1982-06-22

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, as the Liberal recession continues to put more and more Canadians out of work, the unemployment insurance fund is running dangerously low. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor):
That the Minister of Employment and Immigration table the latest figures showing the extent of this depletion and advise the House of how much he plans to increase unemployment insurance premiums to make up the shortfall.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ESTIMATES
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, last evening the government clearly indicated to the country that it has no intention of cutting back on government expense. The opposition stuck its neck out and was prepared to eliminate programs totalling nearly $1.5 billion, yet the government blindly has decided to spend its way into national bankruptcy. 1 therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid):
That this House condemns the government and the members of the Liberal Party who blindly voted to maintain programs of government expense that are no longer essential in this time of economic depression.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADA LABOUR CODE
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, in light of the 1,000 deaths, 20,000 disabling injuries, and 15,000 fatal cancer-causing incidents occurring each year in the Canadian workplace, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Win-nipeg-St. James (Mr. Keeper):
That this Liberal government stop stalling on promises made two years ago, and that the Minister of Labour introduce changes to Part IV of the Canada Labour Code, accepting the recommendations of the NDP task force entitled "Graveyard Shifts, Life and Death on the Job in Canada" released yesterday, and use that as a basis for government action to save the health and lives of Canadian workers.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CHURCHILL-MEASURES TO IMPROVE UTILIZATION-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Madam Speaker, whereas the government has never given serious thought to the proper utilization of the Port of Churchill, I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer):
That the Minister of Transport discuss the potential of Churchill with the responsible ministers from the three prairie provinces; consider the construction of ships with icebreaking capability for use on the Hudson Bay Route which would have the effect of not only lengthening the shipping season but of acting as a stimulant for our shipbuilding industry; and further discuss with the Minister of Defence the possibility of manning the icebreakers with naval personnel from the Canadian Armed Forces.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

June 22, 1982


CANADA DAY CELEBRATIONS
[Stage Direction]
I:
.* vi

Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of pressing necessity for the small retail food store owners of Canada. At yesterday's emergency meeting for some of the members of the working group on scales, the wishes of the small independent food retailers were overridden by a selfinterested group of government and metric scale company employees. This meeting was no more than a setup to lend false justification to the government's policy. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor):
That the government finally give at least one part of the small business community in Canada a break and allow some of them to be exempt from these ridiculous regulations-passed by order in council-which force them to buy expensive new metric weigh scales at a time when hundreds of them are staring bankruptcy in the face and are being forced to close their doors.
It should be noted that our national electronic and newspaper networks announced the heir apparent to the Canadian throne in our conventional Canadian form of weights and measures as a strapping, healthy, bouncing boy of seven pounds one and a half ounces.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In light of today's announced increases in the consumer price index, notably the increase in food costs, I move, seconded by the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish):
That this House recognizes that the increase in the CPI has been 47 per cent in the period 1977 to 1981 and is cognizant that farm costs have risen much faster than the CPI during that period-notably, fuel costs up 85 per cent; fertilizer costs up 70 per cent; tractor costs up 65 per cent; pesticide costs up 50 per cent- and urges that the government forgo the proposed July 1 increase in the energy agreement of $2.25 a barrel, of seven cents per gallon, which becomes effective September 1.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam
Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Once again the Liberal government's priorities are going up in smoke. The city of Yellowknife has been told to take $83,000 for daylight fireworks or get nothing for the Dominion Day celebrations even though it requested that the money be used for desperately needed health services. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges):
That this House demands that the government see daylight by eliminating the wasteful and frivolous expenditures on badges, balloons and fireworks and redirect these funds to other areas in desperate need of additional support such as the bankrupt farmers and the unemployed, and that Yellowknife be commended for taking a practical and common sense stand on this explosive issue.


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


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In that the federal government has allocated $270,000 for the Province of Alberta to celebrate Dominion Day at a time when a large number of young married couples are having a hard time buying groceries, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger):
That the $270,000 be used for the more practical purpose of assisting in some positive way the people who are unemployed, declaring bankruptcy, and are having difficulties putting groceries on the table for their families.


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


ESTIMATES
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that a vote was taken last night on funding for the


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


DOMINION DAY
Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
June 22, 1982

Medical Research Council, with 176 in favour and 68 opposed, and in light of the fact that the objectives of the Council are to expand the scientific and technological base for health care and to provide a research base for health services across Canada, and since 68 Conservatives voted against funding for scientific medical research into health care, while some 20 Conservatives found their party policy so stupid they did not vote for or against the funding, and some seven other Tories were so disgusted with their neanderthal party policy that they voted for health care, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie):
That the people of Canada be informed that a Conservative government would destroy medicare more quickly than the Liberals, and by terminating funds for medical research would be opting for the long sought Tory policy of free enterprise medical research-where research is done only on diseases that affect the wealthy.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The fiscal programs of this federal Liberal government are disastrous failures. This government wrestles inflation, and inflation goes up and up; it presents a budget, and farm and business bankruptcies double; it bolsters the dollar, and the dollar sinks lower and lower; it talks about new jobs, and unemployment soars; and it argues at Versailles against high interest rates, and then increases the interest rates in Canada. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil):
That this House requests the Governor General to call an election because this government has lost all credibility, and heaven help Canada if we have to put up with this administration for another three years.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EDUCATION
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Cutbacks in the American education budget could affect
Oral Questions
hundreds of Canadian deaf students who are now planning to study in the U.S.A. because no university facilities exist for them in Canada. Gallaudet College in Washington, D.C., the world's only liberal arts college for the deaf, is under pressure from the U.S. government to stop accepting deaf Canadian students. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis):
That this House urges the federal and provincial governments to co-operate in offsetting the lack of opportunities for such students as may be prevented from attending Gallaudet College, and further co-operate in the setting up of various community college and post-secondary programs for the hearing impaired in Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Given the fact that another prominent Liberal in British Columbia, Senator George van Roggen, has now condemned the Prime Minister for moving the Liberal Party too far to the left and for his inability to understand the aspirations and concerns of western Canadians, adding to a long list including former MPs Jack Davis, Ron Basford, Art Phillips, and Liberal guru, Gordon Gibson, as well as B.C. Liberal leader, Shirley McLoughlin, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser):
That the Prime Minister admit that the Liberal Party of central Canada has absolutely nothing in common with Liberals in B.C. who are little more than closet Progressive Conservatives.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker,
in the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate

June 22, 1982
Oral Questions
Affairs, which I find typical, yet weird, on a day that the consumer price index has taken a sharp increase, I will direct my question to the Minister of Finance. Today's consumer price index confirms that nothing is working and that the government has done the impossible. Interest rates are up, unemployment is up, bankruptcies are up, and now the cost of living is going up again. Since today's figures show the complete bankruptcy of the government's anti-inflation policy, what hope will the Minister of Finance be able to give consumers of Canada in terms of getting out of this horrible inflationary spiral?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows, yesterday we had a very full day's debate on the economic situation. 1 participated in that debate and gave my views on the situation and what had to be done in order to bring about changes in the very worrying high inflation which still continues in Canada. I am certainly disappointed that the decline we have experienced for some months in the CPI has reversed itself and that this month shows an increase. Even though it is primarily due to increased food prices and due to changes in provincial retail sales taxes, it is still a matter of concern to me and to all members of the government.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Madam Speaker, I will read the minister's speech again in Hansard, but I do not know what hope he offered to the average supermarket shopper. The minister and any supermarket shopper will know that high food costs, especially of imported goods, account for the largest increases in today's figures. The lower the Canadian dollar continues to fall, the higher the consumer price index will rise in the next year.


RATE OF INFLATION
Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Madam Speaker, I want to ask the minister, whose government spends so much time criticizing the American administration, why it is that they are getting their inflation rate down to around 6 per cent while our inflation rate is going up, and we are now at twice the level of U.S. inflation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, 1 have had occasion to refer to the good performance in the United States in bringing down inflation, but I notice today that that trend has also been reversed in the United States. There has been a one per cent increase, month to month in the rate of inflation there which, on an annualized basis, would be 12 per cent.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: During the first five months of this year the American inflation rate was four points lower than ours has been. That was a monthly estimate, and they estimate that by the end of the year their inflation rate will be down to around 5 per cent. That gives American consumers some hope.


BANKRUPTCIES
Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Madam Speaker, now that we have the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in his place, I should like to deal with an area of his responsibility, the bankruptcy branch of Corporate Affairs. In view of the startling statistics that there have been 11,429 personal bankruptcies between January and May of this year, meaning personal tragedy for many Canadians, and that the government's economic policies are destroying families, what help, hope, or specific policies can the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs give these people? Does he have any specific policies in mind which he is recommending to his colleagues in cabinet?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I am a little surprised that the hon. member should ask me what my department intends to do to help Canadians who are having financial problems, since it is a fact that for months we have been trying to get a bill through the House that will facilitate the settlement of such problems. The hon. member certainly cannot expect my department to provide macroeconomic solutions, but it is clear that if, through legislation, we can facilitate financial settlements between a person and his creditors, we couid most certainly adopt this bill to amend the Bankruptcy Act, which has been eagerly awaited not only by financial institutions and consumer associations but also by the provinces, who have asked the Canadian government to pass this legislation so that they can set up their own provincial system. I trust the hon. member will discuss the matter with his colleagues so that we will be able to pass this bankruptcy legislation as soon as possible.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs knows that we have agreed to one more speaker on that bill, if he would bring the bill forward and complete the amendments on which he agreed with us in committee.


THE ECONOMY
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The minister will know that his colleague, the Minister of State for Economic Development, stated in Banff that Canadians have never had it so good. Does the minister agree with that view, particularly in light of today's statistics where we now have an 11.8 per cent inflation rate and where it looks
June 22, 1982

like we will have an 8 per cent drop in productivity in Canada, when we have 10.3 per cent of the people declared to be unemployed-really more, in fact-and when our banana dollar is selling for 76.86 cents? Does the minister agree with the view that Canadians have never had it so good?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I have not looked at the statement alleged to have been made by my colleague. However, my appreciation of the situation in the country was set out yesterday afternoon in some detail. I certainly described the situation which presently exists in the Canadian economy as being a very serious one. That is my view, that is serious. As I pointed out, we are undergoing a very difficult situation, largely caused by the world recession and high interest rates in the United States but also being inflamed in this country by persistently high inflation rates. That is my assessment of the situation at the present time.


COST OF GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, one of the major problems we have is the massive amount of the deficit, now projected at $17 billion, perhaps $18 billion. Last evening the government did not go along with the efforts of this party and of almost all of the opposition with respect to eliminating $1.5 billion, approximately, in government programs.
The Minister of Finance knows that there are a great number of priorities for the country which are not perhaps priorities today. Is it the minister's view that all of the matters that were suggested by the opposition as unnecessary in today's economic recession are, in fact, necessary as far as the government is concerned?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, last night we did have a series of votes and I must say that I was astonished at some of the proposals that were put forward by the opposition which, if accepted, would have caused serious disruption in the economic and social life of the country.


QUERY RESPECTING GOVERNMENT INTENTIONS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. For over a year the minister and his cabinet colleagues have been trying to convince the people of Canada that high interest rates were necessary to bring down the cost of living. Not even his backbenchers in the Liberal party believe that any more. Does the Government of Canada have one specific new idea today that will enable Canadians to cope better with increasing prices?
Oral Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Madam Speaker. There are certainly quite a number of new ideas.


John Edward Broadbent: That answer was at least succinct. It might have been a little helpful if the minister had told the people of Canada what he has in mind.


COST OF OIL-ANNOUNCEMENT OF BUDGET PRESENTATION ON JUNE 28
John Edward Broadbent: 1 will try to get some specifics from the minister. The people of Canada do not need to have today's figures to know that for home owners, mortgage prices on the one hand, and energy prices on the other for those Canadians who drive a car, as most do, were the two principal reasons why the cost of living went up year over year. Both of these items, mortgages and energy prices, are the direct responsibility of the government. Considering that next Thursday Canadians will be faced with another 7 cents a gallon increase in the cost of oil, will the government just once come down on the side of the consumer, and go to the producing provinces to try to negotiate a complete elimination or at least a postponement of that 7-cents a gallon increase?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has asked me to tell him what I have in mind. I want to inform him that on Monday evening next I will be telling the House of Commons what the government has in mind. That will be next Monday evening. I intend to cast my statement in the form of a budget speech.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, all I can say to that, on behalf of 20 million plus Canadians, is we hope to God it is a lot better than the last one.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT FOCUS ON CREATION OF JOBS
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, will the minister assure us that at least, in the budget we are looking forward to, its central focus will be the creation of new jobs for the thousands of men and women in this country who would rather be working instead of collecting unemployment insurance?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, 1 think 1 ought to answer the second last question by telling the hon. member that the price increase he has mentioned does not come into effect until next September rather than July, as he suggested. That is the fact.

June 22, 1982
Oral Questions


John Edward Broadbent: It is at the wellhead next Thursday.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I wish the hon. member would listen to the answer. I want him to understand the economic situation here in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FINANCE
Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. I would tell him that after six retreats from the previous budget, and some 28 changes, we on this side welcome the budget the minister will be bringing forward on Monday night. Will the minister be withdrawing any more of the provisions of the last budget?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member will have to wait and see.


THE ECONOMY
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, the minister will know that the government has been fighting inflation, which is what we have heard about today, with high unemployment and high interest rates. The 1982 deficit in the United States is $100 billion. The 1982 deficit in Canada is $17 billion. Our deficit per capita is 60 per cent higher than the deficit per capita in the United States. How does the minister expect to get interest rates down to a reasonable rate for Canadians?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I think 1 attempted to explain in some detail my attitude and view as to the cause of very high interest rates in Canada. I believe that it is commonly understood and accepted that short-term interest rates in many countries of the world are higher than they would otherwise be in the absence of the current very high interest rates in the United States. But I also went on to say in my statement, and the hon. member will readily understand this, that we must make further progress in bringing down the rate of inflation in this country. 1 hope to be able to address these problems in more detail and possibly convince and satisfy the hon. member next Monday night. I recommend that he come in early and have a good seat.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


HOUSING
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for housing. The minister will know, of course, that as a result of the increase in the prime rate last week, mortgages are now hovering around 20 per cent. Does the minister have any new advice or proposals to submit to his colleague, the Minister of Finance, which will provide some measure of relief to the half million Canadians who are facing mortgage renewals between June and October of this year?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, I do not think the hon. member was present last evening when I spoke on the motion moved by the opposition party. I indicated that the initiatives taken in the last budget by the Minister of Finance, such as the Canada Rental Supply Plan and the Canada Mortgage Renewal Plan, set $350 million aside. Those programs have received only modest response from the public, but it is my feeling that the public may well not be aware of the provisions under those plans. 1 encourage the hon. member asking the question to assist the government, himself and his constituents, by making those plans readily known and available to his own constituents.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam
Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Veterans are not receiving the same financial benefits as average Canadians. They may only claim $100 for eligible interest deductibility, whereas other Canadians may claim $1,000. Will the Minister of Finance make the necessary changes to the tax laws to allow veterans the extra $900 worth of deductibility to which they are entitled, and remedy this obvious inequity?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I will certainly consider the hon. member's representations. Following the budget of November 12 there was some misunderstanding that certain groups might be adversely affected on the $1,000 deductible provision. At that time the veterans were mentioned. I had assured concerned persons at the time that they would not be affected, but I will further consider the hon. member's representations to see whether there is any continuing confusion at this point.


QUERY RESPECTING LEGISLATIVE CHANGES
A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam
Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. The minister knows that most legisla-
June 22, 1982

tive changes in his department take about ten years to develop, while veterans wait. Will the minister use every means at his disposal to persuade his colleague, the Minister of Finance, of the immediate need for this legislative change? What efforts has the minister made to date?


Hon. W. Bennett Campbell (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Madam Speaker, first of all I do not accept the premise of the hon. member's question that it takes ten years to introduce legislative changes as they affect the veterans. I think the hon. member is quite aware that all hon. members of this House have been very co-operative in terms of responding to legislative changes. I can tell him, in response to his proposal that the interest deductibility provision be considered, that it is under active consideration right at the moment.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State, in the absence of the Minister of Supply and Services. It concerns a very recently awarded contract for $430,000 to put on fireworks displays in 16 cities on July 1. Ampleman Pyrotechnie of Montreal, a small firm, underbid the winning firm this year. It did half of the job last year in half of the cities. It received its invitation to tender documents in the English language only, although the principals of the firm are French-speaking. Would the minister tell us why the contract was awarded to Hands Fireworks this year, and why the bidding practices were substantially changed on a matter of importance?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Secretary of State):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I am afraid I am not able to give him full information on it today. 1 will take notice in the absence of the minister. I may say to him that my preliminary understanding, in the short period of time since last evening when I first heard of the situation, is to the effect that the person in question did not bid on the entire contract, but, rather, only on portions of it. However, I would appreciate the opportunity of inquiring further into the matter and giving a fuller answer, either through the Minister of Supply and Services or myself.


REQUEST THAT CONTRACT BE SPLIT
David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, the contract was divided last year, as the minister will find. Mr. Cardinal was given four days in which to tender this year. The contract is of prime importance to the survival of his business, I gather. Is the minister prepared to look into the matter? If he finds that the bidding practices were substantially changed, is he prepared to divide the contract again between now and July 1 so that Mr. Cardinal's firm can survive in this manner?
Oral Questions


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, we are certainly prepared to look into the matter thoroughly to be assured that fair and equitable practice was followed. On behalf of the Minister of Supply and Services I will certainly undertake to report to the hon. member on the matter.


HOUSING
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, my question, which is directed to the minister responsible for housing, specifically deals with AHOP homes, and primarily with a Hamilton area subdivision, though it has application across the country. Last year, when interest rates rose so substantially, the minister agreed to defer the $5,000 grant repayment for a year, and has subsequently decided that repayment should now be commenced at an interest rate level of 18 per cent. I ask the minister, given the fact that interest rates have once again risen to 20 per cent, and the same kinds of situations that prevailed a year ago prevail today, in fact, might even be worse, would the minister consider extending the $5,000 grant provision for four more years without any change, to allow those people the opportunity to keep their homes so that they can have decent places for their families to live?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, one of the first matters that came to my attention upon taking office in 1980 as the minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation was, in fact, the AHOP program. As members know, that was a plan that provided preferred incentives to house purchasers for the first five years of occupancy of homes. In 1980, because of the difficulties with the program, its benefits and plans were extended for 12 months. I indicated that, if the situation did not improve, it would be reviewed. Indeed, it was reviewed and extended last year, in 1981. I can say to the hon. gentleman asking the question, the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain, that a review of that program by the government is under way and will take his representations into account.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER COMMUNICATE WITH HOME OWNERS
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, would it be too much to ask the minister if he would correspond with all of the people who have been given 30 days in which to choose how they will commence their repayments, and assure them that, since the government is reviewing the program and giving consideration to extending the period for repayment, they need not respond to the letters they have received and that some further communication will be forthcoming?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, yes, I can give the assurance to the hon. member that

June 22, 1982
Oral Questions
I will communicate in writing with the occupants of the homes he has described. Over the last 12 months 1 have written to approximately 15,000 Canadians and 1 will certainly continue that practice.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In February, 1980, when the present government and the present Minister of Finance took office, the unemployment level in Canada was
949,000.	Today it is 1,250,000. That is 300,000 extra workers, with families to support, who are out of work. Will the Minister of Finance, with his policy, accept responsibility for the additional 300,000 Canadians out of work today as compared with the time when he took office?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Madam Speaker, because the hon. member has referred back to 1980. From that date, unemployment in Canada gradually decreased until a year ago. Until last August unemployment in this country was at the lowest level it had been at in five years. When we had that very strong performance of the economy, I did not hear the hon. member paying us any compliments for that strong performance. The fact of the matter is that, in common with other countries, we have slipped into a recession, and that is the cause of the problems at the present time. It is not the policies of the Government of Canada. The policies of the Government of Canada are directed with the thought in mind of reducing unemployment as much as possible.


STANDARD OF LIVING
Gary Michael Gurbin: My supplementary, Madam Speaker, is also to the Minister of Finance. If the Minister of Finance would check the record, he would know that on many occasions he has taken the credit for reductions in unemployment through his economic programs. He now fails to take the responsibility for the increase in unemployment with the same programs.
Madam Speaker, high interest rates are the most significant factor facing business, agriculture, and prospective home owners in Canada. If there are not major economic changes, the crisis we are facing will turn into a panic. The minister repeatedly tells us that he is the victim of international circumstances. I would like to ask the Minister of Finance, if that is the case, why since 1968, when Canadians enjoyed the third highest standard of living in the world, we have now slipped to thirteenth under his programs?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, it is not necesary to
answer that question because the allegation in the question is unfounded and untrue.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In a speech prepared for him and delivered in Toronto on his behalf before the auto parts manufacturers, it was stated that the Volkswagen agreement, with respect to Canadian content added, was the harbinger of things to come in the automobile industry. In the light of present circumstances, and in the light of the comments made by the Prime Minister of Japan, has the minister backed off from that position, or does he still take the Canadian content added as a thing to come?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, we still look to increase Canadian content in imported cars sold in this country, and that is a very important objective. I repeat, as I said in my speech to the auto parts manufacturers, which was given on my behalf by my parliamentary secretary, that the agreement with Volkswagen is a very good model for Canadians, and for countries wishing to sell cars into our market.


CONSEQUENCES OF GOVERNMENT POLICY
Joseph Lloyd Reid: Madam Speaker, the minister has pointed out that he still looks to and accepts this as the model. In the light of the comments made by other representatives in his cabinet in this House, when does he expect to have some fruit fall from that production and that position being taken by the minister himself?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, we are working actively on a number of possibilities. I look forward to progress and hope to have announcements in the coming months. It will be a lot easier to ensure that progress, if the questions and comments by all my hon. friends' colleagues on that side of the House would not give aid and comfort to those who do not want us to achieve these objectives.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Pierre Gimaiel (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Madam Speaker, my
question is directed to the Minister of State for Small Busi-
June 22, 1982

nesses and Tourism. According to an article that appeared in Monday's edition of the newspaper La Presse, the Quebec Minister of Industry, Tourism and Trade stated that small-and medium-sized business in Quebec were at the bottom of the scale, as far as assistance through federal export development programs was concerned. Could the minister inform us whether that is the case, and if so why, and if not, why do we have this statement by his Quebec counterpart, who, although he has thirteen corporations to think about, might have found the time to promote the Quebec private sector a little more?


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Madam Speaker, 1 want to thank the hon. member for his question. I read the article which appeared in yesterday's La Presse, and I was rather surprised at what it said. This is probably, and unfortunately, just one more case of Quebec government members not having the slightest idea of what they are talking about. After reading the article, I checked the facts, and 1 found, for instance, that under the export development assistance program, in 1980-81, Quebec received 34 per cent of all the grants in this area, and a little over 26 per cent in 1981-82. In the case of projects financed by the Export Development Corporation, Madam Speaker, in 1981-82, Quebec is receiving over 36 per cent of the Corporation's expenditures on this type of financing. Consequently, I think my colleague, the Quebec Minister of Industry and Trade, should have done his homework first.


FINANCE
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The minister today has made quite an incredible admission. He has effectively withdrawn his November budget, without that budget even being laid before the House in the form of legislation. I believe that is the first time that has ever happened, that a budget has died on the Order Paper like that. Will there be a new Ways and Means motion? Will the minister be withdrawing, in effect, his total budget of November 12, and be superseding that with a totally new set of policies to fight inflation, to increase employment, and to stabilize the Canadian dollar?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member's history is quite incorrect. He told the House last week that he had spent his life in the marketplace, and knew a lot about it. I could never say that, but I have spent most of my life in the House of Commons. I know from my experience that what the hon. member has said about tax legislation and budgets is quite incorrect. He ought to check up on his facts.
Oral Questions


NATURE OF WAYS AND MEANS MOTION
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, the minister has not answered the question I put to him. It is a question of great importance to Canadians who have been labouring under the measures that he put before the House last November. Will there be a totally new Ways and Means motion that supersedes the budget proposals put forward in November of last year? Will this be a total withdrawal? Will it be a new set of directions for the country that he is going to propose to the Canadian people on Monday night next?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, as I told his colleague a moment ago, I think the hon. member will have to wait until Monday night and hear what will be said on that occasion.


QUERY RESPECTING STATUS OF 1981 BUDGET
Hon. Bill Jarvis (Perth):: Madam Speaker, it is the same minister who brought havoc to this country on November 12 last, robbed people of their jobs in my riding and in the ridings of all his colleagues, and who has compounded it by having seven months of uncertainty, with 28 changes. The people of this country do not have to put up with six more days of uncertainty. Is that November 12 budget dead? Has it reached the death it so richly deserved? Is it now in the ash can where it should have been in the first place? That is the question.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Durham-Northumb-erland.


EXTENT OF BUDGET DEBATE
Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Finance. Will the Minister of Finance guarantee that the government will not attempt to close down this House at least until we have a full opportunity of seeing all the details of the budget and having a full debate in regard to resolutions and budget bills, before it attempts to gag us and trot us out of here for the summer?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member should direct his question to the President of the Privy Council. My experience has been that it is not the goverment that has the last word in closing the House; it is usually the opposition.


PRESENTATION OF LEGISLATION
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, with the unprecedented new budget coming within seven months of the old one at a time when we have not even seen some of the budget resolutions from the old budget, can we have a guarantee that at least with the new budget we will have those resolutions and budget bills within a matter of a

June 22, 1982
Oral Questions
few days after the presentation of this much needed new budget on Monday night?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I will do my very best to accommodate the hon. member.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, I had a question for the Prime Minister but, in his absence, I will put it to the Minister of Finance. As a result of the Prime Minister's trip to western Canada last weekend, I should like to put a question to Find out what he learned.
There have been a number of lay-offs, shutdowns, bankruptcies and closures in western Canada, including the Cominco Smelter at Trail and Kimberley Mines with 6,300 lay-offs; one quarter of the 12,800 forestry workers in B.C. laid off; in Alberta over 50,000 people laid off; in the Yukon 250 people laid off at Whitehorse Copper; Ipsco in Regina has laid off hundreds, and there have been cutbacks, lay-offs and shutdowns in every northern Manitoba community. I recognize that the list is too long to allow me to go on, Madam Speaker. May I ask the Minister of Finance if the Prime Minister learned anything as a result of his trip?


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Churchill on a supplementary.


FINANCE
Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, 1 presume the answer to my previous question is no.
During that same trip the Prime Minister complained about the conservatives in the Liberal Party. Perhaps he was talking about the federal cabinet. Will the Minister of Finance assure the country that this grandson of the November budget will not be another Conservative budget in drag, but that it will actually do something to produce housing starts and lower interest rates in this country?


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for York-Peel.


THE ECONOMY
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Finance. As the minister has been contemplating his budget, Mark II or III, could he inform the House, after reflection, to what extent he believes government spending and ballooning deficits have
contributed to inflation, high interest rates, and the general economic decline in our country?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is asking me to give an opinion on matters upon which he ought to be able to make up his own mind. If he wants to ask a question with respect to government policy I would be pleased to answer him, but I believe his question really is in the world of opinion in which he is as expert as I am.


EFFECT OF NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance again if he would give us the benefit of his reflections at the present time. If he likes to say it is government policy, so be it. Has he come to any conclusion about the extent to which the National Energy Program and energy pricing have contributed to some of the economic malaise in this country, in particular the state of the oil and gas industry, the decline of our dollar, and high interest rates?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Madam Speaker, I did come to some conclusions on those points. I tried to set them out yesterday in my speech to the House of Commons when I said it was absolutely false to attribute all the difficulties that exist in the oil industry to the National Energy Program. My colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, took part in the debate last evening and illustrated very clearly that the same problems which Canada faces in that industry, exist in the United States. I do not believe that the National Energy Program has been introduced in the United States; at least Business Week magazine has not told us that yet.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. David Crombie (Rosedale):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the government House leader. The Minister of Finance has already indicated that next Monday night he will make a budget statement. Is it the intention of the government House leader and of the government to have a full budget debate following that statement? Second, will the government bring forward legislation pursuant to that budget?


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, according to the Standing Orders of the House, when a budget is brought down, it is followed by six days of debate, and it is up to the government to decide on which days the debate will take place. During the session, we have, on occasion, interrupted the budget debate to consider various bills. As far as the present situation is concerned, I
June 22, 1982

have made no decision as yet. I shall be consulting my colleagues in the caucus and cabinet, and I intend to meet with the House leaders fairly soon. I should then be able to inform the House whether there will be a debate on six consecutive days or whether the debate will be interrupted. I shall try to reach some kind of agreement on arrangements for debate on legislation pursuant to the budget, if there is any legislation, since I have not seen the budget. It is therefore somewhat premature to inform the House specifically on what is to happen following the statement by the Minister of Finance Monday evening on June 28. However, I can assure the hon. member that we shall certainly abide by the Standing Orders of the House.


QUERY RESPECTING DATE OF SUMMER ADJOURNMENT
David Edward Crombie: Madam Speaker, I think the essence of the question and the concern of all of us on this side and, I think, of all Canadians, is whether the government intends that the House will adjourn before the budget process is finished. Will the House leader give an assurance that the House will not adjourn before it has completed full debate on legislation with respect to the budget?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, that depends whether we have a debate on six consecutive days or the debate is interrupted so that we can consider legislation pursuant to the budget. It will depend on the results of negotiations I shall be having with the representatives of each party. As far as we are concerned, we are prepared to consider any serious proposal for limiting debate on certain aspects of the budget, if there is to be any urgent legislation arising from the budget, but at this time, it is too early, first of all, to speculate on the content of the budget and second, to decide on how we shall allocate the days provided under the Standing Orders for completing debate on the budget. Finally, I would not wish to make any assumptions regarding the House leaders' willingness or unwillingness to co-operate in limiting debate either on legislation pursuant to the budget or on an adjournment motion, if there is one.


INDUSTRY
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Is the minister conversant with the U.S. $25 million obligation that Massey-Ferguson has guaranteed in a foreign country, which will fall due at the end of this month and which will probably rebound to Massey-Ferguson for payment? What, if anything, is the government going to do to protect its
The Governor General
position in light of this development which could force Massey-Ferguson into receivership?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, our obligation with respect to Massey-Ferguson is that reflected in the agreement which we entered into along with the Province of Ontario, to guarantee a portion of the new equity investment in Massey and it does not extend beyond that.


ROLE OF CHARTERED BANKS
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, I am glad the minister mentioned that, because it is the basis of my supplementary question. Now that Massey-Ferguson has missed on its dividend payment regarding its preferred shares, thereby setting up the position whereby the banks could trigger the government's guarantee, I want to know whether the government has done anything to induce the banks not to pursue this option that is open to them, since both the banks and the government are at record lows and this could produce some kind of reaction. This would not be helpful in view of all the other guarantees the government has made to industries such as Canadair, Chrysler, and so on.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, we are simply in a position to carry on our obligation under the agreement. That is as far as we have gone.
* *
*
[ Translation]


THE ROYAL FAMILY
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received informing the House that the Senate has agreed to an Address to Her Most Excellent Majesty the Queen expressing congratulations on the occasion of the birth of a Prince, son of Their Royal Highnesses, the Prince and Princess of Wales, and have filled up the blank spaces left therein with the words "Senate and".


THE GOVERNOR GENERAL
Madam Speaker:: I have the Honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate, as follows:

June 22, 1982
Petitions
Resolved, That the following address be engrossed and presented to Elis Excellency the Governor General, namely:
To His Excellency the Right Honourable Edward Richard Schreyer, Chancellor and Principal Companion of the Order of Canada, Chancellor and Commander of the Order of Military Merit upon whom has been conferred the Canadian Forces' Decoration, Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada:
May it please Your Excellency
The Senate ... of Canada, in Parliament assembled, have agreed to an address to Her Most Excellent Majesty the Queen expressing congratulations on the occasion of the birth of a Prince, son of Their Royal Highnesses, the Prince and Princess of Wales, and respectfully request that your Excellency will be pleased to transmit the said Address to Her Majesty the Queen.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, with the unanimous consent of the House, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen):
That this House do concur in the address of the Senate to His Excellency the Governor General, respectfully requesting that His Excellency may be pleased to transmit the joint address to Her Most Excellent Majesty the Queen;
That the words "and House of Commons" be inserted in the said address from the Senate; and
That a message be sent to the Senate informing Their Honours that this House doth unite with the Senate in the said address.


Madam Speaker:: Does the hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the two hundred and seventy-second report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) and finds that it meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, with your permission I would now like to pursue the question of privilege for which I gave written notice by letter dated June 17, 1982, and which I raised in this House the same day. At that point the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien), to whom the question of privilege relates, was not present in the House and I undertook to wait until an appropriate day. The minister is now here so I now wish to present the question I raised.
Let me say clearly, Madam Speaker, that I recognize the burden is upon me to establish that my privileges as a member of this House were adversely affected by the minister's response to my question, and that I must establish a prima facie case that the response contained a misleading statement. I am also aware that I must move at the appropriate time for a reference to the proper standing committee of the House. I am guided in this regard by the precedent set by the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland (Mr. Lawrence) three years ago when he raised a similar question of privilege with regard to a ministerial statement.
Let me briefly outline the subject matter of my question of privilege. On June 15, 1982 I directed an inquiry to the Minister of Justice concerning the case of Donald Marshall, a Micmac Indian, resident of Nova Scotia, who was convicted in 1971 of the stabbing death of Sandy Seale. He spent 11 years in federal prison, but finally rumours were circulated that he was innocent of the crime. Investigations were conducted, and evidence was adduced that he was not guilty of this offence.
On June 15 I asked the minister what course of action he intended to follow in this matter and he said:
-I am reviewing it and I am having discussions with the Attorney General of Nova Scotia, but we have not as yet resolved the problem.
The very next day the same minister rose in this House in response to an inquiry about the Marshall case from his colleague in the Liberal Party and said:
-I referred the question to the Nova Scotia Supreme Court and asked the court to make a determination on this case-
In addition to the statement made in the House the minister issued a press release dated June 16, attached to which was a document pertaining to the proceedings in the appeal division of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia. That document contains this statement:
And whereas the Attorney General of Nova Scotia and counsel acting on behalf of Donald Marshall, Jr., agree with the undersigned-
That is, the Minister of Justice.
-that this new evidence is of sufficient importance to be considered by this honourable court.
There are two vital points, Madam Speaker. First, Section 617 of the Criminal Code of Canada, under which the reference is being made, vests the minister with complete authority to make this reference. He does not have to refer to any other authority. He acts on his own. Secondly, even more importantly, there were no discussions between the Minister of Justice
June 22, 1982

and the Attorney General of Nova Scotia between the time the minister rose in this House on June 15 to say he was having discussions and the time he announced his decision to refer the matter to the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia. There were no discussions. It is evident from the document from which I have just quoted, which was attached to his press release dated June 16, 1982, that any discussions there were had taken place before that date. The only fair inference which can be drawn from the minister's statement on June 15 in this House was that he would discuss the matter with the Attorney General of Nova Scotia and then decide on a course of action.
The only sensible inference, Madam Speaker, which can be drawn from all the minister's statements in the House, his actions and the document signed by him and dated June 16, 1982, is that he had conferred with the Attorney General of Nova Scotia prior to June 15, 1982, and knew exactly what action he would take. If there is any defence, the minister can make it, but the facts speak for themselves. He knew the action he was going to take and he refused to stand in this House on June 15, in response to my inquiry, and tell me, this House and the Marshall family that he had made up his mind and would make his decision.
I will move the motion at the appropriate time, Madam Speaker.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, I do not want to give a very long explanation. Of course, the member is right, I do not have to consult with anyone. It is my responsibility. But as it was a very important case in Nova Scotia I felt that it was my duty to communicate with the Attorney General, Mr. Harry How, or his officials about the matter. We had many options open to us and one was a referral. There was the possibility of recommending something else. There have been discussions, I have written to Mr. How and he has written to me and so on, and there were discussions the previous week.
On the Monday I was not in the House because I had been sick at home, and when I came into the office on Tuesday morning they told me that the problem was resolved. So the question came at two o'clock, but just as I was coming into the House of Commons I was told by my assistant that there was a problem, because we were consulting with the Attorney General of Nova Scotia and, although I was not obliged to, with the lawyer of Mr. Marshall, and I was consulting with the court, too, because it was a very unusual procedure. When I came into the House I was told by my assistant, on the advice of Mr. Rutherford, my senior adviser on this subject, that there was a major problem. So I accepted something in the morning, and I was told there was a major problem as soon as I was coming into the House.
During the question period there was some communication in fact-not with the Attorney General; I did not know there was a problem; there was discussion with the lawyers and with the Chief Justice of the appeal court of Nova Scotia. When I came out of the House they told me the matter was not resolved. There was some communication in the afternoon,
Privilege-Mr. Crosby
according to my information, by Mr. Rutherford with the Chief Justice, and at the end of the afternoon Mr. Rutherford tried to reach, at four o'clock our time, Mr. Gale, who is an official to Mr. Harry How. He was not in his office. The problem was resolved. In the morning they tried to get Mr. Gale again and he was not in his office, but there was a discussion with Mr. How or his officials and there was an agreement on the courts and Mr. How was strongly in favour of a reference and not another course, of action. It was still a reference, with some change in the wording to meet some of the defendant's lawyer's preoccupation and that of the Chief Justice.
It was in that spirit at ten o'clock in the morning on Wednesday that I signed the legal document, and I gave the answer in response to a question asked by a Member of Parliament on this side of the House. I am informed there was some discussion on Tuesday afternoon with the Attorney General. I did not call him, I sent him letters. There was an exchange of correspondence. There was verbal exchange all along between Mr. How's officials and mine, the Chief Justice of Nova Scotia and the lawyers.
I do think that is a valid explanation, Madam Speaker. When I heard that the hon. member wanted to raise a question of privilege, I thought I had a good explanation to give to him and I tried to reach him many times.


Howard Edward Crosby: Nonsense.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: He has been here. Where have you been?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Perhaps the hon. member did not want to talk to me. I placed a phone call.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I want to state the facts.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: As you see them.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I placed a phone call to the hon. member's office in Halifax yesterday morning. I telephoned his home. I left a message for him to return my call. I asked my parliamentary secretary to talk to him and give him the facts. I asked my parliamentary secretary to ask him if he wanted me to talk to him. He did not know. He wanted to raise a question of privilege.
I am not embarrassed at all. When I got up in this House, I was informed there was a major problem. I said in good faith that there were still some things that needed resolution. In fact, there was no need for further consultation with the Government of Nova Scotia because the final agreement with the lawyer and with the Chief Justice was along the lines suggested many weeks before by the Attorney General of Nova Scotia.
In those circumstances, I cannot be any more candid. All the facts are there. I think the explanation is valid and I am glad to have the occasion to say that. But the matter was not worth
18726

June 22, 1982
Privilege-Mr. Crosby
raising a question of privilege about because the same information should normally have satisfied a member of the bar. Before lawyers make charges, usually they do not refuse to look at the evidence.


William Herbert Jarvis: That is a pretty shabby explanation.


Madam Speaker:: I will rule on that particular question of privilege later.


Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Will you give me an opportunity to respond to the minister's allegations?


Madam Speaker:: No, I am afraid I cannot. Hon. members speak only once on a question of privilege. They cannot use a point of order to respond. I have heard the two presentations. I will read the arguments very carefully and rule on that question later.


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: There are two points on the point of order about which I seek clarification, Madam Speaker. Naturally it is within your discretion as to the number of members you hear and for what length of time you wish to hear representations on questions of privilege. But likewise, there is no standing order or practice that prevents members from speaking more than once on a question of privilege if the Chair wishes to hear them.
The second point is necessary because you said it so quickly that 1 did not hear. Are you reserving on the question of privilege or are you going to deal with it later this day?


Madam Speaker:: The first point in answer to the hon. member for the Yukon is that no other member got up to seek the floor on this question of privilege except the hon. member for Halifax West, who rose and said he had a point of order. He stated that his point of order was to refute or rebut what the hon. minister said, to which I replied that could not be done.


Erik Nielsen: It can if you allow it.


Madam Speaker:: I am not saying that I would have heard a great number of other speakers, but no one rose. There is no problem there.
Second, I said that I would deal later on with this question of privilege.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I do not question your ruling at all. I simply point out that it is in the Chair's discretion as to whether or not the same member raising the question of privilege might be heard again. There is no rule against that, but if the Chair does not want to hear it, naturally that is at the Chair's discretion.
When you say that you are going to deal with the question of privilege later, Madam Speaker, does that mean later this day or on another sitting day?


Mr. Axworthy:: Later.


Madam Speaker:: On another day. I think the practice, though I stand to be corrected, is that members who raise a question of privilege are not allowed to speak a second time on the question of privilege.


An hon. Member:: No.


Madam Speaker:: It is a practice I have followed, at any rate.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, I have the pleasure to present a petition from the residents of the federal riding of Kootenay West, British Columbia, who now avail themselves of their right to present a grievance common to petitioners in the certain assurance that this honourable House will therefore provide a remedy. These petitioners bring to over 200,000 the number of people who oppose the mandatory imposition of the SI metric system in Canada. We believe the pace, degree and nature of change to SI metric should and must be determined voluntarily in the various sectors of trade and industry by the individual firms or industries directly concerned, and with minimal government interference.


Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present a petition signed by approximately 1,000 constituents from the riding of Provencher. The signatories are residents of many small communities in eastern Manitoba.
Your petitioners oppose the provisions of Bill C-451 and bring it to the attention of yourself and the House.



CANADIAN FORCES SUPERANNUATION ACT


Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-658, to amend the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act (retirement for misconduct).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to limit the extraordinary discretion of the Treasury Board under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act to reduce substantially pensions of Canadian Forces personnel who have
June 22, 1982

been discharged for misconduct, sometimes for less than major offences. It is to stop such miscarriages of justice that 1 introduce a bill that I hope some day will receive approval from all sides of the House.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Jim Peterson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 3,829 to 3,884 inclusively, and 4,242 to 4,244.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of inmates at the Carlton Centre, Halifax and how many were convicted of (a) first degree murder (b) second degree murder (c) attempted murder (d) manslaughter (e) rape and attempted rape (f) other sexual offences (g) assault (h) robbery (i) weapons offences (j) break and enter (k) cannabis offences (I) other Narcotic Control Act offences?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
For Carlton Centre
Table 1:	Total number of inmates
1976	1977	1978	1979	198053	48	61	100	88
The above table indicates the total number of inmates for each year 1976 to 1980. Each figure includes the inmates on register as of January 1st of each year plus all admissions and transfers to the institution during that year. For questions (a) through (1) see Table 2 below.
Table 2	Carlton Centre
Number of inmates, per offence, who were serving their sentences during the years 1976 to 1980
1976	1977	1978	1979	1980(a)	First degree murder:	nil (1 )[i]	nil (1)	nil (I)	nil (1)	nil (1)(b)	Second degree murder:	ml(6)[n]	nil (6)	nil (4)	nil (4)	nil (4)(c)	Attempted murder:	1	1	1	nil	1(d)	Manslaughter:	2	1	4	2	1(e)	Rape:	I	1	3	1	4attempted rape:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil(0	Other sexual offences:	nil	nil	4	4	1(g)	Assault [iii]:	nil	nil	1	1	nil(h)	Robbery:	15	9	15	12	8(i)	Weapons offences:	nil	nil	nil	1	nil(j)	Break and enter:	15	4	10	15	16(k)	Cannabis offences [iv]:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil(0	Other Narcotic Control Act offences:	2	2	10	6	2
Footnotes:
[i] and [ii] Number in brackets indicates inmates convicted of capital and non-capital murder prior to the 1976 Criminal Law Amendment Act (No. 2).
(iii)	"Assault" includes the following offences: common assault, assault causing bodily harm, assault with intent and other assaults.
[iv]	"Cannabis offences" are only identified by the CSC's national headquarters computer if they involve "cultivation of opium poppy, marijuana". Other cannabis offences such as "trafficking in marijuana" are included in (1) Other Narcotic Control Act offences.
The table indicates, for each offence, the number of inmates incarcerated on January 1 added to those admitted and transferred to the institution during the remainder of the year. This gives the number of inmates incarcerated throughout each year for each particular offence. It should be noted that the figures cannot be added either horizontally or vertically. Horizontally because an inmate convicted of a specified offence could remain at the same institution for each year, therefore, giving the impression that there were five inmates convicted of the offence when in reality there was only one and vertically because some inmates may have been convicted of more than one crime.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of inmates at the Shulie Lake camp, Parrsboro and how many were convicted of (a) first degree murder
(b)	second degree murder (c) attempted murder (d) manslaughter (e) rape and attempted rape (0 other sexual offences (g) assault (h) robbery (i) weapons offences (j) break and enter (k) cannabis offences (l) other Narcotic Control Act offences?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
For Shulie Lake Institution
Table 1:	Total number of inmates
1976	1977	1978	1979	198023	63	61	78	68
The above table indicates the total number of inmates for each year 1976 to 1980. Each figure includes the inmates on register as of January 1 of each year plus all admissions and transfers to the institution during that year. For questions (a) through (1) see Table 2 below.

June 22, 1982
Order Paper Questions
Table 2
Shulie Lake Institution
Number of inmates, per offence, who were serving their sentences during the years 1976 to 1980
For elaboration concerning (ii), (iii), (iv) and Table 2, see "Footnotes" to question No. 3,829 answered this day.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of inmates at the Springhill Institution, Springhill and how many were convicted of (a) first degree murder (b) second degree murder (c) attempted murder (d) manslaughter (e) rape and attempted rape (f) other sexual offences (g) assault (h) robbery (i) weapons offences (j) break and enter (k) cannabis offences (1) other Narcotic Control Act offences?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
Table 2
For Springhill Institution Table 1:
1976	1977
800	845
853
Total number of inmates 1979	1980
968	969
The above table indicates the total number of inmates for each year 1976 to 1980. Each figure includes the inmates on register as of January 1 of each year plus all admissions and transfers to the institution during that year. For questions (a) through (1) see Table 2 below.
Springhill Institution
Number of inmates, per offence, who were serving their sentences during the years 1976 to 1980
1976	1977	1978	1979	1980(a) First degree murder:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil(b) Second degree murder:	nil (20)[ii]	nil (20)	1 09)	2(18)	2(18) 1(c) Attempted murder:	nil	nil	nil	nil	(d) Manslaughter:	14	10	12	12	12(e) Rape:	9	5	10	1 I	12attempted rape:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil(f) Other sexual offences:	7	nil	3	nil	1(g) Assault [iii]:	8	1	10	7	1(h) Robbery:	53	17	59	62	79(i) Weapons offences:	6	2	8	8	5(j) Break and enter:	83	21	77	81	87(k) Cannabis offences [iv]:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil(1) Other Narcotic Control Act offences: Footnotes:	23	5	10	3	10
For elaboration concerning (ii), (iii), (iv) and Table 2, see "Footnotes" to question No. 3,829 answered this day.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of inmates at the Parrtown Centre, Saint John and how many were convicted of (a) first degree murder (b) second degree murder (c) attempted murder (d) manslaughter (e) rape and attempted rape (f) other sexual offences (g) assault (h) robbery (i) weapons offences (j) break and enter (k) cannabis offences (1) other Narcotic Control Act offences?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
For Parrtown Centre Table 1:
Total number of inmates
1976	1977	1978	1979	198058	53	37	82	61
The above table indicates the total number of inmates for each year 1976 to 1980. Each figure includes the inmates on register as of January 1 of each year plus all admissions and transfers to the institution during that year. For questions (a) through (1) see Table 2 below.
1976	1977	1978	1979	1980	(a) First degree murder:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil	(b) Second degree murder:	nil (2)[ii]	nil (2)	nil (2)	nil	nil (2)	(c) Attempted murder:	2	nil	nil	nil	nil	(d) Manslaughter:	7	4	4	3	3	(e) Rape:	1	nil	1	1	nil	attempted rape:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil	(f) Other sexual offences:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil 1	(g) Assault [iii]:	1	1	2	nil	(h) Robbery:	8	4	10	13	13 1	(i) Weapons offences:	nil	nil	nil	2	(j) Break and enter:	14	nil	17	10	8	(k) Cannabis offences [iv]:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil	(I) Other Narcotic Control Act offences: Footnotes:	nil	nil	1	1	nil	
June 22, 1982

Order Paper Questions
Table 2	Parrtown Centre
Number of inmates, per offence, who were serving their sentences during the years 1976 to 1980
1976	1977	1978	1979	1980(a)	First degree murder:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil(b)	Second degree murder:	nil (2) [ii] 1	nil (2) 1	nil (2) I	nil (1) 1	nil(c)	Attempted murder:	nil(d)	Manslaughter:	1	nil	2	2	2(e)	Rape:	5	4	1	3	1attempted rape:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil(0	Other sexual offences:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil(g)	Assault [iii]:	2	nil	4	nil	nil(h)	Robbery:	6	4	10	14	11(i)	Weapons offences:	1	nil	nil	nil	1(j)	Break and enter:	14	4	11	3	7(k)	Cannabis offences [iv]:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil0)	Other Narcotic Control Act offences:	nil	nil	3	2	nil
Footnotes:
For elaboration concerning (ii), (iii), (iv) and Table 2, see "Footnotes" to question No. 3,829 answered this day.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of inmates at the Westmorland Institution farm, Dorchester and how many were convicted of (a) first degree murder (b) second degree murder (c) attempted murder (d) manslaughter (e) rape and attempted rape (f) other sexual offences (g) assault (h) robbery (i) weapons offences (j) break and enter (k) cannabis offences (1) other Narcotic Control Act offences?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
For Westmorland Institution
Table 1:	Total number of inmates
1976	1977	1978	1979	1980256	232	232	334	302
The above table indicates the total number of inmates for each year 1976 to 1980. Each figure includes the inmates on register as of January 1 of each year plus all admissions and transfers to the institution during that year. For questions (a) through (1) see Table 2 below.
Table 2	Westmorland Institution
Number of inmates, per offence, who were serving their sentences during the years 1976 to 1980
1976	1977	1978	1979	1980(a)	First degree murder:	nil (l)[i)	nil (1)	nil (1)	nil	nil(b)	Second degree murder:	nil (7){ii]	nil (7)	1 (7)	1 (7)	1 (7)(c)	Attempted murder:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil(d)	Manslaughter:	5	4	3	4	4(e)	Rape:	10	8	10	7	8attempted rape:	nil	nil	2	nil	nil(0	Other sexual offences:	3	2	1	2	nil(g)	Assault [iii]:	5	2	2	4	2(h)	Robbery:	38	20	22	23	20(i)	Weapons offences:	2	1	nil	1	nil0)	Break and enter:	36	16	30	30	31(k)	Cannabis offences [iv]:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil0)	Other Narcotic Control Act offences:	10	2	7	6	9
Footnotes:
For elaboration concerning (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and Table 2, see "Footnotes" to question No. 3,829 answered this day.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of inmates at the Dorchester Penitentiary, Dorchester and how many were convicted of (a) first degree murder (b) second degree murder (c) attempted murder (d) manslaughter (e) rape and attempted rape (f) other sexual offences (g) assault (h) robbery (i) weapons offences (j) break and enter (k) cannabis offences (1) other Narcotic Control Act offences?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
For Dorchester Penitentiary
Table 1:	Total number of inmates
1976	1977	1978	1979	1980651	692	641	651	679
The above table indicates the total number of inmates for each year 1976 to 1980. Each figure includes the inmates on register as of January 1 of each year plus all admissions and transfers to the institution during that year. For questions (a) through (1) see Table 2 below.

June 22, 1982
Order Paper Questions
Table 2	Dorchester Penitentiary
Number of inmates, per offence, who were serving their sentences during the years 1976 to 1980
1976	1977	1978	1979(a)	First degree murder:	nil (2)[i]	nil (2)	2(2)	5(2)(b)	Second degree murder:	2 (26)[ii]	2(25)	13(25)	25 (25)(c)	Attempted murder:	4	3	8	9(d)	Manslaughter:	7	4	8	11(e)	Rape:	11	8	8	9attempted rape:	1	1	1	1(0	Other sexual offences:	10	7	9	13(g)	Assault [iii]:	17	6	11	7(h)	Robbery:	66	45	77	79(i)	Weapons offences:	4	2	10	10(j)	Break and enter:	62	25	58	59(k)	Cannabis offences [iv]:	nil	nil	nil	nil0)	Other Narcotic Control Act offences:	12	8	4	3
Footnotes:
For elaboration concerning (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and Table 2, see "Footnotes" to question No. 3,829 answered this day.
1980 5(3) 33 (25) II 13 6 1
nil

9
nil


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of inmates at the Pie IX Centre, Montreal and how many were convicted of (a) first degree murder (b) second degree murder (c) attempted murder (d) manslaughter (e) rape and attempted rape (f) other sexual offences (g) assault (h) robbery (i) weapons offences (j) break and enter (k) cannabis offences (I) other Narcotic Control Act offences?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
For Pie IX Centre (opened in 1980)
Table 1:	Total Number of Inmates
112
The above table indicates the total number of inmates for the year 1980. The figure includes all admissions and transfers to the institution during that year. For questions (a) through (1) see Table 2 below.
Table 2	Pie IX Centre
Number of inmates, per offence, who were serving their sentences during the year 1980
(a) First degree murder	nil(l)[i]
(b) Second degree murder:	nil (2)[ii]
(c)	Attempted murder:	1(d)	Manslaughter:	5(e)	Rape:	Iattempted rape:	nil(0	Other sexual offences:	1(g>	Assault [iii]:	i(h)	Robbery:	30(i)	Weapons offences:	10)	Break and enter:	9(k)	Cannabis offences [iv]:	nil(1)	Other Narcotic Control Act	offences:	15
Footnotes:
For elaboration concerning (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and Table 2, see "Footnotes" to question No. 3,829 answered this day.


Mr. Kaplan: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of inmates at the Benoit XV Centre, Montreal and how many were convicted of (a) First degree murder (b) second degree murder (c) attempted murder (d) manslaughter (e) rape and attempted rape (0 other sexual offences (g) assault (h) robbery (i) weapons offences (j) break and enter (k) cannabis offences (1) other Narcotic Control Act offences?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
For Benoit XV Centre (opened in 1977)
Table 1:		Total Number of Inmates		
1977	1978	1979	19809	60	68	60
i
The above table indicates the total number of inmates for each year 1977 to 1980. The figure for 1977 includes the original number of admissions plus all transfers to the institution during the year. For the following years the figure includes the inmates on register as of January 1 plus all admissions and transfers to the institution. For questions (a) through (1) see Table 2 below.
Table 2	Benoit XV Centre
Number of inmates, per offence, who were serving their sentences during the years 1977 to 1980
1977	1978	1979	1980(a)	First degree murder:	nil	nil	nil	nil(b)	Second degree murder:	nil (5)[ii]	nil (4)	nil (2)	nil (2)
June 22, 1982

Order Paper Questions
(c) Attempted murder:	nil	4	2	nil(d) Manslaughter:	3	nil	2	1(e) Rape:	nil	2	1 nil	2attempted rape:	nil	nil	nil(0 Other sexual offences:	1	2	nil	nil(g) Assault:	nil	nil	nil	nil(h) Robbery:	14	20	18	12(i) Weapons offences:	nil	nil	nil	nil(j) Break and enter:	2	12	8	4(k) Cannabis offences [iv]:	nil	nil	nil	nil(1) Other Narcotic Control Act offences: Footnotes: For elaboration concerning (ii), (iv) and Table 2, see	1 3 "Footnotes" to question No. 3,829 answered this day.	3	2


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of inmates at the Sherbrooke Centre, Montreal and how many were convicted of (a) first degree murder (b) second degree murder (c) attempted murder (d) manslaughter (e) rape and attempted rape (0 other sexual offences (g) assault (h) robbery (i) weapons offences (j) break and enter (k) cannabis offences (1) other Narcotic Control Act offences?
second degree murder (c) attempted murder (d) manslaughter (e) rape and attempted rape (0 other sexual offences (g) assault (h) robbery (i) weapons offences (j) break and enter (k) cannabis offences (I) other Narcotic Control Act offences?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
For Martineau Centre (opened in 1979)
Table 1:	Total Number of Inmates
For Sherbrooke Centre (opened in 1979)	1979	1980Table 1:	Total Number of Inmates	111	1261979	198080	121
The above table indicates the total number of inmates for the years 1979 and 1980. The figure for 1979 includes the original number of admissions plus all transfers to the institution during the year. For 1980 the figure includes the inmates on reister as of January 1 plus all admissions and transfers to the institution. For questions (a) through (1) see Table 2 below.
The above table indicates the total number of inmates for the years 1979 and 1980. The figure for 1979 includes the original number of admissions plus all transfers to the institution during the year. For 1980 the figure includes the inmates on register as of January 1 plus all admissions and transfers to the institution. For questions (a) through (1) see Table 2 below.
Table 2	Martineau Centre
Table 2
Sherbrooke Centre
Number of inmates, per offence, who were serving their
sentences during the years 1979 and 1980
(a)	First degree murder:	1979 nil	1980 nil(b)	Second degree murder:	nil (3)[ii)	nil (2)(c)	Attempted murder:	2	2(d)	Manslaughter:	4	1(e)	Rape:	2	1attempted rape:	nil	nil(0	Other sexual offences:	1	nil(8)	Assault:	nil	nil(b)	Robbery:	44	36(i)	Weapons offences:	2	1<j)	Break and enter:	8	7(k)	Cannabis offences [iv]:	nil	nil(1)	Other Narcotic Control Act offences:	16	13
Footnotes:
For elaboration concerning (ii), (iv) and Table 2, see "Footnotes" to question No. 3,829 answered this day.
Number of inmates, per offence, who were serving their
sentences during the years 1979 and 1980
(a)	First degree murder:	1979 nil	1980 nil(b)	Second degree murder:	nil (6)[ii)	nil (5)(c)	Attempted murder:	3	2(d)	Manslaughter:	5	3(e)	Rape:	1	1 nilattempted rape:	nil	(0	Other sexual offences:	1	nil(g)	Assault:	nil	nil(h)	Robbery:	36	23(i)	Weapons offences:	2	2(j)	Break and enter:	12	8(k)	Cannabis offences [iv]:	nil	nil(1)	Other Narcotic Control Act offences:	15	16
Footnotes:
For elaboration concerning (ii), (iv) and Table 2, see "Footnotes" to question No. 3,829 answered this day.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of inmates at the Martineau Centre, Montreal and how many were convicted of (a) first degree murder (b)


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of inmates at the Ogilvie Centre, Montreal and how many were convicted of (a) first degree murder (b)

June 22, 1982
Order Paper Questions
second degree murder (c) attempted murder (d) manslaughter (e) rape and attempted rape (f) other sexual offences (g) assault (h) robbery (i) weapons offences (j) break and enter (k) cannabis offences (1) other Narcotic Control Act offences?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
Table 2
For Ogilvie Centre
Tablet:	Total number of inmates
1976	1977	1978	1979	198020	74	83	85	104
The above table indicates the total number of inmates for each year 1976 to 1980. Each figure includes the inmates on register as of January 1 of each year plus all admissions and transfers to the institution during that year. For questions (a) through (1) see Table 2 below.
Ogilvie Centre
Number of inmates, per offence, who were serving their sentences during the years 1976 to 1980
1976	1977	1978	1979	1980(a)	First degree murder:	nil (2)[i]	nil (1)	nil (1)	nil	nil(b)	Second degree murder:	ml(5)[nJ	nil (5)	nil (6)	nil (2)	nil (2)(c)	Attempted murder:	1	nil	nil	1	nil(d)	Manslaughter:	5	2	3	3	3(e)	Rape:	5	3	3	3	4attempted rape:	1	1	1	nil	nil(0	Other sexual offences:	2	2	1	I	nil(g)	Assault:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil<h)	Robbery:	51	34	43	35	23(i)	Weapons offences:	nil	nil	1	1	1(j)	Break and enter:	7	4	11	10	2(k)	Cannabis offences [iv]:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil(1)	Other Narcotic Control Act offences:	2	1	11	12	13
Footnotes:
For elaboration concerning (i), (ii), (iv) and Table 2, see "Footnotes" to question No. 3,829 answered this day.
CORRECTIONAL SERVICES OF CANADA	For Cowansville Institution

Question No. 3,840-Mr. Lawrence:	Table 1:	Total number of inmates
For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of inmates at the Cowansville Institution, Cowansville and how many were convicted of (a) first degree murder (b) second degree murder (c) attempted murder (d) manslaughter (e) rape and attempted rape (f) other sexual offences (g) assault (h) robbery (i) weapons offences (j) break and enter (k) cannabis offences (1) other Narcotic Control Act offences?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
1976	1977	1978	1979	1980713	843	896	833	806The above	table	indicates	the	total	number of	inmates for
each year 1976 to 1980. Each figure includes the inmates on register as of January 1st of each year plus all admissions and transfers to the institution during that year. For questions (a) through (1) see Table 2 below.
Table 2
Cowansville Institution
Number of inmates, per offence, who were serving their sentences during the years 1976 to 1980
1976	1977	1978	1979	1980(a) First degree murder:	nil (1 )[i]	nil (1)	nil (1)	nil (1)	nil (1)(b) Second degree murder:	nil (24) [ii]	nil (21)	7(22)	8(23)	9(22)(c) Attempted murder:	6	6	9	14	16(d) Manslaughter:	25	18	32	34	36(e) Rape:	5	1	9	15	20attempted rape:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil(f) Other sexual offences:	3	3	8	4	1(g) Assault [iii]:	2	2	1	1	1(h) Robbery:	152	90	146	139	141(i) Weapons offences:	4	nil	nil	3	4(j) Break and enter:	59	21	36	35	47(k) Cannabis offences [iv]:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil(1) Other Narcotic Control Act offences:	27	14	38	44	41
Footnotes:
For elaboration concerning (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and Table 2, see "Footnotes" to question No. 3,829 answered this day.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of inmates at the Federal Training Centre, Laval and how many were convicted of (a) first degree murder (b) second degree murder (c) attempted murder (d) manslaughter (e) rape and
June 22, 1982

attempted rape (f) other sexual offences (g) assault (h) robbery (i) weapons offences (j) break and enter (k) cannabis offences (I) other Narcotic Control Act offences?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
For Federal Training Centre
Table 1:	Total number of inmates
1976	1977	1978	1979	1980766	904	915	848	757
Order Paper Questions
The above table indicates the total number of inmates for each year 1976 to 1980. Each figure includes the inmates on register as of January 1st of each year plus all admissions and transfers to the institution during that year. For questions (a) through (1) see Table 2 below.
Table 2	Federal Training Centre
Number of inmates, per offence, who were serving their sentences during the years 1976 to 1980
1976	1977	1978	1979	1980(a) First degree murder:	nil (1 )[i]	nil (1)	nil (I)	nil (1)	nil(b) Second degree murder:	nil (19)[ii]	nil (18)	12(18)	15(18)	17(18)(c) Attempted murder:	2	nil	4	5	6(d) Manslaughter:	14	14	23	25	25(e) Rape:	10	6	17	15	15attempted rape:	I	nil	1	nil	nil(0 Other sexual offences:	5	3	1	1 nil	nil(g) Assault [iii]:	1	1	nil	nil(h) Robbery:	142	55	150	104	130(i) Weapons offences:	nil	nil	1 39	3	5(j) Break and enter:	62	13	31	38(k) Cannabis offences [iv]:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil(1) Other Narcotic Control Act offences: Footnotes:	19	4	9	13	16
For elaboration concerning (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and Table 2, see "Footnotes" to question No. 3,829 answered this day.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of inmates at the Leclerc Institution, Laval and how many were convicted of (a) first degree murder (b) second degree murder (c) attempted murder (d) manslaughter (e) rape and attempted rape (f) other sexual offences (g) assault (h) robbery (i) weapons offences (j) break and enter (k) cannabis offences (1) other Narcotic Control Act offences?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
Table 2
For Leclerc Institution			
Table 1:			Total number of inmates
1976	1977	1978	1979 1980898	956	1,034	1,002 978
The above table indicates the total number of inmates for each year 1976 to 1980. Each figure includes the inmates on register as of January 1st of each year plus all admissions and transfers to the institution during that year. For questions (a) through (1) see Table 2 below.
Leclerc Institution
Number of inmates, per offence, who were serving their sentences during the years 1976 to 1980
1976	1977	1978	1979	1980(a)	First degree murder:	nil (4)(i]	nil (3)	1 (3)	1 (2)	1 (2)(b)	Second degree murder:	nil (7)[ii]	nil (6)	2(6)	2(6)	2(6)(c)	Attempted murder:	11	9	10	9	9(d)	Manslaughter:	19	12	12	16	10(e)	Rape:	5	3	5	7	6attempted rape:	2	2	1	1	1(0	Other sexual offences:	6	3	6	5	nil(g)	Assault [iii]:	1	nil	nil	2	2(h)	Robbery:	178	114	189	189	182(i)	Weapons offences:	6	nil	5	4	3(j)	Break and enter:	89	41	68	62	6400	Cannabis offences [iv]:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil(1)	Other Narcotic Control Act offences:	29	10	49	37	42
Footnotes:
For elaboration concerning (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and Table 2, see "Footnotes" to question No. 3,829 answered this day.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of inmates at the Archambault Institution, Sainte-Anne-des-PIaines and how many were convicted
of (a) First degree murder (b) second degree murder (c) attempted murder (d) manslaughter (e) rape and attempted rape (0 other sexual offences (g) assault
(h)	robbery (i) weapons offences (j) break and enter (k) cannabis offences (1) other Narcotic Control Act offences?

June 22, 1982
Order Paper Questions


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
For Archambault Institution
Table 1:			Total number of inmates
1976	1977	1978	1979 19801,078	1,009	832	752 830Table 2	1976(a) First degree murder:	nil (1 )[i](b) Second degree murder:	nil (18)[ii](c) Attempted murder:	7(d) Manslaughter:	4(e) Rape:	8attempted rape:	nil(f) Other sexual offences:	nil(g) Assault [iii]:	2(h) Robbery:	112(i) Weapons offences:	1(j) Break and enter:	31(k) Cannabis offences [iv]:	nil(1) Other Narcotic Control Act offences: Footnotes:	6
For elaboration concerning (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and Table 2, see "Footnotes" to
The above table indicates the total number of inmates for each year 1976 to 1980. Each figure includes the inmates on register as of January 1st of each year plus all admissions and transfers to the institution during that year. For questions (a) through (1) see Table 2 below.
Archambault Institution
Number of inmates, per offence, who were serving their sentences during the years 1976 to 1980
1977	1978	1979	1980nil (1)	8(1)	10(1)	17(1)nil (18)	10(18)	14 (16)	17(15)7	10	9	II3	7	7	75	4	4	5nil	nil	nil	nilnil	1	2	nil1	1	1	277	98	96	114nil	2	3	419	33	27	34nil	nil	nil	nil5	12	10	13
No. 3,829 answered this day.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of inmates at the Correctional Development Centre, Laval and how many were convicted of (a) first degree murder (b) second degree murder (c) attempted murder (d) manslaughter (e) rape and attempted rape (0 other sexual offences (g) assault (h) robbery (i) weapons offences (j) break and enter (k) cannabis offences (I) other Narcotic Control Act offences?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
Table 2
For the Laval Correctional Development Centre
Table I:	Total number of inmates
1976	1977	1978	1979	1980385	618	1,082	478	556
The above table indicates the total number of inmates for each year 1976 to 1980. Each figure includes the inmates on register as of January 1st of each year plus all admissions and transfers to the institution during that year. For questions (a) through (1) see Table 2 below.
Correctional Development Centre
(a)	First degree murder:
(b)	Second degree murder:
(c)	Attempted murder:
(d)	Manslaughter:
(e)	Rape: attempted rape:
(0 Other sexual offences:
(g)	Assault [iii]:
(h)	Robbery:
(i)	Weapons offences:
(j)	Break and enter:
(k)	Cannabis offences [iv]:
(l)	Other Narcotic Control Act offences:
Footnotes:
For elaboration concerning (ii), (iii), (iv) and Table 2, see "Footnotes"
Number of inmates, per offence, who were serving their sentences during the years 1976 to 1980
1976	1977	1978	19793	3	8	11(7) [ii]	i (6)	6(6)	9(6)2	2	3	56	6	7	8nil	nil	3	3nil	nil	nil	11	1	2	11	1	2	132	31	57	40nil	nil	1	28	5	34	30nil	nil	nil	nil2	1	2	6
question No. 3,829 answered this day.

10(6)
4

nil
nil
43
2 18 nil


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of inmates at the Regional Reception Centre, Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines and how many were convicted of (a)
first degree murder (b) second degree murder (c) attempted murder (d) manslaughter (e) rape and attempted rape (f) other sexual offences (g) assault (h) robbery (i) weapons offences (j) break and enter (k) cannabis offences (I) other Narcotic Control Act offences?

June 22, 1982


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
For the Regional Reception Centre, Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines
Table 1:			Total number of inmates
1976	1977	1978	1979 19801,476	1,853	1,608	1,725 1,665Table 2	(a)	First degree murder:	1976 nil (4)[i)(b)	Second degree murder:	nil (21 )[ii(c)	Attempted murder:	6(d)	Manslaughter:	18(e)	Rape:	4attempted rape:	nil(0	Other sexual offences:	3(g)	Assault [iii]:	1(h)	Robbery:	88(i)	Weapons offences:	2(j)	Break and enter:	31(k)	Cannabis offences [iv]:	nil(1)	Other Narcotic Control Act offences:	9
Footnotes:
For elaboration concerning (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and Table 2, see "Footnotes" to
Order Paper Questions
The above table indicates the total number of inmates for each year 1976 to 1980. Each figure includes the inmates on register as of January 1st of each year plus all admissions and transfers to the institution during that year. For questions (a) through (1) see Table 2 below.
Regional Reception Centre
Number of inmates, per offence, who were serving their sentences during the years 1976 to 1980
1977	1978	1979	1980nil (4)	1 (1)	1 0)	1nil (11)	nil (17)	1 (6)	5(4)5	5	1	nil17	26	10	52	2	4	6nil	1	nil	nilnil	2	1	nilnil	1	nil	nil44	135	46	192	4	nil	nil17	40	18	9nil	nil	nil	nil9	27	15	2
No. 3,829 answered this day.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of inmates at the Portsmouth Centre, Kingston and how many were convicted of (a) first degree murder (b) second degree murder (c) attempted murder (d) manslaughter (e) rape and attempted rape (0 other sexual offences (g) assault (h) robbery (i) weapons offences (j) break and enter (k) cannabis offences (1) other Narcotic Control Act offences?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
For Portsmouth Centre: The statistics requested cannot be extracted from the records of Collins Bay Institution and are therefore included in our reply to Question No. 3,855 answered this day.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of inmates at the Keele Street Centre, Toronto and how many were convicted of (a) first degree murder (b) second degree murder (c) attempted murder (d) manslaughter (e) rape and attempted rape (f) other sexual offences (g) assault (h) robbery (i) weapons offences (j) break and enter (k) cannabis offences (1) other Narcotic Control Act offences?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
For Keele Street Centre (opened in 1980)
Table 1:	Total Number of Inmates
16
The above table indicates the total number of inmates for the year 1980. Each figure includes all admissions and transfers to the institution during that year. For questions (a) through (1) see Table 2 below.
Table 2		Keele Street Centre
(a)	First degree murder	Number of inmates, per offence, who were serving their sentences during the year 1980 1980 nil(b)	Second degree murder:	nil (1)[ii](c)	Attempted murder:	1(d)	Manslaughter:	8(e)	Rape:	1attempted rape:	nil(0	Other sexual offences:	nil(g)	Assault [iii]:	1(h)	Robbery:	8(i)	Weapons offences:	1(j)	Break and enter:	5(k)	Cannabis offences [iv]:	nil(1)	Other Narcotic Control Act	offences:	14
Footnotes:
For elaboration concerning (ii), (iii), (iv) and Table 2, see "Footnotes" to question No. 3,829 answered this day.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of inmates at the Montgomery Centre, Toronto and how many were convicted of (a) first degree murder (b) second degree murder (c) attempted murder (d) manslaughter (e) rape and attempted rape (0 other sexual offences (g) assault (h) robbery (i) weapons offences (j) break and enter (k) cannabis offences (1) other Narcotic Control Act offences?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:

June 22, 1982
Order Paper Questions
For Montgomery Centre			
Table 1:			Total number of inmates
1976	1977	1978	1979 198052	53	54	63 62
The above table indicates the total number of inmates for each year 1976 to 1980. Each figure includes the inmates on register as of January 1st of each year plus all admissions and transfers to the institution during that year. For questions (a) through (1) see Table 2 below.
Table 2
Montgomery Centre
Number of inmates, per offence, who were serving their sentences during the years 1976 to 1980
1976	1977	1978	1979	1980(a)	First degree murder:	nil (1) [i]	nil (1)	nil (1)	nil (1)	nil (1)(b)	Second degree murder:	ml (5)[ii)	nil (4)	nil (3)	nil (2)	nil (2)(c)	Attempted murder:	3	2	I	nil	nil<d)	Manslaughter:	8	5	6	4	3(e)	Rape:	4	3	2	3	3attempted rape:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil(0	Other sexual offences:	1	nil	nil	1	nil(g)	Assault [iii]:	1	nil	nil	nil	1<H)	Robbery:	22	15	20	18	6(i)	Weapons offences:	2	1	nil	nil	nilG)	Break and enter:	1	nil	2	5	4GO	Cannabis offences [iv]:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nilG)	Other Narcotic Control Act offences:	2	1	9	10	5
Footnotes:
For elaboration concerning (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and Table 2, see "Footnotes" to question No. 3,829 answered this day.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of inmates at the Beaver Creek camp, Gravenhurst and how many were convicted of (a) first degree murder (b) second degree murder (c) attempted murder (d) manslaughter (e) rape and attempted rape (0 other sexual offences (g) assault (h) robbery (i) weapons offences (j) break and enter (k) cannabis offences (1) other Narcotic Control Act offences?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
Table 2
For Beaver Creek Correctional Camp
Table 1:	Total number of inmates
1976	1977	1978	1979	1980148	141	142	158	139
The above table indicates the total number of inmates for each year 1976 to 1980. Each figure includes the inmates on register as of January 1st of each year plus all admissions and transfers to the institution during that year. For questions (a) through (1) see Table 2 below.
Beaver Creek Correctional Camp
Number of inmates, per offence, who were serving their sentences during the years 1976 to 1980
1976	1977	1978	1979	1980(a)	First degree murder:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil(b)	Second degree murder:	nil (6)(iiJ	nil (6)	nil (6)	nil (6)	nil (6)(c)	Attempted murder:	nil	nil	nil	2	nil<d)	Manslaughter:	10	6	5	6	5(e)	Rape:	4	3	5	4	1attempted rape:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil(0	Other sexual offences:	2	1	3	3	1(g)	Assault [iii]:	2	nil	3	3	1(h)	Robbery:	24	15	24	18	17(i)	Weapons offences:	nil	nil	nil	2	3G)	Break and enter:	12	5	9	7	5GO	Cannabis offences [iv]:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nilG)	Other Narcotic Control Act offences:	13	10	26	20	10
Footnotes:
For elaboration concerning (ii), (iii), (iv) and Table 2, see "Footnotes" to question No. 3,829 answered this day.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of inmates at the Bath Institution, Bath and how many were convicted of (a) first degree murder (b) second degree murder (c) attempted murder (d) manslaughter (e) rape and attempted rape (f) other sexual offences (g) assault (h) robbery (i) weapons offences (j) break and enter (k) cannabis offences (1) other Narcotic Control Act offences?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
For Bath Institution			
Table 1:			Total number of inmates
1976	1977	1978	1979 1980159	168	213	211 226
June 22, 1982

Order Paper Questions
The above table indicates the total number of inmates for	register as of January 1st of each year plus all admissions and
each year 1976 to 1980. Each figure includes the inmates on	transfers to the institution during that year. For questions (a)
______________________________________________________________through (1) see Table 2 below.
Table 2	Bath Institution
Number of inmates, per offence, who were serving their sentences during the years 1976 to 1980
1976	1977	1978	1979	1980(a)	First degree murder:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil(b)	Second degree murder:	nil (12)[ii]	nil (12)	1 (12)	i (id	1 (10)(c)	Attempted murder:	1	1	1	1 8	2(d)	Manslaughter:	6	6	10	7(e)	Rape:	1	1	3	2	2attempted rape:	nil	nil	nil	nil	1 nil(0	Other sexual offences:	nil	nil	2	1	(g)	Assault [iii]:	2	nil	1	1	200	Robbery:	33	22	36	30	28(i)	Weapons offences:	2	2	1	nil	2(j)	Break and enter:	21	12	15	16	1600	Cannabis offences [iv]:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil(1)	Other Narcotic Control Act offences:	9	5	9	12	9Footnotes: For elaboration concerning (ii), (iii), (iv) and Table 2, see	"Footnotes" to question No.	3,829 answered this day.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of inmates at the Pittsburg Institution farm, Joyceville and how many were convicted of (a) First degree murder (b) second degree murder (c) attempted murder (d) manslaughter (e) rape and attempted rape (f) other sexual offences (g) assault (h) robbery (i) weapons offences (j) break and enter (k) cannabis offences (1) other Narcotic Control Act offences?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
Table 2
For Pittsburg Institution Table 1:		Total number of inmates		
1976	1977	1978	1979	1980220	203	212	247	257
The above table indicates the total number of inmates for each year 1976 to 1980. Each figure includes the inmates on register as of January 1 of each year plus all admissions and transfers to the institution during that year. For questions (a) through (1) see Table 2 below.
Pittsburg Institution
Number of inmates, per offence, who were serving their sentences during the years 1976 to 1980
1980 nil (I) nil (7) nil 3 2
nil nil
26 2
16 nil 9
1976	1977	1978	1979(a)	First degree murder:	nil (1) [i]	nil (1)	nil (1)	nil (1)(b)	Second degree murder:	nil (9) [ii]	nil (9)	nil (9)	nil (8)(c)	Attempted murder:	nil	nil	nil	nil(d)	Manslaughter:	12	6	10	6(e)	Rape:	2	2	3	3attempted rape:	nil	nil	nil	nil(0	Other sexual offences:	2	1	2	1(g)	Assault [iii]:	5	1	3	3(h)	Robbery:	32	24	37	29(i)	Weapons offences:	4	3	3	4(j)	Break and enter:	21	11	23	1900	Cannabis offences [iv]:	nil	nil	nil	nil(1)	Other Narcotic Control Act offences:	8	6	12	9
Footnotes:
For elaboration concerning (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and Table 2, see "Footnotes" to question No. 3,829 answered this day.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of inmates at the Frontenac Institution farm, Kingston and how many were convicted of (a) First degree murder (b) second degree murder (c) attempted murder (d) manslaughter (e) rape and attempted rape (f) other sexual offences (g) assault (h) robbery (i) weapons offences (j) break and enter (k) cannabis offences (1) other Narcotic Control Act offences?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
For Frontenac Institution Table 1:		Total number of inmates	
1976	1977	1978 1979	1980263	219	241 274	264
June 22, 1982
Order Paper Questions
The above table indicates the total number of inmates for each year 1976 to 1980. Each figure includes the inmates on
Table 2
register as of January 1 of each year plus all admissions and transfers to the institution during that year. For questions (a) through (1) see Table 2 below.
Frontenac Institution
Number of inmates, per offence, who were serving their sentences during the years 1976 to 1980
1976	1977	1978	1979	1980(a)	First degree murder:	nil (!)[i]	nil	nil	nil	nil(b)	Second degree murder:	nil (4)[iiJ	nil (4)	nil (4)	nil (3)	1 (3)(c)	Attempted murder:	2	1	1	3	2(d)	Manslaughter:	6	4	9	7	4(e)	Rape:	3	2	3	2	2attempted rape:	1	1	1	nil	nil(0	Other sexual offences:	1	nil	1	4	2(g)	Assault [iii]:	4	3	3	1	2(H)	Robbery:	35	25	34	26	15(i)	Weapons offences:	1	1	2	3	1(j)	Break and enter:	24	14	22	15	14(k)	Cannabis offences [iv]:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil(1)	Other Narcotic Control Act offences:	8	4	9	10	4
Footnotes:
For elaboration concerning (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and Table 2, see "Footnotes" to question No. 3,829 answered this day.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of inmates at the Wark-worth Institution, Campbellford and how many were convicted of (a) first degree murder (b) second degree murder (c) attempted murder (d) manslaughter (e) rape and attempted rape (0 other sexual offences (g) assault (h) robbery (i) weapons offences (j) break and enter (k) cannabis offences (I) other Narcotic Control Act offences?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
For Warkworth Institution			
Table 1:		Total number of inmates	
1976	1977	1978 1979	1980731	766	563 402	876
The above table indicates the total number of inmates for each year 1976 to 1980. Each figure includes the inmates on register as of January 1 of each year plus all admissions and transfers to the institution during that year. For questions (a) through (1) see Table 2 below.
Table 2
Warkworth Institution
Number of inmates, per offence, who were serving their sentences during the years 1976 to 1980
1976	1977	1978	1979	1980(a)	First degree murder:	nil (2) [i]	nil (1)	nil (1)	nil	nil(b)	Second degree murder:	2 (44) [ii]	2(44)	11 (44)	15 (44)	18 (43)(c)	Attempted murder:	7	3	8	7	5(d)	Manslaughter:	26	15	27	22	24(e)	Rape:	37	23	39	46	51attempted rape:	3	2	2	2	6(0	Other sexual offences:	9	4	13	16	3(g)	Assault [iii]:	5	2	3	6	3(h)	Robbery:	95	46	98	95	93(i)	Weapons offences:	1	1	2	2	5(j)	Break and enter:	42	24	54	51	4800	Cannabis offences [iv]:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil(1)	Other Narcotic Control Act offences:	42	16	34	27	24
Footnotes:
For elaboration concerning (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and Table 2, see "Footnotes" to question No. 3,829 answered this day.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of inmates at the Joyceville Institution, Joyceville and how many were convicted of (a) first degree murder (b) second degree murder (c) attempted murder (d) manslaughter (e) rape and attempted rape (0 other sexual offences (g) assault (h) robbery (i) weapons offences (j) break and enter (k) cannabis offences (1) other Narcotic Control Act offences?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
For Joyceville Institution Table 1:			Total number of inmates	
1976	1977	1978	1979	1980951	925	969	1,065	1,052
June 22, 1982

The above table indicates the total number of inmates for each year 1976 to 1980. Each figure includes the inmates on register as of January 1 of each year plus all admissions and
Order Paper Questions
transfers to the institution during that year. For questions (a) through (1) see Table 2 below.
Table 2	Joyceville Institution
Number of inmates, per offence, who were serving their sentences during the years 1976 to 1980
1976	1977	1978	1979	1980(a)	First degree murder:	nil (2)[i]	nil (2)	1 (2)	1 (2)	1 0)(b)	Second degree murder:	nil (21)[ii]	nil (21)	5(21)	6(20)	8 (20)(c)	Attempted murder:	5	4	7	8	9(d)	Manslaughter:	21	14	16	17	20(e)	Rape:	18	12	13	12	12attempted rape:	2	2	nil	2	1(0	Other sexual offences:	9	5	10	6	nil(g)	Assault [iii]:	10	1	4	4	5(h)	Robbery:	111	78	101	98	109(i)	Weapons offences:	6	1	7	11	11(j)	Break and enter:	84	34	63	63	62(k)	Cannabis offences [iv]:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil(1)	Other Narcotic Control Act offences:	28	17	31	20	18
Footnotes:
For elaboration concerning (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and Table 2, see "Footnotes" to question No. 3,829 answered this day.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of inmates at the Collins Bay Institution, Kingston and how many were convicted of (a) first degree murder (b) second degree murder (c) attempted murder (d) manslaughter (e) rape and attempted rape (0 other sexual offences (g) assault (h) robbery (i) weapons offences (j) break and enter (k) cannabis offences (1) other Narcotic Control Act offences?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
For Collins Bay Institution
Table 1:	Total number of inmates
1976	1977	1978	1979	1980971	923	938	903	944The above	table	indicates	the total	number of	inmates	foreach year 1976 to 1980 for Collins Bay and Portsmouth Centre	(figures cannot	be	extracted	from Collins	Bay's
records, see question 3846). Each figure includes the inmates on register as of January 1 of each year plus all admissions and transfers to the institutions during that year. For questions (a) through (1) see Table 2 below.
Table 2	Collins Bay Institution and Portsmouth Centre
Number of inmates, per offence, who were serving their sentences during the years 1976 to 1980
1976	1977	1978	1979	1980(a)	First degree murder:	nil (1)[i]	nil (1)	1 (1)	1 (1)	1 0)(b)	Second degree murder:	1 (24)[ii]	1 (21)	9(18)	11 (18)	13(16)<0	Attempted murder:	5	5	6	7	7(d)	Manslaughter:	27	22	35	29	30(e)	Rape:	8	5	6	3	4attempted rape:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil(0	Other sexual offences:	2	2	1	1	nil(g)	Assault [iii]:	14	7	5	9	10(h)	Robbery:	127	85	139	146	156(i)	Weapons offences:	4	3	3	4	8(j)	Break and enter:	60	28	60	47	5200	Cannabis offences [iv]:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil0)	Other Narcotic Control Act offences:	24	17	33	31	27
Footnotes:
For elaboration concerning (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and Table 2, see "Footnotes" to question No. 3,829 answered this day.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of inmates at the Millhaven
Institution, Bath and how many were convicted of (a) first degree murder (b)
second degree murder (c) attempted murder (d) manslaughter (e) rape and
attempted rape (0 other sexual offences (g) assault (h) robbery (i) weapons offences (j) break and enter (k) cannabis offences (I) other Narcotic Control Act offences?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:

June 22, 1982
Order Paper Questions
For Millhaven Institution Table 1:			Total number of inmates	
1976	1977	1978	1979	1980649	631	597	527	602
The above table indicates the total number of inmates for each year 1976 to 1980. Each figure includes the inmates on register as of January 1 of each year plus all admissions and transfers to the institution during that year. For questions (a) through (1) see Table 2 below.
Table 2	Millhaven Institution
Number of inmates, per offence, who were serving their sentences during the years 1976 to 1980
1976	1977	1978	1979	1980(a)	First degree murder:	3	2	20	26	32(b)	Second degree murder:	2 (25)[ii]	2(23)	18 (21)	32 (21)	52 (20)(c)	Attempted murder:	4	4	8	10	10(d)	Manslaughter:	12	9	9	9	5(e)	Rape:	4	3	4	5	7attempted rape:	1	nil	2	nil	nil(0	Other sexual offences:	1	1	1	4	nil(g)	Assault [iii]:	6	3	5	8	5<h)	Robbery:	89	68	83	86	82(i)	Weapons offences:	5	2	2	6	7(j)	Break and enter:	31	15	23	25	34(k)	Cannabis offences [iv]:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil(1)	Other Narcotic Control Act offences:	7	7	7	7	7
Footnotes:
For elaboration concerning (ii), (iii), (iv) and Table 2, see "Footnotes" to question No. 3,829 answered this day.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of inmates at the Prison for Women, Kingston and how many were convicted of (a) First degree murder (b) second degree murder (c) attempted murder (d) manslaughter (e) rape and attempted rape (0 other sexual offences (g) assault (h) robbery (i) weapons offences (j) break and enter (k) cannabis offences (1) other Narcotic Control Act offences?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
Table 2
For Prison for Women
Table I:	Total number of inmates
1976	1977	1978	1979	1980210	220	223	229	198
The above table indicates the total number of inmates for each year 1976 to 1980. Each figure includes the inmates on register as of January 1 of each year plus all admissions and transfers to the institution during that year. For questions (a) through (1) see Table 2 below.
Prison for Women
Number of inmates, per offence, who were serving their sentences during the years 1976 to 1980
1976	1977	1978	1979	1980(a) First degree murder:	nil (l)[i)	nil (1)	1	3	3(b) Second degree murder:	nil (7)[ii]	nil (7)	7(6) 1	9(6) I	11 (5)(c) Attempted murder:	nil	nil	2(d) Manslaughter:	14	9	20	21	17(e) Rape.	nil	nil	nil	nil	nilattempted rape:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil(0 Other sexual offences:	1	1	nil	nil	nil(g) Assault [iii]:	2	nil	3	2	2(h) Robbery:	21	13	16	18	13(i) Weapons offences:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil(j) Break and enter:	5	2	3	8	7(k) Cannabis offences [iv]:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil(1) Other Narcotic Control Act offences:	58	22	37	32	28
Footnotes:
For elaboration concerning (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and Table 2, see "Footnotes" to question No. 3,829 answered this day.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of inmates at the Regional
Psychiatric Centre, Kingston and how many were convicted of (a) First degree
murder (b) second degree murder (c) attempted murder (d) manslaughter (e)
rape and attempted rape (0 other sexual offences (g) assault (h) robbery (i) weapons offences (j) break and enter (k) cannabis offences (1) other Narcotic Control Act offences?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
June 22, 1982

For the Regional Psychiatric Centre Kingston
Table 1:			Total number of inmates	
1976	1977	1978	1979	1980525	284	225	256	267
Order Paper Questions
The above table indicates the total number of inmates for each year 1976 to 1980. Each figure includes the inmates on register as of January 1 of each year plus all admissions and transfers to the institution during that year. For questions (a) through (1) see Table 2 below.
Table 2
Regional Psychiatric Centre
Number of inmates, per offence, who were serving their sentences during the years 1976 to 1980
1976	1977	1978	1979	1980(a)	First degree murder:	nil (3)[i]	nil (3)	1 (2)	1 (2)	1 (3)(b)	Second degree murder:	1 (5) [ii]	1 (5)	2(5)	4(5)	5(5)(c)	Attempted murder:	2	nil	3	nil	4Id)	Manslaughter:	4	1	5	7	5(e)	Rape:	15	15	17	15	12attempted rape:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil(0	Other sexual offences:	9	4	5	4	nil(g)	Assault [iii]:	5	2	2	2	3(h)	Robbery:	20	13	17	13	16(i)	Weapons offences:	nil	nil	1	nil	nil(j)	Break and enter:	13	6	11	11	7(k)	Cannabis offences [iv]:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil(1)	Other Narcotic Control Act offences:	3	1	1	2	2
Footnotes:
For elaboration concerning (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and Table 2, see "Footnotes" to question No. 3,829 answered this day.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of inmates at the Regional Reception Centre, Kingston and how many were convicted of (a) first degree murder (b) second degree murder (c) attempted murder (d) manslaughter (e) rape and attempted rape (0 other sexual offences (g) assault (h) robbery (i) weapons offences (j) break and enter (k) cannabis offences (1) other Narcotic Control Act offences?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
For the Regional Reception Centre, Kingston
Table 1:	Total number of inmates
1976	1977	1978	1979	19801,630	1,853	1,878	1,725	1,834
The above table indicates the total number of inmates for each year 1976 to 1980. Each figure includes the inmates on register as of January 1 of each year plus all admissions and transfers to the institution during that year. For questions (a) through (1) see Table 2 below.
Table 2	Regional Reception Centre
Number of inmates, per offence, who were serving their sentences during the years 1976 to 1980
1976	1977	1978	1979	1980(a)	First degree murder:	l (1 )[i]	1 0)	7(1)	9(1)	11 (1)(b)	Second degree murder:	1 (25) [ii]	1 (22)	7(17)	17(15)	18(14)(c)	Attempted murder:	3	3	4	6	6<d)	Manslaughter:	11	9	17	23	14(e)	Rape:	11	9	13	24	39attempted rape:	nil	nil	2	3	4(0	Other sexual offences:	6	3	11	12	1(g)	Assault [iii]:	nil	nil	2	4	2(h)	Robbery:	34	23	46	62	71(i)	Weapons offences:	nil	nil	3	4	1(j)	Break and enter:	19	7	22	30	39(k)	Cannabis offences [iv]:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil(1)	Other Narcotic Control Act offences:	8	5	9	4	3
Footnotes:
For elaboration concerning (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and Table 2, see "Footnotes" to question No. 3,829 answered this day.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of inmates at the Osborne
Centre, Winnipeg and how many were convicted of (a) first degree murder (b)
second degree murder (c) attempted murder (d) manslaughter (e) rape and
attempted rape (f) other sexual offences (g) assault (h) robbery (i) weapons offences (j) break and enter (k) cannabis offences (1) other Narcotic Control Act offences?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:

June 22, 1982
Order Paper Questions
For Osborne Centre
Table I:
Total number of inmates
1976	1977	1978	1979	1980170	79	81	108	127
The above table indicates the total number of inmates for each year 1976 to 1980. Each figure includes the inmates on register as of January 1 of each year plus all admissions and transfers to the institution during that year. For questions (a) through (1) see Table 2 below.
Table 2	Osborne Centre
Number of inmates, per offence, who were serving their sentences during the years 1976 to 1980
1976	1977	1978	1979	1980(a)	First degree murder:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil(b)	Second degree murder:	nil (7)[ii]	nil	nil (7)	nil (6)	nil (6)(c)	Attempted murder:	1	1	2	2	2(d)	Manslaughter:	7	7	9	7	11(e)	Rape:	3	2	4	9	3attempted rape:	nil	nil	1	nil	nil(0	Other sexual offences:	1	nil	1	4	2(g)	Assault [iii]:	1	nil	nil	nil	2(h)	Robbery:	26	20	26	17	19(i)	Weapons offences:	nil	nil	1	2	4U)	Break and enter:	8	6	14	10	1300	Cannabis offences [iv]:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil(1)	Other Narcotic Control Act offences:	14	9	9	11	6
Footnotes:
For elaboration concerning (ii), (iii), (iv) and Table 2, see "Footnotes" to question No. 3,829 answered this day.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number ofinmates at the Rockwood Institution farm. Stony Mountain and how many were convicted of (a) First degree murder (b) second degree murder (c) attempted murder (d) manslaughter (e) rape and attempted rape (0 other sexual offences (g) assault (h) robbery (i) weapons offences (j) break and enter (k) cannabis offences (1) other Narcotic Control Act offences?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
Table 2
For Rockwood Institution
Table 1:	Total number of inmates
1976	1977	1978	1979	1980165	175	201	209	185The above	table	indicates	the total	number of	inmates for
each year 1976 to 1980. Each figure includes the inmates on register as of January 1 of each year plus all admissions and transfers to the institution during that year. For questions (a) through (1) see Table 2 below.
Rockwood Institution
Number of inmates, per offence, who were serving their sentences during the years 1976 to 1980
1980 nil
nil (7)
1 2 3 nil nil 1
9 nil 6 nil nil
1976	1977	1978	1979(a)	First degree murder:	nil	nil	nil	nil(b)	Second degree murder:	nil (7)[ii]	nil (7)	nil (7)	nil (7)(O	Attempted murder:	nil	nil	1	1(d)	Manslaughter:	nil	nil	nil	2(e)	Rape:	nil	nil	2	2attempted rape:	nil	nil	nil	nil(0	Other sexual offences:	nil	nil	nil	nil(g)	Assault [iii]:	nil	nil	nil	nil<h)	Robbery:	1	1	1	6(i)	Weapons offences:	nil	nil	nil	nil(j)	Break and enter:	1	1	1	3(k)	Cannabis offences [iv]:	nil	nil	nil	nil(I)	Other Narcotic Control Act offences:	nil	nil	nil	nil
Footnotes:
For elaboration concerning (ii), (iii), (iv) and Table 2, see "Footnotes" to question No. 3,829 answered this day.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of inmates at the Stony
Mountain Institution, Stony Mountain and how many were convicted of (a) first
degree murder (b) second degree murder (c) attempted murder (d) manslaughter (e) rape and attempted rape (0 other sexual offences (g) assault (h) robbery (i) weapons offences (j) break and enter (k) cannabis offences (1) other Narcotic Control Act offences?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
June 22, 1982

For Stony Mountain Institution Table 1:				Order Paper Questions The above table indicates the total number of inmates for each year 1976 to 1980. Each figure includes the inmates on
1976 1977	1978	1979	1980	register as of January 1 of each year plus all admissions and transfers to the institution during that year. For questions (a)1,013 961	966	962	993	through (1) see Table 2 below.Table 2	Stony Mountain Institution
Number of inmates, per offence, who were serving their sentences during the years 1976 to 1980
1976	1977	1978	1979	1980(a)	First degree murder:	1 (!)[']	1 (1)	2	2	2(b)	Second degree murder:	1 (20)[ii]	1 (19)	18 (20)	22 (21)	26(21)<c)	Attempted murder:	7	6	5	8	9(d)	Manslaughter:	38	24	29	29	36(e)	Rape:	24	16	23	19	21attempted rape:	nil	nil	1	1	1(0	Other sexual offences:	15	5	5	5	1(g)	Assault [iii]:	15	3	11	8	12(h)	Robbery:	90	49	87	106	122(i)	Weapons offences:	7	3	5	6	3(j)	Break and enter:	75	30	70	46	7600	Cannabis offences [iv]:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil(1)	Other Narcotic Control Act offences:	20	9	9	9	12
Footnotes:
For elaboration concerning (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and Table 2, see "Footnotes" to question No. 3,829 answered this day.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of inmates at the Oskana Centre, Regina and how many were convicted of (a) first degree murder (b) second degree murder (c) attempted murder (d) manslaughter (e) rape and attempted rape (f) other sexual offences (g) assault (h) robbery (i) weapons offences (j) break and enter (k) cannabis offences (1) other Narcotic Control Act offences?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
Table 2
For Oskana Centre Table 1:		Total number of inmates	
1976 1977	1978	1979	198046 50	54	54	65
The above table indicates the total number of inmates for each year 1976 to 1980. Each figure includes the inmates on register as of January 1st of each year plus all admissions and transfers to the institution during that year. For questions (a) through (1) see Table 2 below.
Oskana Centre
Number of inmates, per offence, who were serving their sentences during the years 1976 to 1980
1976	1977	1978	1979	1980(a)	First degree murder:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil(b)	Second degree murder:	nil (1) [ii]	nil (1)	nil (1)	nil (1)	nil(c)	Attempted murder:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil(d)	Manslaughter:	3	2	3	4	5(e)	Rape:	5	3	5	7	4attempted rape:	nil	nil	2	2	3(0	Other sexual offences:	1	1	2	2	nil(g)	Assault [iii]:	1	nil	nil	nil	nil(h)	Robbery:	10	6	12	7	13(i)	Weapons offences:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil(j)	Break and enter:	8	4	5	8	5(k)	Cannabis offences [iv]:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil(1)	Other Narcotic Control Act offences:	14	8	9	7	7
Footnotes:
For elaboration concerning (ii), (iii), (iv) and Table 2, see "Footnotes" to question No. 3,829 answered this day.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of inmates at the Saskatchewan Institution farm. Prince Albert and how many were convicted of (a) first
degree murder (b) second degree murder (c) attempted murder (d) manslaughter (e) rape and attempted rape (f) other sexual offences (g) assault (h) robbery (i) weapons offences (j) break and enter (k) cannabis offences (1) other Narcotic Control Act offences?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:

June 22, 1982
Order Paper Questions
For Saskatchewan Farm Institution
Table 1:
Total number of inmates
1976	1977	1978142	136	1631979	1980147	173
The above table indicates the total number of inmates for each year 1976 to 1980. Each figure includes the inmates on register as of January 1st of each year plus all admissions and transfers to the institution during that year. For questions (a) through (1) see Table 2 below.
Table 2	Saskatchewan Farm Institution
Number of inmates, per offence, who were serving their sentences during the years 1976 to 1980
1976	1977	1978	1979	1980(a)	First degree murder:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil(b)	Second degree murder:	nil (2)[ii]	nil (2)	nil (2)	nil (2)	nil (2)(c)	Attempted murder:	1	I	1	nil	nil(d)	Manslaughter:	nil	nil	8	7	9(e)	Rape:	1	1	12	14	18attempted rape:	nil	nil	nil	1	1(0	Other sexual offences:	2	2	2	2	2(g)	Assault [iii]:	nil	nil	1	nil	nil(h)	Robbery:	1	1	3	11	15(i)	Weapons offences:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nilCD	Break and enter:	2	2	6	8	14(k)	Cannabis offences [iv]:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil(0	Other Narcotic Control Act offences:	2	2	1	1	2
Footnotes:
For elaboration concerning (ii), (iii), (iv) and Table 2, see "Footnotes" to question No. 3,829 answered this day.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of inmates at the Saskatchewan Penitentiary, Prince Albert and how many were convicted of (a) first degree murder (b) second degree murder (c) attempted murder (d) manslaughter (e) rape and attempted rape (f) other sexual offences (g) assault (h) robbery (i) weapons offences (j) break and enter (k) cannabis offences (1) other Narcotic Control Act offences?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
For Saskatchewan Penitentiary
Table 1:	Total number of inmates
1976	1977	1978	1979	19801,218	1,149	1,131	1,030	1,130
The above table indicates the total number of inmates for each year 1976 to 1980. Each figure includes the inmates on register as of January 1st of each year plus all admissions and transfers to the institution during that year. For questions (a) through (1) see Table 2 below.
Table 2	Saskatchewan Penitentiary
Number of inmates, per offence, who were serving their sentences during the years 1976 to 1980
1976	1977	1978	1979	1980(a)	First degree murder:	3 (4)[i]	2(4)	9(4)	10(4)	12(4)(b)	Second degree murder:	1 (27) [ii]	1 (26)	13 (23)	15 (20)	24 (20)(c)	Attempted murder:	13	11	17	13	13(d)	Manslaughter:	23	17	21	18	19(e)	Rape:	44	32	47	54	50attempted rape:	5	5	9	6	3(0	Other sexual offences:	26	10	21	17	4(g)	Assault [iii]:	18	5	13	8	9(h)	Robbery:	98	66	89	80	63(i)	Weapons offences:	9	3	8	4	4(j)	Break and enter:	71	28	64	54	40(k)	Cannabis offences [iv]:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil(1)	Other Narcotic Control Act offences:	29	16	12	11	9
Footnotes:
For elaboration concerning (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and Table 2, see "Footnotes" to question No. 3,829 answered this day.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of inmates at the Regional Psychiatric Centre, Saskatoon and how many were convicted of (a) first degree murder (b) second degree murder (c) attempted murder (d) manslaughter (e) rape and attempted rape (0 other sexual offences (g) assault (h) robbery (i) weapons offences (j) break and enter (k) cannabis offences (1) other Narcotic Control Act offences?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
For the Regional Psychiatric Centre,
Saskatoon (opened in 1979)
Table 1:	Total Number of inmates
1979	1980
95	172
June 22, 1982

The above table indicates the total number of inmates for the years 1979 and 1980. The Figure for 1979 includes the original number of admissions plus all transfers to the institution during the year. For 1980 the figure includes the inmates on register as of January 1st plus all admissions and transfers to the institution. For questions (a) through (1) see Table 2 below.
Table 2	Regional Psychiatric Centre
Number of inmates, per offence, who were serving their
sentences during the years 1979 and 1980
		1979	1980
(a)	First degree murder:	nil	nil(b)	Second degree murder:	1 (2) [ii]	1 (2)(c)	Attempted murder:	nil	1(d)	Manslaughter:	3	6(e)	Rape:	3	3attempted rape:	1	nil(0	Other sexual offences:	12	nil(g)	Assault [iii]:	3	4(h)	Robbery:	11	10(i)	Weapons offences:	1	10)	Break and enter:	14	6(k)	Cannabis offences [iv]:	nil	nil
Table 2
Order Paper Questions
(1) Other Narcotic Control Act
offences:	2	2
Footnotes:
For elaboration concerning (ii), (iii), (iv) and Table 2, see "Footnotes" to question No. 3,829 answered this day.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of inmates at the Altadore Centre, Calgary and how many were convicted of (a) first degree murder (b) second degree murder (c) attempted murder (d) manslaughter (e) rape and attempted rape (f) other sexual offences (g) assault (h) robbery (i) weapons offences (j) break and enter (k) cannabis offences (I) other Narcotic Control Act offences?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
For Altadore Centre			
Table 1:			Total number of inmates
1976	1977	1978	1979 198013	36	78	52 80
The above table indicates the total number of inmates for each year 1976 to 1980. Each figure includes the inmates on register as of January 1st of each year plus all admissions and transfers to the institution during that year. For questions (a) through (1) see Table 2 below.
Altadore Centre
Number of inmates, per offence, who were serving their sentences during the years 1976 to 1980
1976	1977	1978	1979	1980(a)	First degree murder:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil(b)	Second degree murder:	nil (3)[ii]	nil (3)	nil (3)	nil (3)	nil (2)(c)	Attempted murder:	1	1	2	1	1(d)	Manslaughter:	3	1	2	1	nil(e)	Rape:	1	1	3	2	5attempted rape:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil(0	Other sexual offences:	1	1	1	2	1(g)	Assault:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil(h)	Robbery:	12	9	17	16	15(i)	Weapons offences:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil(J)	Break and enter:	7	4	12	11	14(k)	Cannabis offences [iv]:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil(1)	Other Narcotic Control Act offences:	7	2	13	12	8
Footnotes:
For elaboration concerning (ii), (iv) and Table 2, see "Footnotes" to question No. 3,829 answered this day.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of inmates at the Portal House, Calgary and how many were convicted of (a) first degree murder (b) second degree murder (c) attempted murder (d) manslaughter (e) rape and attempted rape (0 other sexual offences (g) assault (h) robbery (i) weapons offences (j) break and enter (k) cannabis offences (1) other Narcotic Control Act offences?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: in so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
For Portal House (prior to July 1980 known as Scarboro Centre)
Table 1:	Total number of inmates
1976	1977	1978	1979	198094	93	77	82	70
The above table indicates the total number of inmates for each year 1976 to 1980. Each figure includes the inmates on register as of January 1st of each year plus all admissions and transfers to the institution during that year. For questions (a) through (1) see Table 2 below.
Table 2
Portal House
Number of inmates, per offence, who were serving their sentences during the years 1976 to 1980
1976	1977
nil	nil
(a) First degree murder:
nil
nil
nil

June 22, 1982
Order Paper Questions
Table 2	Portal House
Number of inmates, per offence, who were serving their sentences during the years 1976 to 1980
1976	1977	1978	1979	1980(b) Second degree murder:	nil (5)[ii]	nil (5)	nil (5)	nil (4)	nil (3)(c) Attempted murder:	nil	nil	2	nil	1(d) Manslaughter:	2	2	3	2	2(e) Rape:	4	3	3	nil	3attempted rape:	nil	nil	nil	1	1(0 Other sexual offences:	1	nil	nil	2	1(g) Assault [iii]:	nil	nil	3	1	nil(h) Robbery:	8	5	16	11	7(i) Weapons offences:	nil	nil	1	1	2(j) Break and enter:	10	2	5	9	5(k) Cannabis offences [iv]:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil(1) Other Narcotic Control Act offences:	7	3	7	3	6
Footnotes:
For elaboration concerning (ii), (iii), (iv) and Table 2, see "Footnotes" to question No. 3,829 answered this day.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of inmates at the Grierson Centre, Edmonton and how many were convicted of (a) first degree murder (b) second degree murder (c) attempted murder (d) manslaughter (e) rape and attempted rape (0 other sexual offences (g) assault (h) robbery (i) weapons offences (j) break and enter (k) cannabis offences (I) other Narcotic Control Act offences?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
Table 2
For Grierson Centre			
Table 1:			Total number of inmates
1976	1977	1978	1979 1980161	216	236	215 210
The above table indicates the total number of inmates for each year 1976 to 1980. Each figure includes the inmates on register as of January 1st of each year plus all admissions and transfers to the institution during that year. For questions (a) through (1) see Table 2 below.
Grierson Centre
Number of inmates, per offence, who were serving their sentences during the years 1976 to 1980
1976	1977	1978	1979	1980(a) First degree murder:	nil	nil	1	1	1(b) Second degree murder:	nil (7)[ii]	nil (6)	nil (6)	nil (6)	nil (6)(c) Attempted murder:	4	4	3	3	2(d) Manslaughter:	9	5	8	8	12(e) Rape:	7	4	8	7	5attempted rape:	1	nil	nil	nil	nil(f) Other sexual offences:	7	5	4	6	1(g) Assault [iii]:	4	2	I	nil	1(h) Robbery:	35	22	47	38	43(i) Weapons offences:	1	1	1	nil	1(j) Break and enter:	28	14	32	22	17(k) Cannabis offences [iv]:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil(1) Other Narcotic Control Act offences:	33	11	21	14	15
Footnotes:
For elaboration concerning (ii), (iii), (iv) and Table 2, see "Footnotes" to question No. 3,829 answered this day.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of inmates at the Drumhell-er Trailer Unit and how many were convicted of (a) first degree murder (b) second degree murder (c) attempted murder (d) manslaughter (e) rape and attempted rape (f) other sexual offences (g) assault (h) robbery (i) weapons offences (j) break and enter (k) cannabis offences (1) other Narcotic Control Act offences?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
For Drumheller Trailer Unit: The statistics requested cannot be extracted from the records of Drumheller Institution and are therefore included in our reply to question No. 3,872 answered this day.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of inmates at the Bowden Institution, Innisfail and how many were convicted of (a) first degree murder (b) second degree murder (c) attempted murder (d) manslaughter (e) rape and attempted rape (0 other sexual offences (g) assault (h) robbery (i) weapons offences (j) break and enter (k) cannabis offences (1) other Narcotic Control Act offences?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
For Bowden Institution Table 1:			Total number of inmates	
1976	1977	1978	1979	1980263	311	302	307	337
June 22, 1982

Order Paper Questions
The above table indicates the total number of inmates for transfers to the institution during that year. For questions (a) each year 1976 to 1980. Each figure includes the inmates on through (1) see Table 2 below, register as of January 1 of each year plus all admissions and
Table 2	Bowden Institution
Number of inmates, per offence, who were serving their sentences during the years 1976 to 1980
1976	1977	1978	1979	1980(a)	First degree murder:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil(b)	Second degree murder:	nil (6)[ii]	nil (6)	nil (7)	2(6)	2(6)(c)	Attempted murder:	2	2	1	1	nil(d)	Manslaughter:	10	7	11	12	12(e)	Rape:	3	2	4	3	4attempted rape:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil(0	Other sexual offences:	5	2	1	1	3(g)	Assault [iii]:	6	nil	5	3	3(h)	Robbery:	31	23	30	34	32(i)	Weapons offences:	2	nil	3	1	1(j)	Break and enter:	26	8	27	27	23(k)	Cannabis offences [iv]:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil(1)	Other Narcotic Control Act offences:	21	9	7	8	6
Footnotes:
For elaboration concerning (ii), (iii), (iv) and Table 2, see "Footnotes" to question No. 3,829 answered this day.
CORRECTIONAL SERVICES OF CANADA	For Drumheller Institution


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of inmates at the Drumheller Institution, Drumheller and how many were convicted of (a) first degree murder (b) second degree murder (c) attempted murder (d) manslaughter (e) rape and attempted rape (0 other sexual offences (g) assault (h) robbery (i) weapons offences (j) break and enter (k) cannabis offences (1) other Narcotic Control Act offences?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
Table 2
Tabic 1:	Total number of inmates
1976	1977	1978	1979	19801,029	1,090	1,106	954	974
The above table indicates the total number of inmates for each year 1976 to 1980 for Drumheller Institution and Drumheller Trailer Unit (figures cannot be extracted from Drumheller Institution's records, see question 3,870). Each figure includes the inmates on register as of January 1 of each year plus all admissions and transfers to the institutions during that year. For questions (a) through (1) see Table 2 below.
Drumheller Institution and Drumheller Trailer Unit
Number of inmates, per offence, who were serving their sentences during the years 1976 to 1980
1976	1977	1978	1979	1980(a)	First degree murder:	nil d)[i]	nil (1)	nil (1)	nil (1)	nil (1)(b)	Second degree murder:	nil (17)[ii]	nil (17)	9(18)	10(18)	10(17)(c)	Attempted murder:	2	2	6	7	7<d)	Manslaughter:	5	4	11	16	17(e)	Rape:	4	nil	4	4	nitattempted rape:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil(0	Other sexual offences:	1	nil	2	3	1(g)	Assault [iii]:	5	1	2	5	6<h)	Robbery:	68	42	71	82	85(i)	Weapons offences:	4	3	3	5	5G)	Break and enter:	95	39	76	76	57(k)	Cannabis offences [iv]:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil(1)	Other Narcotic Control Act offences:	47	25	24	22	15
Footnotes:
For elaboration concerning (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and Table 2, see "Footnotes" to question No. 3,829 answered this day.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of inmates at the Edmonton Institution, Edmonton and how many were convicted of (a) first degree murder (b) second degree murder (c) attempted murder (d) manslaughter (e) rape and attempted rape (0 other sexual offences (g) assault (h) robbery (i) weapons offences (j) break and enter (k) cannabis offences (I) other Narcotic Control Act offences?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
For Edmonton Institution (opened in 1978)
Table 1:	Total Number of inmates
1978	1979	198057	235	358
June 22, 1982
Order Paper Questions
The above table indicates the total number of inmates for the years 1978 to 1980. The figure for 1978 includes the original number of admissions plus all transfers to the institu-
Table 2
tion during that year. For 1979 and 1980 the figures include the inmates on register as of January 1 plus all admissions and transfers to the institution for each year. For questions (a) through (1) see Table 2 below.
Edmonton Institution
Number of inmates, per offence, who were serving their sentences during the years 1978 to 1980
(a)	First degree murder:	1978 4	1979 6	1980 1(b)	Second degree murder:	4 (4)[ii]	7(4)	16 (4)(c)	Attempted murder:	1	2	8(d)	Manslaughter:	6	6	6(e)	Rape:	I	nil	1 nilattempted rape:	nil	nil	(0	Other sexual offences:	nil	nil	nil(g)	Assault [iii]:	2	1 35	1 49(h)	Robbery:	29	(i)	Weapons offences:	1	2	1 240)	Break and enter:	14	19	00	Cannabis offences [iv]:	nil	nil	nil(1)	Other Narcotic Control Act offences:	1	1	6
Footnotes:
For elaboration concerning (ii), (iii), (iv) and Table 2, see "Footnotes" to question No. 3,829 answered this day.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of inmates at the Robson Centre, Vancouver and how many were convicted of (a) First degree murder (b) second degree murder (c) attempted murder (d) manslaughter (e) rape and attempted rape (f) other sexual offences (g) assault (h) robbery (i) weapons offences (j) break and enter (k) cannabis offences (1) other Narcotic Control Act offences?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
Table 2
For Robson Centre Table 1:		Total number of inmates	
1976 1977	1978	1979	198088 122	159	85	76
The above table indicates the total number of inmates for each year 1976 to 1980. Each figure includes the inmates on register as of January 1 of each year plus all admissions and transfers to the institution during that year. For questions (a) through (1) see Table 2 below.
Robson Centre
Number of inmates, per offence, who were serving their sentences during the years 1976 to 1980
1976	1977	1978	1979	1980(a)	First degree murder:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil(b)	Second degree murder:	nil (13)[ii]	nil (12)	nil (11)	nil (9)	nil (7)(c)	Attempted murder:	2	1	2	1	2(d)	Manslaughter:	8	8	5	1	nil(e)	Rape:	7	5	4	4	5attempted rape:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil(0	Other sexual offences:	2	2	1	1	nil(g)	Assault [iii]:	2	1	1	1	1(h)	Robbery:	32	22	23	21	17(i)	Weapons offences:	nil	nil	nil	nil	10)	Break and enter:	6	4	6	6	600	Cannabis offences [iv]:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil(1)	Other Narcotic Control Act offences:	48	38	28	26	23
Footnotes:
For elaboration concerning (ii), (iii), (iv) and Table 2, see "Footnotes" to question No. 3,829 answered this day.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of inmates at the Pandora Centre, Victoria and how many were convicted of (a) first degree murder (b) second degree murder (c) attempted murder (d) manslaughter (e) rape and attempted rape (f) other sexual offences (g) assault (h) robbery (i) weapons offences (j) break and enter (k) cannabis offences (1) other Narcotic Control Act offences?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctionnal Service of Canada is concerned:
For Pandora Centre
Table 1:	Total number of inmates
1976	1977	1978	197952	44	48	48
44
June 22, 1982

Order Paper Questions
The above table indicates the total number of inmates for	register as of January 1 of each year plus all admissions and
each year 1976 to 1980. Each figure includes the inmates on	transfers to the institution during that year. For questions (a)

 

 

 through (1) see Table 2 below.
Table 2	Pandora Centre
Number of inmates, per offence, who were serving their sentences during the years 1976 to 1980
1976	1977	1978	1979	1980(a)	First degree murder:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil(b)	Second degree murder:	nil <5)[ii]	nil (5)	nil (5)	nil (3)	nil (1)(c)	Attempted murder:	2	1	2	1	nil(d)	Manslaughter:	2	1	2	2	4(e)	Rape:	3	3	1	1	1attempted rape:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil(0	Other sexual offences:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil(g)	Assault:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil(h)	Robbery:	13	8	12	9	7(i)	Weapons offences:	nil	nil	nil	3	nil(j)	Break and enter:	5	4	5	nil	200	Cannabis offences [iv]:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil0)	Other Narcotic Control Act offences:	16	10	16	11	10
Footnotes:
For elaboration concerning (ii), (iv) and Table 2, see "Footnotes" to question No. 3,829 answered this day.
For Elbow Lake Forestry Camp
Table 1:	Total number of inmates
1976	1977	1978	1979	198010	83	94	133	126
The above table indicates the total number of inmates for each year 1976 to 1980. Each figure includes the inmates on register as of January 1 of each year plus all admissions and transfers to the institution during that year. For questions (a) through (1) see Table 2 below.
Elbow Lake Forestry Camp
Number of inmates, per offence, who were serving their sentences during the years 1976 to 1980
1976	1977	1978	1979	1980(a)	First degree murder:	nil (2)[i)	nil (2)	nil (1)	nil (1)	nil (1)(b)	Second degree murder:	ml (3) [ii]	nil (3)	1 (3)	2(3)	2(3)(c)	Attempted murder:	2	2	3	3	3<d)	Manslaughter:	3	2	2	3	3(e)	Rape:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nilattempted rape:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil(0	Other sexual offences:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil(g)	Assault [iii]:	nil	nil	nil	1	1(h)	Robbery:	12	9	15	17	21(i)	Weapons offences:	nil	nil	2	1	nil(j)	Break and enter:	5	3	4	8	600	Cannabis offences [iv]:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil0)	Other Narcotic Control Act offences:	16	15	23	20	17
Footnotes:
For elaboration concerning (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and Table 2, see "Footnotes" to question No. 3,829 answered this day.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of inmates at the Elbow Lake forestry camp, Harrison Mills and how many were convicted of (a) first degree murder (b) second degree murder (c) attempted murder (d) manslaughter (e) rape and attempted rape (0 other sexual offences (g) assault (h) robbery (i) weapons offences (j) break and enter (k) cannabis offences (1) other Narcotic Control Act offences?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
Table 2


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of inmates at the Ferndale Institution, Mission and how many were convicted of (a) first degree murder (b) second degree murder (c) attempted murder (d) manslaughter (e) rape and attempted rape (0 other sexual offences (g) assault (h) robbery (i) weapons offences (j) break and enter (k) cannabis offences (1) other Narcotic Control Act offences?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
For Ferndale Institution Table 1:			Total number of inmates	
1976	1977	1978	1979	1980128	135	139	138	144
The above table indicates the total number of inmates for each year 1976 to 1980. Each figure includes the inmates on register as of January 1 of each year plus all admissions and transfers to the institutions during the year. For questions (a) through (1) see Table 2 below.

June 22, 1982
Order Paper Questions
Table 2	Ferndale Institution
Number of inmates, per offence, who were serving their sentences during the years 1976 to 1980
1976	1977	1978	1979	1980(a) First degree murder:	nil (2) [i]	nil (1)	nil (1)	nil (1)	nil (1)(b) Second degree murder:	nil (I0)[ii]	nil (9)	nil (8)	nil (7)	nil (6)(c) Attempted murder:	4	3	3	1	2(d) Manslaughter:	5	4	3	2	1(e) Rape:	3	nil	nil	nil	1 nilattempted rape:	nil	nil	nil	nil	(0 Other sexual offences:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil(g) Assault [iii]:	3	1	nil	nil	nil(h) Robbery:	26	20	25	16	10(i) Weapons offences:	nil	nil	nil	1	1(j) Break and enter:	7	4	5	7	3(k) Cannabis offences [iv]:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil(1) Other Narcotic Control Act offences: Footnotes:	30	24	40	45	36
For elaboration concerning (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and Table 2, see "Footnotes" to question No. 3,829 answered this day.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of inmates at the Matsqui Trailer Unit and how many were convicted of (a) first degree murder (b) second degree murder (c) attempted murder (d) manslaughter (e) rape and attempted rape (f) other sexual offences (g) assault (h) robbery (i) weapons offences (j) break and enter (k) cannabis offences (I) other Narcotic Control Act offences?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
For Matsqui Trailer Unit (closed in June 1977 for conversion to a community correctional centre, now known as Sumas Centre), the statistics requested cannot be extracted from the records of Matsqui Institution and are therefore included in our reply to question No. 3,882 answered this day.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of inmates at the Mission Institution, Mission and how many were convicted of (a) first degree murder (b)
Table 2
second degree murder (c) attempted murder (d) manslaughter (e) rape and attempted rape (f) other sexual offences (g) assault (h) robbery (i) weapons offences (j) break and enter (k) cannabis offences (1) other Narcotic Control Act offences?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
For Mission Institution			
Table 1:		Total Number of Inmates	
1977	1978	1979	1980254	370	414	419
The above table indicates the total number of inmates for each year 1977 to 1980. The figure for 1977 includes the original number of admissions plus all transfers to the institution during the year. For the following years the figure includes the inmates on register as of January 1 plus all admissions and transfers to the institution. For questions (a) through (1) see Table 2 below.
Mission Institution
Number of inmates, per offence, who were serving their sentences during the years 1977 to 1980
1977	1978	1979	1980(a)	First degree murder:	nil (1) [iJ	nil (!)	nil (1)	nil (1)(b)	Second degree murder:	ml (Il)[ii]	3(13)	9(13)	11 (12)(c)	Attempted murder:	5	5	6	7(d)	Manslaughter:	5	5	8	11(e)	Rape:	2	5	5	4attempted rape:	nil	1	1	4(0	Other sexual offences:	1	4	1	1(g)	Assault [iii]:	2	3	4	2(h)	Robbery:	12	37	36	40(i)	Weapons offences:	nil	nil	nil	1(j)	Break and enter	6	16	24	2000	Cannabis offences [iv]:	nil	nil	nil	nil0)	Other Narcotic Control Act offences:	16	37	46	44
Footnotes:
For elaboration concerning (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and Table 2, see "Footnotes" to question No. 3,829 answered this day.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of inmates at the William Head Institution, Victoria and how many were convicted of (a) first degree murder (b) second degree murder (c) attempted murder (d) manslaughter (e) rape and attempted rape (f) other sexual offences (g) assault (h) robbery (i) weapons offences (j) break and enter (k) cannabis offences (1) other Narcotic Control Act offences?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
For William Flead Institution
Table 1:	Total number of inmates
1976	1977	1978	1979	1980390	341	283	329	325
The above table indicates the total number of inmates for each year 1976 to 1980. Each figure includes the inmates on register as of January 1 of each year plus all admissions and transfers to the institution during that year. For questions (a) through (1) see Table 2 below.
June 22, 1982

Table 2
Order Paper Questions
William Head Institution
Number of inmates, per offence, who were serving their sentences during the years 1976 to 1980
(a)	First degree murder:	1976 nil	1977 nil	1978 1	1979 1	1980 1(b)	Second degree murder:	2(12)[ii]	2(12)	6(13)	7(13)	7(10)(O	Attempted murder:	3	3	5	4	2(d)	Manslaughter:	2	2	3	3	6(e)	Rape:	2	1	2	1	nilattempted rape:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil(0	Other sexual offences:	nil	nil	nil	1	nil(g)	Assault [iii]:	2	1	1	1	nil00	Robbery:	29	19	28	25	24(i)	Weapons offences:	2	nil	3	2	1(j)	Break and enter:	12	9	17	11	1200	Cannabis offences [iv]:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil0)	Other Narcotic Control Act offences:	42	25	31	30	24
Footnotes:
For elaboration concerning (ii), (iii), (iv) and Table 2, see "Footnotes" to question No. 3,829 answered this day.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of inmates at the Mountain Institution, Agassiz and how many were convicted of (a) first degree murder (b) second degree murder (c) attempted murder (d) manslaughter (e) rape and attempted rape (0 other sexual offences (g) assault (h) robbery (i) weapons offences (j) break and enter (k) cannabis offences (I) other Narcotic Control Act offences?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
For Mountain Institution
Table 1:	Total number of inmates
1976	1977	1978	1979	1980415	437	375	401	358
The above table indicates the total number of inmates for each year 1976 to 1980. Each figure includes the inmates on register as of January 1 of each year plus all admissions and transfers to the institution during that year. For questions (a) through (1) see Table 2 below.
Table 2	Mountain Institution
Number of inmates, per offence, who were serving their sentences during the years 1976 to 1980
1976	1977	1978	1979	1980(a)	First degree murder:	nil (3) [i]	nil (2)	nil (2)	nil (2)	nil (1)(b)	Second degree murder:	nil (21)[ii]	nil (21)	2(19)	2(19)	2(18)(e)	Attempted murder:	1	1	2	3	1(d)	Manslaughter:	8	7	10	6	4(e)	Rape:	58	44	46	52	52attempted rape:	3	3	3	4	3(0	Other sexual offences:	17	17	28	27	5(g)	Assault [iii]:	6	5	5	4	3(h>	Robbery:	20	14	23	19	15(0	Weapons offences:	3	nil	2	1	1(j)	Break and enter:	11	11	15	14	II00	Cannabis offences [iv]:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil0)	Other Narcotic Control Act offences:	31	nil	21	16	17
Footnotes:
For elaboration concerning (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and Table 2, see "Footnotes" to question No. 3,829 answered this day.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of inmates at the Matsqui Institution, Abbotsford and how many were convicted of (a) first degree murder (b) second degree murder (c) attempted murder (d) manslaughter (e) rape and attempted rape (0 other sexual offences (g) assault (h) robbery (i) weapons offences (j) break and enter (k) cannabis offences (1) other Narcotic Control Act offences?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
For Matsqui Institution, Abbotsford
Table 1:	Total	number of inmates1976	1977	1978	1979	1980822	773	545	725	805The above table indicates the total number of	inmates for
each year 1976 to 1980 for Matsqui Institution and Matsqui Trailer Unit (figures cannot be extracted from Matsqui Institution's records, see question 3,878). Each figure includes the inmates on register as of January 1 of each year plus all admissions and transfers to the institution during that year. For questions (a) through (1) see Table 2 below.

June 22, 1982
Order Paper Questions
Table 2
(a)	First degree murder:	1976 nil (2)[i]lb)	Second degree murder:	nil (20)[ii](c)	Attempted murder:	4(d)	Manslaughter:	13(e)	Rape:	6attempted rape:	1(0	Other sexual offences:	2(g)	Assault [iii]:	6(h)	Robbery:	9(i)	Weapons offences:	1(J)	Break and enter:	26(k)	Cannabis offences [iv]:	nil(1)	Other Narcotic Control Act offences:	68
Matsqui and Matsqui Trailer Unit
Number of inmates, per offence, who were serving their sentences during the years 1976 to 1980
1977	1978	1979	1980nil (2)	1 (2)	1 (1)	1 (1)nil (19)	11 09)	12(15)	10(13)3	8	7	69	8	8	92	4	3	21	2	2	22	2	1	15	5	3	159	66	64	591	1	4	311	30	36	27nil	nil	nil	nil44	70	60	44
Footnotes:
For elaboration concerning (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and Table 2, see "Footnotes" to question No. 3,829 answered this day.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of inmates at the Kent Institution, Agassiz and how many were convicted of (a) first degree murder (b) second degree murder (c) attempted murder (d) manslaughter (e) rape and attempted rape (f) other sexual offences (g) assault (h) robbery (i) weapons offences (j) break and enter (k) cannabis offences (1) other Narcotic Control Act offences?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
For Kent Institution
Table I:	Total Number of Inmates
1979	1980
180	456
The above table indicates the total number of inmates for the years 1979 and 1980. The figure for 1979 includes the original number of admissions plus all transfers to the institution during that year. For 1980 the figure includes the inmates on register as of January 1st plus all admissions and transfers to the institution. For questions (a) through (1) see Table 2 below.
Table 2	Kent Institution
Number of inmates, per offence, who were serving their
sentences during the years 1979 and 1980
		1979	1980
(a)	First degree murder:	
i]	9(1)(b)	Second degree murder:	8 (6)[ii]	12(6)(c)	Attempted murder:	4	6<d)	Manslaughter:	7	7(e)	Rape:	3	2attempted rape:	nil	nil(0	Other sexual offences:	2	nil(g)	Assault [iii]:	nil	nil(h)	Robbery:	37	41(i)	Weapons offences:	2	3(j)	Break and enter:	13	1800	Cannabis offences [iv]:	nil	nil0)	Other Narcotic Control Act offences:	14	12
Footnotes:
For elaboration concerning (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and Table 2, see "Footnotes" to question No. 3,829 answered this day.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of inmates at the Regional Psychiatric Centre, Abbotsford and how many were convicted of (a) first degree murder (b) second degree murder (c) attempted murder (d) manslaughter (e) rape and attempted rape (0 other sexual offences (g) assault (h) robbery (i) weapons offences (j) break and enter (k) cannabis offences (1) other Narcotic Control Act offences?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
For the Regional Psychiatric Centre, Abbotsford
Table 1:	Total number of inmates
1976	1977	1978	1979	1980273	272	290	291	310
The above table indicates the total number of inmates for each year 1976 to 1980. Each figure includes the inmates on register as of January 1st of each year plus all admissions and transfers to the institution during that year. For questions (a) through (1) see Table 2 below.
Table 2		
		1976
(a)	First degree murder:	1 (1) [i](b)	Second degree murder:	nil (1 l)[ii(c)	Attempted murder:	2<d)	Manslaughter:	5
Regional Psychiatric Centre
Number of inmates, per offence, who were serving their sentences during the years 1976 to 1980
1977	1978	1979	19801 0)	2(1)	2(1)	3(0nil (10)	1 (10)	2(9)	4(9)2	nil	nil	23	4	3	4
June 22, 1982

Order Paper Questions
(e)	Rape:	9	6	4	5	10attempted rape:	1	1	2	1	nil(0	Other sexual offences:	6	2	5	7	1(g)	Assault [iii]:	1	nil	2	2	3(h)	Robbery:	18	13	21	21	14(i)	Weapons offences:	nil	nil	2	2	nil(j)	Break and enter:	20	10	14	14	8(k)	Cannabis offences [iv]:	nil	nil	nil	nil	nil0)	Other Narcotic Control Act offences:	4	2	nil	2	1
Footnotes:
For elaboration concerning (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and Table 2, see "Footnotes" to question No. 3,829 answered this day.


Mr. Roy (Laval): Under the various economic programs implemented in order to stimulate employment over the past five years (a) what was the annual breakdown, by province, of the various government contributions (b) what percentage of the total budget did the contributions represent (c) what was (i) the approximate number of person-years required for the administration and the related budget (ii) the total cost of the programs?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)):: The
government has implemented a wide range of programs over the past five years that have sought to stimulate employment either directly or indirectly. In some of these programs employment creation has been the primary motivating factor as, for example, in the case of the employment tax credit introduced in October, 1977. In many other programs employment stimulus has been but one of a number of complementary objectives as, for example, with the Canadian Rental Supply Plan introduced with the November, 1981 budget where an equally important purpose was to increase the available supply of rental accommodation. Indeed, virtually all of the government's economic programs and many of its non-economic programs provide a major stimulus to employment.
In view of the complex nature of the various federal economic programs influencing employment, and in view of the varying degrees to which these programs are specifically focussed on job creation, it would not be possible to provide the detailed breakdowns and aggregations requested.


Mr. Herbert: Of the bilingual persons occupying designated positions in the public service, how many attained levels (a) A (b) B (c) C in (i) written comprehension (ii) oral comprehension (iii) written expression (iv) oral expression and how many reached the exemption level?


Mr. Norman Kelly (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: The table hereunder shows the distribution of all certified bilingual employees occupying bilingual positions by language proficiency level attained in each ability. The "Others" column is comprised of abilities not required in the language profile of the position or the profile of the position has been established as a "P" which denotes a technical or professional level that is not measured by the language knowledge examination (LKE).
Level of Proficiency Attained
ABILITIES	Exemption	c	B	A	R	Others	TOTALREADING	6354	5704	25645	4632	172	4729	47,236WRITING	6354	4427	29910	1930	59	4556	47,236LISTENING	6354	6143	27098	3807	219	3615	47,236SPEAKING	6354	5007	28434	4329	259	2853	47,236
"R" or "Instrumental" level: At this level, a person can understand and express himself/herself as well as someone at level A but only in recurring situations where the language communication activity is habitually reiterated and stereotyped. The Public Service Commission recognizes this level only for certain special cases of the operational category.

[Translation\


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Madam Speaker, if question No. 3,900 could be made an order for return, that return would be tabled immediately.
I suggest, Madam Speaker, that the other questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 3,900 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Lawrence: Which federal penal institutions have programs for inmates of native ancestry and, in each case (a) what type of program is provided (b) is it staffed by the government or by volunteers from the community?
Return tabled.

June 22, 1982
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not put too many questions on the Order Paper. However, I did put a series of 250 questions on the Order Paper which mainly seek statistical and background information, information which would be readily available to the government, relating to the correctional service of Canada. About one fifth of these questions have been answered today, leaving approximately 200 still to be answered. As I say, it is routine, statistical background information that has been requested.
Can the parliamentary secretary tell me when the major bulk of those questions will be answered? Why have they not been answered with the ones that have been answered today?


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Madam Speaker, to date the government has responded to 3,406 questions. Today there were 55 questions asked by the hon. member which have been answered. I think Canadians know that each question costs us over $100, 1 believe, to answer.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Not these.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Now, we have made a sincere effort to respond to the questions put forward by the hon. member. We will bring forth answers to his other questions in the future when we can get around to answering them. We understand that they are important, but as he realizes, we do not have unlimited resources, nor do I think we should have in all these cases. Therefore, I would be very happy to bring them to the notice of our officials and try to get those answers for him as quickly as possible.


Madam Speaker:: As requested by the hon. parliamentary secretary, shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



POINTS OF ORDER


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order arising out of last evening's proceedings and involving the manner in which the Deputy Speaker conducted our proceedings last night. My point of order, in order to be put into proper perspective, must necessarily concern itself with a meticulous review of last night's proceedings. I note that we do not yet have Hansard available to us, so I cannot back up my recollections by citations from Hansard. I can understand why it would be late.
Last night I raised a point of order which was a serious one concerning the right of the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, the Minister of State (Mr. Joyal), to vote in last night's proceedings. I did that on the basis of the possibility of
his having a pecuniary interest in the subject matter of the vote. I do not intend to go into the merits or demerits of that point of order. I simply refer to it as being the point at which the irregularities commenced. The Deputy Speaker who was in the chair of the Committee of the Whole at the time ruled, for entirely irrelevant reasons in my view, that there was no point of order.
I then rose again on a point of order intending to appeal that ruling under the provisions of Standing Order 55(4), which allows any hon. member to appeal the ruling of the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole. I am sure Your Honour is aware that that would require the Speaker to resume the chair and deal with that appeal. I will have a citation in that regard for the convenience of the Chair in a moment.
My point is that the microphone at that point was turned off. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole would not recognize me, despite the fact that I stood here and shouted at the top of my lungs that I had a point of order to be heard. He just refused to hear me at that point. I was denied the right, then, to rise on a point of order under Standing Order 55(4) to put in motion the machinery to appeal that ruling.
At that point the Deputy Speaker, in the chair of the Committee of the Whole, called for a vote on the schedule to the measure which was then before us, Schedule A of the appropriations bill. At that point I said quite loudly "on division". Normally when that occurs the Chair simply repeats "on division", the subject matter which is being voted upon is passed, and we go on to the next vote, which in this case was on Clause 1 and the title of the bill.
I rose on a point of order again to draw the attention of the Chair to the fact that I had said on behalf of members in the opposition "on division", so that the vote would pass in that fashion. Again he would not allow my microphone to be turned on, and again he would not listen to my point of order. He would not even listen to find out what the point of order was. He called at that point for a standing vote.
It does not lie, in my submission, within the prerogative of the Chair or within the prerogative of the occupant of the chair of the Committee of the Whole to determine whether there will be a vote. That is the prerogative of Members of Parliament, and once having made that decision, it does not lie within the Chair's prerogative to decide how that vote will be taken; again that is the prerogative of members of the chamber.
In this instance the Deputy Speaker, in the chair of the Committee of the Whole, insisted upon a standing vote, notwithstanding the expressed desire of myself as House leader of the opposition on behalf of my party that that vote would pass on division. He would not even recognize me to explain that point of order.
That having occurred, I again rose and in a very loud voice asked to be recognized on a further point of order to appeal that ruling implicit by the occupant of the chair of the Committee of the Whole. Again he refused to hear my point of
June 22, 1982

order, and I would point out that it was raised before he called for a standing vote. We did not call for it; the Chair called for it. My point of order was twice raised in a loud enough voice to be heard-it was heard by Hansard, I am sure; it was certainly heard by my colleagues at the farthest ends of the chamber- and he refused to recognize me on a point of order. That, Madam Speaker, is very serious. We have-


An hon. Member:: Oh, come on!


Erik Nielsen: I hear "Oh, come on". I have a great respect for the right of Members of Parliament to be heard, particularly in this chamber. I notice an increasing tendency to stop Members of Parliament from being heard.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: June 22, 1982
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen
When clause 14 of Bill C-207, an Act respecting the organization of the Government of Canada and matters related or incedental thereto, was being considered in committee of the whole the hon. member for Peace River raised a point of order to the effect that a document referred to in committee of the whole should be laid upon the table.
The chairman ruled that there was no known procedure whereby a document could be laid upon the table of the committee of the whole since the committee was down by its order of reference which in the present instance was clause 14 of Bill C-207.
Whereupon the hon. member for Peace River appealed to Mr. Speaker from the decision of the Chair.
I draw your attention to that process, Madam Speaker, because notwithstanding the terminology of Standing Order 55(4) which would lead one to the conclusion that all the Speaker can do is hear the question and then put the question on appeal, the Speaker on that occasion allowed debate in order to come to a decision as to whether or not there existed a valid point of order and in order to decide whether or not to put the question on the appeal. I draw that precedent to the attention of the Chair for that purpose.
With regard to the question which I raised as a valid point of order with respect to the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, I do not discuss or advance the merits or demerits at all. I had a right to raise that point of order. I had a right to have it ruled upon. I then had a right to appeal.
I raised the point of order, the Chair ruled upon it. I was denied even being heard on a point of order to appeal. The vote went ahead. I said "on division" on the passage of the schedule when it was called. 1 rose on a point of order when the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole called for a standing vote in order to say that that was improper. He refused to hear me. I wanted to appeal that refusal which was an implicit ruling that that was not going to be a point of order.
I felt, as hon. members on this side left, that we were railroaded last night. That is not a healthy atmosphere to arouse in this place. We simply were not heard.


Mr. Olivier:: Oh, come on!


Erik Nielsen: 1 hear the usual interjection from the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Olivier). Anyone who wishes to treat this submission, which is a very serious submission, with the contempt displayed by the member for Longueuil does not think very much of this place.
The question I raised is a very serious one indeed. It involves the treatment of the members of the House of Commons, particularly the opposition, by officers of the House. The least that we can expect is not to be gagged. The least that we can expect is to be heard for a sufficient time in order for the Chair to find out what we are objecting to. The result in this case of not even listening was that we were denied on two occasions very substantial and fundamental rights given to us under the Standing Orders to appeal the ruling of the Chair.
I simply raise this point to draw it very forcefully to the attention of the Chair in the hope that when you have your morning meetings with your officials you might address this
question, in the fervent hope that it will never, never happen again.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I listened very patiently and closely to the speech made by the member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and I must admit that I could hardly keep a straight face, because basically, he was merely trying to justify an attempt by representatives of his party to make a disturbance yesterday evening, and their entirely infantile and irresponsible attitude in leaving the House.
I shall recall, if I may, that the circumstances in which the Progressive Conservative Party acted so irresponsibly and childishly were the following: the House, in Committee of the Whole, was considering legislation concerning the business of supply, and debate on this subject is clearly regulated in the Standing Orders of the House. I may refer hon. members again to Standing Order 58(10), which reads, and I quote:
-If the motion under consideration at the hour of interruption-
-at 9.45 p.m.-
-is a no-confidence motion, the Speaker first shall put forthwith, without further debate or amendment, every question necessary to dispose of that proceeding, and forthwith thereafter put successively, without debate or amendment, every question necessary to dispose of any item of business relating to interim supply-
-and so forth.
Thus, Madam Speaker, the context and circumstances in which the member for Yukon attempted to be recognized by the chair were as follows: the House was in the middle of proceedings that are very strictly regulated, and normally, this type of proceedings takes place without interruption, without debate or amendment, and as quickly as possible. Only exceptionally can hon. members intervene on points of order. Now, last night, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, although functioning within this very restricted framework, was extremely patient and courteous in his dealings with the Official Opposition, considering the arrogant and irresponsible and, I say it once again, infantile attitude they showed at the time.
He was patient, and he acted fairly and equitably, because he heard several points of order before deciding to apply Standing Order 58(10)-points of order which, in fact, they were not, because Hansard shows us exactly what was said on the occasion of these pseudo-points of order. These delaying tactics, this means of creating a disturbance in the House were used to protest that a minister of state did not have sufficient responsibilities and therefore the adopted or proposed votes could not be justified. An attempt was made to infer-I was later obliged to deny this formally to get the record straight- that the Standing Orders relating to the business of supply were steamrollered through the House under the threat of closure, although that is absolutely false.
June 22, 1982

I had to deny this formally and clearly establish that the Standing Orders on the business of supply were adopted unanimously by the Elouse on December 20, 1968. Now that was the kind of argument that was raised within the context of a voting procedure, where there should have been no debate or amendment, and this had been going on for some time when the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House decided to simply apply the Standing Orders after having been extremely patient. It was then the Chairman decided to take a standing vote. The House was still in Committee of the Whole. Then what happened? Instead of waiting his turn-today the hon. member is claiming that he wanted to appeal a ruling, which, in any case, was not clearly specified-in fact, he still had enough time last night to do so later on, if he had stayed in the House, with the members of his party, to raise his point of order after the vote in question, at the report stage or the third reading stage of this particular bill. Madam Speaker, I think it is important to draw the Chair's attention to the fact that a point of order may not be raised at all times, without any consideration and as hon. members please. A point of order is subject to a number of rules determining how it is to be raised and especially, when it is to be raised. I may draw your attention to Beauchesne's fifth edition, Citations 235, 236 and 237, and I shall quote a short passage from Citation 235:
A point of order may be taken after a debate is concluded and the Speaker is about to put the question to a vote or after the vote has been taken-in fact, at any time, but not so as to interrupt the Speaker when he is addressing the House.
Thus, the member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) would have been able to raise his point of order if he had chosen to remain in the House like a big boy after the voting procedure followed by the Speaker of the House.
Citation 236 reads, and I quote:
If the Speakers attention has been called to a breach of order in the course of a division, he has directed that the division be completed-
Yesterday, that was exactly the course of action open to the member for Yukon. If he really wanted to raise his point of order, he could have stayed in the House and raised it after the vote called by the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole. You yourself were in the chair later that evening and could have recognized the hon. member at that time. Finally, still in Beauchesne's fifth edition, Citation 237 reads, and I quote:
A point of order against procedure must be raised promptly and before the question has passed to a stage at which the objection would be out of place.
Madam Speaker, today's objection is arrogant and out of place. Yesterday, we adopted the bill on third reading, and during the vote there was a complaint about the attitude of the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole. The opposition members had their chance last night. If they had shown some respect for this institution and had behaved like adults and not like unruly students-if they had remained in the House, they would have been able to make their point before we proceeded with third reading, in other words, the final stage, of the bill in question. Today, it seem clear that the hon. member for Yukon
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen
is complaining about the work of the Chairman of the Committee and is telling the House, in a manner which I find unacceptable: In the future, give him a good scolding at your meetings and tell him how to behave in Committee of the Whole. However, Madam Speaker, in the light of the facts I have just described, we have no reason to criticize the behaviour of the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House last night, on the contrary. He was extremely patient and fair, and it is entirely unacceptable that a Standing Order should be used, as it is being used today, to try to discredit the work of one of your representatives, namely, the Deputy Speaker and Chairman of committees of the whole House. This point of order was not raised at the appropriate time. It is not factual and I suggest that it is simply a sham to disguise the doubtful, childish and irresponsible tactics used last night by the opposition to the prejudice of order and good name of the institution of Parliament. In view of the circumstances, as I have just explained, I found it difficult to take the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) seriously in his clever attempt to prove his point using his parliamentary experience of a quarter of a century, as he has just explained. 1 do not question his ability. I do not question his good will either, but I think that he has a very bad customer in the person of the Leader of the Opposition, who is an irresponsible child who wastes the time of the House, and I pity the hon. member for Yukon to have to plead such weak cases for a client with so little maturity.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I will not deal at all with the personal references made by the government House leader. Let me simply draw to the Chair's attention that what he is suggesting is that we close the barn door after the horse has gone. What he is suggesting is that we could have appealed these matters under Standing Order 55(4) after they had passed. The time to appeal them was before the vote was taken. I will just leave that with the Chair.
There was one further irregularity last night, however, which I overlooked drawing to the Chair's attention, and I do so merely for that purpose. After we had left the chamber, we were watching the proceedings on television. Some of us were in the lobby and some of us were behind the curtains. When the bill came before the House for third reading, the yeas and nays were taken. The Speaker declared that the yeas had it and the members were called in. The bells started to ring.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: Then the point was raised, I believe by an hon. member in the NDP, that the bells should not ring, and the bells were turned off. My point is that the bells were started.


Yvon Pinard: No, no!


Erik Nielsen: Yes, they were. They were heard by too many people to deny it. I am sure Your Honour heard them very
18758

June 22, 1982
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen
briefly. Those bells rang. Well, 1 see Your Honour shaking your head in the negative. 1 insist that those bells rang and Your Honour can check that with the officers of the House. They rang very briefly and then they were turned off.
It is my personal view that once the bells are started, they must continue until the whips are in and until the division is taken. In this case, it would have been a very quick division, I am sure, because we had no intention of coming back in to participate in a process in which we were muzzled. But 1 do draw that irregularity to Your Honour's attention so that it might not happen again. If it does, it is my view that the bells should continue to ring until a division is taken.


Yvon Pinard: This also deserves a reply. If the hon. member had remained in the House, he would have seen what happened. Here, in any case, we did not hear the bells, and I heard nothing myself. In any event, it is not a member of the NDP who asked unanimous consent to proceed with the vote. I stood up and asked for the vote myself, and this was also shown on television, and I am surprised not to have been seen in the members' lobby, but it would have been very simple for the Progressive Conservative members to remain in the House and then to see what was happening. I asked unanimous consent for the bells not to ring so that we could vote immediately and consent was given by all members present in the House. There was therefore absolutely no irregularity, and if there was, we did not realize it, and everything was covered by the unanimous consent which was granted at my request.


Madam Speaker:: All that I can confirm is that the hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) asked unanimous consent for the bells not to ring and that the Chair agreed to dispense with the bells.
1 have a few comments on these particular submissions. I want to say to the hon. member for Yukon that he is quite correct in all of his quotations as to the right of hon. members to appeal decisions of the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole. All of his quotations are particularly relevant. The difficulty is that the decision was not appealed. The hon. member does not at this point feel that he wants to appeal that decision.


Erik Nielsen: I can't. It's too late.


Madam Speaker:: It was not appealed in Committee of the Whole and therefore not reported.


Erik Nielsen: I tried.


Madam Speaker:: I do not deny that. I do not pronounce myself on that fact. Of course, the Chair was not present and is therefore unable to make a judgment on facts that took place in the course of the Committee of the Whole.
Since none of these facts were reported to the Chair, it is very hard for the Chair to make a judgment on those particular facts. I know the hon. member understands that I cannot possibly rule on them in the absence of a report. If the hon. member wanted a formal redress, and he said that in his presentation, he would have another recourse, but he does not want to take that recourse. Perhaps one of the reasons is that Hansard is not available today; it is a bit late. We understand why it is late. The hon. member has not been able to check the record to see exactly what took place. However, his version is on the record today. We have to accept that as his version and we do not dispute what he has to say.
1 understand that the hon. member for Yukon simply wanted to draw the attention of the Chair to a practice that he does not particularly appreciate. He rose today on a point of order precisely to draw the attention of the Chair to a practice in general. He is not referring to anything in particular, although he has referred to it for purposes of explanation. The hon. member is not asking me to look into the specific incidents of last night. He is just drawing the attention of the Chair to a particular practice which he does not appreciate.
I thank the hon. member for that. It is always useful when members practice their right and remind the Chair of the manner in which the rules might be interpreted. The Chair and the assistants certainly do not have objection to that. In a sense, members can co-operate in the manner in which the Chair might interpret the rules and practices. Of course, once the Chair rules, I know hon. members accept the way in which it rules. However, in between there is space for interchange on these matters.
I thank the hon. member for having brought this particular practice to my attention. I can assure him that we always review everything that goes on in the House. It is done on a daily basis. We like to look back on what we have done and perhaps learn lessons from what we have done the day before. Therefore, we always do that. We certainly will look at those events in light of the remarks the hon. member has made today as well as in light of the remarks made by the President of the Privy Council. I thank them both for this exchange.



MR. LAMBERT-PROPRIETY OF DEPUTY SPEAKER VOTING

Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It draws attention to another fact which was exemplified last night. It is not the first time I have raised this with the Chair and with the officers concerned.
After 23 votes cast in a partisan manner, since they were cast with the government, I find it extraordinary that the Deputy Speaker should then step into the chair and be involved. It is my view, strongly held, that the Deputy Speaker should not vote. It is strange, really strange, that the Standing Orders preclude the chair-not that the House doubts the objectivity of the officer occupying the chair-from voting. They state specifically that the Speaker shall not vote.
In the practices that apply in this House, where the Deputy Speaker occupies the Chair at most second and third readings
June 22, 1982

and also in Committee of the Whole, I find it extraordinary in light of the practice that goes on in Westminster that the Deputy Speaker should vote in a partisan way.
I raise this as a matter of reflection in the same way my colleagues have on the practices of the Chair. I am not calling into question the motives or the attitude of the Deputy Speaker. I am calling into question a severe censure of the practice of the Deputy Speaker presiding in your chair, in the chair of the Deputy Speaker, and then voting on behalf of the government at all times.
The British House arrange their matters differently.
Since the committee on procedure is now sitting, it might look very carefully at the practice there and improve the procedure here.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: In fact, the hon. member recognizes that there is full justification for what occurred under our rules. He is arguing for a change in the rules of the House. I cannot share his views for the moment. However, I invite him to make his views known to those of his colleagues who are knowledgeable in procedural matters and who were chosen to sit on this very important special committee which will deal with parliamentary reform. At that time, his views can be seriously considered.
\ English]


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Lincoln):: Madam Speaker, I rise on the point of order, which relates to the intervention of a former Speaker of the House of Commons, whose views I respect. I say that quite sincerely. However, I am at a loss to understand why this point is being raised.
I want to ask for clarification in light of the fact that the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole acts in that capacity and sometimes acts in the capacity of Speaker. Those are two entirely different roles.
Second, the hon. member went to great lengths to elaborate that he was not in any way casting reflection on the integrity of the hon. member. I then ask him, what is the point? When the hon. member in the role of Deputy Speaker becomes the Speaker, we agree with that. He is bound by the rules in order to limit, or expand if you like, the parameters in which the Speaker can perform his or her duty. In other instances, the Deputy Speaker or the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole acts in the capacity of Chairman of the Committee of the Whole with a different set of criteria.
The point I am getting at is that those watching this very interesting, or perhaps not so interesting, debate could be left unintentionally with the feeling that somehow we are questioning the integrity of the member, that somehow the member cannot play both roles. They might not quite appreciate that he is bound by two sets of criteria, two sets of precedents, two sets of rules.
National Training Act
Frankly, I am at a loss to follow the point the hon. member has made. It may be that in the mother of Parliaments they treat things differently. However, we are talking of this Parliament. Never in all my years in this House have I heard that point of order raised. Whether we like it or not, it does infer an inability of the hon. member to abide by the rules.


Madam Speaker:: Order. I have to stop this debate. If hon. members want to discuss changes that we might make in future in the rules or practices of the House, there is a standing committee of the House of Commons set up specifically for that purpose. It is quite clear that the Deputy Speaker acted according to our practices. I agree with the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) that the practices in Westminster are different. We are sitting in this Parliament. The hon. Deputy Speaker has acted within the confines of our own practices and traditions.


An hon. Member:: Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: That is fine. It might be with you, but I think it is quite clear that those are our practices.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of the report stage of Bill C-115, to establish a national program for occupational training, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
Lloyd Axworthy: Motion No. 1
Bill C-115, An Act to establish a national program for occupational training, be amended in Clause 2 by striking out line 13 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"thereby, declare, by order, any occupation to be an".
He said: Madam Speaker, I thought that in the report stage this amendment would require some small explanation. In the discussions I had in the other place during committee hearings that they were holding on this bill, it was brought to my attention by Senator Tremblay that in the opening of Clause 2, where we have the designation of occupation, unless we were to make a slight amendment to it, it meant that we could not redesignate an occupation. By introducing the words "by order," "par ordinance", we therefore have the power to designate an occupation or to change an occupation. It is a technical amendment, Mr. Speaker, that I would commend to the House during this report stage.

June 22, 1982
National Training Act


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, is the minister suggesting that he would change the wording?


Lloyd Axworthy: Yes.


David Edward Crombie: That is certainly acceptable to us, Mr. Speaker. The wording suggested by Senator Tremblay was suggested in committee. It was acceptable to us and we are happy it is acceptable to the minister and his officials.
Motion (Mr. Axworthy) agreed to.


David Edward Crombie: Motion No. 2
Bill C-l 15, An Act to establish a national program for occupational training, be amended in clause 12
(a)	by striking out line 21 at page 7 and substituting the following therefor:
"12.( 1) The Commission shall invite the gov-"
(b)	by adding immediately after line 26 at page 7, the following:
"12.(2) That such information needed to assess the requirements of the labour market as described in Section 12(1) will be provided through a data base within the Commission. Such data shall be solicited from the Governments of the Provinces, business and labour.
12.(3) That the Commission shall supplement said data base in Subsection (2) with labour market information and analysis solicited from non-governmental sources representative of labour, business, industry, and special needs groups."
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is an important aspect of the bill. I will not spend much time with it because there has been a change in the motion which I would like to proceed with now. The motion which you have before you and which is now before the House was put in committee in similar words and ruled out of order.
The purpose of the motion was to establish within the bill the principle that there ought to be established a national labour market institute. Mr. Speaker, the national labour market institute was a proposal that was made three and a half years ago by the Business Council on National Issues, in conjunction with the Canadian Labour Congress. It envisaged participation by business and labour and some funding by government in order to provide a vehicle for seeking a definition of labour market needs.
The minister had some difficulty with some of the principles involved here. In particular, the minister sent a letter to the interested parties, asking them to broaden the labour base and to broaden the base for picking up statistics to include those groups which were so-called equity target groups.
The fact of the matter is that just about everyone agrees with the principle of a national labour market institute. Indeed, the all parliamentary task force put forward a unanimous recommendation in its report; Section 163 recommended a national labour market institute. In a report yesterday afternoon and at a press conference this morning, the Economic Council of Canada indicated their strong support for the development of that concept, in order to have an efficient way to detect future labour market needs.
The reason I need not spend to much time on it now, Mr. Speaker, is that the minister was able to advise me this afternoon that there was wording that was acceptable to him
and to the government that embraced the same principle as in my motion. What I would like to do, with the unanimous consent of the House, Mr. Speaker, is to withdraw my motion, the motion standing in my name, and substitute the following motion, on the the clear understanding that this wording is 100 per cent acceptable to the government:
That Clause 12 of Bill C-l 15 be amended (a) by striking out line 21 on page 7 and substituting the following:
"Joint	"12 (1) The Commission shall invite the gov-"
committee"
and (b) by inserting immediately after line 26 on page 7 the following:
"Statistical "(2) For the purposes of assessing the requirements information 0p the labour market for skilled workers, the Commission shall request statistical or other information or study from appropriate sources, including the government of any province, employers, labour organizations and groups representing adults with special training needs."
The only concluding remark I would make in support of that, and I think it now has the support of all sides of the House, is that this is an idea that has been around now for three and a half years. It is an idea that is fundamental. The need is urgent and the time is now, so I am very pleased that the government has agreed to the principle and is going to put it in the bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I have a request to withdraw the motion that was before the House and to substitute this new wording. That can be done with unanimous consent. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Agreed and so ordered.
Motion (Mr. Crombie) withdrawn.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, we welcome the initiative by the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) in asserting, as he has both here and in committee, the notion of establishing a labour market institute. It is a sensible idea that I also endorse.
As I pointed out in committee, it would have been wrong to include the direct definition of that in the bill, because we were in negotiation. I have undertaken to reply to the Canadian Labour Congress and the Business Council on National Issues, who made the original proposal, suggesting amendments to their proposals, and it will all have to be worked out. We are in favour of the principle and are hoping to realize the solution to and the realization of that within a short period of time, if we can get agreement of all the respective parties.
This amendment does not make a direct reference to the labour market institute. As the member for Rosedale said,
June 22, 1982

inherent in it is the principle that we would move toward an institutional framework.
In the meantime, what this section does do is very clearly enunciate what has been part and parcel of the national training plan, which is that we want to incorporate information statistics and data from both provincial governments and from the respective elements of the private sector. This amendment codifies in the statute our intention to draw upon the resources and information of the different elements of the labour market, for the kind of valuable assessment we need. The amendment does not mention the labour market institute although we are well on the way toward achieving our goal. It clearly establishes the basic objective of the national training program which is to work in a consensual fashion to bring about the cooperation of different parties.
The ramifications and implications of the wording have been checked by officials in the Department of Justice, and as far as they are concerned it is quite correct and they are happy to accept the amendment offered by the hon. member for Rose-dale.


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, we in the New Democratic Party support this amendment because it is an attempt to embody the principle of the labour market institute in legislative form.
In reply to questions in committee the minister indicated that he was in favour of the principle of the labour market institute and this amendment reiterates that commitment on behalf of the government. This is important because the institute was conceived by both the business community and the labour community, by the Business Council on National Issues and the Canadian Labour Congress. It was conceived to meet a need to identify, clearly and pragmatically, training requirements for the future. This can only be done by an independent institution which involves direct participation by business and labour.
We support this amendment but I caution the minister that the negotiations which must obviously follow this legislative statement of principle and the underlying concept of the labour market institute must be respected and implemented in full, so that we do not end up with a watered down version that will not do the job.
Amendment (Mr. Crombie) agreed to.


Lloyd Axworthy: that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: By leave, now.
National Training Act


Lloyd Axworthy: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few remarks on third reading which relate not only to the principle of the bill but also to the process by which it has finally reached this stage. I had the opportunity to speak at length on second reading of the bill when I described the historical development of technical and technological education in this country. I made the point that, by and large, since 1910 when we first established technological training in a serious way there have been four or five watershed years when new legislation was brought down to provide greater opportunities to the federal government to participate in technical and technological education. The result was that the federal government spent billions of dollars on thousands of educational training programs to help millions of Canadians over the last 75 years through technical and technological training.
I felt that three principles were worth mentioning as they were the criteria by which we on this side judged the way in which the bill addressed the tradition of technical training in this country. The first of those principles was that national training should be linked to a national economic strategy. The second was that technical training should balance well with sound educational principles. The third was that in order to accomplish that balance and some national economic strategy, there ought to be fundamental co-operation between the provinces and the federal government and, by extension, the municipalities.
No one disagreed with the principles of the bill so it was carried at second reading, but there was some serious difficulty with some specifics of the bill. In our view, it had some deficiencies. It was interesting to see the change that occurred in committee. I will not go over all the changes but nine significant amendments were put forward, eight of which were accepted by the minister and the other one was accepted today.
In these times of daily acrimony it might be worth paying tribute to the minister and his officials for providing the cooperative environment in which we were able to discuss the bill. The changes were not minor or technical or grammatical changes but were fundamental changes to the operation.
Three of the amendments dealt with the relationship between the federal government and the provinces. Initially, of course, all the provinces were on record as opposing the bill. All provinces, plus the two territories, but excepting the province of Quebec, finally got together and asked the minister of education for Ontario to speak on their behalf. She appeared before the committee and met with the minister, with the result that three amendments which this party and the New Democratic Party supported were accepted by the minister. These three fundamental amendments allowed one of these traditional principles to be achieved-that is, the requisite federal-provincial co-operation. This legislation, which will be of great benefit to the country for the next 20 years in my

June 22, 1982
National Training Act
view, starts out by offering a great opportunity to the federal government and the provinces to act in an atmosphere of harmony.
At least as important in my view is the fact that members did not come to committee to play politics. Members on all sides came to try to make the legislation better. That is why the other six amendments from this side of the Elouse were accepted after some discussion. Members worked hard to make sure they were dealing with the problems of others and were improving the legislation for the benefit of Canadians.
The hon. member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDer-mid), who would be too modest to mention it himself, brought forward an amendment without which the bill would have applied to preschoolers, which was clearly not the intention of the drafters. The hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) did some very creative work. In the morning he showed up at committee with a clear understanding of what he wanted to do over two days. By the time he was through he was able to amend clause 4(3) and clause 9(1 )(a), which gave him the opportunity to make sure that the bill will be of benefit to Canadians who have special training needs. Those are people who are stuck in non-traditional roles. The handicapped, native Canadians, people who have special training needs are clearly brought within the purview of this bill. That was the excellent work done by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris.
There are other amendments which were offered and accepted in a spirit of compromise. As a consequence of a good legislative process, this bill is substantially better than the one which came into the House. Anyone who is looking to reform the House of Commons might want to look at the way in which Bill C-115 went through the three readings and committee. I thought that was one area worthy of comment because the bill is a product of this House, and I think the House should be proud of it.
As I mentioned earlier, I put forward an amendment which was ruled out of order because of its wording. The principle of that motion is now in place as the minister, indeed all sides, have accepted new wording from the law officers of the Crown. It deals with the national labour market institute, with which I was particularly concerned because the very essence of this bill, indeed the essence of technological education in Canada, is that education and training brought together will allow us to have employment opportunities, economic performance and development. This bill will not do that by itself, but it provides the framework within which it can be done.
When I spoke on second reading I talked out only of cooperation between federal and provincial governments and a balance in education and training, but of the first principle that national training in this country has always been related to a national economic strategy or set of goals. That is why the institute, while itself a small step, is a major principle, because it requires co-operation between all those people-government, business, labour and consumer groups-who speak for those with special needs. It takes the co-operation of all those people
in groups in order to target the needs for the future. Any fool can target the needs of yesterday, but it takes some sophistication and, more importantly, co-operation to target the needs of the future.
The reason it became an important principle is not mysterious, Mr. Speaker. We have known for the last six or seven years-some people knew before we did-that we live in a new technical and technological environment which is fundamentally changing the world. In mining, fisheries, forestry, agriculture, all the resource industries, the technological revolution is upon us, and if we are to take advantage of that many things will have to change. That is why the principle of co-operation was so important. We need economic co-operation in this country, not economic conflict. We need integration, not segregation. We need economic consensus, not economic discord. That is why co-operation, integration and consensus are no longer just good warm thoughts; they are now new realities.
Let me speak for a moment of an economy which has tried to work on those three principles. There is an excellent report which I am sure some members have seen-if not, they should get a copy-called "the Japanese way" put out by Labour Canada. It deals with contemporary Japanese industrial relations. In early 1982 the Canadian index of industrial production was falling at an annual rate of 16.5 per cent; in Japan it is 2.5 per cent. Between 1977 and 1980 industrial productivity in this country rose only by 2.9 per cent; in Japan it is 22.7 per cent. Expenditures on research and development in Canada this year are .9 per cent; in Japan, it is 2.4 per cent of GNP. Interest rates- the ability to borrow money to produce-in Japan are now 6.4 per cent; in Canada, they are 18.25 per cent. Unemployment in Japan is 2.3 per cent; in Canada, it is 10.2 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, you cannot argue with that reality. Some people have suggested that we cannot copy the Japanese because they are culturally different; much of what they do is related to their history and their culture. It seems to me that our own history and culture is not devoid of the principles of co-operation, integration and consensus. Indeed, those always struck me as good Canadian principles. So co-operation, Mr. Speaker, is the key to the future. The old fight between government, labour and management, the lack of co-operation, is now hurting us. Consequently the amendment we put forward which puts into the bill the principle which allows all those groups to have a say in the targeting of labour market statistics and policies may be only a small step but it is a very big principle. The reason it is in there is because members from all sides decided when they came to committee that they were going to produce some legislation which was useful, rather than politics which was not.
So, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this bill on third reading.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, 1 had the opportunity on second reading to outline the social and economic problems which I felt training legislation had to deal with. Having dealt with the bill at committee it is good to have the opportunity once again to address the issue. We in this party will be supporting this legislation, but that does not
June 22, 1982

mean that the legislation is really up to par and fully meets the need. We are supporting it because it is action at a time when the need is very great, and any action, no matter how small, obviously requires some support.
We also want to give the government a chance to live up to the promises it has made in placing this legislation before the House, which it says will meet the real training needs of this country. By allowing this legislation we will give the government that opportunity, but we feel that the bill is really not sufficient or good enough, and neither is the program which will be supported by this legislation.
The reason we feel that way, Mr. Speaker, is that the legislation brings about no real and fundamental change in the training system in this country. Basically, it continues the same old approach to manpower training which has operated in Canada for the last 15 years under the old legislation. Granted, there have been some marginal improvements and they are welcome.
To give you an example of what I mean, Mr. Speaker, let me deal for a moment with the very great need for skilled workers in this nation. It is visible to any Canadian who reads newspapers that at a time when unemployment is so very high it comes as a great shock that there are still skilled jobs for which Canadians have not been trained. Somehow the training system that has been in place for the last 15 years has not met the need.
We feel the need was not been met for some fundamental reasons. By and large, industry does not train workers for the skilled jobs that are offered by industry. Only a very small percentage of workers are trained for skilled work. Industries do not train skilled workers because they are afraid, having spent the money to train someone for a skilled occupation, that another company will come along and take this worker from them.
We need a training system that will encourage and require training on a comprehensive basis by all sections of business. This is not provided for in this legislation. We need a comprehensive industrial training system paid for by all companies within a particular industry so that even those companies that do not have training programs but benefit from the fact that other companies do will be paying for the trained workers in the economy. Companies not training workers should be paying for this training since they benefit from the training system.
The type of system that we are talking about is a system that has been proposed by the Canadian Labour Congress. It has become known as the grant levy system. It means that every company within industry would be levied a certain amount of money in order to pay for the costs of training within that industry. Each company training, would receive grants and money for having done so. It is an equitable system which spreads the cost of training across an industry, providing funds to those companies doing the training.
National Training Act
This would be a comprehensive and fundamental change in our approach to training in Canada. No such change comes about by virtue of this legislation. We are continuing with the same old training system which involves incentives to industry to train, government money going from its coffers to the companies to train workers. This approach has resulted in the present situation that we face, which is one of highly skilled jobs going begging at a time of high unemployment.
Another issue not faced up to by the program to be run under the legislation is the question of functional illiteracy. Functional illiteracy is a very real and significant problem in Canada today. It was identified very clearly by the Allmand task force, which called for immediate and significant action to eliminate functional illiteracy in this country. The task force members even spoke of what they described as the ten-year right to read program. There is nothing in this legislation nor is there anything in the description of the national training program to indicate the government is taking seriously the challenge to eliminate functional illiteracy from Canadian society.
It is very important that we, as people having identified this problem, do something to solve it. There are significant numbers of people in Canada who do not have the education to hold down a job. This means a loss of wealth to the economy and an aggravation of the inequities that exist by virtue of income that people can earn in society, and it is simply a waste of Canadian human resources. There again is another fundamental problem which the government has simply not addressed in a serious way in the national training program nor in the legislation that will underpin it.
I want to make it clear that, while we support this legislation because it will be doing something in the area of training-and obviously something needs to be done even if it is not enough- we continue to criticize the government because there are fundamental training problems which the government simply has not addressed in this legislation. Nor has the government addressed them in the national training program.
This legislation falls short for another reason. It has to do with federal-provincial relations. I am thinking about two aspects. One deals with the nine anglophone provinces which came to some accommodation with the government with regard to the legislative provision. But Quebec is still left out in the cold with this legislation. Let me refer to the telegram we all received from the Quebec government under the signature of Mr. Marois, who is the Quebec minister involved in training matters. I am doing this to make the point about the concerns of the Quebec government and how it sees this legislation. Its criticisms in an early paragraph of the communication, I must say, in its fundamental principles, are pretty accurate. It reads:

The Quebec government gives top priority to adult occupational training. It is aware that this sector of vital importance to support the economic development of Quebec and to correct social inequalities needs major revamping to reach its assigned objectives. The Jean commission report in the province of Quebec and

June 22, 1982
National Training Act
other reports prepared under other governments, have highlighted the drawbacks and inefficiencies of the current adult occupational training system.
That is Mr. Marois' basic analysis of occupational training issues. Having expressed his views on this question, he said this to the federal minister, and I quote:
If you are really prepared to listen to the arguments and suggestions of Quebec and then take them into serious consideration, I would be glad to meet with you with a view to making this project an acceptable tool geared to the needs of Quebec workers and employers.
Mr. Speaker, the province of Quebec called for a meeting with the federal minister. The federal minister did have talks with the governments of the other provinces, but why-I do not know-at the last minute did he not meet a representative of the government of Quebec?
What I have said in French, basically, is that the Quebec government has made a fundamental analysis of the training program which is before us. It has said that any national training program has to do a couple of things. The first one is to support the economic development of a region of the country. Second, it must correct the social inequalities which exist in society. Those are the two fundamental points which I make about this legislation as well. This is why I spoke of the need for a new training system, the grant-levy system which is not in the legislation, and that is why 1 focused upon the matter of functional illiteracy which is a matter of social inequality.
The federal minister took the trouble to meet with a representative of the nine anglophone provinces. I applaud him for that. The results of that work were useful. The minister and the representative of the Ontario government were able to come up with a wording which better expressed the desire for federal-provincial co-operation in the matter of training, yet at the same time he received a communication from the Quebec minister calling for a meeting in order to discuss what he considered to be problems with the training legislation. The meeting did not take place. 1 do not want to underestimate what I think would be the difficulties in negotiations between the federal government and the provincial government of Quebec, but once the federal government made the choice of meeting with a representative of the nine anglophone provinces, it should also have met with the representative of Quebec.
Everything in Bill C-115 depends upon negotiations, whether they are negotiations with the provinces, with unions, with employers, with native groups, or with women's groups. While there have been some positive amendments to the legislation with regard to consultations with the provinces, the actual agreements which will flesh out the training program that will operate under the legislation have not yet been made. Those
negotiations continue. It is very important that the negotiations be carried on in a sensitive fashion so that the needs and aspirations of all regions of Canada can be met.
In addition, it is very important, when the minister and his government negotiate with groups such as women's or native groups, that they be particularly sensitive to the fact that they have a very strong hand in the negotiations. If anything helpful in terms of meeting the needs of people is to come out of the negotiations, then the federal government will have to be particularly sensitive.
I mentioned these negotiations because of the fact that even after being before the committee with regard to the estimates, it is very difficult to know what the national training program will be in the end. What the training program becomes depends upon the negotiations between the government and the provinces and between the government and various groups in the country.
To sum up, basically we support the legislation, but it really does not go far enough because there is no fundamental change to the present training system and there is no real attack on the social problem of functional illiteracy which has been well identified for us. While the government in legislative amendments has indicated its commitment to the principle of a labour market institute, it has yet to act on the principle. How it acts on that principle, whether that action is satisfactory, will obviously depend upon negotiation.
One of the main weaknesses of the legislation is that training in itself is not enough. Training must relate to the economy. When the national training program was originally conceived, as we read the briefing notes which were passed out to us, it was clearly tied into the notion of resource development. The resource development and economic strategy of the government have really come to a halt. The megaprojects which were in the last budget have fallen to the ground. The government has no real economic strategy today. It is not just I who say that, it is not just I who recognize that. Training programs must be connected to economic development.
I should like to quote briefly from an article that appeared in the June 22 edition of The Globe and Mail. It indicated that the economy is in a tailspin which has had no equal in 28 years. It read:
The economy is in a tailspin unmatched for 28 years, and only more consumer spending or greater exports are likely to pull it out-
In my time remaining I will try to wrap up quickly. The article went on to point out the facts that we are in an economic crisis and that the government opposite is following a harsher monetary and fiscal policy than that of the Reagan administration in the United States. It is not enough just to train people; we must have jobs for them once they have completed their training. It is time for the government to take some immediate and long-term action with regard to the economic situation. Otherwise, all efforts at training will be lost.
June 22, 1982



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer)-Farm Credit Corporation-Availability of funding, (b) Advance crop payments; the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser)-Environmental Affairs-Request that acid rain subcommittee be reactivated; the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Gimaiel)-External Affairs-Inquiry respecting measures government intends to take to help Lebanon.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Axworthy that Bill C-115, to establish a national program for occupational training, be read the third time and do pass.
Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in the debate on Bill C-115, to establish a national program for occupational training, with a certain amount of satisfaction. I guess everyone who sees the fruits of his or her labour suddenly arrive in some form of a legislation has a feeling of satisfaction, as I do today.
For a moment I should like to discuss the work of a task force which was chaired by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand). Six of my colleagues in the House of Commons were members of the task force, one of whom, due to sudden death, is no longer with us. We miss Bruce Lonsdale around here immensely. The seven of us got along well. We travelled the country from coast to coast over a period of approximately 12 months. We sat down to write a report which took a couple of months.
The report of the Special Committee on Employment Opportunities for the '80s ended up producing 186 recommendations, of which there were only minority reports written on three or four. This shows most graphically how well we got along, how we co-operated, and how we saw the problems associated with manpower training and a whole scope of issues once we got out there and experienced them first hand. I congratulate the government for setting up the task force. Some task forces have been more productive than others, but I think some very, very useful information has come out of every one of them. I think the minister will agree with me that Bill C-115 is the result of this task force and others which he had set up within his ministry. He may comment on that later.
National Training Act
There are a number of task force recommendations which are embodied in Bill C-115. The feeling, I suggest, is very similar to being a father; you experience the thrill of seeing something born after working so hard at it for so long a period of time.
I rise this afternoon with a good feeling in my heart. Now that we have Bill C-115 which does encompass certain recommendations from the committee, I hope that the minister will now convene the committee again for a meeting with himself in order that we may discuss some of our recommendations which have not yet been considered. Since the report was filed last October we have not had the opportunity to discuss with the minister which recommendations he does not favour and which ones he may be working on at the present time. Obviously, we know the ones which he favours because he has implemented them. However, I think a follow-up meeting is important because we hear the criticism from people time and time again that a matter is being studied and it will only result in another report which will end up on the shelf. We do not want that to happen.
We would like to see similar action taken to that taken by the task force on the handicapped and their follow-up on the Obstacles report. I would like to suggest to the minister today that he return with a counter report in order to reveal what has been accomplished, what is being considered and what has been rejected. That would be a very postive gesture on his part.
My colleague the hon. member from Rosedale (Mr. Crom-bie) mentioned the legislation process earlier and how well this particular process worked. There were a number of factors which arose from the process. We had a small committee which was comprised of members who were very knowledgeable on the subject we were discussing. No one was there to protect the government's rear flank or with any other similar motive. Our purpose was to attempt to reach a common goal. That process, I believe, could be used in many other areas. For instance, I see the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove) sitting in the House. I believe that when he is dealing with housing issues he should take a lesson from the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy). The graphic example given to us by that minister was very important.
While I say this with all kindness, I am not quite sure what happened to the minister's point of view between Tuesday's meeting and Thursday's meeting. My first concern in committee was co-operation with the provinces. On Tuesday the minister said that too often they-meaning the provinces- approach it as a one-way street: we co-operate and consult, and they simply decide. He went on to make a number of statements as to why certain provisions could not be put in the bill to assure co-operation with the provinces. One concerned the discussion of veto in course content and the construction of certain buildings within provinces that the federal government might fund. He summed it up to us on Tuesday by saying:

June 22, 1982
National Training Act
That is why I would not want to give a veto to any one of those segments and say that we are the only body in the country, as a national government, that can represent a national point of view.
The minister changed his mind some time between Tuesday and Thursday. To his credit, on Thursday he accepted a number of amendments that did allow vetos for provincial governments on certain aspects of the bill.
The hon. Dr. Bette Stephenson, who represented nine provinces, the territories and the Yukon, made a very strong plea for co-operative federalism. I believe that her presentation and her ideas probably exemplify what we on this side of the House would like to see happen to federal-provincial relations. Consultation with the provinces is now provided for in the legislation. It is assured that provinces will be given the opportunity to veto certain matters, although they do not have to do it. This is true for all provinces, including the one which unfortunately was not represented by Dr. Stephenson.
The absence of representations by Quebec was a grave disappointment to me. Although I am an Ontario member, I am very concerned about my sister province of Quebec and the attitude that government takes toward participation in matters such as these. Our committee spent a considerable amount of time conducting hearings in Quebec. We visited Chicoutimi, Jonquiere, Quebec City and Montreal. We had what I consider to be excellent representations by people representing the workplace, academics and the unions from that province. I believe that their concerns and thoughts were embodied in our report as much as any others. I found it extremely unfortunate for the Quebec minister to refuse absolutely to participate or co-operate with the other provinces in relating his concerns and improving our report. I, too, saw a very long telegram from the minister from Quebec, Mr. Marois, which did not offer any concrete changes to the act, and that concerned me. I suggested to the committee that we ask him to appear before us with his proposals. While he did not appear-in all fairness to him the invitation was not extended specifically to him-I am sorry that he did not co-operate on this bill because I believe it will benefit the workers in Quebec as much as the workers in the other nine provinces and the territories in Canada.
Another concern I had was over the consultation process with the private sector. One of our report's very strong recommendations was the use of the national labour market institute. It was a vehicle which would allow the private sector to become involved in the decision-making and informationgathering process.
Once we began our trips across Canada we became concerned when we quickly discovered that there was inaccurate information as to what is happening and what will happen in the marketplace. There was a complete lack of statistics and information. We were dealing with old statistics that had absolutely no further relevance to the conditions of the '80s. We believed that a national labour market institute which tied in business, labour, the large and small entrepreneur and the special needs groups, could provide the necessary information
as one of its functions to make reasonable and proper decisions on how training should be implemented in Canada.
My colleague from Rosedale spoke earlier about the amendment he introduced in order to insert the institute into the legislation. With the amendment that was accepted today by the government, we do have the framework for that. While we are somewhat concerned about iron-clad and firm commitments from that side of the House, we do have the commitment from the minister, which he made in committee, that he and his officials will work very diligently to set up this type of vehicle. It may not be exactly what the CLC wants, or what we proposed in the task force, but it will be something similar which will provide the necessary information in order for the minister and his officials to make reasonable decisions.
Something I would like to make very clear, and I think the minister will agree with this, is that we were somewhat preoccupied during committee with the issue of apprenticeships as if it only applied to apprenticeship training. I believe it should be made clear that while part of this bill does affect apprenticeship, there is other training required in Canada for very highly technical skills that may not be of apprenticeship nature but which nevertheless is required for the use of new equipment which is being installed in offices every day. We need people who are able to maintain that equipment. Technicians are sadly lacking in Canada today. We want to make it very clear that this bill covers training of a very wide scope, but training which is required in today's marketplace. I think someone said that for far too long the Ministry of Employment and Immigration has been training too many barbers and hairdressers, more barbers and hairdressers than there are heads of hair to cut in this country. I think that points out the problem we have been experiencing. It has obviously been recognized by the government in appointing this task force and also by this bill, and I am pleased to see that.
The apprenticeship program in Canada is sadly lacking. We found that in Germany, for example, 90 per cent of the manufacturing industries train people. In Britain, about 75 per cent are involved in training. In Canada we found from testimony that 20 per cent train in Canada. That was as near as we could figure because information is hard to get. People like to compare the European apprenticeship programs with the Canadian apprenticeship situation, but that cannot be done. Because of our split jurisdictions on various aspects, provinces have jurisdiction over education and that has been confirmed in the new Constitution. Other countries do not have those problems. I think that is the first point.
The second point is that we found that young people in European countries who sign on for apprenticeship finish that apprenticeship. It is like going to school. They are assured that they will finish that apprenticeship if they pass all the way along. They are not guaranteed jobs at the end, but they are assured of that apprenticeship and that if there is a slight slowdown in the industry, the apprentices are not the first to go. They are guaranteed that they will finish their course
June 22, 1982

unless, of course, there is a complete disaster. The negotiated agreements with their unions indicate that. I think that is very important.
1 would encourage labour in Canada to take a very long and hard look at that type of program because I am concerned that apprenticeship programs are on for a few months and then they are off. In these economic times, there is no question but that it is the apprentices who are being laid off first and are missing out on that much-needed education. So I appeal to the ministry, to the minister, to labour and to management to get together and take a long, hard look at our apprenticeship programs in this country and see whether we are doing the right thing. We should take a look at the modular educational process as opposed to the old process of four years of apprenticeship, because I think that maybe those days have gone.
Finally, as my colleague from Rosedale did, I want to congratulate a few people. It is always good for young people like us, rookies in the House, to watch an old pro at work, if I can use that terminology and it is not unparliamentary. As everyone in this House and many people in Canada know, for a great many years the hon. member for Brandon-Souris and his wife have diligently worked for those less fortunate than the rest of us. He was on the task force on the handicapped and he came to that committee with one purpose in mind-to ensure that those people with special needs were included in Bill C-115. Like a tenacious little terrier who has got hold of someone's pantleg, he would not let go until he had finished the deed. I want to congratulate him and thank him very much for teaching we rookies how to get the job done, an important job done.
To my colleagues, the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) and the hon. member for Rosedale, who served on the committee and also spent a great deal of time in the committee, I say thank you. To the parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bujold), and to the staff who were most co-operative with us, I also want to say thank you.
I think I had only one disappointment in the whole process. That was that those people who served on the task force really did not show up in the committee, with the exception of the chairman, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East, who just showed up for one of the meetings. I was disappointed that they were not there to help put forward the points that we were trying to make to encourage the minister to bring in the amendments and to produce a good bill. I know that the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) will be following me. He was on the Employment Opportunities for the '80s committee. He did not show up, but he had some changed responsibilities and had good reason not to be there. That was a disappointment.
Now we face the challenge. Now we have the training bill in place. Now we must start training people. But, more importantly, we must train them for jobs which are available in the eighties. Right now those jobs are lacking, with one and a half million people unemployed. The Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) has disappointed us for two and a half years. 1 hope and pray that on Monday night he will come in with a
National Training Act
very positive, very upbeat, very inspirational type of budget which will get the economy back on its feet and give faith to the Canadian people who have lost their trust in the Canadian government, so they can be assured that when they invest, their investments will be good and so we can provide the jobs that are needed. Now that we have this training bill in place, I urge the minister to get on with the job of training.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, as indicated by the hon. member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid), I was spokesman for our party on questions of employment for a number of years. I served with hon. members from the other parties on the parliamentary task force which looked at the question of employment for the eighties. I was then assigned different responsibilities. Therefore, I was not really able to participate in the work of the standing committee which considered this bill, but I closely followed its work and its recommendations.
I want to say, as did my colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Keeper), who is now our spokesman on employment matters, that we will vote for this bill. We will do it despite the fact that we have some serious doubts about the government's programs or the ability of this bill to do a much better job than has been done in the past. I want to remind members of the committee that when the head of the Canadian Federation of Independent Businessmen was before the parliamentary task force, he referred to the present department of employment and its ability to do the job it is supposed to do. While I may not quote him exactly, 1 am certain that I will relate the spirit of what he had to say. As I remember, he said that if an employer is looking for a good, skilled employee to fill a vacancy in his plant, the last place he would go would be to the department of employment. I think that is a very serious indictment of the department.
Let me deal with what I consider to be some of the major difficulties, not only with the act but also with the government's approach to the problem of unemployment. It is pretty obvious to me that the major proposals contained in this bill were drafted some considerable time ago, a time when the depth and severity of the depression we are presently in was not expected by the government. I say "depression" in all seriousness because I think it is much more than a recession.
As usual, the government received incorrect and bad advice from its senior economic advisers. According to official statistics from Statistics Canada, we now have one and a quarter million unemployed. We all know that there are probably another 300,000 or 400,000 people who are also unemployed, but Statistics Canada only counts as unemployed those who are actively looking for work.
Today's Financial Times highlighted the severity of the problem with a front page story headlined "UIC rates set for huge rise". I will read into the record a couple of paragraphs indicating its predictions. It states:
Some private forecasters now believe that the total bill for unemployment insurance benefits in 1982 will be at least $7 billion to $8 billion, maybe higher if the unemployment rate continues to rise. This is a huge increase over the $4.8

June 22, 1982
National Training Act
billion in benefits paid out last year. And it means the account will face a deficit by year-end of at least $2 billion-ten times more than the $218 million shortfall originally planned.
It goes on to indicate the very sharp increase in unemployment insurance premiums which will be required to be paid next year by both employees and employers. As I see it, even if the programs to be implemented under the provisions of this bill succeed, which I doubt for reasons that I will indicate later, we will simply have a much better trained large group of unemployed.
The bill was obviously prepared before the failure of the megaprojects became apparent. The failure of these projects on which the federal government's whole job strategy was based considerably modifies the employment situation in Canada.
In his address to the Canadian Information Processing Society in Saskatoon in May of this year, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) mentioned the strong position of Canada due to the resource industries in the west. It is clear in this speech that he considered that developing of skills required by these industries where they were located constituted a crucial aspect of the whole national training program.
The picture today is, of course, totally different. Today the unemployment rate is over 10 per cent. Those who are unemployed are no longer only the unskilled workers. In the past year vacancies for accountants, executives, engineers, scientists and other professionals decreased by more than 47 per cent. It is reported now that university graduates are faced with increasing difficulties in finding jobs.
The petrochemical industry and the forestry and manufacturing sectors are among the hardest hit. The financial sector opportunities for university graduates also appear to be limited. Under these circumstances, it seems to be clear that any program to improve the employment situation in Canada should be placed within a broader strategy and a stronger commitment to full employment.
We know that the parliamentary task force on employment in the eighties, which unfortunately the minister did not pay much attention to, said that the goal of the Canadian government should be full employment. It defined full employment as 96 per cent of the work force employed and only 4 per cent unemployed. As I have indicated, we now have 10 per cent of the work force unemployed.
It would be impossible to carry out job creation and training programs which would be of any real benefit given this situation. This prediction of the parliamentary task force is in contrast to the departmental task force headed by Dr. Dodge which ignored that advice, unfortunately and so was not followed by the minister. The Dodge report overlooked completely the whole question of unemployment in this country.
Another principle underlying the bill before us is the perception of labour market planning simply as a problem of matching workers to jobs. The bill reflects no attempt to situate employment planning in the wider context of planning of the whole economic activity. For example, in his Saskatoon speech
the minister maintained that the service sectors will continue to be improved in employment creation, that growth will no longer be centred in the health and educational fields but rather in the business and computer-related services.
This is an end result of the government policy rather than a natural development. Moreover, it is not at all clear whether it is a desirable development, given the unsatisfactory performance we now have in health and education services and given the fact that the more we computerize, the more people, particularly women in the traditional fields in which they work, will be out of work. There is no indication in the provisions of this bill or in any of the speeches made by the minister that the serious inequities which now exist in the field of employment for women have been considered at all or that they will be improved in a meaningful way after this bill is enacted.
Let me illustrate briefly what I mean by this claim which I have just made. Women are under-represented in manpower training courses. In 1979, women represented 39 per cent of the employed labour force, 46 per cent of the unemployed labour force and 51 per cent of the source population. Yet in 1979-80, female participation in full-time institutional training programs was only 33 per cent.
In the industrial training courses, the percentage of women participants declined from the 1978-79 figure of 29 per cent to 27.4 per cent. Worse, women comprise only 3 per cent of the apprenticeship training program, a rate which has remained constant for the last ten years. This is despite the previous claims of the minister that the government is giving serious consideration to ways to improve the situation for women in these non-traditional fields.
Occupational segregation of women starts with manpower and its department. The inequities of women's occupations in the labour force have been well documented. Sixty per cent of all working women work at three kinds of jobs: clerical, sales and service. These jobs are typically low-paying, dead-end jobs requiring few skills. Rather than becoming an instrument of change, manpower training programs initiate and encourage ghettoization. In 1979-80, 93 per cent of all manpower trainees enrolled in clerical and related institutional training courses were women. Clerical and related courses ranked first as a specialty for women in industrial training courses as well.
The CEC counsellors, who are the first entry to the system, are the first barrier to women doing better. The individual CEC counsellor has almost total control in the selection of programs for women. They overwhelmingly stream women into traditional occupations. The counsellors are not only hampered by personal biases and attitudes; the majority are further handicapped by a lack of formal training in job counselling. Furthermore, counsellors often lack comprehensive knowledge of the range of courses available to their women clients.
Essentially, the counsellors do not work as career planners
but perceive training as an end rather than a means. In effect,
June 22, 1982

women are often streamed into short-term training programs to eliminate their numbers from the unemployment rolls because CEC counsellors are under tremendous pressure to process clients as quickly and as cheaply as possible.
I now wish to comment on wage subsidy programs. In 1978, 75 per cent of the wage subsidies went to small, non-union firms with 20 or less employees. In these small firms, women run the risk of becoming a cheap source of labour, vulnerable to lay-offs and unemployment. In 1975, three months after women completed their training in a non-traditional occupation, it was found that they earned $67 less than men with identical characteristics in similar occupations.
Since the department does only a limited three-month follow-up of its trainees in the wage subsidy program, it is difficult to determine if women are retained as permanent employees in any significant numbers. Without long-term monitoring and evaluation of the career paths of these women trainees, it is difficult to assess if they are promoted in any significant numbers from their entry level positions.
By creating a policy which subsidizes small firms for accepting female trainees and by slotting 10 to 15 per cent of the non-traditional instutional training seats for women, the goal of promoting women into better-paying industries and jobs that have been traditionally dominated by men is not being satisfied.
The government and the minister have rejected the principles enunciated in the parliamentary task force of contract compliance and affirmative action. I will talk about those in a few minutes. The national training program of the government reflects the government's response mainly to the Dodge report to which 1 have already referred.
Virtually, Mr. Speaker, the minister has rejected most of the important recommendations made by the parliamentary task force, a task force of which the majority of its members come from the Liberal majority of this Parliament. It is a task force whose recommendations were, as the member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid) said, almost all unanimous, yet most of the recommendations of that parliamentary task force were ignored and rejected by the minister. We see that in this proposal with regard to the National Training Act.
Let me indicate some of the proposals which were in effect rejected by the government. The parliamentary task force was told repeatedly by representatives of labour, industry, educators and by community groups that until now employers, with very few exceptions, have not trained the skilled workers they need. They have been content to import skilled workers from overseas or to steal skilled workers from other employers.
There is no proof at all, Mr. Speaker, that employers will do better as long as they are not required to train by law or by regulation. Voluntary efforts, or the kind of give-aways and bribes which the minister proposes the government follow, will be a failure as they have been in the past. I will deal with that a little later.
National Training Act
Let me deal with three or four of the specific recommendations which the parliamentary task force made and which have been rejected and ignored by the government. The parliamentary task force pointed out that 28.4 per cent of Canadians are functionally illiterate. Mr. Speaker, that is almost a record and a record of which we ought to be ashamed before any of the modern industrialized countries of the western world.
The parliamentary task force recommended that a special effort would have to be made to prepare these people for higher skills-training. There is no sign of that in the bill or in anything the minister has said.
My colleague mentioned earlier that the parliamentary task force recommended a ten-year crash program, operated jointly by the three levels of government. The parliamentary task force pointed out that women, natives and the handicapped are underrepresented in the skilled trades and professions. It said that the government should reaffirm its commitment to eradicate functional illiteracy and should introduce an affirmative action program and a program of contractual compliance for an increase in the training of women, natives, the handicapped, and other minority groups. It recommended that there should be an Indian economic and employment strategy, together with an Indian educational training strategy, to be developed by Indians. There is no sign of that, Mr. Speaker.
This bill is based on recommendations made by that internal task force, of the employment department, headed by Mr. Dodge. It did not do what the parliamentary task force did; it did not go across the country listening to groups from one end of the country to the other. It met with a few bureaucrats in the department, and probably with a few bureaucrats in some of the provincial departments, and made its recommendations.
The recommendations made by the Dodge task force which are embodied in this bill were supported to a large extent by the private sector. It was received with suspicion and is under a great deal of suspicion by trade unions and by provincial governments. Provincial governments, however, realizing the power and the financial ability of the federal government to fund programs, even if they are not completely satisfied with them, have had to go along with the proposals of the government.
The trade unions are concerned by the very limited role assigned to them under this program. They have also pointed out that there is an increasingly large role to be played by the employers in providing training. The unions, however, feel, with the vast experience they have, that the on-the-job training has been quite unsatisfactory, as did most employers, educators and community groups that came before the parliamentary task force. This raises doubts as to the effectiveness of training programs left to the initiative of employers.
I would point out today, Mr. Speaker, as I have in the past, that the particular agreements for training which the minister has made with various industry groups were made without consultation with the unions in those industries. Such programs are thus likely to be essentially generous subsidies to the private sector, which do not and will not make a significant

June 22, 1982
National Training Act
contribution towards the solution of the country's employment problems.
As an alternative, the Canadian Labour Congress suggested a grant-levy system, to be administered by a training board composed equally of representatives of trade unions and management. The board would have had authority to set a levy for all employers in their sector to cover (a) the administrative expenses of the board, (b) the training program, (c) the research of the board and (d) grants to employers.
All employers in the sector would pay the levy set by the board. Then the employers who actually provide training according to the standard set by the board would receive a grant to offset all or part of the cost of training. If a firm does more than its share of training, it could receive more back in grants than it had paid in the levy. This system would provide both an incentive and a penalty, and would thus persuade employers to train. That is an objective which it is very difficult to attain without such a mechanism of enforcement.
The parliamentary task force did not accept that proposal of the Canadian Labour Congress, but it did bring forward an alternative. Under the alternative, employers would have had to pay in a different form for training, whether they did it or not, and would be compensated if they trained their workers. That recommendation of the parliamentary task force was, in effect, rejected by the government.
The task force report was prepared and adopted without consultation with unions or other groups. The suggestions of the CLC were not taken into account by the minister or his department. Like the labour unions, the provinces too were dissatisfied with the increasing role given to the private sector in the training programs.
At present, the balance of the institutional industrial training is 85 per cent to institutions and 15 per cent to industrial training. In 1980-81, $656 million, out of a total expenditure of $770 million, federal training dollars, were channelled through provincial educational institutions. The switch of training funds to the private sector, which is to be given more encouragement to train workers, means that the provinces will have their funds cut by up to 10 per cent this year. Like the labour unions, the provinces have expressed their concern about reliance for training programs on the voluntary compliance of the private sector and the lack of explicit mention of governmental action which might be necessary in the absence of this voluntary compliance. This point was expressed very forcefully by the Ontario ministry.
The provinces have also mentioned that the program might lead to a situation where already available services are duplicated. It has every reason to be suspicious about the ability of the department to deliver the kind of programs that they talk about. We know from bitter experience how wrong the department has been in past years.
Finally, they raise doubts as to the ability of the federal government to forecast accurately what skills will be in demand in future. Given previous federal failures in certain areas-and I refer to the forward occupational imbalance
listing, which was ignored by industry for planning purposes, and the Canadian occupational forecasting program, which was judged not very useful by local CEIC centres-the forecasting ability of the Canadian occupational projection system, or COPS, as it is known, a major component of the training program, remains an important provincial worry.
Apart from these issues raised by the concerned parties, there are important problems related to the principle underlying the National Training Act about which I have very serious doubts. Let me deal with some specific shortcomings that I see in the government's program. There is a need to train thousands who lack basic education, to which I have already referred is deficient. It means that they are not now able to get the kind of training that is or may be available for those skilled jobs for which there is or may be a demand. In other words, Mr. Speaker, even if we have the right training programs, a very large percentage of the Canadian people would not and do not have the education to qualify to take that training opportunity which would be available. I have already spoken about the large number of Canadians who are functionally illiterate.
The parliamentary task force recommended that we adopt the national right to read program operated by the federal and provincial governments together with private and voluntary organizations. There would be a need for a major increase in funds for such programs, to provide the basic training for skill development. What we have actually seen in recent years, however, were substantial cutbacks in these programs rather than the increases which the task force and other groups indicated were needed.
We have failed to deal with the needs of special groups. The government has rejected any real commitment to the use of affirmative action programs to provide employment opportunities to minority groups, which include women, natives, the handicapped and new immigrants, so that such people can take their place in our modern society. Even if training were provided for these groups, if employment is not assured then the training would be self-defeating in a period of high unemployment. At this time, when there are so many people unemployed, it would be much easier for employers, both public and private, to find work for the many middle-class men and women who wish to work rather than for natives or immigrants who would require longer and more expensive assistance to find and keep meaningful work. Unless we help them they will be permanently forced into low paid, unskilled, dirty work, or onto the welfare rolls of our cities.
The record of government departments in hiring native people is poor, almost without exception. The government's supposed commitment to affirmative action will not be realized unless these programs are given teeth, and senior administrators are given the responsibility of delivering specific goals by specific dates. There are signs that this is taking place.
There are jobs for these minority groups. We need native
teachers, we need native social workers and health workers,

June 22, 1982
building maintenance people, and resource officers, as well as prison workers. We need them on the reserves and we need them in the cities to which they are moving in increasing numbers. The government and the department have failed completely to face up to the problem of these people as they have refused to face up to so many problems for which they have responsibility.
We see these shortcomings. We are not too hopeful that the bill will do a better job than the old act, or that the government will do more than it did in the past. This new measure is better than none, however, and so we will vote for the bill although, to say the least, reluctantly.


Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a few short comments to make on this bill. I know we have a royal assent at 5.45, and that the minister also wants to say a few words, so I shall be very brief. Nevertheless, I would like to add my own words to other comments made in this House regarding the exceptional efforts made by my colleague from Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) in his word on amendments to this bill. It would seem that the legislation has been vastly improved as a result of amendments that were accepted after prior discussion in committee.
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, as a member for Quebec, I am once again far from happy to see that nine provinces plus the Northwest Territories have agreed and that Quebec is not a part of this general agreement. Granted, the amendments give the provinces some increased powers, but as a result of these amendments, the provinces will also have to take the blame for turning down certain federal proposals.
1 had hoped, and I pointed this out in committee to the minister responsible, that the Quebec minister's request to have a discussion before the bill was passed would be met. I did the best I could to make the minister understand, after his very pertinent remarks to the committee, that it was important for him to meet the Quebec minister, considering the comments sent by telegram to the minister and a number of members. I felt, and I will feel, that it is vital that the two ministers should meet. I know, and the minister certainly has many possibilities, that he would be willing to try to show some flexibility if such a request were made. He was finally advised not to meet the Quebec minister on this subject, and that is probably why Quebec is not part of this agreement. It is unfortunate, and I truly regret this fact. It also puts me in a rather difficult position in relation to other members, because of their comments and the agreements between various provinces, and I wish I could be as pleased as my colleagues are about the fact that their provinces have agreed to co-operate with the federal government on this legislation.
That is not the case, however, and since the minister did not make the special effort he could have made, Mr. Speaker, I find the whole situation most unfortunate and regrettable. I know, people are going to tell me that amendments will make
National Training Act
it possible for Quebec as well as all the other provinces to have a say in this kind of consultation, but the fact remains that proposals will be initiated by the federal government, and that is the kind of unilateralism we have often criticized. This reminds me of other subjects and conflicts we have witnessed here in the House of Commons, in which the federal government unilaterally maintained its proposals and let the provinces take the blame for failing to agree or co-operate. Much has been said about consultation, and the minister has tried to convince us that there would be real consultation, but, Mr. Speaker, experience has shown that consultation is not always enough. I would have preferred agreements, and in view of the very positive arguments put forward by the minister, and the objectives of this legislation, it seems to me it should have been possible to convince ten, and not only nine provinces. Of course, there will be those who say that today, nothing can be done with the government of Quebec. I can assure the House that previous governments under Mr. Bourassa and Mr. Johson were just as demanding with respect to occupational training as the present government of Quebec. It is always useful to remember Quebec's history.
I have just a short comment to remind the minister of one of the recommendations of the Pepin-Robarts report. In fact, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) was the right person to remind the minister responsible that the report contains a recommendation which demands recognition for the distinctive position of Quebec, compared with the other provinces, a recommendation that was not drafted by the separatists but by federalist Tories and Grits, among them the Minister of Transport who is a member of the cabinet. If the Minister of Transport had wanted to show the slightest bit of good faith, he could have reminded the minister that this distinctiveness should be reflected in the proposals being made today by the federal government. Today, this distinctiveness has been totally ignored in the bill now before the House. 1 repeat, Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see that nine provinces have approved the principle of this bill and are prepared to cooperate with the minister in this area. However, I find it most regrettable that the government failed to obtain Quebec's cooperation, and I am convinced not enough has been done, and to prove it-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The hon. member, on a point of order.


Mr. Tousignant:: The hon. member just mentioned that nine provinces had reached an agreement. He now wants to insinuate that the federal government is to blame if Quebec does not want to be part of the agreement. Nine provinces have agreed, Quebec does not, and once again the federal government is to blame.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I am doing my utmost to speak only a few minutes so as to let the minister finish his comments

June 22, 1982
National Training Act
on this legislation, and I hope that the members on the government side who did not speak to this bill will give me a chance to do so. It is too late for them to speak, in any case. I am sure that if the six dozen Quebec members opposite had insisted that the minister meet with the Quebec minister, this would have satisfied me. However, they did not. They were delighted with Quebec's objections and then asked the minister to ignore them. Mr. Speaker, I feel the time has come for me, as the member from Quebec on this side of the House, to ask the members opposite to at least have the decency to ask the minister responsible to find a way and make a special effort to produce a better agreement and set a real example of cooperative federalism.
In the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I could have made further remarks. I regret the absence of Quebec. Once again, I trust some way will be found to achieve genuine co-operation, and I still hope that it will be possible to conclude provisional agreements. In the circumstances, I shall have to end my comments so that the minister can make his final remarks. Thank you, Mr. Speaker for the time you have allowed me.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Before 1 recognize the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy), 1 should indicate that this is third reading, and consequently the minister does not have the right of reply without unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gesture. There are many things I could say about this bill. The fact that it has taken us close to two years to achieve this major change in training is one. Perhaps I could just indicate to hon. members that this will provide, in what has been a very long session, one of the most important gestures this Parliament can make toward those Canadians who are looking to their future in the job market. It will give them some hope and ambition, and confidence that the future can be theirs because they will have better training.
It means that we will be able to offer well over $1 billion in expenditures for new training to over 250,000 Canadians. It means there are special measures for women to go into nontraditional work. There are special measures to encourage employers to hire native people and those with disabilities. There are major efforts to provide every province, and employers and unions across Canada, with the ability to build new training facilities, new equipment and new laboratories to expand our training system across Canada substantively.
This is a very major moment for this Parliament, Mr. Speaker, and it is not, as members opposite have said, the product of one or two people; it is the product of many people.
It started with the task force, and contrary to the impression the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) tried to leave, it was very much based on the recommendations of that task force which was composed of members from all sides. There were a lot of very diligent and loyal officials of this government who spent literally hundreds of thousands of hour working to bring about a training program. There was the cooperation of many provincial officials who worked with us in two federal-provincial conferences to bring this about.
I would point out to the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) that the lack of participation by the Quebec minister is not our fault. He did not come to those conferences, even though he was invited; he did not prepare recommendations, even though he was asked; he did not offer any suggestions, even though the invitation was given.

It is not true that the government of Quebec wishes to cooperate with the federal government, but I hope to reach an agreement with the government of Quebec quite soon, although the latter will have to declare its intentions with respect to this agreement.

So, Mr. Speaker, there are many people involved, and 1 want to pay tribute in particular to my parliamentary secretary who was responsible for guiding this bill through the labyrinth of Parliament and obtaining co-operation from everyone concerned. I also want to pay tribute in particular to members of the committee. We worked very closely together over the past two weeks to arrive at what I think is a good bill which will serve Canadians in the future.
We can now go to young people, natives, women, the workers of this country, and say we have a framework of training which gives them some hope and confidence that the skills they need for the new workplace can be theirs. But we will have to continue this spirit of co-operation. I hope members on both sides will continue to work with me and my department as we take this legislation and turn it into reality so that we can deal with these difficult economic problems of our times, and provide a real sense of purpose and direction for the workplace of the future. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
June 22, 1982


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed the following bills without amendment: Bill C-38, an act to provide for the garnishment or attachment of Her Majesty in right of Canada and for the diversion of pension benefits payable by Her Majesty in right of Canada under certain enactments; Bill C-120, an act to amend the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act; Bill C-118, an act to amend certain acts that provide for the retention of records; and Bill C-121, an act for granting to her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1983.

I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Government House Ottawa
June 22, 1982
Madam:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Bertha Wilson, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in her capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 22nd day of June, 1982 at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to some bills.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
Jacques Noiseux Deputy Secretary to the Governor General


CANADA PORTS CORPORATION ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, June 14, consideration of Bill C-92, 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.
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, as we await the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod I want to resume my comments on Bill C-92 by indicating to my colleagues that I had just finished reminding the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) that among the issues with which we are concerned with respect to ports legislation is the capacity of the central Crown corporation involved to act in the role of banker. How this would happen, its desirability, was spelled out in background papers which were widely discussed in
Canada Ports Corporation Act
Canada and which emanated from the ministry. I had indicated to the House that we were somewhat disappointed, to say the least, to find that those provisions were not carried through in the bill. I indicated, and I reiterate now, that those are provisions we will at least hope to see when the matter is finally before us in committee.
There are some other aspects of the bill that require further clarification. For instance, a port, as long as it is not a local port corporation, may be allowed to change its status to a harbour commission, providing for even further autonomy.
A local port corporation in order to achieve that would in effect have to disband itself and then apply for harbour commission status. I do not believe, nor did I understand, that that was to be the intent of the minister or his officials in the drafting of this legislation. Regretfully that is the situation within the bill itself. Our concern, of course, is that we do not believe that any port should have to suffer through that much red tape in order to change its status.
With respect to local port corporations, and again this hinges on the local autonomy issue-the degree of autonomy that will be extended to local port corporations under this legislation-why is it just the Canada Ports Corporation that would be allowed to petition the minister for establishment of a local port corporation? If one of the criteria for the establishment of a local port corporation is that of local interest, then why can the local community not be allowed to petition the transport minister? Would this not be further proof of the need for a local port corporation if the local community itself were able to participate directly.
Another criterion for the establishment of a local port corporation is that of financial self-sufficiency. What is the definition of financial self-sufficiency? Will it differ from one port to the other? If it will not, then why is the Canada Port Corporation allowed to select and choose which statutory powers to give each local port corporation contained in the list of powers in Part II of the Act? These are questions for which we will be seeking detailed answers. Why should not all local port corporations be established with the same set of ground rules, and have equal and identical statutory powers? The act does not give as much guidance on that.
If one local port corporation will be allowed by the CPC to have more statutory powers because of its so-called financial self-sufficiency, does this mean that the CPC will have more stringent control over the local port corporation that does not have as many or as broad statutory authorities? I think this is a vital concern and I hope this discrepancy will be clarified and, more important, rectified in committee.

June 22, 1982
Canada Ports Corporation Act THE ROYAL ASSENT

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:


Madam Speaker:: Order, please, I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate chamber, the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
Bill C-38, an act to provide for the garnishment or attachment of Her Majesty in right of Canada and for the diversion of pension benefits payable by Her Majesty in right of Canada under certain enactments-Chapter No. 100;
Bill C-120, an act to amend the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act- Chapter No. 101;
Bill C-118, an act to amend certain Acts that provide for the retention of records-Chapter No. 102;
Bill C-121, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1983- Chapter No. 103.
It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At 6 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8:00 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from June 14, 1982, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pepin that 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, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport.
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, when the distinguished Senate and her representatives, the Governor General in her presence in the Senate, summoned us to other business in Parliament, I had been talking about some of the concerns that we on this side have with respect to Bill C-92, the pending ports legislation.
In the time I have remaining I would like to put on the record some of the other concerns which we have about this bill. I would sum up what I have said up to this point, but
having had my speech interrupted three times already, I believe I will simply carry on. The minister is aware of some of our concerns, a few of which are being looked upon favourably by the minister. I believe when this matter goes to committee you will find a non-partisan committee such as the one which dealt with the bill we considered this afternoon. I believe you will find a committee which is prepared to work at rectifying some of the reservations we have about this bill. As I indicated at the outset, some of those concerns are critical and need to be assessed.
Another concern we have is that all of the local port corporations' board of directors are appointed by cabinet. Although the language in the bill has been made neater, it still in fact provides for a cabinet appointment on the recommendation of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin). While we may all love the present philosopher who occupies that high post, it is not always the case that this chamber can automatically have trust and confidence in the selection processes made by a minister with respect to appointments to these local boards.
To allay fears of some over-zealous, crass patronage, of which we have seen a lot recently-I would remind the minister of our former colleague, Jack Horner, going all the way to the top of CN. We do have to talk about Pierre Juneau and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. We do not have to talk about Sylvia Ostry in OECD. We surely do not have to talk in this chamber about the brother-in-law team that we now have running VIA on the one hand and Canadian National on the other. That is nepotism in its worst form, and conflict of interest.


Mr. Laniel:: Jack Horner was your transport minister.


J. Michael Forrestall: I know that he was. Tell me how you can avoid conflict of interest when brothers-in-law are running VIA Rail and CN?


Gérald Laniel: Competence.


J. Michael Forrestall: Competence in conflict. This country deserves better than that. Does the hon. member mean to tell me that there are not other people who could competently run VIA Rail?


An hon. Member:: Who?


J. Michael Forrestall: If you sit in your chair I will entertain your question when I finish.


Gérald Laniel: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I wonder if the hon. member agrees with me that Pierre Franche, before he was appointed to VIA Rail, was doing a very good job in all of the functions and appointments he received from the federal government. He is a well-qualified man. He received his qualifications from all over the world.


J. Michael Forrestall: I will respond to that question. I come from the port of Halifax-Dartmouth, in Atlantic Canada. I suggest that he take a look at the money spent, if the hon. member

June 22, 1982

wants to join the debate, and tell me how it is fair. Of course Pierre Franche did well. He had S600 million to spend between Beauharnois and Quebec City. What did we have in Atlantic Canada in the same period? We had $40 million. Tell me how that equates. Surely he did a good job. Everyone in Montreal knows he did a good job and everyone in Quebec knows he did a good job, but he is damned outside of those two areas. Talk to the people on the west coast and on the east coast. He did not do a good job, and he will not do a good job with VIA Rail. He will have to prove it every step of the way. It is negativism, and the hon. member knows it, and it is nepotism of the worst kind.
We want to allay these fears, so all we are asking is that the minister consider, just consider, between now and the time this matter gets into committee, whether or not he might not extend the capacities extended under the Harbour Commissions Act, so that we might draw into this decision-making process labour and the municipalities. It is not that I necessarily want them or believe that they should necessarily be part of the local ports corporation, but they should be drawn into the recommendations and into the government's thought processes so that there will be belief and credibility in the names of the nominees placed before cabinet for these jobs. We want to allay the suspicion that these are nothing but pork barrel positions. I think it is time we did that. Knowing the minister, I am sure he will consider a formula which accommodates the capacity of the Harbour Commissions Act.
Also, will he at least consider making certain that his nominees at least live in the area of jurisdiction with respect to appointments? With respect to these 20 mini Crown corporations, we do not want to see boards of directors such as that found in the Canada Development Corporation. What is the analogy? This government puts its head office in Vancouver and a chairman, a chief executive officer, president of the board, in Toronto.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: He does not live in Vancouver.


J. Michael Forrestall: No, so we want to avoid that. It is humiliating, somewhat arrogant, and it did not serve that area well. So, assure us that the process will not be an insult to the local community.
In conclusion, I welcome this bill. Some of my colleagues have strong reservations with respect to it.


Donald W. Munro: Misgivings.


J. Michael Forrestall: They have some misgivings about it. But if there is one thing that I need to say tonight, it is that Canada needs this piece of legislation. It is not good legislation. It is not legislation in its best form. I believe the Standing Committee on Transport can improve it. I believe the minister has a sufficiently open mind that he will allow improvements. I think we can produce a good piece of legislation.
Canada Ports Corporation Act
We need more accountability. I will reiterate just one or two points. We want joint auditorship or sole auditorship by the Auditor General of Canada. That relates to accountability, and the reason we need or believe that we want that at this point in time is simply that we have not seen the government's intentions with respect to Crown corporations over the medium to long haul. In the absence of a white paper and in the absence of legislation dealing with Crown corporations in our system, in our structure, we have reservations and we believe them to be valid. In that context, we believe that accountability, credibility of accountability, can be enhanced or enriched if the minister will accede to an amendment which will allow the Auditor General to be either the auditor for the Canada Ports Corporation and the local ports corporations or at least joint auditor. Therefore, I ask him to consider that.
The second point that I would reiterate in closing relates to the perception of autonomy. The bill, at first reading and on first blush, does indicate some degree of autonomy. We still have to see all the bylaws. We have to see the borrowing powers. We have to see the degree to which ports are treated equitably with respect to their statutory obligations, regulations and so on, the things that give them life and make them work. But remember, Mr. Minister and Mr. Speaker, that the people in the port community in this nation and its users will be watching this piece of legislation. They will be watching it to see whether, in fact, it does extend autonomy, whether there is that individual capacity to move, to expand, to promote vigorously, and to develop and compete without extending to any one port an advantage over another port.
I refer to the comments of my hon. friend opposite about the chairman of the National Harbours Board. The harbours and ports in this country have not been dealt with equitably over the last 15 or 20 years. The minister knows that. I hope this bill will extend equal statutory authority to all ports which will enhance and enrich their capacity to compete vigorously with one another for offshore export trade and import trade. The legislation designed in the early 1930s, coming into law in the mid-1930s, surviving for 45 years, has in fact been an excellent piece of legislation. It has served this country well, but it is outdated and it must be changed. I give to the minister my undertaking to support him to the degree I can, here on the floor on second reading, in the committee and back on report stage and on third reading. All that we on this side ask is that he support us in trying to make this a piece of legislation which will last as long as did the legislation based on the work of Commissioner Gibbs in the 1930s.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to be the first to speak for our party on the ports bill, 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 Recreational Harbours Act. As the Member of Parliament for the riding of Vancouver East, which borders on the Port of Vancouver, I have a very special interest in this bill. Over the past year, as

June 22, 1982
Canada Ports Corporation Act
part of the planning process in which the minister invited us to participate, I have consulted with National Harbours Board officials, maritime unions, regional and neighbourhood planning bodies, city councillors and also community residents near the port to get their opinions and their reactions to the proposed change in Canada's port policy.
I might say that the minister who invited this kind of involvement process seems to have indeed ignored many of the suggestions which were put to him, at least those made from my part of the country. The intent of the bill and its main features involve the creation of autonomous local port corporations, which are expected to be financially self-sufficient, regional administration of the smaller harbours and ports in Canada, as well as the creation of consultative bodies which would advise on port planning. A new ports policy which would embody a decentralized approach to port management and administration of ports has long been requested in this country and has long been delayed. We on this side of the House will support this bill in principle, but we do have a number of concerns which will require amendments before we can vote for it.
I would like to briefly review some of the historical trends which are relevant to the bill before us today, that is, Bill C-92. The concept of local autonomy in ports was present early in our history, way back in the 1800s, in the administration of the Port of Montreal as well as other ports. By 1906, however, the Port of Montreal had become so badly managed that the local board of trade asked the federal government to revert to the original form of central control. We see a reversal of the process that we are talking about today.
Because of the difficulties that Canadian ports were experiencing, by 1932 it was requested that Sir Anthony Gibb, a British authority on ports, investigate the financial losses and the inefficiencies of the Canadian port system. His 1932 "National Ports Survey", as it was called, reported that the local harbours boards were riddled with patronage. That was a very important point that he made. It is very relevant today. We are riddled with patronage by the party in power. He said they did not have the financial resources to provide low transport charges required for Canadian trade, and they failed to represent local interests and port users. This is quite important. The criticisms by Mr. Gibb are particularly relevant to some of the proposed changes in Bill C-92.
In 1936 the National Harbours Act established a highly centralized national ports system for Canada. We then moved to the National Harbours Board structure. Policy decisions were made in Ottawa for some ports that in some cases were thousands of miles away. As ports developed and national trade expanded, a highly centralized system of control became much too restrictive. Of course, it was overly bureaucratic, with long delays in decisions needed for practical operation of the port. Operational decisions were delayed by communication problems between coastal ports located thousands of miles away from isolated Ottawa.
Most restrictive, of course, was the statutory ceiling on contracts which required Treasury Board approval for any expenditures over $50,000. In his remarks the minister referred to the quite unrealistic administrative restrictions which this resulted in. Also, rates were imposed centrally by a three-person National Harbours Board.
The Glassco commission of 1962-63 recommended decentralization of the federal government services. Remember, this was in 1962, over 20 years ago. At that time it concluded, "Time and considerable correspondence and expenses will be saved if the local office is given the authority to make its own decisions in all cases except those involving government policy". Twenty years ago we needed decentralization. The need for reform was established 20 years ago. Yet subsequent Liberal governments have continued to delay changes time and time again.
The continuing problems therefore and the increasing inadequacy of the centralized port system led to a Speech from the Throne in 1974 which promised a reorganization of Canada's system of port management.
In July, 1975, the Scott committee, an interdepartmental committee, recommended the establishment of a new, single comprehensive port organization based largely on a national ports policy, but with substantial local autonomy in the management of the local ports and regional participation in the port-planning process. Still no action was taken by the Liberal government.
In 1977, Bill C-6, an act respecting Canadian ports, was prepared. This was to reflect the considerations of the Glassco commission and the Scott commission to foster local port autonomy where this was of local interest and where a port was expected to be financially self-sufficient. Need I say this bill was not enacted. It is almost like a conspiracy to delay changes.
In the glorious days of 1979 when the Conservative Party came to power, the needs of Canadian ports remained the same. The then minister of transport proposed a very similar bill which, of course, went down the tube with the Conservative government.
Because the Conservative position on decentralization was similar to that of the Liberal government, and reflected strong pressure from all regions of Canada, I cannot understand why some members of the Conservative Party, and I believe some from my region of the country, are opposing this bill. They certainly do not reflect the desires of the city of Vancouver which has undertaken a major study of this legislation. 1 will quote some of their recommendations later.
The city of Vancouver has asked for quick passage despite some reservations which we hold and which we will insist should become amendments in committee. The greater Vancouver regional district also supports this legislation, again with some caution. It certainly is important that we act on this, but with the changes that are needed.
The complex trends and developments in recent years require a much more responsive and effective system of port management. These trends include an enormous increase in
June 22, 1982

economic development throughout the world, and an accompanying expansion of international trade. There has been a development of new multi-model systems for containerized cargo and larger size facilities. The 1973 energy crisis characterizing the OPEC decade greatly increased competition between ports. In addition, there are community demands for more sensitive, integrated and responsive approaches to planning and, I might say, more control over safety and environmental factors as well in the development of ports situated in major urban areas.
It is evident to all hon. members, I am sure, that reforms are long overdue. The reason for successive delays cannot be justified by this government. Greater decentralization must allow port profits to be invested in modernization and development of all international ports in Canada.
Continuing federal subsidies will be needed for smaller ports such as the port of Churchill, for example, that are essential to a region but that probably will never be able to achieve financial self-sufficiency. It is most important, as the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) said to me a few minutes ago, that a Canadian ports corporation set national policy to ensure that there is a co-ordinated and well integrated port strategy across Canada that takes into consideration the special needs of smaller less economically efficient ports.
Unlike some Conservative members who I believe are advocating complete privatization of our ports with no strings attached, we in the NDP believe that a national ports system should be co-ordinated federally while allowing maximum autonomy for local decision making.
The port of Vancouver makes a profit each year despite outdated facilities, facilities that have remained outdated because of National Harbours Board restrictions. Ottawa, under the National Harbours Board, at present continues to take away the gravy. It takes away the surplus funds. In fact, it generally controls the budget in the port of Vancouver. This has inhibited local development plans which cannot be implemented.
We believe that profits in the larger ports must be reinvested in port improvements in order for them to be competitive internationally. When these developments are completed and the financing or long-term capital plans are assured, surely then we can afford to share some of the surplus funds with other regions of Canada, but not under the scheme proposed in Bill C-92. We do not agree with the proposals in Bill C-92 which provide for continued federal control of budgets of local ports and which will still cream off surpluses which could forestall much needed port development and improvements. We, of course, Mr. Speaker, do agree with the concept of local autonomy for larger ports that are able to be self-sufficient now on in the near future. We believe this should be done within a co-ordinated national system. I must say we also agree with the last speaker, who has pointed out that we are not at all convinced that the Liberal minister and the Liberal government really believe in this, and certainly they have not spelled it out in detail to our satisfaction in Bill C-92. Therefore, there must be specific changes in this bill which will
Canada Ports Corporation Act
clarify the concept of decentralization and autonomy to the much greater satisfaction of local ports.
The port manager must have greater autonomy to make operational decisions under the direction of a local port operation without having to wait for approval from Ottawa. Currently a port authority must apply to the National Harbours Board through Treasury Board for capital expenditures up to $50,000, no more. Since one container crane costs $5 million, this is hardly realistic for most of the larger ports. Federal delays are intolerable.
The local port corporation also is the most logical port body to upgrade and modernize the port facility, and to be competitive within a particular region. There must be capital funds for long-range plans. In Vancouver, for example, we have a 20 to 30-year planning scheme being developed now with the municipalities, the provinces, the maritime unions, the businesses and adjacent communities, as well as with users of the ports. Users and regional bodies must be represented in the planning. These developments must be co-ordinated with multi-modal transport systems.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, I was amazed in Vancouver when I spoke to the port manager there at one time and learned that he did not know whom to contact in the railway system if there should be a major disaster in downtown Vancouver. He did not know the name of the person. There did not seem to be any intersystem kind of linkage that would assure the citizens, the city and the residents of our region, that we would not be blown up by some of the very dangerous cargoes that go through downtown Vancouver.
The capital funds for long-range plans must be assured, so that we can have reasonable planning. The local board must co-ordinate with the interprovincial and national policies and plans through the Canada Ports Corporation which will replace the National Harbours Board. This party agrees with the concept of local autonomy in port administration. We do feel that the government must be more explicit in terms of financial autonomy.
We do not agree with some of the other concepts which are implicit in this bill. It is indeed unfortunate that Members of Parliament are not allowed to discuss the regulations as well as the bill itself, since we fear that many of our concerns will be built into specific regulations, as the bill itself is very general in nature.
Our major concerns, Mr. Speaker, are in the following areas. First of all, there is the method of appointment to local port corporations, which will foster patronage, the typical way of developing ports on the part of the Liberal government, which allows no local or provincial appointees. We do not feel that regional advisory groups which are rather token in nature and do not have any real authority, are good enough to provide the input and the rational decentralized planning which is needed.

June 22, 1982
Canada Ports Corporation Act
Secondly, there is the requirement that the local ports must be financially independent before they can achieve autonomy. This will impose a user-pay type of policy, which again is a favourite Liberal concept that will be penalizing and self-defeating for most ports in Canada which may not have a continuing high volume of business.
Thirdly, we are concerned about the lack of accountability to Parliament. This Parliament should be the body to decide when a local port corporation is applying to move for a change in category, for example, to become a harbour commission, in effect an independent Crown corporation. Under Bill C-92 this decision is made by orders in council with no reference to Parliament and no requirement for parliamentary sanction.


Mr. Pepin:: Wait ten years?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I would like to elaborate further on these points, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to hear from the minister afterwards.
As Sir Alexander Gibb said in 1932-and how apt it may be with regard to this bill if it goes through as planned:
Local ports should not be riddled with political patronage by the party in power.
This undoubtedly will happen if Bill C-92 is passed as it stands. If the minister recommends appointees to the board and the cabinet decides, I think we can all speculate on who is going to be on that board. We will recommend in committee that the structure and process of appointments to the local port corporation board must include greater accountability to the local region which is served by the port.
We agree that the port board members must be experts who are knowledgeable about port operations. It should not just be anyone. We can have political patronage at the local level as well. It is particularly important that experienced workers be appointed to the boards, locally and nationally.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I met with the CLC Committee which involves all waterfront unions, and this certainly is their opinion. We also agree that token appointments by city council or municipalities of just any old local alderman is not the way to go. We will press for a revised structure which will allow municipalities to recommend qualified people to the local port corporations board, as well as candidates who are proposed by maritime unions, local businesses, and the province, with a minority of federal appointees to be added. It is essential that the board members reflect diverse local interests and are not just defeated Liberal candidates.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Margaret Anne Mitchell: We also feel that local board chairpersons should be voting members of the national board, not just exofficio members. What is the point in having a national harbours board simply with token liaison persons from the local board? We feel that they must be voting members of the national board. The local port authority must be required to
plan in a co-ordinated way with the municipalities and adjacent communities on matters such as access roads, traffic problems, movement of dangerous goods, environmental concerns as well as recreational access to the waterfront and port activities. Why should should children, for example, not be able to go and see at first hand the workings of the port? Why should our citizens who live near the port not have open access to the waterfront of the port? It should not be only the more affluent people who have access to beaches and waterfront areas.
Another question is that of financial self-sufficiency. As a Vancouver member, I agree that the port of Vancouver must be autonomous and financially self-sufficient with powers to reinvest the surplus in developments that are needed. This is necessary not only for the Vancouver region but for all of Canada, as this port is vital to the economy of Canada.
Our party also is just as concerned about the total port system in Canada and particularly about the less affluent and northern regions where financial self-sufficiency is an impossible dream. We are also concerned about ports like that of Prince Rupert, which is of interest to the member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton).


James Ross Fulton: Hear, hear!


Margaret Anne Mitchell: This is the fastest growing port in Canada and it deserves local autonomy, even though at this time it does not have the huge profit and needs much development to make it the port of the future.


James Ross Fulton: That is right. Let us hear more about that.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: There are also many activities going on to my left, Mr. Speaker. Just as we opposed a laid-on user-pay system for Canadian National Railways and other transportation systems in Canada, we oppose user-pay policy for our ports. Our national transportation system in Canada, a country so large and diverse, simply cannot be seen as just another business which can be operated only on a user-pay concept.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Margaret Anne Mitchell: There is no conceivable way we can do that. We do not object to realistic rates, particularly for multinational corporations and some of the international users of our ports. Regional needs and ability to pay the same rates must be a deciding factor, however, in a flexible and realistic rate system. Will small businesses in the north, for example, be required to pay the same rates as multinationals that use our southern ports? Since they have less income, will the port of Churchill or the port of Halifax continue to be run less efficiently from Ottawa because they cannot qualify financially to become autonomous? Surely they can be administered locally.
Statistics show that on the average our ports earned only a
2.5 per cent return in 1980. This is not enough income to raise
the capital or pay market interest charges in the future. Most
June 22, 1982

ports will need money at lower than market rates in order to invest in new technology and to expand their capacity to compete with international ports on this continent.
These are only some of the concerns we have and which will require amendments in committee. We agree with many of the points raised by the lead speaker for the Conservative Party and that amendments will be required in committee. Other members of this party will comment on the needs of ports in other regions, particularly the hon. member for Churchill.
In the time that remains to me I should like to speak about the port of Vancouver and refer to some of the recommendations made by the Vancouver Economic Advisory Commission in a document entitled "A Brief Respecting the Question of Local Port Autonomy" which was based on considerable study. I hope that the transportation committee will study this document in detail because its comments refer to the national port system.
While the Vancouver Economic Advisory Commission agrees with the over-all principles and proposed structure and function provided for in this bill-that is the local port corporations-it is very concerned that a gradualist approach will further delay port modernization, which is essential now if we are not to lose permanent business to United States ports. I hope that the minister will take note of this recommendation.
We hope that this bill will go through in an amended form, but it should not delay improvements that are needed in the larger ports that have the necessary funds to make those improvements. Vancouver cannot wait for the total Canadian port system to change. We need decentralized decision making to proceed with improvements now. The brief of the Vancouver Economic Advisory Commission makes the following recommendation:
Local control over budgets (where financial responsibility and viability can be demonstrated) is fundamental to the efficient operation of certain Canadian ports; we are convinced that such powers are necessary if the Port of Vancouver is to realize its current and future potential.
We are appealing for a phased in development that will allow ports to go ahead with changes that are needed now, even though we realize that change on a national scale may take more time.
In the city that I represent, which has a huge, expanding international port, developments are severely hampered by outdated centralized administrative and financial control systems under the present National Harbours Board. Yet Bill C-92 will retain central control over local port budgets and surplus funds. Creaming off incomes when a port needs major upgrading and expansion is hardly the way to promote international trade and economic recovery. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, this is essential for all Canada.
While Bill C-92 will delegate more administrative and planning responsibility to a new local port corporation, it will not achieve the necessary port development unless surplus funds are reinvested in new technology and expansion to meet the expanding needs of the Pacific rim for many years to come.
Canada Ports Corporation Act
We all know that the federal government is broke. We know there is a huge deficit. We know that the National Harbours Board under its new name, the Canada Ports Corporation, will need funds. Yet we do not think it helps the total system, and certainly not specific ports that need development, to cream off profits in one region too quickly.
The potential of trade and commerce from all regions of Canada, through the great coastal ports to Pacific rim countries must not be lost. This is vital to the national interest. I am sure my colleagues from eastern ports feel the same way.
I should like to read into the record some of the specific concerns of the Vancouver Economic Advisory Commission as set out in their brief of August, 1981. It reads in part as follows:
-but we have serious concerns with specific reference to how these proposals might apply to the Port of Vancouver-
There is a demonstrable need for local powers which would enable the port authorities to:
(A)	have administrative autonomy to more expeditiously conduct day to day affairs
(B)	have financial autonomy to raise the necessary funds for port development and port operations
(C)	have operational autonomy to respond more promptly to a vast and complex range of opportunities and challenges.
To illustrate: the Port of Vancouver is expecting a doubling of cargo tonnage in this decade, and is planning for a capital expenditure of some $100 million over the next five years.
The planning for such development is complicated by the need to deal with provincial and local government in some cases and at other times in areas which have a multi-jurisdictional character.
The Port of Vancouver must be able to deal directly with local government on a wide range of issues (such as access roads, citizen access to port areas, land use questions, acquisition of properties for port development).
Several of Vancouver's competitors-Seattle and Oakland-are locally-operated ports, and have a considerable advantage over Vancouver inasmuch as they may respond more quickly to evolving circumstances.
It is significant that many of the world's largest and most successful ports- Rotterdam, Antwerp, Hamburg, Kobe, Yokohama-are operated by local and/or regional authorities.
Local control over budgets is fundamental to the efficient operation of Canadian ports. We are convinced that such powers are necessary if the Port of Vancouver is to realize its current and future potential.
We submit for consideration that:
Local boards formulate policies and undertake programmes for local port development while the National Harbours Board determines over-all strategies for port development in Canada.
Local boards should be comprised of members who live in the region and can offer a wide range of expertise.
Local boards should be allowed to retain their surplus funds, and should be given the authority to invest them so as to increase the capital available for port development.
This is the Vancouver city council report-


An hon. Member:: With no Liberals on the board!


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Vancouver city does not say that, but I am sure most members on this side of the House would agree. The brief continues:
Local boards must be allowed to act as partners with local government rather than principally as intermediaries on such matters as planning and access.

June 22, 1982
Canada Ports Corporation Act
This report was approved by the Vancouver city council and the greater Vancouver region. The city of Vancouver also has a detailed proposal which outlines 12 conditions of support, including the divisions of responsibility which it sees as being preferable. When the bill goes to committee I hope that these will be studied in detail. They endorse the concerns that we have expressed, that there must be a clear definition of the structure, composition, accountability and mandate of the local port authorities. The city of Vancouver makes 12 recommendations as conditions of its support for a Canada ports policy.
To summarize, Mr. Speaker, we believe in administrative autonomy for ports in Canada and we support decentralization of port administrations which will result in administrative, financial and operational autonomy. However, we feel it is not possible to achieve this goal under the proposed procedure for appointment to local port corporations. Under the centralized budget control, which still remains under Bill C-92, it is essential that the local board be composed of locally appointed officials who have interest and expertise in port matters. Political appointments by the minister would detract from the credibility and autonomy of the corporation.
As to financial autonomy, surplus funds from financially viable ports should first be available for upgrading and modernizing to make local ports competitive. These funds should not be centrally controlled as in the past, although fair sharing requires some obligation on the part of profit-making ports to eventually assist underdeveloped areas. Efficient decentralization should allow local ports the power to borrow funds from either the private market or the government. This is not included in the bill. Government approval should only apply where a government guarantee is required.
On the subject of national policies, a co-ordinated national policy is needed to maintain certain standards common to all regions in Canada. In particular, we feel a uniform pay scale is essential to ensure equal pay for work of equal value for all workers in the Canadian ports system. There are many other reasons for maintaining a national port strategy to meet the needs of areas like the prairie provinces, which indeed depend on our coastal ports, and they must have a say in the development of our ports system.
We are concerned that the user-pay philosophy which is present in federal policy will have an adverse effect on many ports in Canada which are not profitable. According to the 1979 National Harbours Board annual report, only five out of 15 national ports realized a surplus in that year. Many ports in remote areas will continue to need subsidies to service underdeveloped areas. Therefore, while we agree that to be efficient, port administration should be decentralized to the greatest degree possible, we, unlike the Tories, would oppose any moves which might lead to privatization of our major ports. Port corporations, Mr. Speaker, must remain public bodies in order to control our import and export activities in the interest of all
Canadians, and to enhance the local, regional and national economy of Canada.


Mr. Chuck Cook (North Vancouver-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, having heard the last speech I still cannot figure out where the Liberal Party west is on this bill. They seem to go all over the map, but I gather they are going to support a bill which is a rip-off of Vancouver and the western ports of this country.
Let me begin my remarks by being as mild, calm, quiet and polite as I possibly can. Mr. Speaker, Bill C-92 is an invidious, insidious and despicable piece of legislation. In my three years as a Member of Parliament I do not think I have ever seen a worse piece of legislation. That is saying something when you consider some of the things we have seen come through this House in the last two years. As the federal member for North Vancouver-Burnaby I represent a riding which surrounds the Port of Vancouver; one-third of the waterfront is in my territory. It is the largest port in Canada, the largest on the west coast of North America, and one of the largest in the world. As the federal representative for the port's interests, it is imperative that I convey to this House the absolute disappointment, distrust and concern that Bill C-92 has generated on the west coast.


Mr. Benjamin:: That is not what they told us when we were out there.


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: It is equally important that the members opposite listen to what I have to say. It is imperative that the members of the Liberal Party, who do not represent the interests of Canada's western provinces, fully realize the detrimental effects of policy making and implementation at the behest of the east and at the expense of the west. In my remarks I will focus on the situation facing the port of Vancouver, the discriminatory and punitive effects Bill C-92 will have on the port's ability to meet the challenges of the future, and that port's importance to the Canadian economy.
The crux of the issue, Mr. Speaker, is local autonomy. We have, on the one hand, a pressing need for the displacement of a highly centralized system of port administration to the local level, and, on the other hand, we have the fabricated claim by the minister and his officials that this bill will provide the National Harbours Board group of ports with greater local autonomy. This particular booklet they have put out is full of lies, and I use that word advisedly. This is apparently what most of the people of the west coast have read, and certainly what my friends in the NDP have read, without really looking at what the legislation says. Indeed, this bill does not provide any greater measures for local autonomy than is now provided under the National Harbours Board. In fact, there is less autonomy than under the National Harbours Board Act of 1936. This bill has glaring deficiencies which, quite frankly, I do not believe can be rectified in committee. In addition, the minister and his bureaucrats have been telling people in the port of Vancouver that what is not provided for in the legislation will be provided through faith, trust and promise. Well, I do not believe that anyone on the west coast is naive enough to
June 22, 1982

believe that this government will ever govern in the best interests of western Canada.
I have studied the minister's speech of June 14. Mr. Speaker, in the 40 minutes he spoke he provided a vague and inadequate list of the responsibilities of the local port corporation which will constitute local autonomy. Ele stated, first, that the local port corporation would be given the authority and responsibility for the day-to-day operation of the port. That is an incomplete comment. The ports already have that authority and responsibility. The minister has not stated how this power or right has been enhanced in this legislation. Ele has not done it because he cannot. Second, the minister stated that local port corporations would be allowed to set their commercial rates. What he failed to mention is that this right will be subject to the whims of the governor in council and the parent corporation. Clause 6.4(2) of Bill C-92 will allow the governor in council to amend the bylaws of any local port corporation. Clause 6.6 of the proposed legislation gives the parent corporation the right to issue directives to local port corporations, which these local bodies must comply with. Not "may", but "must".
According to the minister, the third measure of local autonomy accruing to the local port corporation is responsibility for all personnel matters. Mr. Speaker, they already have this power.
Fourth, the local port corporation will be allowed to tender and contract within designated limits. The minister, however, has not yet released the spending limits.


Jean-Luc Pepin: We will do that in committee.


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: The best figures I get on this, by scuttlebut and by doing my homework, is maybe $5 million for the Canadian Ports Corporation, and maybe $1 million for a local port corporation. These figures are ridiculous. It will cost you $5 million for a crane, and you are talking about $1 million. What can you do with $1 million in a port the size of Vancouver?
Fifth, according to the minister, the local port corporations will be able to manage port property. Again, Mr. Speaker, the ports already have this right and, my God, I fight with them enough over what they are attempting to do in terms of raising their rates on water lot leases in Vancouver right now. This is a big deal, is it? That is no more authority than they already have.
Finally, the sixth measure promoting greater autonomy is that local port associations will be able to appoint the chief executive officer of their port. The minister himself went so far as to admit in his speech that this provision is merely a symbolic transfer of power, that it was cosmetic. So with the tabling of a new ports bill, the only real measure granting local autonomy to the ports of Canada will be their ability to appoint their port manager.
Quite frankly, I am offended. The concept of local autonomy espoused by the minister, his Fiberal colleagues and Transport Canada officials, is an illusion. If Bill C-92 passes into law, the change made to the ports will be totally cosmetic. Real change will not be realized under this bill and the ports
Canada Ports Corporation Act
will not be granted the operational and financial autonomy which they desperately need.
Any member sitting in the House who had has any involvement with any of Canada's National Harbours Board ports realizes the pressing need to amend or replace the 1936 National Harbours Board Act. The existing legislation governing the port of Vancouver is almost 50 years old. Recent trends and developments, including increased economic development throughout the world and an expansion in international trade, the development of new multi-modal systems for containerized traffic, new technology attending large bulk facilities, community and regional demands for increased participation in port operation and increased competition between ports, have undermined the utility and relevance of the 1936 act.
Ports in the 1980s operate in increasingly complex markets and under a different set of circumstances than what existed in the 1930s. I think the minister will agree that the legacy of National Harbour Board control over the port of Vancouver can be characterized by the highly centralized National Harbours Board administrative structure which has been too slow and too distant to respond to the commercial requirements and aspirations of the port. In retrospect it almost seems ludicrous that a piece of legislation implemented in the 1930s would survive intact today. In fact, Canada is unique in its highly centralized system of port administration.
In Europe, harbour administration practices vary from country to country. However, decentralization of administrations is a standard feature. In the United States, ports and harbours are the responsibility of local entities, such as states, countries and cities. Financing of American ports and harbours is facilitated through grants from local or state authorities, the sale of bonds to the public and in some cases local taxation.
In Japan, the main functions of port administration were transferred into the hands of local bodies when Japan's port and harbour law went into effect in 1950. The main purpose of the Japanese law was to create port authorities independent of administrative organizations. That is what this government is not prepared to do. It is not prepared to give to ports, independence from the Ottawa administration.
Throughout Europe there is independence of the harbours. They compete with each other. They are efficient. We in Vancouver must deal with a bureaucracy 4,000 miles away that does not know what it is talking about. You might equate the situation to the port of Hong Kong being administered by a group of civil servants in London, England. You can imagine what the port of Hong Kong would be like if it were administered by a group of civil servants in London, England. That is what we are faced with in Vancouver. It is a port administered by a group of civil servants in Ottawa. An saying of maritime commerce states that there is no rivalry as strong as that between sea ports. When one looks at the recent progress of

June 22, 1982
Canada Ports Corporation Act
the port of Seattle, the port of Vancouver's natural rival 120 miles to the south, one can ascertain the consequences of the National Elarbours Board's highly centralized and detrimental administrative structure.
Sources close to the port of Vancouver claim that the philosophy governing the port threatens to undermine the prominence of Vancouver as a world-class facility. Port of Vancouver users have had to contend with the National Harbours Board decision-making process of continuing consultation with bureaucrats and departments in Ottawa, this uncompetitive and uncommercial philosophy has hindered the viability of the port and the growth of the port. The philosophy governing the port of Seattle, a locally run port, Mr. Speaker, has been to build up the port's facilities in anticipation of increased maritime commerce.
Today, the port of Seattle which has 18 container cranes is thriving while the port of Vancouver which is struggling to obtain its fourth crane is losing business daily to its American west coast competitors. In 1979, container traffic provided more than 3,486,000 tonnes of the port of Seattle's business. In contrast, the port of Vancouver's share was only 975,000 tonnes. Analysts predict that the port of Vancouver will continue to lose out to the port of Seattle in container traffic, and it will be lucky this year to match last year's tonnage.
In a May, 1980, national transportation week seminar Keith Dixon, president of the Canadian Importers Association, told his Vancouver audience the following:
Of ail Canadian ports, none has lost more business than the port of Vancouver, where over the last decade, there has been a steady attrition to the port of Seattle and other western ports. Seattle, by being as autonomous as it is, is able to employ people or agencies to go out into the marketplace and extol the virtues of their port and its connecting transportation modes, while the port of Vancouver is severely constrained by the National Harbours Board's uninnovative approach to the whole subject of container traffic.
When the National Harbours Board Act was debated in this House in 1936, members held serious reservations about the consequences of a commercial alliance conducted between divergent parties separated by a continent. If 1 may, Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat today remarks made by hon. members in 1936.
Vancouver mayor and member for Vancouver-Burrard, G. G. McGeer, had the foresight to realize the implications of the 1936 act. He stated:
1 have no reason to believe that men living in Ottawa can ever have the understanding, the sympathy, and the faith that are necessary to support and sustain the development of a port of the Pacific ocean.
Another west coast member, Howard Smith, the representative for Vancouver South stated:
Ottawa being so far away from the Pacific coast, questions may come up from time to time which will not be properly or efficiently dealt with by a board serving in Ottawa.
We have suffered ever since. And how correct these men in 1936 were, Mr. Speaker. Even the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the man who has failed so miserably to understand the west, and the man who more than any other prime minister in this country's history has alienated western
Canadians, has publicly recognized the serious implications the highly centralized National Harbours Board Act has had on the port of Vancouver.
During the 1980 election campaign, the Prime Minister called into my riding of North Vancouver-Burnaby. He is welcome in my riding any time because he is worth a few votes. A Canadian Press news story of January 20, 1980, reported the following:
in his speech in North Vancouver-Burnaby, Trudeau said operational control of the huge Vancouver port would be transferred from the National Harbours Board in Ottawa to a local harbour commission.
Aides said the move would mean local municipalities and area representatives to be appointed to the commission would be able to make major decisions on matters such as port expansion without having to seek approval from Ottawa.
Need I add that the Liberal candidate from North Vancouver-Burnaby was not elected, nor was the promise of the Prime Minister delivered by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin).
Members opposite have a habit of raising expectations and failing to act on their promises. Nowhere is this more apparent than in Bill C-92. The Minister of Transport raised expectations in Vancouver in the past year with the distribution of two booklets published by Transport Canada Marine entitled, "Canadian Ports Policy". These two booklets outlined the objectives of a new Canadian ports policy.
The thrust of the new legislative initiatives is apparently to provide "local ports with a high degree of autonomy to manage and operate the ports". None of this is in Bill C-92, not a word of it. The pamphlets lie. I would not call the minister a liar because to be a good liar requires a man of high intelligence, but I will call his officials liars for putting out this kind of cheap propaganda. That is all it is.
The rationale for new ports policy restoring greater operational autonomy among the National Harbours Board group of ports received the full support of port of Vancouver interests. The Vancouver Economic Advisory Council welcomed the government's initiative by stating:
It is our view that a new ports policy embodying a decentralized approach to NHB management and administration would confer very significant advantages upon Canadian ports, and is broadly analogous to approaches adopted by many of the world's largest and most successful operations.
However, upon the introduction of Bill C-92 in February of this year, it became quite apparent that the interpretations of local autonomy held by Transport Canada and the port of Vancouver people are totally incompatible.
Specifically, it had been anticipated in Vancouver that Canadian ports would assume responsibility for formulating operating and capital expenditure budgets which would be sent to Ottawa for information only, not approval. Marine administrators in Transport Canada are unable to comprehend that local control over budgets is fundamental to the efficient operation of certain Canadian ports. I cannot stress enough that such powers are essential if the port of Vancouver is to realize its current and future potential.
June 22, 1982

The administrative structure created by Bill C-92 will see a local port corporation governed under five levels of management. Four of these administrative bodies-the governor in council, the Treasury Board, the Ministry of Transport and the Canada Ports Corporation-will be centred in Ottawa. The Crown corporations, concept indicated that the government is unwilling to give up its financial domination over national ports. As Crown corporation these ports will be dependent upon Treasury Board approval for their operating and capital expenditure budgets. The perpetuation of Treasury Board approval will not free the port of Vancouver from the diatory process of bureaucratic intervention, which is the most offending aspect of the present legislation.
I cannot see how the Canada Ports Corporation will differ from the National Harbours Board, the corporation it replaces, when it comes time to make a decision. The people with real power in ports matters, the Ottawa bureaucrats responsible for the over-all policy directives and with the authority to approve long-term development plans and annual budgets, will be as far removed from the sea, especially on the west coast, as they have ever been.
Let me give a typical example of what DOT is all about. On the question of the national energy policy and what was being done to small bunkering companies in Vancouver harbour, we tried to get somewhere with the national energy people in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. We got nowhere, so we tried the Department of Transport. We thought its officials might understand the west coast a little better, what was going on out there and how they were ruining some of these firms. I finally got one of the officials of DOT on the telephone. I said, "Don't you realize what you are doing with that new taxation? There are people in Vancouver harbour still going bankrupt because these ships can go into Puget Sound, and refuel there at considerably less cost". I was going to continue, but suddenly the DOT official said to me, "Pardon me, Mr. Cook, where is Puget Sound?" If such people are concerned with ports policy, then how can we expect anything else but alienation on the west coast? An official of the Department of Transport did not even know where Puget Sound was. That is a true story. I fail to see how the decisionmaking process set up in this bill will be in any way enhanced or speeded up with so much bureaucracy standing in the way.
The financial autonomy of local corporations is further eroded by Section 34(1) which will allow both the parent corporation and the Minister of Transport to determine what earnings of the local corporation are excess funds and to expropriate that amount. This provision erodes the limited autonomy which National Harbours Board ports have today. The concept of expropriating excess funds of a local port corporation is unprecedented in port administration in Canada. I will not read what Section 34(1) of the legislation states because I do not have time, if I want to get through all the objections I have. Such a provision is not in the 1936 National Harbours Board Act. In fact, Section 31 of the act reads:
Separate accounts shall be kept for each harbour under the jurisdiction of the Board and for each work or property transferred to it for administration,
Canada Ports Corporation Act
management and control and the revenues derived therefrom shall be assigned exclusively for the purposes of each harbour or work or property.
This is not in Bill C-92. They will be able to steal our money in Vancouver. Bill C-92 will allow either the minister or the parent corporation to expropriate the excess funds of a local port corporation without defining what they will consider to be excess funds or providing any kind of process for the local port corporation to appeal such an outright theft. Progressive Conservative members-and I warn hon. members of the New Democratic Party-who vote for the bill with that provision will be known as persons who voted to allow Ottawa to steal funds from the port of Vancouver the next time they face the electorate. This is particularly offensive to the port of Vancouver, one of the only ports under National Harbours Board control consistently to turn a profit. The B.C. Wharf Operators Association, the Vancouver Economic Advisory Council and the Vancouver Board of Trade have all submitted written briefs to the Minister of Transport outlining the grave consequences of this rip-off provision, but he has allowed it to remain in the act.
In effect, members of the Liberal Party are saying to Vancouver that whatever profit it makes in its port is theirs and that they will spend it in the east where they will perpetuate unstable, unviable and inefficient port operations. What the minister is going to tell and has told Vancouver in his soothing and paternalistic tones is, "No, we are not stealing your surplus funds; what we want to do is bank them for you". In his two briefing booklets, the minister stated that any excess funds drawn away from a local port corporation will be earmarked and earn interest before their eventual return to the port. I should like the Minister of Transport to tell me where this provision has been entrenched in Bill C-92. I have read the bill many times, and I have yet to find any mention of it in Bill C-92. It is not there, but the minister is running around talking about it. What kind of con game is the government trying to run against the people of Vancouver? Transport Canada officials have been unable to explain to me why they feel the need to look after local ports surplus and why this glorious concept of a central bank for the Canada Ports Corporation ports has not been spelled out in the legislation. It is not there and the minister knows it. He talked about it on the west coast and I think it is a con job.
As well, he is expecting the House to put a stamp of approval on this piece of legislation which is incomplete. The $50,000 spending limit under the National Harbours Board Act has never been amended. Bill C-92 proposes to make the spending limits of the parent corporation and its subsidiaries bylaws of their corporation, yet as this bill reaches second reading, the spending limits have not yet been determined. In view of the importance of a ports spending limit, how can the minister expect reasonable debate on the merits of this bill when all the facts are not evident to the House. Again, we see secrecy by the government. Let the government produce those regulations so we can look at them and have an opportunity to criticize the

June 22, 1982
Canada Ports Corporation Act
bill. Measures promised by the government to promote financial and operational autonomy have been qualified in the fine print of this bill. It is true that the local ports corporation will be allowed to invest in government bonds or other obligations. However, the latitude of the investment rights are limited as these investment decisions will be contingent upon the approval of the Department of Finance.
1 wish to repeat this so we all understand what this bill proposes. As far as the Port of Vancouver is concerned, depending on the issue, the governor in council or the cabinet makes the decision, or the Treasury Board makes the decision, or the Department of Finance makes the decision, or the Minister of Transport makes the decision, or the Canadian Ports Corporation makes the decision. There are six levels of senior management, and the government talks about giving us autonomy in the west coast. Like hell, there is no autonomy for this bill on the west coast!
The minister must have been prepared for opposition to this bill because in his briefing booklets he stated that any National Harbour's Board Ports not wanting to go along with the local port corporation concept could opt out and become a harbour commission port. That is what is said in the booklet. However, when I read the legislation and the amendments to the Harbour Commission Act, I discovered the minister had prohibited such a transfer. Section 3(1) of the Harbour Commission Act states, and this will be the law:
The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister, by proclamation, establish a harbour Commission for any harbour in Canada in relation to which a local port corporation is not established-
By putting the word "not" in there, the entire purpose of the act is defeated. It means the port of Vancouver cannot be made a harbour commission port. I suggest to the minister that this is what the legislation says, and he should not shake is head. Just read what the actual legislation says. Harbour commission status is probably the best form of administration for the port of Vancouver. In his speech of June 14, even the minister acknowledged the advantages of that form of administration when he stated:
The Harbour Commission Act of 1964 . .. already recognizes the objectives of local autonomy, as we all know. In fact, these ports provide an excellent example of how well the concept of autonomy can work.
I am not surprised with the scope of the amendments to the Harbour Commission Act I just mentioned. If the port of Vancouver is to become the major revenue source for the Canada Ports Corporation, the bureaucrats of Transport Canada will be reluctant to remove this port from its greedy grasp.
This is a deceitful bill. On the one hand, the Department of Transport is telling the people of Vancouver that Bill C-92 will indeed provide the port of Vancouver with greater local autonomy either through amendments to the 1936 act or amendments that will allow greater flexibility for ports to transfer their status between our three groups of ports. However, when one spends the time to actually read the provisions of C-92, one comes to the conclusion that it is a terrible fraud to the west coast of Canada.
I am appalled by the absolute powers of discretion allowed the Minister of Transport in Bill C-92. It has been unanimously stated in the port of Vancouver that the success of any port's legislation will depend upon the type of people appointed to the parent corporation and to local boards. In Vancouver, these sentiments are rooted in historical precedents. The administration of the principal ports of Canada prior to the passage of the National Harbours Act proved far from satisfactory under politically appointed commissioners. Norman Hocking, a Vancouver historian, wrote that the board of the 1913-1936 Vancouver Harbour Commission became:
-a political football, a source of sinecure jobs for the party faithful. The commissioners were removed with each change in government, and most of the employees were subject to party patronage. As a consequence, the commission system was far from efficient as a succession of party hacks-with no previous port experience took over control of the board.
In the past month this country has witnessed two extreme examples of political patronage. I do not have the faith- indeed, I do not believe any Canadian has the faith-that this Liberal government can operate on honourable principles when it comes to filling appointment posts. This bill makes no attempt to ensure that appointments to the various boards created by this act will be based upon merit and not political affiliation. No provisions are made in Bill C-92 conceding input into the local board selection process from the provinces, municipalities, local boards of trade and commerce, port users, employer associations or employee unions.
The Liberal Party is not the national political party. It is the party for central Canadian interest. Bill C-92 will perpetuate ultimate power in the east through its centralized decisionmaking mechanisms and its leverage for these patronage appointments.
The inadequacy of this bill serving western Canadian interest is particularly shocking when one takes stock of the importance of the port of Vancouver for the city of Vancouver, the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and indeed the economy of this country.
The port of Vancouver ranks as the second biggest port in North America after New York in volume of foreign cargo being handled annually. It is situated almost midway between Asia and Europe. It provides a logical end destination or interchange through-point for international maritime cargo. Almost 2,500 vessels from more than 50 countries utilized the port facilities annually. In addition, the Alaskan and international cruise ship trade generates a significant influx of tourist revenue for the local community. Approximately 160,000 cruise ship passengers come to the city of Vancouver each year.
The National Harbour Board officials in Vancouver have calculated that in its immediate area, the lower mainland of British Columbia, the port generates one in ten jobs through directly related port activity. Sources close to the port stress, however, that the port of Vancouver is not solely the port for Vancouver or British Columbia but has a national significance servicing the economies of western provinces.
June 22, 1982

An efficient, competitive and responsive port of Vancouver is of national significance, and a rational approach to its management is a necessity. What we have seen with the tabling of Bill C-92 is a careless and cowardly act by the Liberal government opposite. Bill C-92 represents the fourth attempt in five years to modernize Canada's system of port administration. Three bills have died on the Order Paper. While these bills were not perfect, they would have initiated greater change and would have provided more local autonomy than the bill we are dealing with today.
In his speech on June 14, the minister stated that, "We must have the best ports policy we can muster." I agree wholeheartedly with that statement and I would like to inform him that the House has seen bills such as C-61, C-6 and C-50 which are better than Bill C-92. They would have provided more of the degree of local autonomy that the port of Vancouver so desperately needs. Bill C-50, Bill C-92's immediate predecessor, was introduced in the House on March 19, 1979. The inadequacies of Bill C-92 are glaring in comparison with Bill C-50. First of all, in Bill C-50, the transport minister, after Treasury Board consultation, can give direction on financial management, operating and capital budgets and evaluation of assets to a port commission. In Bill C-92, the local port corporations will be classified as Schedule C bodies-which I might add is not explicit in the bill either-and their operating and capital budgets must be approved by Treasury Board.
In Bill C-50, port commissions can receive initial working capital for a total aggregate not to exceed $98 million, and can receive working capital, repayable in one year, and total aggregate not to exceed $20 million. There is provision for cancellation of National Harbours Board debts up to $505 million, and some portion can be deemed as capital for a port commission. In C-92, the Canada Ports Commission and the local ports commissions can receive working capital, but the total aggregate for both cannot exceed $10 million. There is no provision for cancellation of any debt, and all liabilities are transferred to the local port corporations.


Jean-Luc Pepin: It has been done.


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: In Bill C-50, port commissions can make bylaws with cabinet approval. In Bill C-92, there is provision for cabinet to amend any bylaw of a local port corporation. There is less of interface in Bill C-50. Port commissions deal with the Canada Ports commissioner who implements the minister's responsibilities and directions, while local port corporations must deal with the minister and board of directors of the Canada Ports Corporation.
In Bill C-50, all substantial ports were to be proclaimed as port commissions by governor in council. In Bill C-92, a noncorporate port which wants to achieve the status of a local port corporation must receive the approval of the parent corporation, the minister and cabinet.
Canada Ports Corporation Act
In Bill C-50, the port commissions were to receive their powers automatically. In Bill C-92, it is up to the CPC to decide which powers to give a local port corporation. In Bill C-50, the Auditor General was to have been a joint auditor for the port commissions. There is no such provision in Bill C-92. Why? Is the minister afraid of having the Auditor General audit the books of the Canada Ports Corporation, and if he is not, why is it not there? It is not in the bill, again. In Bill C-50, port commissions-I could go on with this matter. I could go on and talk for an hour about it, but I do not really think it makes much sense for me to do so. I think I have indicated enough distaste, enough anger and enough annoyance with this deliberate attempt to centralize the port of Vancouver back here in Ottawa and the deliberate attempt, by the use of propaganda booklets, to convince the people of the west coast that it is a good thing, and none of it is in the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I think I will close on this note. I would like to state that the only way I would support this bill would be if the port of Vancouver were excluded from its provisions by amendment and if its status were changed to that of a harbour commission port.


Jean-Luc Pepin: They asked to be included.


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: If the Liberal Party cannot deliver on its leader's promise, then I ask that this bill be allowed to die and the question of marine policies of this country be addressed only to the Progressive Conservative Party when it may be returned to power.


Jean-Luc Pepin: How sad!


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: We have three Senators on the west coast, we have the apologizer, the fund-raiser and the sneaky Pete. All three of them out there are selling British Columbia, through this bill, down the river and the river happens to be the St. Lawrence.


Jean-Luc Pepin: You should go home occasionally.


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: I am not prepared to allow Ottawa to continue totally to decide our fate and to steal the profits which the port of Vancouver makes, without any recourse whatsoever. I warn my colleagues in the NDP and I warn hon. members of the House that when they go to the electorate in British Columbia again, let them remember that one of the things people will realize, because I will make sure they realize it, that if anyone votes for this ruddy bill, this rip-off of British Columbia, they will face the electorate on the basis that they voted to allow the central Canadian government of this country to steal the profits from the port of Vancouver and not to give the port of Vancouver any of the autonomy it so richly deserves and needs to operate in the 1980s.
It is a despicable bill, and I thank you, Sir.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Luc Pepin: I might run against you.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member for Regina West is rising on a point of order.

June 22, 1982
Canada Ports Corporation Act


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. gentleman who just concluded his remarks: where was he in the last two years in the transport committee?


Donald W. Munro: Port of Regina.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I would like to ask him if he intends to show up at a meeting of the transport committee and do the work that his colleagues in his own party have done for ten years on this bill. Will he quit insulting Members of Parliament-


Donald W. Munro: Order!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The guy has never shown up for a bloody meeting; he has never been there!


Howard Edward Crosby: Tie is there when you are not!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: He does not know what he is talking about!


Mr. Mayer:: You missed a few transport meetings, too, Les! Calm down!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair is having a bit-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: He insults his own colleagues!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair-


Charles James Mayer: Let us worry about that!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: He has not done a lick of work for it and for Canada at this time, nor at any time.


Donald W. Munro: He has read it, have you?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Yes.


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


Donald W. Munro: He does not read, that is right.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member for Regina West will understand that the Chair is having some difficulty finding a question on a point of order.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Regina West is having some difficulty, too.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Well, I fear it may result in an exchange which is more along the lines of hot debate than it might be as an appeal under the Standing Orders.


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: My point of order was a simple question. Is the hon. gentleman going to start appearing at transport committee meetings?


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


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: He has never been to one.


Donald W. Munro: Down, Benjy!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair has no choice but to recognize an hon. member who seeks the floor on a point of order. I recognize the hon. member for North Vancou-ver-Burnaby on a point of order.


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: My point of order, Mr. Speaker, is that I do not believe that a cheap canard like that can be allowed to stand without allowing me at least to answer the hon. member's question. My simple answer to his question is that I am not concerned with VIA Rail rates. They do not concern me. That is the hon. member's business, being from the city of Regina. However, when it comes to the ports bill, I will be in that committee, proposing at least a hundred amendments. So look for me then, Sir.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You have yet to show up!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I was there! You were not! A bunch of your colleagues worked on it, too, and you were not around!


Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, maybe I can resolve the debate between the Conservatives and the NDP. In all fairness to the hon. member for North Vancouver-Burnaby (Mr. Cook), I have seen him at transport committee meetings and, as he says, he is there when topics of interest to his constituents come up. However, at the same time, I would also like to congratulate-


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is once a year.


Jesse Philip Flis: -the official spokesman for the NDP who never misses a meeting and comes up with very constructive suggestions in the transport committee.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: None of which you accept.


Jesse Philip Flis: We accept all of the constructive suggestions we can. However, so far in this debate, one issue of great concern seems to be arising-


Donald W. Munro: Two are right and the other is wrong.


Jesse Philip Flis: -and that is the issue of local autonomy and whether this bill provides real autonomy or whether it is just paying lip service to it. So, I just wanted to take about five minutes of the time of the House to perhaps clarify that matter, because I know that the opposition has lined up many hon. members who will speak, and we would like to give them the opportunity to speak to this bill.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Beware, Jean-Luc.


Jesse Philip Flis: In introducing this bill, the minister clearly stated that he expected most National Harbours Board ports will be able to achieve local port co-operation status. Therefore, let us look at the powers of a local port corporation compared to
June 22, 1982

what the NHB ports have now. Let me give hon. members just a few examples of the new powers this bill would provide. First, port managers are now appointed by the National Elarbours Board in Ottawa. A local port corporation would have the power under this bill to appoint its own port manager.


Jean-Luc Pepin: That makes all the difference in the world.


Jesse Philip Flis: So, that is why I do not know why the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell) is drawing in the red herring of patronage and everything else. The local port corporation will have this power to appoint its own port manager.
Second, rates and tariffs for services are now fixed by bylaw and are therefore subject to governor in council approval. Under Bill C-92, the local port corporation would set its own rates and tariffs with the single exception, of course, of harbour dues which will still be set by bylaw. Third, at present there is a $250,000 limit on spending for local projects and programs. Beyond that, Treasury Board approval is required, and we all know how long that process takes. Under the bill, much greater spending authority will be granted.
If funds for the proposed program are derived solely from working capital, that is not requiring government grants, then authority in the order of $5 million is being contemplated. Now there is a limit in legislation, as the hon. member who spoke before me mentioned, of $50,000 on the awarding of contracts. Again, a much greater limit is envisaged. In addition, any limit would be contained in bylaws rather than the legislation itself, so that changes can be made to fit future circumstances. The minister will be in a better position and will have more time to provide specifics when the bill reaches committee stage.
Finally, local port corporations will have clear authority over the employment of all persons necessary for the conduct of the affairs of the individual port. These examples clearly indicate a greater degree of autonomy. When the minister introduced the bill on June 14, he made it very clear that the ports had reached adulthood. The time has come to give them more freedom of operation than in the past.
The hon. member for North Vancouver-Burnaby referred to Bill C-50. A comparison with the predecessor to this bill, Bill C-50, shows that the degree of autonomy at the outset in perhaps not as great as in the present proposal. The minister made it very clear in his speech that the reason is that a balance had to be struck between the objectives of autonomy and accountability. The approach taken in this bill is one of evolution. It is quite possible that the degree of autonomy will be as great as in Bill C-50 over time, but the evolutionary process must take place.
This is because it will be possible to transfer from a Schedule C to a Schedule D Crown corporation without change to legislation. For the time being, ports will remain as Schedule C which, it should be recognized and I think hon. members recognize, has certain advantages. They do not have
Canada Ports Corporation Act
to pay any income tax. There are no dividends. They are eligible for government grants. Also, it will be possible to transfer to harbour commission status, the most autonomous of port structures in Canada.
I should add that this bill fulfills the promise made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in January 1980 in Vancouver. The member for North Vancouver-Burnaby referred to that visit by the Prime Minister. I think the Prime Minister's promise has been fulfilled by this bill, that this government would give greater autonomy to the port of Vancouver, something I am sure the members from Vancouver would wish for their constituents.
In summary, I am convinced that the autonomy that will be achieved by individual ports through this bill will be very real. It is not just paying lip service. The changes are not cosmetic. Port communities across the country will applaud Members of Parliament in all parties for having supported this important piece of legislation.
Before closing, I would like to take a moment to commend the members of the Transport Committee for the way they worked together, sometimes in a very partisan fashion, but when the need arose for partisan politics to be set aside, they pushed through good legislation and good policies. If we can get this bill into committee, I know with that committee it will come out a much better and improved bill, something that Canadians right across Canada want.
I commend the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall). When he spoke on the bill, he said:
We want this kind of legislation. It is constructive legislation ... The minister knows I personally want to see this bill through second reading, into committee and back into this chamber before we adjourn for the summer.
That is the kind of commitment and undertaking that Canadians want from the Official Opposition. The members in the gallery are listening to this. It has caught their attention. Members in opposition have a role to play, as do members on this side. The members on the Transport Committee are not pushed around. They know what they want. They know what is good for Canadians. I know that they will put this bill through and it will come out an excellent bill in the long run.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, let me begin my remarks on Bill C-92, which enacts the Canada Ports Corporation Act by considering the main thrust of the new part of this legislation. The two major features of this bill are, First, the establishment of a national ports policy and, second, the creation of a new corporate structure or framework to permit implementation of that policy.
If the national ports policy is sound and sensible and the organizational structure is efficient and effective, the bill will be a forward step for Canada's marine transportation industry. However, there is a real danger that a deficient ports policy and an inefficient and ineffective organizational structure will not be quickly or easily remedied. Indeed, it has taken over 45 years and three false starts in the House of Commons to produce Bill C-92. The warning and the challenge are both

June 22, 1982
Canada Ports Corporation Act
clear. We must examine the provisions of Bill C-92, particularly the new ports policy and the new organizational structure with a critical but open mind.
If on balance the new legislative provisions have merit, the bill ought to proceed to the appropriate committee for close and detailed examination. However, if the provisions contain defects that cannot be rectified or remedied, we ought to recognize that the eventual enactement of Bill C-92 will wreak havoc on a delicate but viable national ports system. For this reason, we should examine the current scope and status of the national harbours system in the context of the total marine transportation system.
First let me explain what I mean by the marine transportation system. It is an integrated system of onshore facilities and marine vessels coupled with the land transportation system that allows cargo to flow internationally and across Canada and to other points of destination.
Canada is very much involved in international trade. As the minister mentioned when he made his remarks on second reading of Bill C-92 on June 14, 1982, the 15 national ports handle 50 per cent of the cargo that flows across all Canadian ports and port facilities. That is 80 per cent of the total exports that Canada delivers to points beyond its boundaries.
It is very easy to see what is the force and effect of our port system. It handles the great bulk of export cargo and is very much a part of our international transportation system.
1 commend the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) for allowing that international flavour to continue to exist in our marine transportation system. If he were to take the attitude of his colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) who looks upon the petroleum industry as something that can be Canadianized, other international participants being excluded, we would have havoc in marine transportation in Canada and in its interconnections with international associations. There is within this national ports policy the capability to continue the international connections that have existed since time immemorial in Canada. We will be able to take part in a national transportation system to the benefit of all parts of Canada as well as to the benefit of our trading partners, and to the benefit of participation in international trade. That is something that must be kept in mind as part of the larger world. If we exclude ourselves from that it will be to the detriment of the whole of the nation.
Let me look at the structure of the National Harbours Board as it exists today. We have the central authority, we want to have it decentralized. I would remind members of the House that that act of decentralization has already been started. In fact, many of the positions and many of the divisions and many of the internal structures that are part of the National Harbours Board complex have already been decentralized. So there has been taking place within the structures of the National Harbours Board a degree of decentralization and to some extent some of the ports like the port of Halifax have experienced that kind of decentralized control. So in
many ways it exists throughout the national port system. I am referring primarily to the 15 national ports that are distinguishable from the harbours commission ports and the ports that are merely operated under the Government Piers and Harbours Act. There does exist with respect to some of those 15 ports a kind of local autonomy. I think those ports, like the port of Halifax, that have had a degree of local autonomy, realize and recognize that this is a very viable kind of control and that if it is increased and advanced in the future it may have traumatic effects on the ability of local ports to service their communities and to create greater economic opportunities within those coastal communities.
One thing we should keep in mind, however, Mr. Speaker, is the competition that already exists amongst national ports that operate under the National Harbours Board at present. That competition, Mr. Speaker, in many ways can be quite healthy but in other ways may be quite damaging. Just as evidence that such competition exists, I refer to an article by Mr. Charles N. Forward, entitled "The Development of Canada's Five Leading National Ports". I hasten to add that included in that designation of five leading national ports are the ports of Montreal, Quebec, St. John and Halifax, as well as the port of Vancouver. Of course, the first four named ports are on the east coast of Canada and are in direct competition. Mr. Forward says in his article:
Competition between the ports has waxed and waned throughout the years and specific regional rivalries have developed. Montreal and Quebec have competed for the trade focused on the St. Lawrence system, as have Halifax and Saint John for that focused on the ice-free Atlantic coast. But in a broader context, Montreal and Quebec have co-operated against their Atlantic rivals in defending the St. Lawrence share of national trade versus that of the Atlantic ports.
What that statement makes clear, Mr. Speaker, is that the ports of Montreal and Quebec, with the assistance of the national structure that exists in the National Harbours Board, have combined their efforts to take an unfair advantage of the east coast ports of Halifax and St. John. Nobody knows that better than the participants in port activity in the port of Halifax. They have always seen the Montreal-Quebec complex as being unfair competition. Whether that statement can be documented in terms of statistics over the years hardly matters, because the perception is very clear. The federal authority, through the National Harbours Board, has given unfair advantage to the ports in Quebec, and particularly the port of Montreal.
What example can I give, Mr. Speaker, of unfair advantage? There are allegations of sweetheart deals in the port of Montreal, given by the National Harbours Board through its local officers, to companies and to onshore companies which operate vessels, like the TASK group that maintain facilities and utilize the port of Montreal. How can that allegation be countered? Very simply, Mr. Speaker, by producing the facts that relate to these deals that exist in the port of Montreal and in all the national ports under the control of the National Harbours Board.
Is that kind of information forthcoming, Mr. Speaker? No, Sir, there is litigation before the courts right now, where the
June 22, 1982

litigating parties are asking for this information. Mr. Speaker, Halterm, which operates the major container terminal in the port of Halifax, has had an increase in its rental fees, at the demand of the National Harbours Board, from 15 cents a square foot to 65 cents a square foot. Naturally, Mr. Speaker, the operators of that tremendous container facility in the port of Halifax want to know if this is a fair increase in the rental for the facilities they have. They can only know that if they know what their competitors are paying in the port of Montreal and the port of Quebec and other ports operating under the same National Harbours Board system. That information is not provided, so they do now know, and thus the suspicions rise. So, Mr. Speaker, it is important that we recognize what has been happening in the current set up through the National Harbours Board. We have the competition between the ports, particularly the ports on the east coast. We have that competition based on what may be unfair practices, in terms of sweetheart deals for rental facilities at less than their value.
1 would remind members of this House, Mr. Speaker, that the National Harbours Board in its last report, for 1981, had a net income of $59.8 million, and that was on total revenues of only $180 million. So, Mr. Speaker, the National Harbours Board is doing very well through the ports that it now operates, the national ports like Halifax and St. John's. We have to be very wary, Mr. Speaker, to be sure that the National Harbours Board is administering the act fairly among the ports under its jurisdiction.
There is another point that we have to put on the record in this House, so that we can properly judge this bill and judge whether it is going to remedy the mischief that has occurred in the past. 1 refer to the recent write-off of debts by the National Harbours Board with the aid and co-operation of the Government of Canada. That write-off amounted to something like $475 million. The Minister of Transport recently in the House quoted an amount of $500 million, which is even greater. That write-off of debt consisted of $350 million of capital debt and $150 million in interest on that capital debt. That debt of $500 million that is owed by the National Harbours Board to the government and to the people of Canada was simply wiped out. But how is it wiped out and in respect of what ports was it wiped out? Well, $133 million in capital and $98 million in interest was wiped out, cleared off the books, cancelled, in respect of the port of Montreal. So, Mr. Speaker, there we have $231 million of debt wiped out in the case of the port of Montreal. That is over half of the total debt write-off. When you do things like that, Mr. Speaker, it is not hard to realize that this great national organization called the National Harbours Board can show a net income of $59.8 million. But the taxpayers of Canada should not be fooled by this, because there is no $59.8 million in real net income terms. It is simply $59.8 million taken from one pocket of the taxpayers and put into another pocket of the government and a government agency. So, Mr. Speaker, we have to be very wary.
I wanted to point out, before I get to more positive remarks about the bill, that we do have a few complaints about the
Adjournment Debate
National Harbours Board, we do have a few complaints about the way the government has dealt with the National Harbours Board and with the way the National Harbours Board has dealt with some of the national ports, particularly the port of Halifax, in debt write-off and in the matter of creation of facilities.
There is a great deal more, Mr. Speaker, that I want to say, but if I might call it ten o'clock and resume the debate at a future time, I would be quite happy to do so.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It is proposed by the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) that I call it ten o'clock. Shall I call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, about two weeks ago I had an opportunity to question the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) in this House during question period concerning items very important to the agricultural community in Canada. I asked about plans that the government may or may not have for assisting farmers in financing their day-to-day affairs. Specifically I referred to some of the things the government could be doing now as the result of the passage of Bill C-88, dealing with farm credit, that enables the Farm Credit Corporation to raise money by any means, with the concurrence of the Minister of Finance.
I asked the Minister of Finance about plans he may or may not have to support the Minister of State in the other place, who is responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin), in their efforts to raise the level of cash advance under the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act. Specifically, I was concerned about what the government intended to do with the Farm Credit Corporation.
As the farmers of this country know, for a long time the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) promised that the Farm Credit Corporation would receive additional funds with which to enable farmers to meet their financial commitments. Many times over the past few months, prior to June 1, the minister has made the statement that the corporation would receive an additional $1 billion in funds on June 1 that would be available for loans to farmers at favourable interest rates. Many members of the agriculture committee which dealt with Bill C-88
18790

June 22, 1982
Adjournment Debate
thought that the minister was going to make use of Clause 16 of the bill which reads as follows:
The Corporation may, with the approval of the Minister of Finance, borrow money by any means, including issuing and selling bonds, debentures, notes and other evidences of indebtedness of the Corporation.
To a lot of members that meant that the corporation was going to be in a position, with the concurrence of the Minister of Finance, to make use of the small business bond which had worked quite well during the two years it was in operation and before the Minister of Finance changed it in the budget of November 12, 1981.
If the Minister of Agriculture can prevail upon the Minister of Finance to allow the Farm Credit Corpration to make use of some of those areas of the bill that would allow the Farm Credit Corporation to raise money, it would be of assistance to the farming community.
Members of this party have often suggested that the agribond concept be adopted. This would mean that a farmer would have the opportunity to lend money to the Farm Credit Corporation at a preferred rate of interest and would likely do so, if he was assured that the money would be made available to farmers or people engaged in agriculture in his own area in order to assist them with their ventures.
This is important to the farming community, because farming has become very productive in the past few years due to the fact that it is increasingly capital intensive. This means that more money is needed to finance the day-to-day operations of the farm. Anything we can do to assist farmers to gain access to financing at reasonable rates will help them.
This is evident in present conditions of extremely high rates of interest. The books of many farm operations show that the largest single cost is not in relation to seed, fertilizers, repairs or wages, but interest payments. This situation puts a strain on the farming community's efforts to remain as productive as it has been in the past. This is a very serious matter and the Minister of Finance should pursue it. I hope the parliamentary secretary will respond favourably tonight to the suggestion I put forward in my question two weeks ago.
The second thing that I want to cover is what is happening to the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act. The purpose of this act was to enable the Canadian Wheat Board to make advances to farmers who have grains, handled by the board; wheat, oats or barley, in storage; that is, to borrow money against them. The money is not in the form of a gift, but simply an advance against the grain that has been grown but not yet marketed. The loan is interest free; the federal government picks up the interest. That provision has been widely used in the past. The act went into effect in 1957.
At that time the limit on the advance was $5,000. Subsequently, it was raised to $15,000. But that can only be a portion of the money represented by his stored grain. As an example, if a farmer only grew $10,000 worth of grain, he would not be able to obtain a $15,000 cash advance. He could obtain approximately two-thirds of the initial price, which
would work out to probably something like 50 per cent of the value of the grain. So it simply means that once a farmer has grown the grain and stored it, if he is not able to sell it he can go to the Canadian Wheat Board, get a cash advance and use that as normal operating funds to pay for fertilizer, seed and other operating expenses.
This has been very useful, Mr. Speaker, but I have two statistics which point out what has happened as interest rates have gone up and farmers, like any other businessmen in the country, have found themselves in a cost-price squeeze. In 1980 there were something like 15,400 applications. In 1981 that number almost doubled to 28,000. But the interesting fact is that in 1980 there was something like $61 million advanced to farmers under this act, but in 1981, even though the number of farmers did not quite double, the amount of money loaned out went up by three times, to over $205 million. That gives you some idea of the use of that provision by farmers.
I suggest that if the government is interested we on this side would co-operate and put through an amendment to the bill which would substantially raise the level from $15,000. I do not know what the figure should be, but I suggest it should be $25,000 or $30,000 at least. There have been suggestions that it go to $50,000. If the government did that, farmers would have access to additional funding for the beginning of the crop year, which is August 1. I hope the parliamentary secretary will respond favourably to those two suggestions.


Mr. Douglas Fisher (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has asked the minister to take a look at some of his ideas, and I personally welcome them as concrete suggestions. I may say in return that the hon. member must know that the minister, as he showed today, has quite a few ideas of his own and we are all looking forward to his announcements next week. We will hope that we can have additional discussions on this in the future.
The minister is aware of the financial difficulties faced by many farmers, and he is examining new measures being proposed to provide selective aid to those farmers with viable operations but who are in financial distress. The member has mentioned the question of an extra $1 billion for funding the Farm Credit Corporation. I refer him to Bill C-88 which was proclaimed on April 8 this year. It provides for an extra $75 million in government equity in the FCC, and that amount in turn increases the corporation's statutory borrowing authority by an additional $1,875,000. Amendments to the act also enable the FCC to borrow funds externally with approval of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), and this provides a more flexible source of financing, the use of which is currently being studied by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and the FCC. Initially it would, of course, be unreasonable to expect the FCC to borrow $ 1 billion as its first venture into the private sector.
Bill C-88 also provides for interest rebates of 5 per cent over
two years under the $45 million special loan program designed
to assist farmers in financial distress.
June 22, 1982

The hon. member has referred to the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act. An amendment to provide additional funding is under consideration. However, the hon. member suggests that additional funding could be made available to farmers under this program without increasing the deficit. He should know that advances under that act are made to farmers by the Canadian Wheat Board using its line of credit with chartered banks, guaranteed by the Minister of Finance under the Canadian Wheat Board Act. The government pays the cost of interest and is liable for any loss which may occur in the event of a default.
The hon. member should know that in the year ended March 31, 1982, payments in connection with the Prairie Grains Advance Payments Act totalled some $13 million as was reported to this House in the final supplementary estimates for that year.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS-REQUEST THAT ACID RAIN SUBCOMMITTEE BE REACTIVATED
Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see that my good friend, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Gimaiel) is here this evening. We served together on the acid rain subcommittee. Acid rain is the subject of my remarks tonight. I want everyone to know, hon. members and anyone who is listening or watching these proceedings, that the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean and others serving on that committee came down with a unanimous report on the terrible urgency for this country and the United States to do something jointly about the acid rain problem.
What is significant is that the all-party subcommittee on acid rain worked extraordinarily well together. All of us believed, no matter what our partisan political position, that Canada is being hammered to death by acid rain, as is the United States although not proportionately to the same degree. However, certain places in the United States are taking just as much punishment.
Our subcommittee agreed jointly and in a non-partisan way that something had to be done about acid rain. We had the unique advantage of being able to go to Americans and say, "One of the differences you have in this country is the acid rain situation." On this subject there was no partisan difference among the major political parties of our country. Acid rain has to be stopped. We cannot stop acid rain all by ourselves. Fifty per cent of the acid rain that falls on Canada comes from the United States and 50 per cent comes from us. But the only way to stop acid rain is by having a joint agreement. The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean, along with many members of all parties, who know exactly what I am talking about, will not disagree-I hope they will not disagree-with anything I have to say tonight.
In recent days we have seen headlines in newspapers. There was a report in The Globe and Mail on Wednesday, June 16, 1982, which stated that the U.S. blames the stalling of talks on acid rain was as a consequence of statements made by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) for the Government of Canada. The minister is saying effectively that the Americans do not want an agreement-at least the American
Adjournment Debate
administration does not want an agreement. There is a big difference there because this does not apply to all Americans. The American administration does not want an agreement and is stalling. That is what the minister is saying.
Hon. members know that on June 17, the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan), my colleague in the Conservative Party and spokesman for environmental affairs for our party, raised the following question with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau): "Please, will you get involved in this in a much more high profile way?" On the same day I put a question to the Right Hon. Prime Minister, asking him to please reactivate the subcommittee on acid rain. The Prime Minister said he would take those remarks under consideration and pass them on to the Minister of Environment.
On June 16, the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn), a member of the New Democratic Party who served on our acid rain subcommittee, moved a motion under Standing Order 43, asking that the government reactivate the subcommittee on acid rain. A day later 1 put questions to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) asking what response his department has given to the subcommittee's unanimous report that was brought down last October on what must be done to stop acid rain in this country and in the United States. I am sorry to say that the Minister of Energy said he had discussions occasionally with the Minister of the Environment, but the Minister of Energy did not answer my question about what kind of response in writing that department had given.
I must tell hon. members that we are in a very, very serious situation. The Minister of the Environment is not mincing words when he says that these talks with the Americans are in imminent danger of collapse. I urge all hon. members to join with me tonight in endorsing the necessity to reactivate the acid rain subcommittee.
This is not the first time this has been requested. I wrote a letter to the Minister of the Environment on May 12, 1981, asking that the acid rain subcommittee not be disbanded. On June 5, 1981, the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Irwin), who was the chairman of our very effective committee and who gave great service to the country and to the committee-and I do not apologize for saying that-also wrote to the hon. House leader asking, "Please don't disband the acid rain committee."
Recently the Minister of the Environment spoke to the Air Pollution Control Association in New Orleans on June 21, 1982. By the way, I was invited by that group some number of weeks ago to participate in a special seminar on air pollution problems in North America. At that time the minister said:
In Canada we are deeply disappointed with the state of negotiations between my country and the United States government on acid rain. The footdragging and interference in the development of scientific information has reached frustrating proportions. The administration's rejection of our proposal to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions in eastern North America by 50 per cent by 1990 and

June 22, 1982
Adjournment Debate
a clear indication that it may be some considerable period of time before it will be able even to begin to discuss control actions, is a bitter pill for us to swallow.
In the moment or two remaining I want to say that if we are to win this battle, we must break away from traditional diplomatic channel because they are not sufficient. I see the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean nodding in agreement. We have been through this and we know that we must find other ways to get at American legislators. We need to reactivate the acid rain subcommittee. We need to have Members of Parliament from all parties going to the members of the House of Representatives and to American senators. We need to support our own Canadian coalition against acid rain. We need to have individuals working under a policy to co-ordinate and support the efforts of hundreds of thousands of Americans who also want to stop acid rain in their country.
My question is simple. It arises out of the questions which I and other members have put in the House and through correspondence. Will the government consider reactivating the subcommittee on acid rain to give us a chance to get at American legislators? I know, because I have been there, as have other members, that we can get to them on a personal basis. That is not possible through traditional diplomatic channels. We must use every possible resource, tactic and strategic, available to us. If we do not do that, I say that we will fail in this. We cannot have a quarter of our country savaged by this terrible phenomenon because it will not be accepted by our children or our children's children.


Mr. Jim Schroder (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to respond to the question of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser). The fact-finding report of the subcommittee on acid rain has been helpful in raising public awareness of the acid rain issue in both Canada and the United States.
A number of the recommendations of the subcommittee form part of the program activities which we have been carrying out for some time. To note just a few, in April, 1981, Environment Canada issued national emission guidelines for new thermal power plants. A review of new motor vehicle emission standards for nitrous oxide is underway. Standardized monitoring techniques are being put in place. United States legislators and journalists have visited Canada to see our concerns first hand.
The hon. member for Vancouver South quoted from the minister's speech in New Orleans. I should like to continue that quotation, wherein the minister said:
The latest obstacles, which occurred less than one week ago at a negotiating session in Ottawa, are forcing us to an agonizing reappraisal of the usefulness of continuing discussions.
He continued:
Our emission reduction proposal was drawn from the same science that U.S. negotiators have drawn diametrically opposed conclusions. On a per capita basis our proposal is more costly to Canadians than to Americans. We are willing to put our money where our mouth is. I can only conclude that the values and factors influencing Canadian decision-making are considerably different from those in the U.S.
Acid rain remains one of our foremost environmental problems. We are looking for ways to break the log jam, to continue constructive dialogue with the United States to find solutions to this problem. This is important since in Canada, as a whole, 50 per cent of our acid rain originates in the United States, and in the regions of particular concern, such as the tourist and recreation areas of Ontario, as much as 75 per cent of the acid rain comes from the United States.
When the sub-committee reported on the nature and complexity of the acid rain problem it concluded that the problem was indeed serious. The nature of several of its recommendations also clearly indicates that regardless of the complexity, enough is already known to begin taking control action. This position has been clearly accepted.
The minister is aware of the concern hon. members have expressed over the state of acid rain negotiations. He shares their frustration with the lack of progress that has been made so far. Indeed, he welcomes any suggestion which could help bring discussions with the U.S. to a fruitful conclusion.
As I mentioned earlier, the Department of Environment is currently undergoing a reassessment of its approach in these difficult negotiations. Reactivating the subcommittee is one of a variety of options which are available to the government. The suggestion and the interest of the hon. member is appreciated and will certainly be considered as a possible alternative to our current method of negotiation.
If the minister and the government decide that reactivation of the subcommittee may help resolve the serious problem of acid raid, this option will be given serious consideration. In any event, with the vast amount of knowledge that members of the subcommittee have accumulated, I would encourage them to continue making their views known so that we can continue keeping up the pressure on the United States.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-INQUIRY RESPECTING MEASURES GOVERNMENT INTENDS TO TAKE TO HELP LEBANON
Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: Mr. Speaker, before coming to the issue I wish to raise this evening, I would like to say that I am in complete agreement with the last comments made by the hon. member for Vancouver-South (Mr. Fraser) concerning acid rain. He has my full support and I hope that his representations will bring results.
As for the issue I want to raise myself, I directed a question this week to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) concerning the opportunities available to Lebanese people wishing to come to Canada because of the war in their own country. I asked to bring up this issue again, Mr. Speaker, because I want people in Canada to be better informed about the situation in Lebanon and the reasons why Canada should now help the Lebanese people.
As Canadians, we have some responsibility in this matter.
For two years, I have been trying to explain this responsibility
June 22, 1982

in the House, but it has not always been easy because the problem is very complex. I shall now try in the few minutes available to me to explain this responsibility. Hon. members will know that, for whatever reason, 40,000 Syrian soldiers have been residing in Lebanon for the last six years. Even though they were once invited into the country, these 40,000 Syrian soldiers constitute a foreign military force in Lebanon.
1 wish to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that Lebanon has always been an ally of Canada and of the western block, a capitalistic country, one of the most beautiful countries in the Middle East and of all the countries in the Middle East, the one which probably resembles most Canada. This has therefore been the situation in that country for the past six years. For two years, I have been asking the Canadian government to take a stand and to request that Syria withdraw its troops from Lebanon because, as everyone knows, the Lebanese people and the Palestinians, or the PLO for those who prefer, have been living together for years with no problem at all. There would be no problem if they were allowed to live together under a Lebanese government or under the supervision of a United Nations international force. These people are able to live together. The problem came about because the fact that a small country such as Lebanon, which has a population of 1.5 million, also included with its borders 40,000 Syrian soldiers as well as 300,000 Palestinians ten per cent of whom are armed to the teeth, in addition to all the weapons which enter the country regularly. This has created a kind of channel which was bringing war to the very borders of Israel, and for the last two years, I have stated frankly in this place for everyone to hear that Israel eventually would have no other choice but to attack Lebanon because of this enormous concentration of troups. This is the responsibility that Canada must share with all other western countries, Mr. Speaker. Since 1975, we have closed our eyes to the fact that Lebanon was bound to be the place where a war between other countries would be fought. Now, everyone is surprised to see that the Israelis and the Syrians are not bombing each other and are waging war on a territory which is not theirs. Not a single Israeli bomb as fallen on Syria and not a single Syrian bomb has fallen on Israel. These bombs fall on the country which is most similar to ours, our greatest friend in the Middle East, namely Lebanon.
In that context, considering that those people are being bombarded and that they are about to lose their homes, their wealth, their children and perhaps even their nationality, are we Canadians along with some of our allies such as the United States helping them today to find a way out of this predicament, or at least helping them to survive? I would ask the parliamentary secretary to further explain what he said this week. What does it mean for the Lebanese who are already here and for the others who are anxious to come to Canada, and what facilities will our government make available to them? I also wish that once and for all Canada would ask that all foreign troops be withdrawn from Lebanon, be they Syrians or Israelis. I also urge our government to support the Lebanese people as a nation and help them survive as a country, either by sending troops to join the UN forces or by voting in favour
Adjournment Debate
of maintaining there a military international peacekeeping force. But indeed we should let the Lebanese people be Lebanese, we should let that friendly country survive and be our friend. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for giving me those few minutes to make my point and I look forward to hearing the reply of the parliamentary secretary.


Mr. Remi Bujold (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I would first commend the honourable member for Lac-Saint-Jean for his contribution this evening and his plea for the Lebanese people. He showed an excellent knowledge of the situation in that country and his involvement in this issue for more than two years. It is true that Lebanon is going through extremely grave and trying times, and for that reason and to reply to all the points raised by the honourable member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Gimaiel) and others across the country, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) last week, on Tuesday June the 15th to be exact, announced the special measures taken by the Canadian government to face that most unfortunate situation now prevailing in Lebanon. I would like to take a few minutes to review those measures and try to bring them in better perspective for the benefit of Canadians. First, Mr. Speaker, the 1,000 visa holding Lebanese visitors now in Canada will be authorized to remain in Canada for one year after their visas have expired, in addition to that extension, a work permit will be granted. At the end of the one-year period, each individual case will be reviewed and a decision taken as to the possibility of applying for permanent resident status.
Second, Mr. Speaker, Lebanese visitors now in Canada and having close relatives in this country can, under the Act, apply for permanent resident status without having to leave the country in order to submit their applications outside of Canada.
Third, Mr. Speaker, Canadians or permanent Canadian residents with relatives facing difficulties in Lebanon will be entitled to sponsor the latter, even though they may not meet the usual criteria under the Immigration Act.
Fourth, Mr. Speaker, no person under a deportation order will be deported from Canada and sent back to Lebanon before the situation in that country is back to normal. It should be emphasized that it is difficult if not impossible to tell Beirut residents that for the time being no one can have access to our Canadian embassy. Just this evening, we saw on the newscast the bombing in Lebanon, especially in Beirut, and it is absolutely impossible to ensure that our Canadian embassy in Lebanon can extend usual services.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would emphasize that the Canadian government gave the International Red Cross SI million to help and support people now in Lebanon. Of

June 22, 1982
Adjournment Debate
course, other steps will be considered in due time, and hopefully the situation in Lebanon will correct itself, and that friendly nation will be able once again to enjoy peace.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly
this House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
At 10.32 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday, June 23, 1982