselves in.
He was really expressing, on behalf of Canadians and, I hope, on behalf of Members of Parliament, that somehow this program, as inadequate as it is, as has been admitted by the Secretary of State, is at least one which will set the mood. But he warned us that there is no magic formula. He also expressed the necessity for hope that that would happen. Then he said:
-there is no easy way to bring down a high rate of inflation. The difficulty of the task of bringing down inflation becomes greater, the longer high inflation persists.
He went on to state:
Canada's evolution as a society has been marked by the progressive expansion and extension of freedoms. If this evolution is to sustain a forward momentum, individuals throughout this nation must begin to display greater awareness that expectations for more rights, and particularly the rights resulting from improved standards of living, can only be satisfied with the acceptance of more responsibilities for the nurturing of the collective interest.
Canadians may, or may not, have become soft. What happens with the passage of time will determine the answer to that question. I am convinced, however, that many of those Canadians who value individual liberty have been asleep. They have been lulled quietly into this state by tales of an abundance of natur.al resource wealth which could keep us, Canada, from experiencing severe
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
economic distress. Millions of Canadians are today experiencing distress. For many, this distress amounts to little more than inconvenience-something like the discomfort of indigestion following a bout of overeating. For a large and growing number of Canadians, however, the distress has become acute, caused not by the frustration of having unrealistic expectations denied, but by a fundamental denial of their ability to meet their hopes for an even modest level of security and wellbeing. This is the tragedy of inflation in its full human dimensions, and it is a tragedy which is virtually inevitable to at least some degree, if a society refuses to co-operate in an exercise of collective responsibility to keep general price rises within reasonable limits.
By that, he set a challenge for this House, for that committee certainly, and for the country. It is our challenge now. We are dealing with this piece of legislation. That is all. No member of the government should ever fool anyone that this is the be-all and end-all of the battle, which is a battle for all Canadians. That is not the intention of the legislation. Any comment to the contrary by any hon. member of the House of Commons would mislead the public. The Secretary of State is right: the government is trying to set a mood. I am one Canadian who joins many Canadians on this side of the House in the hope and prayer that that mood will grab.
I do not want Your Honour to think that there are not differences among the parties in the House with respect to this bill. There are some vast differences. I am not the least bit overwhelmed with happiness about this bill. What is the Liberal Party's position with respect to the bill? First, the Liberal Party says, "We believe in restraint." That is a deathbed repentance by the Liberal Party because for 14 years the leader of this party, his predecessors, and members of this party have been telling the government that it ought to remember the biblical injunction to store up in the good years and save against the bad. Instead of doing that, the government squandered the opportunities of the seventies and the late sixties in Canada. That is why we are debating this bill.
The first principle in this bill is restraint. The second thing it shows about this government is that, having given lip service to collective bargaining in the public sector and elsewhere, we find that the government is really fearful of collective bargaining, because when that bill first appeared there was a blunt instrument in it with respect to collective bargaining. You could not collectively bargain about anything.


An hon. Member:: You still cannot.


Walter David Baker: The members of the New Democratic Party say you still cannot. I think they are probably technically correct but at least there has been a movement towards collective bargaining in the sense that the government softened it. I think you would have to admit that, to be honest. It would have been much more honest if the New Democratic Party had accepted the amendment that we put in this House last night which would have allowed collective bargaining on all issues, and ultimately the resolution of those issues to a much greater degree and to a much greater extent than even the government has allowed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

August 4, 1982
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act


Walter David Baker: But the New Democratic Party, with all the consistency of the wind, which can blow from all points of the compass from time to time-


An hon. Member:: Look who is talking.


Walter David Baker: -decided to vote against that in committee, and they are going to have to answer to their organized constituency for that. But that is their problem, not mine.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: The Progressive Conservative Party, if you read the speeches, if you read the statements that have been made over the years, has consistently warned against improvidence in spending. When the Hon. John Turner was minister of finance, it began there, in my political lifetime. It was carried on with Donald Macdonald who followed him. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) when he was minister of finance, who followed him, was a spender, a marvelous spender. Even the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Mac-Eachen) who unfortunately is not here today, I am sure for good and sufficient reasons, carried on the tradition-spend, spend, spend, do not think of tomorrow.
They did that-and, I have to say it, perhaps we were ineffective-against the advice of this Parliament, against the advice of the people who commented on the economic affairs of the day. That is what they did. We have always stood for restraint, always consistently stood for restraint.
The other thing we have done, and which we have exhibited in this debate is stand for the collective bargaining process. The collective bargaining process in Canada has come to mean, among rational people, the sitting down of two sides, the employers and the employees, to work out their differences as sane people. For the purposes of this bill we said that we wanted that process to continue within the cap of six and five, recognizing the fundamental principle of restraint.
The New Democratic Party is different. They believe in collective bargaining. They believe in freedom, untrammeled freedom.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: As exhibited in this debate, they believe in freedom to the point of irresponsibility.


An hon. Member:: Who was irresponsible in 1979?


Walter David Baker: But the one thing they do not believe in, and let us make no mistake about it, is restraint. They do not believe in restraint, and with respect to that the New Democratic Party is out of step with the country. As a matter of fact, they are not even marching on the same street with the country. They are marching to their own drummer, whoever that drummer is, and I will not name the drummer. In any event, he is leading that party into a dead-end street.


Miss MacDonald:: At 23 per cent.


Walter David Baker: It is too bad because they could have, I believe, at the committee stage, gone a long way to have brought the government even further to respect the process of collective bargaining, but they choose not to do it.
I gather from the heckling and from the speeches of the NDP that they intend to vote against the bill. I would hope otherwise but I gather that that is what they intend to do.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: I want to remind them when they do it that contained in that bill is a very important section which, if it is approved by this House, will reduce the salary and allowances of Members of Parliament; and I want the country to know when the New Democratic Party votes against this bill that they are going to be voting to maintain their salaries and allowances-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: -which the country thinks should be reduced, and which I think should be reduced from the point of view of leadership.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: They had better understand that, because while there is in that bill the principle of restraint-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I have a feeling I am getting to a soft spot again.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: I did not intend to do that. Everyone knows me as a rather mild member, but I want to tell the New Democratic Party and also the Canadian public who is watching this debate that when that vote is cast tonight every Member of Parliament in this House-and 1 do not care where he sits-who votes against this bill is voting to maintain the present level of his salary and allowances. He is voting to ensure-


An hon. Member:: What about your staff?


Walter David Baker: He is voting to ensure that Members of Parliament will not form part of this crusade that the government is leading.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: I think those are the principles of this bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. 1 apologize to the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) but the Chair has difficulty in following the hon. member's remarks. Could we have some order in the House, please.
August 4, 1982


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. I appreciate the assistance from the Chair, I do not mind the noise. I have always found that one is getting awfully close to the truth when there is a great noise coming from the other side.
I want to speak for one moment about the public servants themselves. You will have to go a long way to find a public servant who will tell you that he is happy to take a pay cut. You will go a long way to find a Member of Parliament who will say he is happy to take a pay cut. You will go a long way to find any people in the gallery today who would be very happy about the idea of taking a pay cut. But I want to say to those people in the gallery and to you, Mr. Speaker, as well as to the country, that I do not think anyone in Canada should regard the public service as made up of second-class citizens. I speak to as many public servants as any member of this Elouse of Commons. They tell me truthfully how they feel about this bill. All of the members of the public service that I have spoken to have cousins and uncles and aunts and brothers and sisters, some of them who worked at Dofasco, some of them who worked in the mines which are closing, some of them who have small businesses that have gone down the drain, farms that have that have gone down the drain. They all have relatives and friends like that. These public servants have always felt themselves fortunate to work in the Public Service of Canada, always. They feel it is a privilege to work for the Government of Canada. In terms of wanting something for their country, they do not take second place to anyone with respect to their desire for their country to get ahead. That is the attitude of the public service. Public servants are Canadians.
The other thing I want to tell the House is this. When I have spoken to them, what they have said is this. They have said: "I can live with the six and five, Mr. Baker; I do not like it, but I can live with it." When they look over their shoulder as time goes on, they want to see other Canadians following behind and joining the ranks. They are not happy to be in the vanguard any more than anyone else. They do not want the vanguard to be the only part of the parade; they want the parade to be joined by others.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hope the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) will tell the members of this House what drummer he is marching to. Last week his leader said that he rejects wage controls. We would like to know what drummer the hon. member is marching to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. That is not a point of order.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it absolutely and completely clear. I am not marching to the drummer from Skeena. 1 want it clear that I am not marching to that drummer. I want to tell my friend that the Public Service of Canada is not marching to that drummer. Nor are
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
the railway workers marching to that drummer. The workers of Canada have more respect for this than to march to the drummer from Skeena.
I will finish my speech since I understand that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Caccia) wants to speak. Public servants in this country want to know that they are not alone in this march. They want to be joined by the government. The government is going to monitor Bell Canada, Air Canada and other services of government. If that monitoring service falls down, the public servants will feel betrayed like every other Canadian.
If the governments of the provinces do not come to terms with rent increases and the operation of their rent review boards, these Canadians are going to feel betrayed. If there is not the same forthcoming attitude in terms of other people in the work force of Canada, they are going to feel betrayed. That work force, whether public or private, will feel betrayed.
In terms of this program, the jury is out as far as the Public Service of Canada is concerned. They want it to succeed. Like other Canadians, they hope it will succeed. I want it clearly understood that it is important that restraint be practised everywhere.
The Secretary of State talked about ferreting out waste in the government. That has to be done. When we look at the processes of our own Parliament, which is supposed to hold government accountable, that has to be done because we have a responsibility.
I started by saying that I believe this country is greater than the government which it has had for 14 years. I want to echo if I can what Dr. Beigie said before our committee, that something has to start, something has to be done. My reservation about the program is not the willingness of the public service to give it a try. My reservation is about the credibility of the government to give the program underpinning.
With those reservations in mind, with the country in mind and with what I believe to be the mood of the country to which the Parliament and all parties must answer, my party intends tonight to support Bill C-124.


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Because of the advanced hour, I wonder whether the House would be willing to permit a change in the sequence of speeches.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I understand the minister is seeking the unanimous consent of the House to speak at this time. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Is there unanimous
consent?


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question on a point of order? I realize this is a little unusual in the middle of a request for unanimous consent. Can I ask the minister how long he intends to speak before we make our decision?

August 4, 1982
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act


Charles L. Caccia: There is approximately one hour left. My intervention would require some 30 minutes.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, provided the minister agrees to speak no more than half an hour, we would be quite happy to allow him to speak ahead of our member, although it is a departure from the normal routine.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I will ask the question again. Is there unanimous consent of the House to hear the Minister of Labour at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of Labour: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for giving me consent. I assure the House leader of the New Democratic Party that I will do my best to stay within the 30 minutes, as he has requested.
I would be remiss if I did not begin my remarks by making a brief reference to the various interventions made by members opposite. They made reference to letters recently written by me to the editor of a major national newspaper. I very much enjoyed their interventions. I do not know whether their utilization of my letter to the editor will encourage or discourage future writings on my part. However, I owe them a word of thanks for the free publicity they have given me.
In a serious vein before embarking on my speech, I want to make reference to interventions regarding some mysterious plot or plan on the part of the government to prevent me from appearing before the special committee which dealt with this bill. The inference was that somehow I was prevented from appearing.
Nothing could be further from the truth in that regard. Let me put the record straight. The invitation to appear before the committee was extended for days that 1 had been scheduled to be out of town. Otherwise, both the minister responsible for the status of women and myself would have been very glad to appear. I am referring to the dates after July 26. Having put that matter to rest, I now want to say the following in relation to the bill before us.
This bill establishes wage restraint by statute in the federal public sector, and by example in the rest of the economy. It is not labour legislation; it is part of the economic policy arising from the last budget. However, the bill has implications for the conduct of collective bargaining and for those terms and conditions of employment that are established in the democratic process.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, labour legislation on the federal statute books today is rooted in acts introduced since the turn of the century by successive Canadian governments. As we all know, these governments were mainly Liberal governments. One stream of legislative development has given us an impressive array of protective provisions which establish important labour standards. These standards include minimum wages, hours of work, vacations and maternity and other special leaves. They also provide for occupational safety and health regulations. These provisions compare well with standards established elsewhere in the industrial world. A second stream of legislation has produced two labour relations statutes
governing collective bargaining and related matters in federal industries and the federal public sector of Canada respectively.
Our collective bargaining laws contain many positive features to promote labour stability. The concept of protecting the public interest in collective contract disputes was first introduced some 75 years ago under Sir Wilfrid Laurier, with William Lyon Mackenzie King as his deputy minister of labour. The Industrial Disputes Investigation Act of 1907 established a concept of public investigation of labour disputes before strike or lockout action could be undertaken. That concept remains an important element of our current laws.
Subsequent additions to our labour legislation have provided orderly procedures for the recognition of trade unions by employers as bargaining agents and for the acquisition of bargaining rights. Elsewhere such matters are sometimes resolved only after bitter recognition strikes.
Perhaps most importantly, our system is built upon the stable foundation of the fixed-term, enforceable collective agreement. The parties are required to honour their obligations to each other throughout the life of their agreements. Grievances arising as to the interpretation or application of the agreements must be settled, without resort to work stoppage, by arbitration or some other means. This feature of our system is perhaps most frequently remarked upon by foreign visitors. Some come from countries where such grievances can lead to sudden and damaging strikes.
In these circumstances I am more than cognizant of the precedent-setting nature of the bill which is presently before us for consideration. I have wrestled long and hard with its impact upon a paramount feature of our approach to industrial relations, namely, the fixed-term, enforceable collective agreement to which I have just referred. Not to have reflected seriously on that aspect of the bill would have been unworthy of the office of Minister of Labour.
Frankly, the most disturbing element of the bill for labour legislation is the override feature. In cases where a wage increase would otherwise have been due on or after June 29 of this year it will be disallowed and a statutory amount will replace it. Instead of a freely negotiated wage increase and other mutually agreed to changes in terms and provisions being allowed to prevail, the law will substitute a prescribed increase and effectively require the status quo to be observed with respect to other items and conditions of a compensation plan.
I am sure that hon. members of this House will share my awareness of the fixed-term agreement as the cornerstone of our industrial relations system. The importance of the sanctity of such agreements within that system cannot be overestimated. Only extraordinary and serious circumstances can justify the extraordinary and serious step of setting aside agreements which have been freely negotiated or which have been concluded on the basis or arbitral awards.
August 4, 1 982

In the past this House has consented to adopt rapidly legislation to terminate specific labour disputes. Such steps have been taken only in emergency situations after very careful consideration. Frequently, support for such legislation has been forthcoming from all parts of the House. We have established, therefore, that there are times when the national interest must override the rights of particular groups in collective bargaining. What we are now considering is legislation which follows the same reasoning, but on a broad front.
The government has concluded that against a background of worldwide economic difficulties, domestic circumstances do warrant the extraordinary and serious measures proposed in Bill C-124. 1 wholeheartedly endorse this conclusion and, as a member of the government, I stand ready to do all within my power to implement the proposals before us today.
Reactions to our proposals in some quarters suggest that not everybody has realized the seriousness of the current economic situation and its effect upon all Canadians. Some appear not to have accepted the need for rapid implementation of the extraordinary measures proposed. 1 am encouraged, however, to see signs that important elements of the business and labour communities comprehend the gravity of our circumstances. Regrettably, too many workers in the resource and manufacturing sectors have had the seriousness of our economic problems brought home to them in a very personal way. Employees in the service sectors are also-again regrettably- becoming affected to a significant degree.
The need to start ratcheting down inflation and inflationary expectations has therefore become urgent. Wages in the federal public sector and federally administered prices are two key areas in which the Government of Canada can act directly to achieve that end. With respect to wages, it would be unthinkable to let stand agreements which had been negotiated in the hope of better economic times, now that it has become clear, in Canada and elsewhere, that the better times are not just around the corner. Indeed, the longer action is postponed, the further off these better times will be.
The government's aim is not to undermine collective bargaining. It is a system which, generally, has served us well. It can continue to contribute effectively to important economic processes, such as income distribution and the achievement of improved productivity. However, it is a system which, by its very nature, including its largely decentralized application, cannot be expected to respond rapidly to the economic circumstances with which we are faced today. The government therefore proposes to intervene to ensure that a response from the system is forthcoming.
By interrupting collective bargaining rights the government is doing two things. First, it is indicating to the nation the gravity of the economic situation and the urgent necessity to put our economy on the road leading to recovery. Second, with this bill it is asking federal public sector employees to make a sacrifice and to accept the idea of increases limited to 6 per cent and 5 per cent in order to convince other levels of government, provincial and municipal-and with them the private sector-of the necessity of doing the same. When 6 per cent is the norm, everybody in the nation will be the winner. When inflation, too, reaches 6 per cent-a goal nobody disagrees
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
with-we will have completed the first step towards economic recovery.
The proposals before us today, with one important addition that I intend to deal with shortly, touch only the federal public sector, that is, the Public Service of Canada and federal Crown corporations and their wholly-owned subsidiaries. The federal public sector is not as readily affected or as immediately responsive to market forces as the private sector. Even Crown corporations, which are more oriented toward the marketplace than the traditional public services, are sheltered to some extent.
By limiting the wage increases of persons who, in the broad sense, are federal public sector employees, the government is taking direct action in an important sector of the economy. We are determined to do all in our power to persuade, coax, and induce others, including private sector employers and unions, to take similar steps. If collective action in support of restraint is not forthcoming, the cost of not making the effort will be borne by all sectors of the economy.
The addition to the scope of the bill, to which I referred earlier, involves an incursion into the private sector. The Canadian Pacific Railway and several private short-line railroads operating in federal labour jurisdiction have developed a long-standing bargaining relationship with their Crown-owned counterparts. This voluntary industry bargaining pattern has been encouraged and nurtured, for many years, by officers of Labour Canada in concert with the railway unions and companies.
For all practical purposes, the private sector railways bargain jointly or in tandem with the Canadian National Railways and its short line subsidiaries for contracts with unions representing the respective groups of operating and non-operating railway employees. Over the last few months, the companies and unions bargained responsibly and eventually concluded two-year renewals of their collective agreements which were scheduled to run until December, 1983.
When the substance of Bill C-124 became known, it was abundantly clear that the long-standing bargaining relationship between the public and private sector railways could be jeopardized. Indeed, the railway unions themselves brought the anomalous situation forcibly to the government's attention. Allowing the anomaly to persist would have created untenable stresses in railway labour relations, and within the unions themselves. Removing the anomaly requires following one of two starkly contrasting options: exempt the CNR and its
45,000	or so employees from the restraint program, or include the CPR and its employees in the program.
To have removed the CNR and its employees from the program would have significantly undercut the intent and coverage of the bill. Exempting a major Crown corporation engaged in a vital economic activity would have belied the seriousness of this government's commitment.

August 4, 1982
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
Naturally, we would not have expected the railway unions to campaign publicly for including the CPR in the program. However, Canada's railway workers have a long tradition of successful and responsible labour relations. Now that the government has decided to count CPR in, there is not a shadow of doubt in my mind that the railway unions will respect the law in a responsible manner.
I am equally confident that all employees destined to come under the federal public sector compensation restraint program proposed in Bill C-124 will accept the need for the program and its basic wisdom.
Because of the insidious effect of inflation in eroding real earnings the government is launching extraordinary measures, including the public sector compensation program-this bill- aimed at bringing the scourge under control.
The seriousness of our problems is obviously recognized by many in this House. The hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) made clear his support for the principle of restraint on wage increases when he addressed the bill last Friday. However, he could not accept the limits which are imposed on other aspects of collective bargaining for compensation plans.
He accepts the need for extraordinary measures but he would hamstring the restraint program. Instead of a simple and uniform approach, he would establish a complex and hard-to-administer program. It is questionable whether what he proposes would find much favour among those to be covered by this bill.
As to the proposals made by the NDP, earlier this afternoon the Secretary of State (Mr. Regan) made a very eloquent intervention in which he exposed the dilemma they face in relation to the constituency that they are going to protect and serve.
It is well known to anyone who has engaged in labour relations in Canada at the provincial and federal levels that collective bargaining is the most democratic method yet devised, in a free and growing economy, to protect real incomes, to ensure improved working conditions and to reward real productivity gains with real income growth. However, in a troubled economy the government has to act in the interests of everyone, from the pensioner to the minimum wage earner, from the unorganized worker who cannot command high wages in the marketplace to the unemployed, from the export manager engaged in a price war with foreign competitors to the worker whose job depends on that market.
A responsible government today cannot shrink from the task of planning on behalf of all Canadians. With this bill we are asking one group of Canadians to make a temporary sacrifice for the benefit of all.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the speech of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Caccia), because I can see why the members of the government who sat on the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates which considered this bill kept him hidden. I can see why from June 30, when the government introduced this bill, until August 3, not one word was heard from the Minister of Labour. I can
understand why the Minister of Labour can no longer be considered a defender of the rights of workers in this country.
What the minister did in this House was to read a statement that was obviously prepared by somebody to defend this government's position. In his speech he referred to the quote we have used a couple of times in this debate. It is from a letter which the minister wrote to The Globe and Mail. He stated that the right to strike is one of the important cornerstones of a free and democratic society. That minister did not say the same thing today in this House.
Further on in the letter we read that, "there is clearly room for greater co-operation between unions and employers and that Parliament has entrusted to Labour Canada the responsibility for assisting in the development and maintenance of constructive relationships." What this minister has done in front of us today is to indicate that he has sold out the very principles that he wrote about in his letter to The Globe and Mail. That minister can no longer be trusted by labour. If that minister wants his cabinet spot, he should find another place because he certainly does not belong where he is. He cannot represent labour.


Ian Deans: You have to choose sides, Charles.


Rodney Edward Murphy: It is interesting that from June 30 until now the minister has said nothing. It is also interesting to note that the minister was kept away from that committee that was supposed to study the bill. It is interesting to note that the minister would not permit himself-or perhaps others in his party would not allow him-to come to answer questions about this bill.
We are told by some members on the government side that it was a deliberate strategy to hide the Minister of Labour until the end of the debate so that he could not be questioned and could not be held accountable to the elected members of this House.
It is amazing that the former Minister of Labour spoke earlier today and it is interesting to note that the Secretary of State (Mr. Regan) gave the major speech on this bill for the government.


Mr. Crosby:: Do you call that a major speech?


Rodney Edward Murphy: Yes, for the government. It is amazing to note that until tonight, on the last day of the debate on what the government calls a major piece of legislation, the cornerstone of economic planning for the next two years, the present Minister of Labour was not trusted to deliver the government's case. That is probably an indication of what is thought of the Minister of Labour. It is an indictment. It is saying that the minister is not capable of performing the duties which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) appointed him to do.
In his short speech, the Minister of Labour talked about the serious nature of the economic situation that we are in. He talked about the extraordinary situation that Canadians are
August 4, 1982

facing. He is right. We have been saying that throughout this debate, just as my leader and other members of our caucus have been saying for the last couple of years. We recognize the serious situation in which the Canadian economy is in. But this measure will not do one thing for the unemployed of this country. It will not do one thing to solve the inflation problem that we have. This measure will not do one thing to lower interest rates in this country. Interest rates are the real problem because they are killing the Canadian economy at this time, not the wages of Canadian workers, nor the wages of public service workers who receive lower increases than those in the private sector. The government has attacked not the villain but the victim.
This bill will do nothing to prevent business bankruptcies. It will do nothing to prevent farm bankruptcies. It will do nothing to restore this economy of ours. The government knows that. We have quoted a number of times before from the government's leaked document, a copy of which our leader, the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), obtained. It reads in part:
-a program of consultation and public relations aimed at changing public attitudes and expectations would be useful-even though 'the main advantage of the program would be that it would enable the government to be seen doing something about inflation and to lay part of the blame for inflation on the private sector.'
The government admitted in its own document that it was a public relations job. The government admitted that the program would actually do very little for the state of the Canadian economy and the government admitted that it is an attempt to cast blame on others, and yet the Minister of Labour defended that policy in this House.
In a speech made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mac-Eachen) and in speeches made by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston), who spoke a number of times on this issue, the government has called for co-operation. The government has asked that other sectors of the Canadian economy co-operate with it in this program. But the government is not willing to co-operate with other sectors of the economy. The only people the government met prior to this legislation were representatives of the Business Council on National Issues, the leaders and chief executive officers of the largest corporations in this country. That is the group that called for a 7 per cent wage control program in the public sector. That is the group which fathered this legislation. That is the only group which the government consulted prior to this legislation being introduced. The Canadian Labour Congress, the Public Service Alliance of Canada, other public service unions, the premiers, municipalities, small-business people were all brought in after this legislation was introduced. They were not consulted beforehand. Their co-operation was an afterthought by this government.
If this government were really serious in having a united program which would lower interest rates and keep energy prices from going up 31 per cent in the next year, it would have taken advantage of the time it had. But it did nothing for six months about the state of the economy. It did nothing from
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
the November 12 budget to the June 28 budget. This government could have used those six months to work with other representatives of the various sectors of Canada's economy. They would have said, as members on the opposite side are now saying: "We have a very serious situation at this time." The government should have been saying that for the last six months, instead of downplaying the economic calamity that faces Canada. For the last six months the government downplayed the problems that we face. Then all of a sudden at the end of June the government decided that the situation was so terrible that it had to do something overnight. The government wasted six months. Now the government expects public servants and other wage earners across this country to make a sacrifice, a sacrifice about which the government has not consulted them.
I spoke earlier about the fact that the Minister of Labour was a no-show at the committee which studied the bill. I mentioned previously that the minister responsible for the status of women did not show. The Liberal majority on that committee prevented her from showing at that committee. Last night we had a situation where the minister responsible for the status of women voted against a New Democratic Party motion which specifically would have allowed the negotiation of paid maternity leave. That motion had only one other operative clause, that is to say, that paid maternity leave should not be included in any 6 per cent or 5 per cent compensation package. Not only do we have the Minister of Labour who no longer represents labour, but we have the minister responsible for the status of women who does not represent the women of the country.


Mr. Peterson:: Nonsense.


Rodney Edward Murphy: It is true. I have heard, as I am sure other hon. members have heard, representatives of government talk about the value of paid maternity leave. We have heard hon. members on all sides of the House talk about it as a family issue, as an equality issue, and as an issue of concern to both women and men across the country. When the minister responsible for the status of women had a chance to show what she really felt about the issue, she rose with the others on the government side of the House and prevented women from having the right to negotiate paid maternity leave and having that leave not count against the very minimal pay increases which they will be allowed over the next two-year period. It is a tragedy.


Mr. Lang:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder whether the hon. member would entertain a question and indicate if he is aware that under Article 7 maternity leave can still be negotiated-


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


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I apologize for interrupting the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) in the midst of his speech, but before doing so I had talked with his House leader. I will be as brief as I can. We

August 4, 1982
Business of the House
have had consultations and, if there is unanimous consent, I should like to move a motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Is there unanimous consent for the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) to move a motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) and the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans):
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order and/or order of the House, the Minister of Justice may this day introduce a bill entitled "An act to amend the Criminal Code in relation to sexual offences and other offences against the person and to amend certain other acts in relation thereto or in consequence thereof', and that the said bill shall be considered at the first reading, second reading, committee, report and third reading stages before the House adjourns this day;
That the House shall sit between 6 p.m. and 8 p.m. this day for the consideration of the said bill at all stages;
That there shall be no recorded division on the second reading stage of the said bill;
That, after second reading of the said bill, it shall be deemed to have been referred to and reported by a standing committee;
That both parties in opposition and the government may propose no more than four amendments each to the said bill at the report stage, provided that any of the said amendments that are deposited with the Clerk of the House no later than 6 p.m. this day shall be moved or deemed to have been moved at that stage;
That no later than 7.30 p.m. this day all questions necessary for the disposal of all stages of the said bill shall be put without further debate or amendment.
That is the motion; it seems that there is unanimous consent to support it.
I want it to be very clear that the spirit of the agreement is that this motion in no way interferes with the House order of yesterday. Even if we start debate on the motion to adjourn later than eight o'clock this evening, because of the reported division required to dispose of this new bill, this agreement does not jeopardize the House order of yesterday.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, our party is prepared to grant unanimous consent to the House order and also agrees with the spirit of what is being done, in accordance with the comments of the government House leader.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, briefly, we have been trying to get such a thing to happen for the better part of the last week. We are delighted to agree with it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The House has heard the terms of the motion of the President of the Privy Council. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Johnston that Bill C-124, respecting compensation in the public sector of Canada, be read the third time and do pass.
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I do not mind having my speech interrupted for that particular motion.
Before the interruption, I was talking about the facts that the Minister of Labour does not represent labour and that the minister responsible for the status of women has forsaken the women of the country. Now I should like to turn to the party which is supposed to represent opposition to government. I should like to start by quoting the comments of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), who said in an inverview which was published in The Citizen and in a number of other South-am newspapers across the country that if he were Prime Minister:
I would reject controls. And I wouldn't allow my PMO to be issuing rumours that they were coming in while I was saying that they weren't. I think that controls won't work.
Last night the Leader of the Opposition and members of his party rose and supported the government on a controls program. I find that that contradiction indicates that they are not in opposition to the Liberal Government of Canada; they are in coalition with the government.
There was one motion on which they voted with us and against the government. It was the one which rolled back the present salaries of the staff of Members of Parliament and Senators. Also it was a motion on which a number of government members supported us and on which a number of government members abstained. The motion to which I am referring was carried by the government side by 27 votes. At the time there were 41 Conservative members missing from the House.


Mr. Gamble:: And six NDP members.


Rodney Edward Murphy: The Conservative Party has the sole responsibility for keeping the Liberals in power as of last night. The government was telling its backbenchers that the amendment to restrict the salaries of their staff was a matter of confidence in the government. Despite what government members may have personally felt about how hard their staff worked or about how hard they struggled to survive on their incomes, for the most part they supported the motion of the President of the Treasury Board. However, there were enough of them who were not present in the House. Also there were enough of them who had the courage of their convictions to support the New Democratic Party in opposing it. However, with that matter on the record, a matter of confidence in this government, which could have brought it down last night, 41 Conservatives were missing. They hid. They kept the Liberals, that arrogant group of incompetents, in power.
August 4, 1982

From now on do not let any Conservative say that it is the NDP who keep the Liberals in power, because last night they had their one and only opportunity since February 18, 1980 to get rid of the Liberals and they blew it. Let us remember that. There were 41 Conservatives out of the House, and the Liberals are still in power today. They will remain in power because the Conservatives will do the same thing on major economic issues such as interest rates.
We have heard from the Leader of the Opposition and the member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) saying that they have no other solutions. With respect to the energy issue there is the acknowledged fact that the Conservative Party would do almost the same thing as the Liberals.
Despite the fact that the Leader of the Opposition said that he did not believe in controls and he would not implement them because they would not work, the Conservative Party voted with the Liberals last night, ensuring that the Liberals will not be defeated on the only weak part of the bill which Liberal backbenchers would not support; the only Achilles heel which the Liberals had, and upon which the Conservatives could have acted. But the Conservatives hid.
When it came to the final vote last night we watched the Conservatives line up again in support of their Liberal masters despite the fact that they spoke against salary cuts to our workers, despite the fact they voted in favour of paid maternity leave, with the exception of five Tory members whom I wish I could identify, and despite the fact that the Liberals defeated their amendment with regard to the Human Rights Commission, and their amendment on collective bargaining.
When we are faced with any major and significant economic issue in Canada, the Liberals and Conservatives are one and the same. It is a Liberal coalition with the Conservatives that is keeping the country in the terrible and degrading economic situation in which it is today. Those two parties are responsible for high interest rates. They are responsible for the high rate of inflation in the country. They are responsible for the 1.3 million officially unemployed, and who knows how many more unemployed in this country.
This country is facing very serious economic problems. Our party has discussed those problems. We have talked about the need for restraint. The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo), the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish), who served on their respective committees in the House, have raised specific examples of government waste. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) has talked about the public purse being ripped off by the oil corporations in this country. We have discussed all of these issues. We have warned that by allowing energy rates to increase 31 per cent in the next 18 months, inflation will be fueled even further and it will add to the killing of the Canadian economy. Bankruptcies will rise for farmers and businesses. Yet we have been attacked by the Liberal-Conservative coalition who have said that we are not concerned about the economy.
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
We are concerned about the economy. That is why we have kept the House here since the end of June, through all of July and into August.
We regret that this bill will do nothing to help our economy. We regret that the Liberals and Conservatives have ganged up to zap the workers in what has been described in a government document as "a public relations program" to blame the private sector for the country's ills. We regret that the result of this program in two years will still be a high cost of living, at much higher than 6 per cent, since energy prices are being allowed to increase 31 per cent and interest rates are so high that the cost of living must go up. There will still be bankruptcies and more unemployment, more shutdowns, more people losing their homes, and more people leaving the resource-based communities. It is so unnecessary.
Since the Conservatives take an anti-labour position on most issues, and the Minister of Labour has enunciated his position on labour which is basically capitulation to the President of the Treasury Board, and he will do nothing to protect the legal rights of workers, Canadians have before them a public relations effort in the form of this bill which will do absolutely nothing to help them or the Canadian economy.
I said earlier that the government has wasted the last six months when it had the opportunity between the budget of November 12 and the budget of June 28 to develop a program in co-operation with Canadians from all walks of life. We recognize, as do other members and most Canadians, that the present program will do nothing. Therefore, I will momentarily move a motion to give this bill a six months' hoist.
If this government and its collaborators in the Conservative Party are genuinely concerned about the state of the economy, they will support this motion. They will not use those months to create further hatred, to make one group of Canadians the scapegoat, to hurt those who will be retiring in the next two years and be forced to live on smaller pensions as a result of this bill, or to prevent women from getting negotiated paid maternity leave. In those six months the government would have the opportunity, if it were serious, to begin discussions and negotiations to seek the kind of compromise which is typically Canadian, and to ensure that we have a program which will resolve what the Minister of Labour called the very serious economic conditions facing us at this time. We will not have a program whereby Ian Sinclair, through the co-operation of this government, can zap his workers and prevent them from ever negotiating for more than 6 per cent and 5 per cent increases. We will have a program which will not outlaw collective bargaining. We will have a program which does not give the government the right to break the collective agreements which it may have signed as recently as two months ago.
In other words, if the motion which I am about to present does pass, and if the Conservatives and Liberals can vote on principle and on the future of this country, then perhaps-and it is not for sure-we can solve our problems by Canadians working together, through agreement by Canadian men and
20036

August 4, 1982
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
women that everyone must make some sacrifices, but also by recognition that each Canadian throughout the country faces different problems.
It is hard for some one who will lose his home next month because of high mortgage interest rates to agree that he must take a 6 per cent and 5 per cent increase over the next two years. It is hard for a businessman to recognize that his whole purchasing community, his customers, will have limited incomes, will spend less in his store, and that he will go bankrupt. It is hard for those Canadians to sacrifice more. But there are many Canadians in support of this program, including the Ian Sinclairs and the de Granpres who have salaries, respectively, of $550,000 and $600,000 a year. There are other groups that have that right and ability to sacrifice. As a result, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker):
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "that" and substituting the following therefor:
"Bill C-l 24, an act respecting compensation in the public service of Canada,
be not now read a third time, but that it be read a third time this day six
months hence."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) has, in short parlance, moved a six-months' hoist, and I thank him for providing the Chair with a copy. If the House so agrees, I think we will proceed as follows: we will deem it to be 5.45 p.m., I will put the six-months' hoist motion to the House and the bells will ring on that motion. But pursuant to an order made earlier, when votes are taken later, the vote on third reading of Bill C-l24 will obviously be included.


Mr. Blaikie:: Unless the hoist passes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In the alternative, it is possible that some hon. member may wish to speak for two minutes, but I do not think it is necessary.
The House has heard the terms of the said motion. 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.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Call in the members.


Madam Speaker:: The motion is defeated.

The question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion, the yeas have it.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I suggest to my hon. colleagues that the same tally apply to this vote as to the vote taken on the previous motion. If there is agreement, we could save time and then have more time to deal with the following bill, which deals with amendments to the Criminal Code.


Madam Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, the same numbers would apply, the only difference being that we would be voting against, and the larger, joint Conservative-Liberal effort would be voting for.


Madam Speaker:: This is a bit complicated but, if it is agreed, I am sure it could be recorded in Hansard that way. Is there unanimous consent?


J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Speaker, I must reserve my right to vote as I wish with respect to the final reading of this bill. I will not insist upon a standing vote, but 1 do want the record to show-in order to save time, as the government House leader has said-that it would be my intention to oppose the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, may I be accorded the same privilege as the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall)?


Mr. McMillan:: Madam Speaker, whereas I voted the first time, with respect to the pending vote I have chosen to abstain. With that reservation, I would acquiesce in what has been suggested.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Call the vote.
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act


Madam Speaker:: The Clerk informs me that it would be very difficult to proceed in the way suggested because the same tally would not really apply.


John Edward Broadbent: The Tories are split.


Madam Speaker:: Therefore, he advises me to take the vote. [Translation]
The question is now on the main motion.


Madam Speaker:: The motion is carried.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Madam Speaker:: 1 am sure the House will understand that although the officers of the House are in favour of saving time, these particular circumstances would have obliged them to edit quite a lot out of the list and they did not dare to do that. I am sure the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) would not have approved. I am still more leery of him when he is not here than when he is here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: While hon. members are all present I should like to add some good cheer to this day and invite them to come after Royal Assent to Room 16 so that we can all have a drink together and wish each other a good holiday and shake hands with each other.
It being past six o'clock and pursuant to an order made earlier this day, the House will now proceed to Government Order 127.


CRIMINAL CODE
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: for leave to introduce Bill C-127, to amend the Criminal Code in relation to sexual offences and other offences against the person and to amend certain other acts in relation thereto or in consequence thereof.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Madam Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the second time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Madam Speaker:: Pursuant to an order made earlier, now. [Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: that Bill C-127, an act to amend the Criminal Code in relation to sexual offences and other offences against the person and to amend certain other acts in relation thereto or in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and the bill read the second time is deemed to have been referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, 1 would like to rise ... 1 think we should make our speeches on second reading. The amendments have been tabled and later we will proceed clause by clause, I do not know exactly how . . .


Madam Speaker:: 1 am trying to understand the order made earlier by the House. We are now at the report stage and the motions are deemed to have been moved. So, can we proceed now?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. Before the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) commences his remarks, may 1 indicate that pursuant to a House order made earlier, second reading is deemed to have been moved and we are now on report stage. Is that correct?


Yvon Pinard: No, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I am sorry, we arc on second reading. 1 will read the relevant paragraph:
That both parties in opposition and the government may propose no more than four amendments each to the said bill at the report stage, provided that any of the said amendments that are deposited with the Clerk of the House no later than 6:00 p.m. this day shall be moved or deemed to have been moved at that stage;
1 should like to deal with one other matter. The Chair was approached earlier indicating that the parties have made an agreement which would allocate 27 minutes to the Liberal Party, 36 minutes to the Official Opposition and 18 minutes to the New Democratic Party. That agreement was predicated on the assumption that debate would begin at 6.10 p.m., in fact, debate is beginning now. I presume we will follow the procedure. Perhaps representatives of the parties would indicate to the Chair how they wish to proceed with the actual number of

August 4, 1982

minutes to be distributed. The Chair will not be looking to the left or right but rather to the parties in that regard.


Yvon Pinard: We have no objection, Mr. Speaker, that the same proportion be respected. Of course, we are debating second reading and at 7.30 or so, according to the House order, I understand that the motions to amend will be deemed to have been moved. We will see then whether or not there is to be a recorded division. This is our understanding, and 1 think it is the understanding of my colleagues as well.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there has been an informal agreement. We agree to the same proportion in order that we may end up with the vote at 7.30 as set down in the House order.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I agree entirely with what was said. I suggest that the breakdown is 30, 20 and 15 minutes. I have just made the calculation based on 65 minutes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Let me seek an understanding. Is it agreed that the number of minutes allocated to the parties will be 30 for the Conservative Party, 20 for the Liberal Party and 15 minutes for the NDP? Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I believe we were in agreement that the proportion would be the same. I do not have the quick ability of the NDP House leader but I will find my CA degree somewhere and do the calculation quickly.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I will cut short my remarks in order to help everyone even if I have responsibility for the bill.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased with this opportunity to speak to a bill that has been the subject of debate during the past few months and is, in fact, a very delicate subject for Parliament because it concerns amendments to the Criminal Code regarding relations between persons. I believe that what we are proposing today in the House represents part of the work that the House and the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs have undertaken in the course of their consideration of Bill C-53, and we have thus succeeded in resolving half the problem, at least. I therefore wish to thank all the members of this House for having made it possible to dispose of this bill this afternoon, and I wish to thank all those who testified before the committee and all hon. members who sat for many hours, especially during the marathon sitting last Wednesday, which went on quite late into the night.

To turn to the particular provisions of the bill, first, an effort has been made throughout the bill to degenderize the Criminal Code provisions relating to sexual offences in keeping with the equality rights guaranteed by the Charter of Rights. The few remaining references to a male person or a female person will be dealt with when we amend the child exploitation provisions of the code.
Second, Section 244 of the code, defining assault, is amended by the addition of a new subsection to make it clear it is not
Criminal Code
consent to an assault where there is submission or lack of resistance because force is used against the complainant or a third party, such as the child of the complainant, or threats or fear of force is used against the complainant or a third party, or fraud is employed, or exercise of authority such as in an employer-employee relationship.
Third, a further provision has been added, as a result of the Supreme Court decision in Pappajohn, to require judges to instruct juries to consider the reasonableness of any grounds for belief by the accused that the complainant consented to the assault.
Fourth, under the category of sexual assault we are, first, creating a hybrid offence, with the possibility of an indictable offence with a maximum of ten years, or summary conviction, with six months' maximum for minor touching cases. This first level offence will cover everything from touching to forced sexual intercourse with a minimum of violence.
At the second level, sexual assault with a weapon, or with threats to a third party, or causing bodily harm to the complainant will call for a sentence of up to 14 years.
Finally, at the third level of seriousness, there will be a further category of aggravated sexual assault for wounding, maiming, disfiguring, or endangering life; this offence will carry a maximum of life imprisonment.
Among the further reforms proposed by this bill, I want to mention that corroboration of a complainant's testimony will no longer be required for conviction. This will make the law of sexual assault consistent with other types of crime.
The doctrine of recent complaint, developed from the old idea that a woman must raise a hue and cry against her attacker in order to be believed, will be eliminated.
No questions shall be asked about a complainant's prior sexual history with a person other than the accused, except as rebuttal to evidence led by the Crown, to prove identity, or where the other sexual activity was occurring at the same time.
Finally, I want to underline that "spousal immunity" is being eliminated by this bill. Women are not the chattels of their husbands, and sex without the consent of both parties is as unacceptable within marriage as it is outside of marriage.
With respect to that there will be an amendment to clarify it even further. In the committee hearings I was of the view that clarification was not needed, but members of the committee felt that it should be clarified. The words proposed before the committee were not acceptable, in my judgment as Minister of Justice, but since that time we have worked out new words. I understand that a motion will be presented by the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), which will be seconded by my parliamentary secretary because of the work he did. I have accepted this motion.
Two new offences are created by Sections 250.1 and 250.2 to deal with the problem of child custody battles between

August 4, 1982
Criminal Code
parents. Section 250.1 makes it an offence for a parent to take his child in contravention of an existing custody order made by a court anywhere in Canada. Section 252.2 applies where there is no custody order as such, but one parent has had de facto custody of the child. In this case, consent of the attorney general of the province or his local representative will be required for prosecution.
Defences are provided for where the absconding parent has the consent of the custodial parent, and also for the rare case in which the absconding parent can persuade a court that his motive was to save the child from "danger of imminent harm".
1 have proposed an amendment myself for Clause 19 that would clarify Section 246.6(1 )(c). There was long debate about past sexual activity. My amendment will make sure that if there is any question about it it will be related to the incident of the moment. It will not permit delving into the person's history. As we discussed in committee there might be circumstances where, if there is activity involving many people at the same time, it has to be described because it might be related to the sexual activity of that person with another person in those circumstances.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that, today, we have made considerable progress. We have received proposals and suggestions from a number of organizations which appeared before the comittee. I particularly wish to thank all the women's organizations in Canada which took a very special interest in the proceedings. We introduced this bill in the House a year and a half ago, and we have made considerable progress in our attempts to reach a consensus. The issues are basically very complex and that is why, when I appeared before the committee, I purposely took a very flexible approach and said that I was open to all kinds of suggestions. I was so flexible that opposition members accused me of not knowing what I wanted. I wanted to experiment by giving the committee the greatest possible flexibility while remaining personally responsible for accepting or not accepting certain amendments. I was a little disappointed by the results, because at one time I found that people held this against me and claimed that I did not really know what kind of reforms I wanted to make. Nevertheless, I have no regrets, and we are going to continue this fall because there are still some problems to be cleared up, including the issue of child pornography. I think this is a point we must clear up once and for all. Some people insisted that the problem was not a major one yet, but I am convinced that the problem exists. This has been proved by witnesses who appeared before the committee, and even if it is only in its initial stages, I think it should be stopped immediately. That is why I was so disappointed when we were unable to reach an agreement. Incidentally, the member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) said that in 1976 and 1977, the committee had already recommended reforms in this area. I hardly think that, at the time, the committee was basing its views on assumptions only. It was in the light of this report by the House committee that I agreed to introduce these proposals, and we shall get back to
them if the session continues this fall, and otherwise, we shall introduce the measures again. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank everyone who worked on this legislation. However, today I am somewhat disappointed that amendments have been proposed. When we were discussing ways of resolving this problem in committee, I agreed there would be no amendment and that we would be coming here without amendments. My concept was that any changes could be made in the fall, because we would then be considering the same kind of bill and improvements could be made to the bill at that time. However, amendments were proposed, so 1 also proposed one, that is, I accepted the amendment on spousal immunity. In fact, I produced the text that will be presented by the member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), and I also accepted further amendments which were proposed by the official opposition.
There were other amendments which I unfortunately could not accept. As Minister of Justice, I have to consider certain proposals, and I am thinking of the member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer) who made some representations. He was a little disappointed that I did not accept an amendment he had discussed with my parliamentary secretary. Unfortunately, it touched on an area where we want to ensure that sexual offences and sexual assault are defined in a new Criminal Code in such a way that it is easier for the person concerned to press charges. The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Cambridge seems quite reasonable, at first. However, one criticism that could be levelled against the amendment is that it goes against what we are all trying to achieve, namely, make it easier to make complaints and easier to make recommendations. If I had accepted the amendment, I think we might have regressed in relation to the joint commitment we made, especially vis-a-vis the women's groups, which insisted that corroboration should not be compulsory in order to find a person guilty of sexual assault. I can assure the hon. member that we shall get back to this if necessary.
I would like to thank my colleague, the Minister responsible for the Status of Women who is in the House today and who has been following this debate very closely, as well as the member for Saint-Michel (Mrs. Killens), both of whom have been keeping at me on the subject for several months. 1 am thankful to them for having exerted this pressure. I want to thank the members of the opposition for their co-operation. I wish to thank the chairman of the committee, the member for Arthabaska, no, for Lotbiniere (Mr. Dubois). Mr. Speaker, the town of Arthabaska happens to be in his riding and that is why i made a mistake. I especially wish to thank my parliamentary secretary, who this last week has been working very hard to get a consensus. We made a small bet, and I said I did not think we would be successful. In fact, I said this on purpose, to get him going, and I am very grateful that he won his bet.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Before I recognize the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald),
August 4, 1982

let me say that I think it is easier on all hon. members if there is a clear understanding throughout the House of where we stand. Debate began on this bill at 6.25 p.m., fifteen minutes of which have expired. It is my understanding that there are five or six minutes remaining to the Liberal Party, which it may wish to use at the end of other debate. I understand that there are 30 minutes of debate belonging to the Progressive Conservative Party. Indications to me are that the 30 minutes will be divided among four speakers, giving each one seven to seven and a half minutes.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to Bill C-127 this evening, 1 want to pay tribute to the co-operation, perseverance and dedicated interest of hon. members on all sides of the House for having made this legislation possible.
I cannot overemphasize the importance I attach to this bill. It is one of the most crucial pieces of social and legal legislation to be dealt with for a long time. We are talking about amendments to the Criminal Code; indeed, we are talking about the modernization of some critical elements of the Criminal Code, particularly as they affect women.
But I would first like to mention the work done by my colleague, the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen), on that part of the bill dealing with parental abduction. In the closing minutes of our final committee hearing, he paid special tribute to Mrs. Lois Preston, president of Parents of Kidnapped Children in British Columbia, and Mrs. Lilia Lopez Karu, president of Abducted Children's Rights of Canada, for their contribution in ensuring that the amendments to the Criminal Code dealing with parental abduction become law.
In this bill, the current laws relating to rape and indecent assault are being changed to emphasize the violence as opposed to the sexual aspects to these crimes. In other words, we will no longer have the term "rape" in law.
This legislation has a long history. Individual women and groups of women all across the country have been pushing for years for changes to the rape laws. It was apparent that this section of the Criminal Code cried out for reform. The number of reported rape cases was far below the actual number of offences. It has been estimated that only one in ten cases of rape was reported. That was due largely to the stigma which surrounded the rape victim-the idea that somehow nice girls do not get raped and the belief that she must have asked for it. The victim was always subject to having her past sexual history used as evidence against her-the victim, remember- in a court of law.
The conviction rate for rape has traditionally been much lower than the conviction rate for other serious crimes-only a 52 per cent conviction rate for rape, compared with an 82 per cent conviction rate in the case of other indictable offences. As a result, women's groups such as the National Action Committee on the Status of Women and the National Council of Women began calling for a complete removal of the existing
Criminal Code
rape sections from the Criminal Code. They wanted, instead, the enactment of a new offence dealing with rape as a type of assault.
The government responded with Bill C-52 some four years ago, and that had one major beneficial effect. It brought together all women's groups calling for four basic principles which they wanted to see embodied in the law: treatment of rape as a type of assault, creating tiers of sexual assault to parallel existing assault offences, abolishing spousal immunity, and limiting admissibility of past sexual history.
In October, 1979, the Progressive Conservative cabinet approved draft legislation to change rape to sexual assault and to abolish spousal immunity. This is a philosophical position from which our party has never retreated.
Since the introduction of Bill C-53 by the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) in January 1981, we in this party have made a sustained effort to ensure that the fundamental principles embodied in the draft legislation of the Conservative government would not be ignored. And we have stuck to that throughout the long months of committee meetings. I am sure the minister will agree that that determination on our part contributed significantly to the improved bill which we have before us this evening.
We now have a bill which provides that the assault and sexual assault structure of the Criminal Code will have three tiers. The minister has outlined those three tiers. The women's groups which appeared before the committee were unanimous in their desire that the new law would be modelled on existing assault provisions in the Criminal Code, so that there would be a firm foundation for the new sexual assault provisions. This was the reason our party insisted in committee on three tiers of assault and sexual assault. This is why we wanted the concept of "bodily harm" to be positioned in the second tier of assault and sexual assault. It was only late on the last evening of committee hearings that we finally secured that significant concession from the government.
Also we eliminated the amendment which was put forward to include acts of degradation in the second category. We insisted that that come out, as we insisted that serious bodily harm be restored to bodily harm. Those were the things we acquired during the committee hearings.
I know the bill before us is not perfect, but indeed it is a great step forward and it is of particular significance to women. I believe this piece of legislation will mark a new beginning in the way society views coercive sexual acts. This legislation makes a clear statement. It calls a spade a spade. It says that sexual assault is primarily an act of violence, not of passion; an assault with sex as the weapon.
The first major hurdle of name change has been achieved, but it is absolutely incorrect to argue that what we are doing here is only a change of semantics. The new sexual assault offences do not just refer to forced sexual intercourse but include all types of forced sexual acts. This, too, is a major step forward.

August 4, 1982
Criminal Code
Until now forced penetration has been the major component of rape. No one will deny that forced penetration is a serious offence, but the new legislation recognizes that other types of forced sexual acts may be equally serious. This is very, very important. Fear is a four letter word called "rape". Removing the name does not remove the fear, but it means that women will be able to report sexual assaults against them without the additional fear of being branded as immoral by society. More important, the bill means that those who commit the heinous crime of violating another person are much more liable to be convicted for their vicious acts.
I am very proud of the role our party has played in bringing this legislation to fruition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Albert Gamble: Mr. Speaker, there are occasions when one feels good as a Member of Parliament when something is achieved or when an effort is made, even though the achievement may not be entirely what one expected. Such is certainly not my feeling today.
We are confronted with a bill that I oppose, and in the very few moments which I have I shall explain why. There was an opportunity, however, because of the orders of the House when I might have on my own terminated the discussion on this piece of legislation, but I did not. For that reason I am very unhappy with myself.
1 believe that we are confronted with a piece of legislation which is a fraud perpetrated upon the female population of the country. I think it is appropriate to explain why. The amendments to the Criminal Code, as they relate to rape, have been well explained by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien). There is a three tier punishment category for an offence called "sexual assault". In the first tier of that category one may, as an accused, be sentenced on summary conviction. It is important to bear in mind that we have eliminated from the Criminal Code an offence of rape which carried a maximum penalty of a life sentence imposed against the accused when convicted.
If one analyses the other two tiers and the nature of the offence which must be committed in order to obtain a conviction, it is apparent that unless there is bodily harm, unless a weapon is used or unless threats are made against another, the first tier will apply where a maximum sentence of ten years' incarceration will flow, the alternative possibility of a fine.
For instance, take the situation where a woman is indeed raped-despite the fact that we have eliminated the word- and there is no bodily harm. However, she becomes a vegetable because she lost her mind as a consequence of the trauma that resulted from these circumstances. The maximum sentence that may be imposed under those circumstances is ten years. With respect to rape as we currently understand it, where that result does not happen, there may in fact be a simple fine imposed. We have equated what we knew to be rape with a serious speeding ticket.
I think it is appropriate that we ask the women of Canada whether this is indeed what they want.
The House should bear in mind that at 25 minutes after this hour the last of the amendments were submitted to members of this House, who are now asked to vote on the entire package at 7.30, exactly 40 minutes from now.
I would be surprised if the bill with which we are concerned has been examined by 25 members of the House by the time that vote is taken. Yet it is our duty, as Members of Parliament discharging our obligations to our constituents, to read and understand the provisions of the Criminal Code which affect the liberty and the lives of Canadians. Are we discharging that responsibility, having had those amendments submitted to us at 6.25 p.m., exactly 65 minutes later? I ask you, Mr. Speaker, does it appear that we will have discharged that responsibility? The answer is no. For that reason I am unhappy with this bill.
I would like to point out that when this bill began as Bill C-53 it contained a provision relating to sexual exploitation of children. Those entire sections have been removed, and we are told that we will come back to them in the fall. Well, we have been working at this kind of legislation for three years and we are still at it now. When will we come back to the sexual exploitation of children? Will it be in five years? In the meantime, should we leave it alone? That is what the House is asked to do and that is what we are voting on.
I would be very surprised if the women of Canada would consent to that kind of conduct by the House. I am sure that they are as concerned about the welfare of their children as some of us are, some of us who intend, out of annoyance and anger in the way we have behaved, to vote against this legislation.
1 would ask why it is that some members who are so anxious to deal with this bill in its present form have deleted Section 156 of the Criminal Code as it presently stands? Let me read that provision to the House:
Every male person who assaults another person with intent to commit buggery or who indecently assaults another male person is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for ten years-
The offence no longer exists once this bill is passed.


Svend Johannes Robinson: It is still there. You do not know what you are talking about.


John Albert Gamble: We are dealing with sexual assault. While assault is defined, sexual assault is not defined under the bill. It will be left for the court to determine what it is. I do not know, there is no member of the House who knows, yet we are voting on it tonight in that fashion to expedite its passage before the House enjoys a summer recess. It is expediting the process which I find reprehensible.


Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, back in 1963 I heard what to me was a very memorable phrase in a different context which concerned the civil rights in the United States. It was said by Everett Dirkson. His words at that time were,
August 4, 1982

"There is nothing as powerful as an idea whose time has come."
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to members of the House that after sitting for more than 15 weeks and listening to witnesses, I am convinced by women's groups who testified before us, by police officers who have testified, by the Crown attorney offices and the Attorneys General of Canada in their submissions, that the time has come for this idea. It is overwhelming, and that is why we will pass that bill tonight.
This is the last evening we will be discussing rape in a legal sense. I would like to relate some views as a person who prosecuted and defended a great many rape cases before I was elected to the House. From the perspective of a woman, it is the robbing of a person's dignity. It is an invasion of freedom. It has a tremendous stigma. Obviously, not being a woman I would think that it is only one half of the agony. The agony is having to come to court and testify about the invasion of one's dignity and perhaps not be believed. It is a tremendous concern of fathers, husbands and victims. I am sympathetic with victims of the act not only because of their agony but also because of their having to testify about the act and the prospect that they may not be believed in circumstances where their credibility is contested.
The point I wish to make is that this bill is no panacea. The evidence is not going to change in one court in the land. The sentence of a person found guilty of sexual assault, no matter what tier, is going to be determined by the act and the seriousness of the act. Let no one be under the illusion that anything will change when it comes to court. We must remember that. But this bill is beneficial.
A woman from a women's group appeared as a witness before the committee. Since I did not want to act in a way that I thought was illusionary, I asked her if this was a question of a janitor becoming a sanitary engineer, are we really making a difference? The 60-year old woman said to me, "1 cannot tell you why I feel that way, but I would rather be stigmatized as a victim of sexual assault than a rape victim." That statement told me a lot about how women feel with respect to this particular bill.
I have brought four amendments before the House. I wish to talk about process, but before doing so I wish to say that never in my life could 1 believe that the Department of Justice could draft legislation which was so inaccurate, poor and which did not represent what members felt. Let me give an illustration. In one of the sections of the Criminal Code that was drafted which will be in force tomorrow morning if this bill receives Royal Assent without the amendment, we would prohibit reputation evidence or a complainant from being called. That means that if a woman had a long criminal record or was a pathological liar, she could not be cross-examined on that matter. That is not what Members of Parliament intended. We intended to say "sexual reputation". That is what the protection was to be. Yet this was what ended up in the bill and would still be in it if not for the amendment.
I could give more illustrations but I want to make a point and 1 do not have much time. For weeks the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) has cloaked his parliamentary secretary
Criminal Code
with the authority to deal on his behalf. This afternoon, before two o'clock, the hon. member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid) myself and a representative from the Department of Justice met with respect to a very important amendment which does not need to be mentioned. 1 will not go into it at this time. But I gave up my amendment, the amendment before us today in the name of the Conservative Party of Canada, which will be voted for by the members of this party. It was literally drafted by a person in the Department of Justice. I had a clear understanding with the parliamentary secretary that the government would support it, and I came back and spoke with hon. members on this side of the House based upon the word of a man I thought 1 could trust.
In this House, no matter what one's political persuasion, one must have honour. If I say that 1 will do something, I undertake to do it. There is no doubt but that the parliamentary secretary was cloaked with that authority. I left his office and convinced certain of my colleagues who had some reluctance. But what do I find? At five minutes before six o'clock tonight, the parliamentary secretary said that we cannot vote on the amendment being prepared by this party. I went over and spoke to the Minister of Justice. He has undercut his parliamentary secretary. Never again can I trust the word of the parliamentary secretary, not because he is lying, but rather because the Minister of Justice undercuts him and does not have any faith in him, and I cannot trust him any more. I am angry. It is an absence of honour.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: What about the word you gave us yesterday?


Chris Speyer: The slimy treatment that the Minister of Justice accords to his parliamentary secretary-you lie, you cheat and you have no honour, and I say that to the Minister of Justice. Never again will his word be any good with me.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, the first words I have to say with respect to this bill are words of appreciation to the members of this House who give me the opportunity of standing in my place to speak this evening. We have heard a presentation by the minister with respect to the content of the bill. I know that there were times when all of us felt that we would become hopelessly bogged down because we really did not know what we as members of the opposition would face with respect to the terms and provisions in the bill. We were faced with a moving target, the moving target that presented one amendment after another. Therefore we were somewhat critical, as the minister points out, of the minister and of the government position. We were critical, as well, because we wanted to know what theory was behind the movement being presented by the minister. We wanted to know what principles guided him in the presentation of those amendments. We wanted to make certain that the people of Canada understood what the words meant when they were presented to us for consideration. That was the kind of problem that faced those

August 4, 1982
Criminal Code
of us in the opposition as we concerned ourselves with one committee after another until we came down to the deadline of a closing session and we, along with him, wanted to see a bill passed which would meet the requirements of women today.
Finally, today we have reservations, but although we have reservations about some of the problems that were outlined in Bill C-53 and great concerns about those matters which were not addressed in this particular bill, we are hopeful that the minister will see to it that these are brought forward at an early date come the fall session so that we can address ourselves as boldly as we have in these last few days to those problems involving child protection, pornography and the problems he has outlined with respect to abuse to women and children.
1 am pleased, along with the other members on this side of the House, that we are now in a position to recognize the need for Criminal Code reform and change. Sexual assaults which have been so offensive to so many have now been brought into a three-tiered system, a system that we can understand and approve and that the public can appreciate as well. To that extent, and I know Your Honour is prepared to rise, we say that this should be a useful tool by which the Code can apply to the needs and wants of the general public in the 1980s as we face the tomorrow that is before us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) rises on a point of order?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, 1 believe we still have five minutes remaining. 1 would like to address a few remarks to the question of procedure and what we have tried to do here today.
A great deal of work has been done by our committee with respect to this bill. The committee sat until two o'clock last Thursday morning. The results of the committee work did not become apparent in a formal bill which could be considered by this House until very late yesterday afternoon. For that reason, there has been no consideration of the final bill because we were waiting for what the government is about to bring forward.
1 draw the attention of the House to Bill C-124, which was government legislation which cleared committee at eleven o'clock in the evening and was tabled in the House at three o'clock the next day. This bill cleared committee at two in the morning and now, six and a half days later, the bill is finally ready for discussion by this House. If there has been any delay whatsoever, the delay has been on the government side of the House. We would not be rushed to judgment by something we could not even see in the final form in which the government wished to introduce it to the House. The reason for the delay has been purely that.
Our consideration, once we received that final bill, was to see that the bill, as tabled in the House, represented the deliberations of the committee. It was only very late yesterday afternoon that the members of the committee on our side who took part in those deliberations were able to assure us that the
bill which was about to be tabled within 24 hours represented what the committee agreed to as to substance, no more, no less. We feel that the opposition and government members should have had that time available to them to consider it as Members of Parliament. Once we had it, 1 can assure hon. members that our side moved expeditiously so that it was considered by all the committee members and by our research staff.
We were able to proceed from that point, which was 5.30 p.m. or 5.45 p.m. yesterday afternoon, toward the House order. We wanted that consideration. I say, as deputy House leader, with no knowledge of the substance, that we felt that the process had to be respected so that our people had the right and the duty to review the legislation. We feel we have done that and that what is now before the House represents the deliberations of that committee. That is why we have proceeded. It may appear that we proceeded quickly from a House order, but I can assure Your Honour that we have devoted much time and effort to the committee's deliberations over the past year and a half and the deliberations that evening and since that time in reviewing draft forms of legislation. We are now pleased to participate in the formal debate of the bill which the government took so long to bring here.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this most important debate on significant changes to the Criminal Code. Canadian women have been fighting for decades to overhaul Canada's archaic and ineffective rape laws, laws which are predicated on many myths, for example, upon the view of the victim of rape as damaged goods, laws which are predicated upon a deep distrust of the female accused, laws which basically suggest that rape is not a crime against a woman, but, rather, a crime against a man's property.
The statistics on rape are alarming. One out of every five Canadian women is sexually assaulted against her will, grabbed, fondled, her clothes ripped, or the victim of attempted rape. One out of 17 is forcibly raped. Yet, and surely there can be no more eloquent testimony to the weakness of the present rape legislation, 94 per cent of sexual criminals walk free, never to be arrested. Only two per cent of all rapists will ever stand in court and hear themselves pronounced guilty. For those two per cent the average sentences are far too light.
It is clear that the time has come for major change in this area of the law. I want to commend the many individuals and groups who have appeared before the Justice and Legal Affairs committee over the past several months, witnesses including the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, the National Association of Women and the Law, the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, and representatives of provincial and local organizations from right across this country. I also want to single out my colleagues, the hon. members for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett) and Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell) who, I want to say, have
August 4, 1982

worked long and hard both within the caucus and in committee to improve the provisions of this legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Svend Johannes Robinson: I also want to say, and this will be a surprise to some, that in view of what has taken place within the last 24 hours and despite the fact that I disagree profoundly with the views that he expressed, I am grateful to the member for York North (Mr. Gamble) for not having blocked this important debate from proceeding.
There are a number of very important and major changes that are being made in this area of the law, and I am not going to take a great deal of time to elaborate upon them. That is being done by other speakers. Most important I think is the concept that finally we accept that rape is not a crime of passion but rather it is a violent assault. But it is not just any assault. There is an additional element of violation of the integrity of the individual. This law recognizes the violent nature of the crime of rape.
In addition, there is the important element that spousal immunity is being removed, and I want to return to that in a moment, Mr. Speaker.
The laws respecting the admissibility of evidence of previous sexual history with a person other than the accused are being significantly tightened. The code is being degenderized. In other words, we are recognizing that not just women but males as well must be protected from sexual assaults. Finally, there are a number of provisions that significantly improve the trial process; laws respecting corroboration, the doctrine of recent complaint, the requirement to prove penetration, all are quite properly being overhauled in this bill.
I should say that the original bill that was presented to the committee, Bill C-53, dealt with a number of other important areas, including the sexual exploitation of young persons, the so-called morality offences, the area of child pornography and a number of other areas as well. It was felt, because of some of the difficulties in these other sections, that we should at least in this Parliament pass the important provisions of the bill dealing with the overhaul of the sexual assault laws.
All Members of Parliament express a repugnance at child pornography, this form of exploitation of children, but unfortunately the minister brought forward a provision that was poorly drafted. There was no evidence that the existing obscenity provisions of the Criminal Code had been used, and surely where the test is community standards this kind of repugnant and offensive material would offend any notion of community standards, and we know as well that the Badgley commission is presently considering this area of the law.
With respect to the so-called morality offences, I would submit that the governing principles that should guide us when we look at a review of the law in this area should be those principles which were enunciated by the Law Reform Commission of Canada in their report on sexual offences in 1978. They recommended that reform of sexual offences should be based upon three fundamental principles, protecting the integrity of
Criminal Code
the person, protecting children and special groups, and safeguarding public decency.
With those important principles in mind I suggest that the government unfortunately caved in, in the last few months, to the Canadian equivalent of the moral majority, by withdrawing any suggested changes, even though those changes certainly did not reflect in full the principles of the Law Reform Commission, by withdrawing any changes whatsoever in this area of the law. A number of the offences in the Code such as the provisions respecting gross indecency, the provisions that deal with the bawdy house laws which violate the principles that have been enunciated by the Law Reform Commission, have no part whatsoever to play in a twentieth century Criminal Code. The minister unfortunately caved in, as 1 say, to the Canadian equivalent of the moral majority. For example, it will still be an offence for three adult Canadians in the privacy of their own home to participate in le menage a trois. They can theoretically go to jail for five years for that offence.
I do not have time to deal with the provisions of the bill now before us that overhauls the assault area of the law, other than to say in my view a significant change in this area was not warranted. We heard from no witnesses who called, for example, for an increase in the maximum penalty for assault causing bodily harm from five years to 14 years. Certainly I agree that the first level of assault should have been changed to a mixed offence in order that we might deal with the situation of domestic violence without having to find the person actually committing the offence. That change was one that we supported.
1 intend to propose four amendments to this bill while recognizing that certainly it constitutes a very important advance for the women of Canada.
The first amendment deals with an explicit recognition of the repeal of spousal immunity. This important amendment, which 1 understand will be accepted by all members of the House, at least I certainly hope will be accepted by all members of the House, and which will be seconded by the minister's parliamentary secretary; and I might say as well was strongly supported by the member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) in committee, will eliminate once and for all the fictional notion that somehow marriage implies continuing and permanent consent to sexual relations. The idea that a husband cannot be charged with the rape of his wife under any circumstances treats that woman as a chattel.
I urged in committee that the removal of spousal immunity should be made explicit. At that time one of the minister's officials suggested that this was motherhood and apple pie, but 1 suggest it is a far more important amendment than that. I am pleased that it will be accepted by the House this evening. I should just note that this particular amendment was heavily criticized by the group that 1 mentioned earlier, the Canadians for Family and Freedom group who suggested that, as they put it, the spouse-rape concept would put a barrier between husband and wife in the marriage bed. It is regrettable, to say the least, that the minister responded in a number of respects to that same group.

August 4, 1982
Criminal Code
The second very important amendment that I am proposing deals with the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Regina v Pappajohn. This decision perhaps more than any other has provoked the outrage of Canadian women because what it says is that a man who honestly believed that the victim of a rape was consenting must walk out of the court a free man, must be acquitted, even where there are no reasonable grounds for that belief. I am not suggesting that the defence of honest belief should be removed entirely, although that was advocated by some. I am merely suggesting that when a man wants to say that he honestly believed that the victim was consenting, it is not good enough for him to rely upon perverse or irrational grounds; for him to say, for example, that because her husband told him that she really was enjoying it, even though she was crying and saying no, that he should be acquitted. What I am saying is that there has to be a reasonable basis for that belief.
The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) in the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee indicated that he felt the Pappajohn decision was the "Magna Carta of the sexual assaulters across the country." The Conservative member for Edmonton-Strathcona said that he would put "the government on notice that this party is going to fight very hard" to oppose the Pappajohn decision. What happened in committee? What happened in committee was that both Liberal members and Conservative members, every Conservative member and every Liberal member of the committee, voted against my amendment, which would have included a defence of reasonable grounds, and reasonable grounds only.
That amendment will be put to a recorded vote tonight. I plead with members to consider very carefully the ramifications of this amendment. As 1 say, perhaps more than any other it is an amendment which has been strongly supported by every national women's organization, the chiefs of police and over 22,000 men and women who signed petitions urging that we accept the principle that no means no.
The third amendment I will be proposing deals with the question of admissibility of evidence of the previous sexual history. I want to indicate clearly that the minister, in response to the amendment I propose, has come a long way to tighten this area of the law. However, it is regrettable that the minister is still permitting evidence of the previous sexual history with a person other than the accused to be admitted under any circumstances. The minister said it is relevant on some occasions. That may be, but I would submit that a woman is always entitled to say no. She can have sex with the entire football team if she chooses to do so, but if she wants to say no to one player, she is entitled to say no. That integrity must always be respected.
The final amendment will restore the three tiers which have been recommended by a number of national women's organizations. The three tiers would include in the third level the important element of specific intent to commit the sexual assault.
I want to indicate that in my view this bill represents a significant improvement, but it is only a first step. The provisions of this bill represent an important first step. What is just as important as changing the law is changing the attitudes which exist in Canada and which far too often treat women as sexual commodities. Whether that is reflected in advertising, their treatment on the job, the absence of any protection from sexual harassment on the job, it is those attitudes that must be changed.
What is just as important is that we support and encourage sexual assault crises centres across the country. It is completely unacceptable that funds for these important sexual assault crisis centres only allow them to operate on a shoestring. Their work is critical in dealing with the pain suffered by rape victims.
In conclusion, I am pleased to support the important advances made in this bill. I hope hon. members will seriously consider supporting the amendments in the four areas I have referred to, the explicit removal of spouse immunity, elimination of the Pappajohn defence, elimination of all references to the previous sexual history of the victim with a person other than the accused and the establishment of an equitable and just tier structure for the sexually assaulted.
[ Translation]


Mrs. Therese Killens (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Mines)):: Mr. Speaker, this is a great day for Canadian women and I am pleased to take part in this debate.

Before saying what I have in mind on behalf of the women of Canada, and I am sorry he is not in the House, I wish to respond to the hon. member for York North (Mr. Gamble) who spoke against the bill a few minutes ago. He said it was a sad night for him. It is very easy to see that that member has never been scared.
That hon. member never attended any of the committee hearings. All of a sudden he woke up tonight and showed his ignorance. He has been totally misinformed.
I ask the people of Canada to remenber the words spoken tonight by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald). The hon. member attended many of the committee meetings and spoke tonight on behalf of the women of Canada. When it comes to human issues touching the women of this country and the injustices done to them, I can assure hon. members that there is no partisanship.
[ Translation]
We did experience difficult moments during the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. The turn of events in recent days had been somewhat of a disappointment for me. The bill had reached a deadlock and it did not seem very likely that it would be passed before the summer recess. In the past three weeks, members opposite and several pressure groups have been urging us to split the bill in two, in such a way as to provide only for the adoption of the provisions aimed at protecting women. Since it was impossible to reach a
August 4, 1982

consensus, the committee has had to postpone the study of the provisions related to the sexual exploitation of young persons and child pornography. On behalf of several committee members on this side of the House, I want to say how deeply disappointed we are by the filibuster of members opposite and we hope to be able to continue our study this fall.
However, we did manage to guarantee greater protection to Canadian women by providing three levels of sexual offences, and we did manage as well- and this is very significant, Mr. Speaker-to restrict to a minimum, 1 repeat, to a minimum, the possibility of reference to previous sexual behaviour and honest belief of good faith. I am pleased to support the amendments introduced this evening by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien). 1 am glad to note as well that we were able to improve the legislation with respect to child kidnapping. Hon. members know that unfortunately a growing number of families have been faced with this problem since the divorce rate has been climbing in Canada. As you know, Mr. Speaker, three out of five marriages in Canada end up in divorce.
This evening we are seeing the results of many years of work by women, as well as men, interested in this problem. The event of this evening is just as significant as our victory about section 28 of the Constitution. Quite appropriately, Mr. Speaker, it is the same minister who gave us section 28 in the Constitution to protect human rights and who today is providing additional protection for women. Mr. Speaker, I want to leave a few minutes for one of my colleagues. I conclude by thanking members on both sides of the House and especially the groups of women who gave us their support to get this bill through.


Mr. Gilles Marceau (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to say at the outset of my remarks that 1 was shocked by the comments of the hon. member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer) who levelled accusations at everybody. The seriousness of his accusations has to reflect his attendance record at the committee, and 1 can say that he was seldom there so we ought not to pay too much attention to his comments. I am very glad to support this bill for which we have been waiting for a long time. It is an essential and very challenging step forward in criminal matters. It implements the recommendations of associations of women who had long been urging us to improve the Criminal Code, to do away with discrimination and especially to repeal the section concerning rape. In that respect, Mr. Speaker, it is very encouraging and I am quite satisfied. As to previous behaviour, we have made a lot of progress to meet the requirements of women's associations and it will no longer be referred to during a trial, save for three very rare exceptions. However, I must admit that I am disappointed about that part of the bill which deals with child pornography. It is a very serious issue and 1 regret that we were unable to reach agreement with the opposition to have that part of the bill accepted.
Still, I am glad that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien), whom I commend, as I do his parliamentary secretary, will reintroduce the bill on child pornography in the next session.
Criminal Code
Generally speaking, I think we ought to congratulate all those who appeared before the committee or worked with the committee, and say that we have taken a step forward. All committee members on both sides of the House have done an excellent job and I want to congratulate them.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I rise on what I think really is a point of order because it deals with the travesty of process in which we are engaged here tonight. I am not blaming any single member of the House, but a large portion of the amendments to a technical statute which affects the lives and liberties of the citizens of this country was only received by some members of this House at 7.18 tonight, and we have to vote on them at 7.30.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think the members in the House and the visitors in the galleries should know that there is only one amendment coming from the government side and eight coming from the opposition side, four presented by the Conservative Party and four presented by the New Democratic Party. Of the four presented by the Conservative Party, three are acceptable to us. The hon. member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer) does not agree with our position on the fourth one. My parliamentary secretary has discussed this with him. He is sympathetic, but as the Minister of Justice I cannot accept it. I said, and 1 want to repeat it, that when we come back in the fall, the amendment will be looked at again.
Of the four amendments proposed by members of the New Democratic Party, I suppose one is acceptable to everyone, and the other three are not acceptable to the government. Of the amendments proposed by the Conservative Party, three are acceptable to us, but one or two are not acceptable to the New Democratic Party.
1 point out to the hon. member that there has been an agreement. We have worked on this bill in the committee for months. We tried to find solutions in the committee, and the agreement arrived at in the committee was that there would be no amendments. I was willing not to present any government amendments. I presented only one today, and others have been presented by the opposition parties.
I am glad the hon. member said he does not want to blame anyone. However, we need the bill, and it is because of an agreement among all three parties that we are in the present situation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: As the servant of the House the Chair can only deal with what it is ordered by the House to deal with. Pursuant to the unanimous decision of the House I have to put the question at this time.

It being 7.30 p.m., pursuant to the order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith

August 4, 1982
Criminal Code
every question necessary to dispose of the bill now before the House.

The bill is deemed to have been referred to and reported from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. Pursuant to the order already accepted by the House it is understood that the House is at this time at the report stage of this bill.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 1
That Bill C-127, to amend the Criminal Code in relation to sexual offences and other offences against the person and to amend certain other acts in relation thereto or in consequence thereof, be amended in Clause 19 by striking out line 25 at page 7 and substituting the following therefor:
"believe, and that where the accused established that his belief was based on reasonable grounds, he shall be found not guilty."


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Pursuant to the order already accepted, the vote stands deferred.
[ Translation]


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 2
That Bill C-127, an act to amend the Criminal Code in relation to sexual offences and other offences against the person and to amend certain other acts in relation thereto or in consequence thereof, be amended by striking out lines 37 to 46 at page 8 and lines 1 to 30 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"246.1 Every one who commits a sexual assault is guilty of
(a)	an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for 5 years; or
(b)	an offence punishable on summary conviction.
246.2 (1) Every one commits an aggravated sexual assault who
(a)	carries, uses or threatens to use a weapon or imitation thereof during or at the time he commits a sexual assault;
(b)	commits a sexual assault that causes bodily harm; or
(c)	with intent
(i) to wound, maim or disfigure any person; or
(ii) to endanger the life of any person causes bodily harm in any way to any person whether or not that person is the one mentioned in subparagraph (i)
or (ii).
(2) Every one who commits an aggravated sexual assault is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable
(a)	in the case of an offence under paragraph (l)(a) or (b), to imprisonment for 14 years; or
(b)	in the case of an offence under paragraph (l)(c), to imprisonment for life."


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: In my opinion, the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: I declare the motion lost. Motion No. 2 (Mr. Robinson (Burnaby)) negatived. [English]


Chris Speyer: Motion No. 3
That Bill C-127, to amend the Criminal Code in relation to sexual offences and other offences against the person and to amend certain other acts in relation thereto or in consequence thereof, be amended in Clause 19 by striking out lines 43 to 46 at page 8 and lines 1 to 3 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"(2) Where an accused is charged with"


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Svend Johannes Robinson: On division.
Motion No. 3 (Mr. Speyer) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The next question is on motion No. 4.


Chris Speyer: Motion No. 4
That Bill C-127, an act to amend the Criminal Code in relation to sexual offences and other offences against the person and to amend certain other acts in relation thereto or in consequence thereof, be amended in Clause 19 by striking out lines 17 to 19 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
August 4, 1982

"person other than the complainant,
(c)	causes bodily harm to the complainant,
(d)	is a party to the offence with any other person,"


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think there is agreement, but there is a grammatical error that can be corrected.


Chris Speyer: Mr. Speaker, the "or" is in there. I do not know whether you read it. It should read "causes bodily harm to the complainant or is a party to the offence with any other person".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Instead of "(d)" it should read "or (d)". Does the House agree to the correction?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Motion No. 4 (Mr. Speyer) agreed to on division.
The House will now consider Motion No. 5.


Chris Speyer: Motion No. 5
That Bill C-127, an act to amend the Criminal Code in relation to sexual offences and other offences against the person and to amend certain other acts in relation thereto or in consequence thereof, be amended in Clause 19
(A)	by striking out line 31 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor: "246.4 (1) Where an accused is charged"
(B)	By adding immediately after line 41 at page 9 the following:
"(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), the court shall instruct the trier of fact on the special need for caution in any case where the court considers that such an instruction is necessary."


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Can the House have the assurance that the wording is the same in this amendment in the French and English versions? In the English version it refers to "the trier of fact" while in the French version it is "au jury".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member will have to recognize that the Chair cannot give that kind of assurance.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: On that point of order, perhaps I might be of assistance to the Chair, Mr. Speaker. The amendments on this
Criminal Code
side were drafted from the English into French by the Department of Justice. I would think that they have done their best to make sure that they mean the same thing in both languages.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion in both languages?


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The division on this motion stands deferred.
The House will proceed to Motion No. 6.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 6
That Bill C-127, an act to amend the Criminal Code in relation to sexual offences and other offences against the person and to amend certain other acts in relation thereto or in consequence thereof, be amended in Clause 19 by striking out lines 10 to 21 at page 10 and substituting the following therefor:
"adduced by the prosecution; or
(B) it is evidence of specific instances of the complainant's sexual activity
tending to establish the identity of the person who had sexual contact with the
complainant on the occasion set out in the charge."


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Accordingly, the vote on this motion stands deferred.

August 4, 1982
Criminal Code


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The House will now consider Motion No. 7 in the name of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien).


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Motion No. 7
That Bill C-127, an act to amend the Criminal Code in relation to sexual offences and other offences against the person and to amend certain other acts in relation thereto or in consequence thereof, be amended in Clause 19 by striking out lines 17 to 21 at page 10 and substituting the following therefor:
"(c) it is evidence of sexual activity that took place on the same occasion as the sexual activity that forms the subject matter of the charge, where that evidence relates to the consent that the accused alleges he believed was given by the complainant."


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The House will now consider Motion No. 8 in the name of the hon. member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer).


Chris Speyer: Motion No. 8
That Bill C-127, an act to amend the Criminal Code in relation to sexual offences and other offences against the person and to amend certain other acts in relation thereto or in consequence thereof, be amended in Clause 19 by striking out line 10 at page 11 and substituting the following therefor:
"246.3, evidence of sexual reputation, whether".


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


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, 1 think there is a problem here. Rather than 246.2 and 246.3 I think it should be 246.7. We agree with the change but it is not the correct number.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, in the wording given to members the 246.2 and 246.2 appears in French and 246.3 appears in the English. 1 think it should be 246.7. I think that correction would correspond to the amendment being proposed by the hon. member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer), which we are supporting.


Chris Speyer: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Does the House agree to the alteration?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 8 (Mr. Speyer) agreed to.
The House will proceed to Motion No. 9.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 9
That Bill C-127, an act to amend the Criminal Code in relation to sexual offences and other offences against the person and to amend certain other acts in relation thereto or in consequence thereof, be amended by adding immediately after line 13 at page 11 the following:
"246.8 A husband or wife may be charged with an offence under section
246.1, 246.2 or 246.3 in respect of his or her spouse whether or not the spouses
were living together at the time the activity that forms the subject matter of
the charge occurred."


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 9 (Mr. Robinson) (Burnaby) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11) the recorded division on the proposed motions that have been deferred will be taken.


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.

And the division bells having been rung:
Madam Speaker:: The first question is on Motion No. 1 standing in the name of the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson).


Madam Speaker:: 1 declare the motion defeated.
Motion No. 1 (Mr. Robinson (Burnaby)) negatived.


Madam Speaker:: The question is now on Motion No. 4 standing in the name of the hon. member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer).


Madam Speaker:: 1 declare the motion defeated.
Motion No. 4 (Mr. Speyer) negatived.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
Motion (Mr. Robinson) negatived.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: that Bill C-127, an Act to amend the Criminal Code in relation to sexual offences and other offences against the person and to amend certain other acts in relation thereto or in consequence thereof, as amended, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Madam Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Madam Speaker:: Pursuant to the order made earlier today, now.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: that Bill C-127 be read the third time and do pass.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Madam Speaker:: Pursuant to the provisions-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to make one thing clear. On third reading there was no division, and I think it would be fair to all Members of Parliament that it be recorded as a unanimous vote.


An hon. Member:: On division!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Oh, I am sorry, I did not hear you.


Madam Speaker:: On division.
[ Translation]
Pursuant to the order made on Tuesday, August 3, 1982, the House will now revert to Routine Proceedings.


MOTION RESPECTING SUMMER RECESS
Yvon Pinard: That, when the House adjourns on the day that this order is adopted, it shall stand adjourned until Wednesday, October 27, 1982. provided that at any time prior to that date, if it appears to the satisfaction of Madam Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time, Madam Speaker may give notice that she is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time; and
That, in the event of Madam Speaker's being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker, the Deputy Chairman of Committees or the Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees shall act in her stead for ail the purposes of this order.
August 4, 1982

He said: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to speak to the adjournment motion, and according to my information,
1 think we shall be able to-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize for interrupting the hon. minister, but I think he will agree it is for a good cause.

I would just like to say goodbye to our pages this evening and thank them in my name and in your name for having brightened the House of Commons with their usefulness and their fabulous motivation in their work.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: We hope they will enjoy their holidays which they have certainly deserved, and we apologize for having kept them in the House for such a large part of the summer. We wish them every success in whatever they decide to undertake next year and the years after, and who knows, maybe we will see them back as members of this House.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, without the slightest hesitation I want to join you in congratulating all those people who, through their work, have helped parliamentarians perform their duties during these past months. On behalf of the government, it is also a pleasure for me to point out the exceptional work done by House officials and by the pages and to congratulate them on their efforts.
1 would like to take this opportunity, Madam Speaker, to point out first of all, that the motion now being debated, although it received the unanimous consent of the three parties in this House yesterday, is a motion on which debate, as indicated in the order of the House, is to last at least until 10 p.m. this evening and if necessary, until not later than 10 p.m. tomorrow evening. From what I have been told just now, it does not seem likely that the debate will continue tomorrow- we shall see about that in a few minutes-and there is every indication that around 10 p.m. this evening, there is a very good chance that at last we shall be able to adjourn the House so that hon. members can perform another of their important duties, namely, meeting with constituents in their respective ridings, listening to what the people have to say and also explaining various policies.
Mr. Speaker, if we briefly analyse the work done by Parliament over the previous weeks, months and years, during this session-and we have almost reached day 400 in this session- I think we should consider two main aspects. First of all, how productive this first session of the Thirty-second Parliament has been. There are figures which speak for themselves, but there is also the spirit that pervaded the debate or lack of debate at certain times during this session. To get back to the practical results of this session, namely, what it has produced
Summer Recess
in terms of legislation, of measures adopted by Parliament and especially by the House of Commons, we soon realize that not only has this session broken a record as far as duration is concerned but more important, we have set a record in terms of the number of bills we were able to pass.
In fact, when we adjourn, and this will probably be a little later this evening, we shall have passed nearly 140 bills or measures since the beginning of the session, which is definitely a record, if we consider that during a normal one-year session, without elections, the average result is about 50 to 55 bills. So, we have passed about 140 pieces of legislation, which is over and above the average number I have just mentioned. There is also the nature of the legislation debated and passed by Parliament, and in that respect, I think the present session has been the most important session in Canada's history. I am thinking of the debate on the Constitution and the passage of the joint resolution that led to patriation of our Constitution and the adoption of a Canadian Charter of Human Rights, provided mechanisms for an amending formula, and enshrined the concept of equalization payments to remove regional disparity, in other words, the sharing concept which is the very foundation of Canada. We have had the debate on the Constitution, and this most important piece of legislation was passed during this first session, and I shall come back later to the spirit which was evidenced during this debate.
Another important measure was passed by Parliament during this session, namely the legislation related to our national energy policy. This was another significant initiative of the present government, and the national energy policy was the occasion of a debate that led to approval of the government program. There were, therefore, two major subjects which the government decided to examine during this first session and which concern two extremely important and highly significant issues for the future of our country, namely our Constitution and energy.
Finally, as far as significant legislation is concerned there was also a whole series of bills, about 140 as I have just noted, which covered a wide range of activities and programs to help our society and improve economic and social conditions in all the regions of Canada. Let me simply mention such important bills as those concerning the Bank Act, the Canada Post Corporation Act, the Freedom of Information Act, the Occupational Training Act, and I could list about 135 others. However I shall spare the House this long enumeration and simply say that this session has produced just about 140 pieces of legislation, the constitutional debate and the adoption of the resolution to patriate the Constitution, the Charter of Rights, approval of the national energy policy, three budgets, two statements on the economy and approval of four series of budgetary estimates covering four fiscal years. When we examine all these measures, we can only conclude that we have, in fact, set a record during this first session of the Thirty-second Parliament regarding the volume of legislation

August 4, 1982
Summer Recess
approved, particularly the significance of the legislation debated and approved by the members of this House.
However, what I find even more striking is not so much what we have done as the spirit that was evidenced during the debates that led to approval of these measures. To really understand what has happened, we have to put it in the right perspective. Hon. members will recall that this session began after two successive elections in less than a year and that, in April, 1980, at the very beginning of the session, we were left with a whole package of legislation, budgetary estimates that had not been approved in the two previous years and bills related to these budgets. In other words, we were left with an enormous financial burden. At the same time, with respect to the mental attitude or psychology of parliamentarians, the government had to face a frustrated opposition, embittered because of its defeat during the 1980 election.
I believe that it was only human for the official opposition to have a rather negative reaction, at least for the first few months, since they had been defeated after only nine months in power. It was only human that it allowed its frustration to influence its tactics or attitude and its style of opposition to government initiatives. What surprised me however, and I am still trying to understand this phenomenon fully, was that during the first few months, we approved over 30 bills before the summer of 1980, in about two and a half months. Therefore, at first glance, this frustration and bitterness did not seem to have affected the style and tactics of the Official Opposition. It was as though, and this seems to be the most plausible explanation, the Official Opposition were still under the shock or the impact of its defeat, were still reeling after this event which put it back in its place, namely on your left, Mr. Speaker, and this is perhaps why Parliament was able to pass about 30 bills very quickly during the first two or three months of the session. It was a bit later on that we noticed the true consequences of this defeat at the polls on the philosophy of the opposition, and this is unfortunate for Parliament, because while its tactics did not ultimately prevent Parliament from being very productive, they made the process rather painful and difficult, and offered, in my opinion, a rather unpleasant spectacle to the public who judge parliamentarians severely on both sides of the House and expect their representatives to have a much more serious and dignified attitude than has been the case until now.
As an example, let us take the state of mind or the spirit that was evidenced during the debate on the constitutional resolution. I admit this was an extremely important and controversial measure. If we make a chronological summary of this debate, Mr. Speaker, we see that it was the first major debate undertaken by Parliament two years ago, and it was to be expected that the opposition would react vigorously to our proposals, not because they were bad, quite the opposite, but because the opposition did not have its mind set on this type of
measure, did not have policies that could strengthen Canadian unity and was not particularly interested in the constitutional issue, patriation or a charter of rights. In other words, the Constitution was not a serious issue in the Progressive Conservative Party's program. As we know, the issue of national unity has never been of major concern to them, and this is probably why they are so used to sitting on your left, Mr. Speaker.
We introduced a very concrete proposal and expected a strong but constructive opposition. However, we were disappointed. What we got was more of an opposite to the process, a superficial opposition, an opposition on form rather than substance, because throughout the whole debate, the Progressive Conservative Party, the official opposition has never brought forth constructive proposals concerning the substance of our resolution, whether in relation to patriation or the Charter of rights itself. Instead, their proposals aimed at gaining more time, at postponing, and this gave other groups than the official opposition the opportunity to make a valid contribution to improve our resolution, and when I say others, I am thinking about the premiers and the Supreme Court of Canada. The Conservatives may say: "Yes, but our delaying action ultimately made it possible for the Supreme Court and the premiers to improve the resolution." Well, as far as 1 am concerned, that was sheer accident and the Official Opposition does not deserve any credit whatsoever, because it could not possibly predict that some improvement would be made and because the Official Opposition has always indeed refrained from proposing amendments or changes likely to improve the results of our constitutional endeavour and contribute directly to strengthening the country.
Mr. Speaker, what really happened in the constitutional fray is that, ultimately, the government got what it wanted. We now have a Canadian Constitution that was rejected by members of the Official Opposition. We have a Charter of Rights, we have enshrined the principle of the fight against regional disparities, we have a mechanism for the amending formula, and all that thanks to the initiative of this government and in spite of the superficial and impulsive opposition of the Progressive Conservative Party. Subsequently, we have had annual budgets with the related bills that came up for debate and, here again, everything went smoothly even though, in my opinion, we could have achieved the same results under more humane working conditions, with much less antiquated standing orders and in a more dignified manner for the people we represent here in Canada's Parliament.
The only other occasion when we witnessed that negative and destructive approach of the Official Opposition was quite recently, last spring in March, when we debated our national energy policy. There is the enigma, Mr. Speaker, the mystery which I mentioned earlier. Why is it that the Official Opposition did not react and co-operate at the beginning of the
August 4, 1982

session, during the first months of 1980? As a possible explanation, I suggested the fact that it may have been still under the shock of the election defeat. In appearance only, members opposite got a hold of themselves during the constitutional debate, but their approach was superficial. Then the peaceful climate was restored for a while and we were able to pass a number of bills. Finally, the most negative and destructive strategy, the childish and irresponsible bell-ringing incident which we all remember and which made it possible for the government to implement its national energy policy much faster than it could have done otherwise. But we could have managed without that incident, Mr. Speaker. It was an incident that I consider unfortunate and useless, the reaction of an undoubtedly frustrated party, and especially of an immature official opposition party.
Let us briefly go over the facts surrounding the bell-ringing incident and set them in their proper perspective. Hon. members will recall that the government had given notice and introduced an omnibus bill. It was not the first time that an omnibus bill had been introduced in the House. Even the Progressive Conservatives had introduced two omnibus bills in 1979 during their short stay in office, including one concerning Crown corporations with a schedule in which some 89 acts were amended. It was really a general issue that had to do with a substantial number of measures, and it was quite obvious that is was an omnibus bill. We came before the House with an energy bill that had many provisions. Mr. Speaker, never did the other House leaders make a single suggestion to me- and I ought to know-never did anyone from the Official Opposition approach me before the bell-ringing incident to negotiate how we might study the bill. But the Official Opposition opted for a different course of action-I was told to be honest, I am being honest and frank, and I challenge anyone to prove me wrong-the Official Opposition took a decision, and 1 refer to the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) who must be somewhere and who knows full well what happened: he rose on a point of order in an attempt to get a ruling from the Speaker of the House about splitting the bill. No luck. The bill was not split, so the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) moved the adjournment of the House, frustrated as he was by the decision of the Chair not to split the bill.
It is then that the bells began to ring and the Progressive Conservatives decided to let them ring. The government could not anticipate it. We did nothing to provoke that childish incident. As I said, it was no doubt an unpremeditated tactic because I would not dare say that the opposition acted in bad faith, it was an irresponsible and childish tactic that was used again on the spur of the moment to stall Parliament as the Official Opposition bogged down further in the mud which it was slinging onto the floor of the House of Commons.
The government, in the most parliamentary manner, without violating the basic principles of the House and Parliament, an
Summer Recess
institution which we deeply respect, tried to stop that ridiculous ringing of the bells and exercise its right to legislate on energy, which we finally managed to do but unfortunately only after 16 days. However we should not forget that after those 16 days, Mr. Speaker, we concluded an agreement and initiated negotiations, after that ridiculous ringing had come to an end, having undertaken to divide the bill which we would have readily done if it had only been suggested to us. By dividing the bill we obtained a reasonable parliamentary schedule and a time limit for the passage of all bills resulting from the splitting of the omnibus bill.
Finally, on June 10 last, following the bell-ringing incident in mid-March, within less than three months, the government got its entire National Energy Program adopted, which is much more quickly than it took the only energy legislation, the bill on oil and gas that was passed the previous year after being considered, as we all know, for 12 months. We then realized that, from a practical point of view, the policy of the official opposition was hardly reasonable. It is a reaction that can no doubt be explained by the frustration to which I referred earlier but also by a lack of maturity, since in the final analysis the government got its National Energy Program through without agreeing to amendments, because once again the oppositon's position was superficial. They lacked substance, they did not say: The bells will stop if you make such and such a change. No, that was too profound, too intellectual for the people opposite. It was rather a superficial and technical filibustering. We do not like that bill, we want eight. Divide it into eight parts and we will give you what you want in three weeks or three months. Had we known in advance, we would have done it without letting the bells ring, but they wanted to give the public the impression that they were paralysing Parliament and the timing seemed right because we were in a recession and at such times, governments are impopular. They abused the good faith of the public by trying to mix everything up and make believe Parliament could not operate due to the stupidity of the government. Everything went smoothly for the first week, Mr. Speaker, but they soon realized during the second week that public opinion would not tolerate an institution as important as the Canadian Parliament being abused in such a way. Accordingly, at the end of the second week, the Progressive Conservative Party had to give up on all points and allow this institution to resume its proceedings. Thus, the government finally obtained what it wanted much more quickly than expected but as the House Leader, I am sorry that the official opposition chose to rely on such a useless strategy under the circumstances. If only the opposition had raised the issue of the splitting up of the bill at the level of the House B.C. leaders before throwing that bomb on the floor of the House we would have surely come to an agreement and we would have, as in many other cases passed and calmly and constructively discussed a bill on the National Energy Program with hopefully a more serious and substantial contribution from the Official Opposition.

August 4, 1982
Summer Recess
Mr. Speaker, everything I have just said can be summarized and used to describe a certain type of opposition, that is, a superficial opposition, never interested in suggesting solutions or amendments, in improving policies, a reactionary opposition embittered by its defeat in the last election and, as a result, definitely irresponsible and infantile. Mr. Speaker, I have just heard my colleague the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) say "Ho, ho." He is right, and he will certainly recognize that to incapacitate this institution for 16 days, causing the bells to ring in the passageways ... at least, when he was his party's House leader, he had the good sense never to do that and I am sure that if he had had his way, he would have never had the indecency to start these bells ringing. And when he says "Ho, ho," I agree with him, unless he wants to contradict me, which I doubt.
Mr. Speaker, I say that this is a negative and infantile opposition, and it is unfortunate in the present circumstances, because Canada, a country with tremendous human and material resources, with diverse cultures and regions, is not spared by the economic crisis that is currently affecting all industrialized nations. At the same time, we know that as soon as we see signs of an economic recovery throughout the world, Canada, which has an economic base, will get back on its feet very rapidly bringing back prosperity to every region and every citizen in this country.
During these hard times, the Opposition should be eager to present its views in a constructive fashion without losing political ground. Unfortunately, that is not the case. And do not bring up the matter of the current polls because they do not reflect in any way what is going on in the House of Commons. They are only indications of a temporary discontent, caused by the recession, and they are found everywhere in the world: there is not a single government in the world today that has the support of the people because of economic problems and because of the recession.
But getting back to the sense of responsibility expected from hon. members of the House, 1 feel that the Opposition should have used every opportunity to deal with this legislation, to suggest amendments in an effort to improve it in order to really help people get over these difficult times and who did not deserve to have its legislative body incapacitated through tactics that were somewhat questionable, infantile and irresponsible. Under these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I regret this type of opposition, and 1 repeat that there is no cause and effect relationship between what has taken place in this House of Commons-in fact we were more productive than ever before in our past history-and the government's temporary loss in popularity. Quite the contrary, Mr. Speaker; it seems that over the past few weeks, Canadians have finally come to realize the true nature and value of this government and that they have had a change of heart which will make it possible for the government to keep on assuming its responsibilities to ensure their wellbeing, and that they will get back at the Opposition for its destructive attitude over the past few months. 1 think that in the long run, the effects of this negative
attitude will work against the opposition, and 1 am certain that those members of Parliament who supported the tactics aimed at incapacitating such a respectable institution as the Canadian Parliament, who boldly deprived our society of its essential and fundamental forum of expression, will pay dearly for their complicity in an action that was altogether uncalled for and that brought no practical gain to the official opposition.
During this session, the House considered three budgets, two economic statements, and passed spending estimates for four fiscal years. The National Energy Program was put in place; major revisions were made to the Bank Act; the national anthem was formally approved; the Canada Post Corporation was created, the Access to Information Act was passed and a huge legislative backlog was cleared up.
Major committee reports were received and special parliamentary task forces reported on alternative energy and oil substitution; the disabled and the handicapped; employment opportunities for the '80s, North-South relations; regulatory reform; a national trading corporation; implementation of the Helsinki Final Act; acid rain; federal-provincial fiscal arrangements; Canadian relations with Latin America and the Caribbean; the Armed Forces reserves; domestic air carrier policy; security and disarmament issues, and several other matters.
1 remain convinced that if on the one hand it is true to say that this session has established a record for length, almost 400 sitting days, on the other hand, as parliamentarians, at least on this side of the House, we must be proud to be able to say that it is the most productive session ever. It was able to adopt some 140 bills or government measures including private members' business. It was a session in which we were able to adopt the resolution on the Constitution; the national energy policy; three budgets; two economic statements and the estimates of four different fiscal years. All that put together makes me conclude that in fact if we compare this with previous sessions in the history of the country, it has been far and away the most productive ever.
If we take into consideration the importance of the measures that were debated we can say that it was a record session. The measures have an historic aspect that was most important. As a matter of fact, it was a record session for length, substance and production.
On the other hand, the spirit that animated the debate, or lack of debate for a while, during those two years, three months and a few days, has struck me more than anything else. The need for reform has become more and more obvious. That is why, a few months ago, the government decided to strike a special committee composed of 20 members from both sides of the House. They have started work and will look into changes that could render this institution more relevant and at the same time, we hope, more human and more modern.
August 4, 1982

I have great hopes for the report that will come from that committee. The way the terms of reference were granted by the House would allow its members who are now hearing witnesses and who will meet during the summer, who will look at previous reports on the subject on parliamentary reform, to come forward with interim reports, if it so desires, that could allow the institution to make experiments. 1 hope that in the short term we will be able to improve the appearance of the work that is done in this place.
Earlier I described the mood in the House. I described what I consider was the mentality of the official opposition, but trying to set aside partisan views, let me state that I think there is an urgency that the work done by the government and the work done by the opposition-which is hard work in any case-be better perceived by the citizens in all regions of Canada.
I believe that the committee on parliamentary reform will allow us, soon I hope, to be able to achieve that goal and to improve not only the image of parliamentarians in society but to improve the quality of the work we do and improve our capacity to serve Canada better.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that it was most encouraging on this side of the House to bank on unequalled team spirit. Despite the difficult times we experienced during this lengthy first session of the Thirty-second Parliament, government members managed to stick together and assume their responsibilities as parliamentarians. They are to be commended and they deserve my respect and appreciation for their continued support. I would be remiss as well if I did not take this opportunity to underline the constant contribution and exceptionally well done work of my parliamentary secretary, my hon. friend who is here tonight, and to emphasize the co-operation of the House leaders of both opposition parties, in spite of a few hitches along the way. Again, as I said earlier, the results are there, Mr. Speaker, the volume of work done is huge. The number of measures passed by this Parliament during this session is obvious, although this session was an historic one, of course, but what needs to be improved is the spirit of this House, the attitude of hon. members. One important factor that might contribute to raise the standards of debate and to command more respect for both the government's and the opposition's rights would be a little more maturity and seriousness on the part of the Official Opposition. Then we shall be able to improve the public image of this House. Again, I thank and congratulate the support staff of the House of Commons, all our Table officers, the pages and all those who enabled parliamentarians to do their job during the past two years and three months. Mr. Speaker, we are going to adjourn within a few hours, within an hour, it seems, and I wish to make it clear that it is quite exceptional for Parliament to sit this late.
Because of the current special economic conditions, a budget was brought down at the end of June, as we all know, which
Summer Recess
implied the urgent passage of at least two pieces of legislation, one authorizing the government to obtain the funds it needed to administer the country, and the other authorizing it to implement its anti-inflation policy and to limit salary increases in the civil service. Today we passed the latter, which explains why on this the 4th of August, 1982, we are still in Ottawa, in the House of Commons, debating and discussing. Usually, as we know, the House adjourns in early July to resume its activities around mid-October, a few days after Thanksgiving Day. This year, in view of the August 4 adjournment, we will resume the business of this session on October 27; the recess will thus be shorter by about two weeks than in previous years. Still, it will allow hon. members, once again, to play an important part of their role, that is, meeting their constituents in their respective ridings, listening to the people and also explaining government policies. I am convinced that we are not talking here of a two-month holiday, but rather of work that is different from that which we have been doing here for such a long period of time, as I have just explained.
Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss in my duty if I did not mention the warm relationship, from a personal and human point of view, which, despite the nature of our debates, existed between the various House leaders this year and last. More particularly, I must stress how deeply enriching and satisfying my contacts and discussions have been with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I feel that, throughout the months when we were called upon to negotiate together and plan the business of the House, the experience, the seasoned parliamentary spirit, the good will, the great human qualities of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre spared this institution on several occasions pitfalls that could have harmed the parliamentary spirit. In other words, I want to say publicly that throughout his career and, of course, especially while as government House leader I had to negotiate directly with him, the contribution of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre for the good of society and in particular the proper functioning of this parliamentary institution has been priceless. I want to take the opportunity, this evening, to express to the hon. member through his party leader-but I see the hon. member has just stepped back into the House-to pay special tribute to him, by expressing my everlasting friendship and admiration. I have the deepest admiration for the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I am happy to see him here this evening. I wish him the best possible health and the longest possible stay in this House of Commons until the next election.
While emphasizing the exceptional qualities of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), I do not want to minimize the good relations I have had and I still have with the other House leaders. Without going into details, I want to say again that communications and human relations are essential to the efficient operation of this institution, and I want to pay tribute to my two fellow House leaders, the member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) and the member

August 4, 1982
Summer Recess
for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). It has also been a pleasure to work with the member for Nepean Carleton (Mr. Baker) when he was House leader for the Conservative Party. It was with these four opposition Houses leaders that we, on this side of the House, had to compromise during this very long session to obtain the extraordinary results I mentioned earlier. 1 trust that in the future we will be able to improve the mood of the House, to improve the mentality that must prevail in a self-respecting institution and, in conclusion, I should mention that we build great hopes on the reports of the Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure. I believe that such hopes are realistic and I sincerely hope that these pressing changes will come true so that Parliament can become the most respected institution in Canada.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, may I say at the very outset that in spite of what the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) stated in his opening remarks here this evening, one thing is abundantly clear and that is that this country in every respect is in worse shape today than it was when this session started. It is in worse shape economically, and it is rather interesting to note that the minister failed even to acknowledge the state of the Canadian economy when he went through his litany of achievements. He said absolutely nothing about the economy. In terms of the attitude of Canadians, in terms of the negativism that exists in this country and in terms of the divisiveness, the cynicism, the lack of confidence, the frustration, the hopelessness, the despair, the alienation and the regional alienation that exists, there can be no question that we have slipped badly during the course of this session. No amount of rhetoric or justification from the President of the Privy Council will change my mind or the mind of many Canadians in this country about that.
I am not proud of this session, Mr. Speaker. It has been the longest and the most destructive session, clearly the most divisive session that we have ever experienced in our history. It has not been a good session for Canada and it has not been a good session for this institution.
My purpose in rising to speak tonight is to try to identify and review some of the offensive measures and initiatives which this government has taken to cause that. 1 want not only to identify and deal with some of those offensive issues but, more important, I want to seize upon this opportunity to implore this government, as it prepares for its fall legislative program, to change its course and to change its direction. It must stop the destructive lunacy that has characterized it over the past two years.
The course this government is following and has followed is not only idiotic but it is most dangerous. As a result of its policies and actions, this government is not only destroying important sectors of the Canadian economy, it is destroying the lives and fortunes of individual Canadians throughout this land. It is destroying a once vibrant entrepreneurial spirit that
epitomized Canadians from coast to coast, and a growing number of Canadians in all regions of Canada are giving up economically and politically.
As I said in my opening remarks, there is in this country tonight a feeling of hopelessness and despair. I submit to you, sir, and to all hon. members in this House that if this country is going to remain as a cohesive federal unit, then this government must stop attacking one region of the country while it accommodates another.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I want to speak tonight as genuinely and as sincerely as I possibly can. I plead with the government to stop and consider what it has done and what it is doing to the country and to Canadians. I urge it to change its course and to change direction, because individual Canadians throughout the country cannot stand by much longer and accept the abuse and the hurt which has been thrust upon them by this government.
In that context I want to speak briefly about the political situation in western Canada. I do not want to sound alarming or hysterical, but I want to signal a warning to the government and to all members of the House of Commons that the separatist forces in western Canada are not dead. The separatist movement is alive. It is working away. It is developing a platform. It is in the process of solving some of its internal problems. It should not be discounted or written off. Perhaps more important is the fact that the western separatist movement is attracting individuals, working men and women across the whole spectrum of society, farmers and ranchers, businessmen, and especially young entrepreneurs who felt that there was a real era of opportunity in western Canada. Many invested heavily, many became involved in business enterprises, and many have seen those businesses collapse and disappear simply with the stroke of a pen and a change of the rules, laws and regulations emanating from the government. There are doctors, lawyers, housewives, teachers, oil executives, managers, economists, professors, and even rodeo riders who are members of the western separatist movement.


An hon. Member:: They are a bunch of cowboys.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Yes, there are a few cowboys. They are fairly knowledgeable people too. I am surprised that that comment would emanate from a member of the New Democratic Party. I do not think there is anything wrong with being a cowboy.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Cowpersons.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: They provide Canadians with a worthy service and excellent beef which we all enjoy from time to time. Many of these individuals who have found a haven in the western separatist movement have never been involved in politics before or associated with political movements. I say that these people who are involved are not radical sensationalists looking for a short burst of attention. The majority of them
August 4, 1982

are concerned, rational and sincere, but most of all are angry about what is happening to Canada, particularly to western Canada.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: And they should be.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I think the movement was summed up rather well in a recent article which appeared in the Alberta Report on July 26. It was contained in a letter from the publisher entitled, "What the WCC does, matters; why it exists matters more." He pointed out:
The gathering of some six hundred people for the convention of the Western Canada Concept in Red Deer last week was as extraordinary as it was traditional. It was extraordinary for what it implied. Who could have imagined, say, 24 months ago that such a diverse throng could be assembled in the province of Alberta to declare that, under given conditions, they are ready to break up the country. It was extraordinary also in another way. The rank and file were far more impressive than the leadership. Here was no strident rabble or convocation of kooks. You met doctors, grain growers, lawyers, accountants, cattlemen, housewives, scientists, small businessmen, teachers, executives. It was this populism, of course, that echoed a great tradition. Here, no doubt, were the United Farmers of the twenties, or the first Social Crediters, or the founders of the western CCF, the grass roots of the west, issuing forth to damned well do something, nobody was one hundred per cent sure what.
What they in fact do may or may not matter, depending on whether they succeed. What does matter, and matters terribly, is why they were there at all. This is of great current concern to the provincial government and, as far as anyone can tell, of no concern whatever to the government at Ottawa.
It is timely to put this on the record as we near the end of this session and to signal to the government and to all Members of Parliament that this movement should clearly indicate to us that there is an unhealthy condition out there. The federal government should heed the warning, if it is really genuinely serious about national unity in the country.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: The three government members who are in the House now.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I want to say something else which I do not want to have misinterpreted. I say it with genuine sincerity. There is absolutely no question about my commitment and loyalty to this great country of Canada, but I have to say that it is becoming increasingly difficult to defend the federal cause when we have a government which has so viciously attacked and destroyed my part of Canada. In so doing it has weakened the very fabric of the nation. What is most disturbing is that the government is continuing along that same path and in that direction. They do not listen, they do not care.
This plays squarely into the hands of the separatist movement in western Canada. As a matter of fact, the actions of the government are really aiding and abetting the separatist movement. We have seen what has happened in Newfoundland and the recent decisions which have been taken with respect to Nova Scotia, such as the transferral of the naval reserve and the resource debate in Newfoundland. It is quite conceivable that easterners may soon feel the same sense of frustration and alienation.
Let us look at some examples of vicious policies which serve to destroy rather than to build. Let me look at them in the context of the fodder that they provide to the western separatist movement. The President of the Privy Council talked at great length and spoke very glowingly about the achievements in the passage of the National Energy Program. Let us review
Summer Recess
its objectives. It was to provide security. Well, we are less secure today than we were when the policy was announced. We are more reliant upon foreign oil. It was to provide opportunity. If hon. members go out west they will see what kind of opportunity was provided by the National Energy Program. It was to provide fairness. My gosh, we are paying retail prices at the pumps based upon world prices-and it is more than in the United States-while the wellhead price of oil from Alberta and Saskatchewan is roughly 55 to 60 per cent of the world price. Independent Canadian petroleum companies have been decimated by the National Energy Program. Instead of giving Canadian companies an advantage over their foreign competitors, they have been crippled by unreasonable rates of taxation to provide revenue for a government whose spending has gone out of control, not to mention high interest rates. Foreign companies have foreign incomes on which to survive. Canadian companies have folded and collapsed under the strains of high taxation and the high interest policies of the government. Where are these businesses located? The bulk of them are located in western Canada. The obsession with the accelerated Canadianization program and the thrust of nationalization has seen Petro-Canada grow from a mere window on the industry to a $6.6 billion company which is financed by a 4 cent per gallon surcharge at the expense of all Canadians. Gas is not any cheaper. The fact of the matter is that this country was Canadianizing the oil industry at a rate which our financial abilities could afford.
What happened during the National Energy Program? In the oil resource sector alone, some $9 billion of oil investment capital fled the country. Through this entire process not an additional barrel of oil has been produced. We are more reliant on foreign oil today than we were before. One billion dollars worth of equipment has left this country for the United States. Alsands, Cold Lake and Judy Creek projects have been cancelled. Twenty thousand identifiable jobs in the drilling and service sector of the oil industry have been lost. The government says this is due to world conditions. That is partly true, but what we need to do is examine the comparison between what happened in the United States and Canada over the year 1981. It is important to differentiate the policies of these two countries.
As we know, the National Energy Program imposed nationalization, higher production taxes and discriminatory taxes against foreign investors, and price controls. The Reagan administration took the other course by decontrolling prices, and adopting noninterventionist policies. These changes launched the two countries on two different courses. Investment was encouraged in the United States. Investment into Canada was discouraged.
What has happened? I refer to the Alberta Report of August 2, 1982. That report states that in 1981 the U.S. drilled 80,537 wells, up by almost 16,000. That is a 20 per cent increase. Canada's total in 1981 was 7,186 wells, down from a

August 4, 1982
Summer Recess
high of 9,188 in the previous year, which is an approximate 25 per cent reduction. Canada's drilling fleet decreased from 650 before the NEP to 450 afterward. What is worse, Mr. Speaker, is that most of the remaining rigs are preparing to leave for the United States, while 65 per cent of those which remain in Canada are inactive. Those are the figures from that report.
What are the estimates for the future? These are the estimates as provided by a recent survey by the Independent Petroleum Association of Canada. That is the Canadian oil industry. That association has estimated declines of 27 per cent this year, 33 per cent in 1983 and 41 per cent in 1984. This is with respect to exploration and drilling activity. Simultaneously, in the United States, drilling activity is projected to increase by 70 per cent this year and a further 88 per cent in 1983. There you have those estimates. 1 could go on to give further examples.
What we see happening in Canada as a result of this decline in drilling activity is sheriff sales, receivership sales, public auction sales and bankruptcy sales, one after the other. The papers in western Canada are full of these sales; close-out auctions, receivership auctions, gigantic farm auctions, and sheriff sales.


An hon. Member:: And U.S. buyers.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That is correct; U.S. buyers with a premium dollar.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Tell them about Lloydminster.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I have told them about Lloydminster. There was a large liquidation auction sale which came about as a result of two firms, which had a booming business three years ago, being forced into receivership and ultimate bankruptcy as a result of the National Energy Program. Some $3.5 million worth of equipment, including Cats, cranes, welders, trucks, tractors and trailers, sold for about 30 cents or 40 cents on the dollar, purchased by Americans with their premium dollars. And people wonder why there is no bitterness.
If the government wishes to talk about the world situation, let us see what is happening in Australia. There is an article in Canadian Business, February, 1982, with the heading "Waltzing with drill bits: The Search for Aussie Oil." It says:
Five years ago, Canadian exploration companies had scarcely considered Australia. Now, our major players down under are punching drill holes all over the map looking for major finds.
Why is that? The reason is that the climate and the policy are conducive to attracting that activity down there. I could go on to quote at length. Therefore, it is not only the result of a world situation. It is a fact that the climate is conducive toward exploration and development in some areas but this country's government has chosen to drive investment and oil research and development as well as other exploration activity away, as it has driven jobs and investment capital out of the country.
We can also consider other areas such as the petro-chemical industry. Here again, the discriminatory and unfair taxes
applied to ethane which is used for petro-chemicals has made our fuel stock non-competitive in the world market place. As a result, there are 15 projects in Alberta that have been postponed, cancelled or delayed indefinitely. These projects are worth some $8 billion. I did not bother translating what that means in terms of lost jobs and opportunities.
These conditions are again blamed on the world situation. What has occurred is that the government has failed to acknowledge that it has created the problems through Canadi-anization taxes, the petroleum gas and revenue tax, the increased prices and the anomalous tax on ethane, not to mention nationalization.
The petro-chemical collapse in Canada is not caused by a world problem. It is a made-in-Canada problem. This problem was created by this government and its vicious penchant for attacking western Canada, a region which stood on the threshold of greatness and opportunity. It is now being destroyed as a result of the deliberate policy aimed at destroying the economic future of western Canada.
Those words should not be considered in any partisan way. It is commonly accepted in western Canada, even by Liberals. I want to quote what a well-known member said about the federal government policies as they relate to western Canada. He was a distinguished member of the House of Commons and is still someone who is distinguished in economic affairs, farming and in the consulting field. His name is Hu Harries. I would like to quote what was said in the Edmonton Journal on August 1, 1982. The article states:
-former Edmonton Strathcona Liberal M.P. and economic consultant Hu Harries sees Canada's recession as being deliberately politically induced by the eastern Liberal establishment, which didn't want political or economic power to shift to the west and saw oil revenues as a way to subsidize federal economic mismanagement.
He is right on.


Gérald Laniel: He was brainwashed.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The hon. member opposite said that he was brainwashed. 1 think the hon. member had the privilege of serving with him-


Gérald Laniel: He was brainwashed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The hon. member who just interjected knows very well that Dr. Hu. Harries has a mind of his own. I should repeat his statement because it is very clear that it is a view which is shared by most western Canadians, including Liberals. My hon. friend who has visited my constituency should come out again to test the water.


Gérald Laniel: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. May I ask the hon. member a question? I want to know what the exminister of transport does to defend and promote Canadian unity instead of promoting division in this country.
August 4, 1982


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. The hon. member for Vegreville has the floor.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am doing that right now because this institution is a place where Members of Parliament have the opportunity to come and speak on behalf of their constituents and their regions. I have simply been laying before this House of Commons a signal and a warning that all is not well out there. I am sorry the hon. member was not in his seat when I started my remarks because I wanted to make it very clear to Your Honour and to other hon. members of the House where my loyalties and commitments lie. Having said that, one should never be ashamed of speaking his mind and telling it like it is. 1 have attempted to convey to hon. members not only my views and the views of people who have written widely in the west, who are business and community leaders, but, indeed, also the views of former Liberal members of parliament. I certainly did not put those words into Dr. Harries' mouth. He is a man of integrity and high principle.


An hon. Member:: He is not a socialist.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: He is not a socialist, that is right. He is a Canadian, and he is concerned about the vicious destruction which has taken place at the hands of the government as far as western Canada is concerned.
I can give another example of the treatment of our resources. It is rather interesting to see how, just recently under Bill C-108, the government conveniently used an amendment with regard to the National Energy Board to exempt electric power export licences from the borad new powers of the Board. This means that while oil and gas export permits are cancellable without warning by the National Energy Board, the same does not apply to electric power which is exported to the United States. It is precisely this kind of double standard, as contained in Bill C-108, which is creating dissension, division-


An hon. Member:: Corruption.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -and corruption, as the hon. member says. But it is certainly creating division and frustration as the result of the alienation which is aiding and abetting the separatist cause in western Canada.
We must put Canada first. Our energy resources, whether they be oil, gas, or coal power, are all the same. They are very precious and we need them. If we are to put Canada first- Mr. Speaker, would you ask the hon. member to either direct a question to me or to sit down and listen?


Gérald Laniel: I would like to ask the hon. member if he is not abusing the situation, as I could have when I came here 20 years ago and could not get a francophone to answer me at the door, or get French service in all departments, and saw Quebec forgotten on many issues, but I did not blame it on the west.
Summer Recess
What you are doing is against the east only, you know. Why do we not fight together for Canada?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I am very glad the hon. member asked that question because 1 certainly have no objections to the advances and progress made in Quebec, particularly the progress around here with respect to the furtherance of bilingualism and the francophone cause. I have absolutely no objection. 1 simply ask him to listen, because there are no Liberal members in the government from western Canada. This is our only opportunity to present our views.
I am speaking tonight as I would speak to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and to the whole cabinet. 1 am simply saying that there are some problems out there, and that they should listen and pay heed. They have an opportunity over the course of the summer to go out and examine, investigate and hopefully reconsider the destructive course they are on.
As I said when we were dealing with energy resources, if we are discussing a Canada policy, then that policy should apply to all energy resources in the same manner. There should not be a double standard. We take offence to that and it is part of the fodder which the western separatist cause is using.
What is unfortunate is that this deliberate anti-west policy has impacted very dramatically and negatively upon the industrial heartland of central Canada. With no drilling, no megaprojects, no exploration, there are no valves, cables, tools, machinery, pipe or steel being used.


Mr. McDermid:: Transportation companies are not shipping.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Let us consider what has happened to the transportation industry. One of the reasons we moved lots of grain this year is because there is nothing else to ship. It amazes me that the Liberal supporters in central Canada do not get their message through to their MPs. I have really remained convinced that Canada's economic-


Gérald Laniel: What is the position of the west on the Crow rate?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I really expected to complete my speech and listen to other hon. members. I listened very patiently to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard), 1 would be very pleased to listen to my good friend who is heckling me across the way. I respect him, but I wish he would just simply keep his cool for a while. He can certainly respond if he wishes, at a more appropriate time.
To return again to my remarks concerning the National Energy Program, I am convinced and will remain convinced that Canada's economic collapse began with the introduction of the program, and our economy will not recover until there are fundamental changes to that devastating program.
I referred to one example which has served to alienate and frustrate western Canada. 1 would like to refer to a couple of others. At the outset, one must say that while we spent an exorbitant amount of time dealing with the Constitution, the economy was faltering. Surely our preoccupation with the

August 4, 1982
Summer Recess
Constitution at a time when the economy was collapsing around us is clearly part and parcel of the problem we are facing today.
Dealing with the constitutional debate, the attitude of the government, with its coercive tactics, created bitterness and division in the country. It has certainly created anger and confrontation. I say to Your Honour that it will take a long time to heal the wounds. Rather than harmony and goodwill, there is mistrust and bitterness and division. We must simply recall what the Prime Minister intended to do when he brought in the constitutional package. He was going to make two or three different classes of provinces. Some were to have veto powers and others were not. The west was not to be treated with the same equality as the other provinces.
The emergency planning order was another example. Broad powers were delegated to respective ministers of the Crown and so-called emergency. It was unwieldy and frightening. The way in which 20 per cent of the VIA Rail passenger service was dismantled, and particularly the effect on western Canada and the tourist community of Jasper without any reference to Parliament, without any public hearings, unilaterally carried out by a stroke of the pen, is another example. Does one not think that that causes some alarm in western Canada? The hon. member referred to the Crow rate.


James Ross Fulton: I rise on a point of order. 1 do not mean to interrupt the hon. member, but I realize that there are other hon. members who want to speak and there are only ten minutes left.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I am sorry. The hon. member's microphone was not on when he spoke and I could not hear him, but perhaps the hon. member would repeat what he said.


James Ross Fulton: I was just pointing out, Mr. Speaker, for the clarification of the hon. member who is speaking, that it is traditional for hon. members on all sides to have an opportunity to speak, and I recognize there are only about ten minutes left in which to speak.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member for Vegreville has the floor.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the hon. member's point of order was all about. I have the floor and I will maintain the floor until my time is up.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, we have heard from the Liberal Party-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think it is time-


An hon. Member:: What about respect for Parliament minorities and all that?


James Ross Fulton: Tell us about goodwill and harmony?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, we have heard from the Liberal Party and I do not know why we have to hear from the Liberal rump, if that is the way they feel about it. I have respect for ths institution and I will abide by the rules. I have certainly not interrupted the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) or any other member of the party.


John Edward Broadbent: I have not had a chance to speak.


William James Kempling: He is never here.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Most members in this House know that I am a reasonable and moderate person.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I for one do not have to take any lessons from the NDP about behaviour in the House and what is considered to be fair and reasonable. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, this is a very important debate for some of us and-


An hon. Member:: Because we care for the west.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -and the NDP have had lots of opportunities to make their case in the course of the last couple of days and they will have lots of opportunities tomorrow. The fact of the matter is, it is really amazing, Mr. Speaker, that they did not move to interrupt the minister who spoke over 40 minutes-


An hon. Member:: He is their friend.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The move to change the statutory freight rate, the Crowsnest Pass freight rates-


An hon. Member:: We talked about that.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Yes, it has been quite a wild and hot debate, but what is very obvious about the debate that is going on out there is that there is a lot of mistrust associated with anything this government does. There is mistrust. Nobody out there trusts the government or believes in it.
We now have forced metric; they call that in western Canada the "Trudeau measurement." Here is something that really strikes at our basic heritage, acres, miles, the way in which our land was surveyed are all part and parcel of our lifestyle. Hectares and litres are a "no-no". Even in Ontario the farmers have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars as a result of their inability to mix their weed chemical; they got mixed up. They could not even phase it in with a dual process. It is forced metric. We now see the forced metric boys wanting to impose it on the cattle industry. Can you imagine selling beef by the kilogram? It is going to be an auctioneer's nightmare.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
August 4, 1982


Donald Frank Mazankowski: As The Financial Post of July 31 said, there has been no case made for metric, and 1 second that motion.
Let us look at another issue, that of Canagrex. If you look at where the support and the lack of support lies in this particular measure you will find that most farm organizations in western Canada, individuals and groups, are opposed to the concept of Canagrex because they believe it could very well become the Petro-Canada of agriculture. They call it an Ottawa food grab, and they contend that the powers to be granted are so sweeping it could become another Petro-Canada; all-pervasive and unstoppable. Lubor Zinc calls it "Agriculture Can"; Lubor Zinc calls it "food for the bureaucrats". It is rather strange that in the communist countries where this kind of philosophy is rampant, they cannot feed themselves; and we are heading in that direction. That is what is startling westerners. We do not want to see our food industry taken over by the bureaucrats and by government.
What about the western development fund? That cynical vanishing fund started out at $4 billion in 1980. Today some $200 million has been pledged. Mr. Olson from the other place was in Edmonton a couple of days ago and he said, "Well, we have only got $200 million committed, but three more budgets and three more years and we will have the $4 billion." So much for that.
At the same time we have bailouts in some regions and enterprises that have failed in other regions. We have seen a new chapter emerged after the June 28 budget. This past month we have witnessed another phase of this government's unfair and manipulative tactics, and many of us in this House recognize that the central focus of this government's economic development policy is for it to become deeply involved in the Canadian enterprise system, either directly through Crown corporations, or indirectly, and perhaps even more potently, through leverage, through manipulation, through sticks and carrots, through grants and subsidies, loan guarantees, letters of comfort and blatant political patronage in some cases. They have developed a philosophy of deciding who gets and who does not, who will be the loser and who will be the winner. When we are considering some of these examples, which smack of favouritism, political patronage and sweetheart deals, we have to look no further than the example of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray)-Mr. Amazing Gray-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing
Royal Assent
this House that the Senate has passed the following bill: Bill C-124. respecting compensation in the public sector of Canada, without amendment.

1 have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-126, an act to amend the Financial Administration Act (No. 2) without amendment.



ROYAL ASSENT

Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Rideau Hall Ottawa
Government House
August 4, 1982
Madam,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Antonio Lamer, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 4th day of August, 1982, at 10.00 o'clock, for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be.
Madam,
Your obedient servant,
Edmond Joly de Lotbiniere Administrative Secretary to the Governor General



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Madam Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the Chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Madam Speaker with the House went up to the Senate Chamber.
And being returned.
["I have the honour to inform the House that when the House attended the Senate Chamber the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give in Her Majesty's name the Royal Assent to the following bills:\nBill S-29, An Act to amend the Railway Act-Chapter No. 117.\nBill C-122, An Act to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act (No. 3).- Chapter No. 118.", "August 4, 1982\nRoyal Assent\nBill C-109, An Act to provide for payments to persons in respect of dwellings insulated with urea formaldehyde foam insulation.-Chapter No. 119.\nBill C-125, An Act to provide supplementary borrowing authority.-Chapter No. 120.\nBill C-92, An Act to amend the National Harbours Board Act, the Government Harbours and Piers Act, the Harbour Commissions Act, the Canada Shipping Act and the Fishing and Recreational Harbours Act.-Chapter No. 121.\nBill C-124, An Act respecting compensation in the public sector of Canada.- Chapter No. 122.\nBill C-126, An Act to amend the Financial Administration Act (No. 2).- Chapter No. 123.\nBill S-26, An Act to revive E.G. Klein Limited and to provide for its continuance under the Canada Business Corporations Act.\nBill S-27, An Act to amend the Act of incorporation of The Grand Lodge of the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks of the Dominion of Canada.\nPursuant to order made Tuesday, August 3, 1982, the motion before the House is deemed to have been adopted.\nThis House stands adjourned until Wednesday, October 27, 1982, at two o'clock in the afternoon, pursuant to Special Order.\nAt 10.11 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Special Order."]
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House attended the Senate Chamber the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give in Her Majesty's name the Royal Assent to the following bills:
Bill S-29, An Act to amend the Railway Act-Chapter No. 117.
Bill C-122, An Act to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act (No. 3).- Chapter No. 118.

August 4, 1982
Royal Assent
Bill C-109, An Act to provide for payments to persons in respect of dwellings insulated with urea formaldehyde foam insulation.-Chapter No. 119.
Bill C-125, An Act to provide supplementary borrowing authority.-Chapter No. 120.
Bill C-92, An Act to amend the National Harbours Board Act, the Government Harbours and Piers Act, the Harbour Commissions Act, the Canada Shipping Act and the Fishing and Recreational Harbours Act.-Chapter No. 121.
Bill C-124, An Act respecting compensation in the public sector of Canada.- Chapter No. 122.
Bill C-126, An Act to amend the Financial Administration Act (No. 2).- Chapter No. 123.
Bill S-26, An Act to revive E.G. Klein Limited and to provide for its continuance under the Canada Business Corporations Act.
Bill S-27, An Act to amend the Act of incorporation of The Grand Lodge of the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks of the Dominion of Canada.
Pursuant to order made Tuesday, August 3, 1982, the motion before the House is deemed to have been adopted.
This House stands adjourned until Wednesday, October 27, 1982, at two o'clock in the afternoon, pursuant to Special Order.
At 10.11 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Special Order.