1983-02-09

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Madam Speaker, I wish to urge the Government to develop and implement, in co-operation with the Provinces, Canadian programs consistent with the thrust of the international code of marketing of breast milk substitutes adopted in May, 1981, by the member countries of the World Health Organization.
Recently a UNICEF Report indicated that, in developing countries, the difference between breast milk and bottled milk can mean the difference between life and death. It warns that bottle-fed babies are between three and five times more likely to suffer from malnutrition than breast-fed babies. It indicates a decline in breast-feeding in Third World countries which it says is condemning thousands of babies to tragic deaths. In a lot of countries this is becoming more and more of a trend.
I urge the Government, in co-operation with the Provinces, to support those organizations, those international fora which want to encourage breast-milk feeding in Third World countries.


TOURISM
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, much of the cash flow of rural Ontario comes through a tourist industry based largely on fishing and hunting, especially in Parry Sound, Muskoka, the Kawarthas, Nipissing, and Timiskaming. As the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. De Bane) and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) are well aware, an agreement has been signed by representatives of the Indian people and by the provincial Government of Ontario that would radically alter how our natural resources, particularly our fish stocks, are managed. I have received many telephone calls, letters, and personal visits from concerned private cottagers and resort owners.
Federal action on this matter, and the resultant uncertainty as to what the future ground rules are to be, have caused a great deal of uneasiness in rural Ontario. As this Government has failed to appreciate so many times before, uncertainty is the enemy of business, particularly small business, such as tourist operations in Parry Sound-Muskoka, because they are too small to have any clout or influence with the Government.
I am well aware that our Ontario provincial colleagues are concerned as to how far-reaching these changes may be. I am sure they will be voicing their concerns to the Ontario Minister of Natural Resources and to the Premier. I therefore call upon the Ministers responsible to tell this House just where the Government stands on this matter and whether or not this agreement will be acceded to. If so, when, and how far-reaching will it be?



RAILWAYS


Mrs. Eva Cote (Rimouski-Temiscouata):: Madam Speaker, I would like to say a few words about an event that took place in Rimouski last Monday evening, when we had the pleasure of a visit from the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet), who met with more than 500 farm producers from the Lower North Shore. I had invited this group personally to discuss the Government proposal relating to the changes in the formula for railway subsidies for the transportation of grain in Western Canada. It is true, Madam Speaker, that Quebec farm producers are worried about these changes, since they have been told that agriculture in Quebec is seriously threatened and may perhaps disappear altogether. That is just not true. The development of farming and the agricultural miracle, as they say, in Quebec was brought about thanks to the active and enlightened participation of the Federal Government and effective action by Quebec's representatives in the House. There is no reason why people should be telling farm producers in Quebec that the situation is going to change. On the contrary, we are all working to ensure the survival of farming in Quebec, and its continuing development through new initiatives. I can assure our farm producers that we shall have many more meetings with them, and I am also very pleased with the

February 9, 1983
overtures made by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs at this meeting-


Madam Speaker:: Order.
* *
*



DISASTERS


Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board has just made its findings with reference to the Ocean Ranger tragedy of a year ago. Its members concluded that it could have been avoided with proper training of the crew in operating the ballast control system. They concluded that the crew were not trained to operate the back-up system. They found that the crew were not properly trained in evacuation procedures, that the launching systems for the lifeboats could have been improved, and that there should have been better thermal protection.
This raises the question of what the Canadian Government was doing in the Department of Energy in its administration and supervision of the offshore before the Ocean Ranger tragedy. Why did it not require better thermal protection? Why did it not require better training of the crew? Why did the regulations and administrative practices not prevent this tragedy? Those are questions that I raise, which the Government must consider.
Why has the Government refused to refer this to a parliamentary committee, as 1 have requested? What regulations have been changed? What procedures have been changed in the last year? Why has the Minister of Energy (Mr. Chretien) refused to allow the House of Commons to consider what changes have now been made so that people can be assured that this cannot happen again?
It appears from the report of this U.S. Board that the Canadian Government has been negligent in its administration of safety procedures on the offshore. When is this House or one of its committees going to be put in a position to see what changes have been made since? There have been 84 lives lost, and the Government of Canada bears a heavy share of the responsibility.



BANKS AND BANKING


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, prime interest rates have come down very substantially in the last year. Hundreds of thousands of Canadian families have mortgages on their homes which still reflect interest rates of
between 18 and 20 per cent. Until recently banks charged a three-month penalty for those wanting to renegotiate their mortgages. They have now increased the penalties.
One of my constituents obtained a mortgage in July of last year at 18% per cent. In November he was told he would have to pay a three-month penalty of $2,200 to get out of it. In January he was told the penalty would be increased to $5,000. The banks are not accepting the responsibility which I believe they have as a result of the charters they have been granted. What they are doing may be legally correct, but it is certainly ethically wrong. The banks are practising out and out robbery. They are taking advantage of people in a tough economic spot with fancy, fine print, double-dealing. Other people would call it usury.
I call on the Government to take up with banks what they are doing. Since the Government is asking mothers, pensioners and senior citizens and workers to share the load and take a bit less, is it not time the banks were asked to do the same?



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: Madam Speaker, not long ago, the Government of Quebec announced its participation in a construction project for an aluminum mill in Becan-cour. The Quebec Government is about to invest $300 million with the Pechiney company in this part of the province. It is, of course, gratifying to see that the Canadian Government is showing an interest in the project and has proposed to pay for part of the infrastructures, but, coming from a region where aluminum is very important and where this year Alcan, for the first time in many years, has shown a deficit, I wish the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lumley) would find out whether a market survey has been made to see whether Pechiney's move to Becancour will have a negative impact on Alcan. Before the Canadian Government starts spending $18 million on infrastructures for a mill in Becancour, I hope people will realize that the Government of the Province of Quebec never offered Alcan any grants to modernize its plant in my area, and other than by acquiring a controlling interest in Alcan through the Caisse de depot, it has never tried to convince its subsidiary, Alcan, to expand its plant, and I am referring here specifically to the plant in Alma.
I am bringing this up, Madam Speaker, because 500 jobs have already been lost in Alma at Alcan, and I think we should have more details before the Canadian Government starts funding infrastructures for Pechiney.
February 9, 1983



AGRICULTURE


Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, as you know, ten or more Liberal Members from Quebec promised Quebec farmers they would force the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) to modify his approach to his policy on feed grain transportation. However, it is public knowledge that the Quebec Liberals entirely failed to get the Minister to change his mind. For several days, Quebec Members have been trying to support this policy as well as they can and asking Quebec farmers to look at the positive side, namely, that the clause providing for a reassessment of problems Quebec may encounter as a result of the new policy will enable Quebec to reassess the policy after four years. Madam Speaker, farmers all know that when the horse is gone, it is no use locking the stable. In the circumstances-and I may add that I want no part of the pressure being brought to bear by Government Members on Quebec farmers to swallow the Crow-I hope the Liberal Members representing Quebec will try to persuade the Minister to change his mind and change his policy, if they really want to serve the interests of Quebec agriculture.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Madam Speaker, I would like to propose today that the House of Commons seriously consider the possibility of setting up a Standing Committee for the watch-dogging of human rights around the world. Everyone in this House, as well as Canadian citizens across the land, realizes that throughout the world there are many, many abuses against human rights. However, when it comes to Canada's relationship with countries in which human rights are being abused, even with respect to international trade or of aid to them, many times we are left without sufficient information and knowledge on how we can treat the situation.
There is precedent for this particular kind of activity in that in the British House of Commons there is a parliamentary group which does that particular kind of work. We made a proposal in the sub-committee on Latin America to find a way to do this. I personally believe that the only way it can be done on any kind of a continuous and secure basis would be with a Standing Committee. At this particular time, when the House is studying new Committees, I believe it would be proper to do this.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. I would like to ask the Minister, in a jurisdictional sense, if he does not feel rather impotent today as a result of the humiliating experience of reading in the newspapers what the Americans have found out about the loss of Canadian lives in Canadian waters in the tragedy of the Ocean Ranger.
In replying, could the Minister assure this House that the deficiencies the United States National Transportation Safety Board found to be part of the cause of this tragedy have been corrected, that the proper safety procedures are being followed, and that proper equipment for the men on oil rigs is available, regardless of what else is going on in Canada?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I cannot, and I am sorry about that. First of all, because this is an interim report it is only a first view on the part of the two U.S. authorities who have passed judgment. Secondly, we have not got a copy of the report yet and it would be rather adventurous on my part, or on the part of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, to comment on something we have not yet seen.


ROYAL COMMISSION-POSSIBILITY OF INTERIM REPORT
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, the circumstances are incredible enough, and that answer adds another dimension. Is the Minister telling this House that the facts ascertained in the public inquiry carried on in the U.S. as to training and safety procedures, and proper equipment for the men, are not being attended to by the oil rigs still drilling in Canadian waters?


An Hon. Member:: Government observers were there.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: When does the Minister expect even the beginning of an interim report from our Royal Commission into this tragedy?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I think common sense tells us that sometimes people who write reports change views from the interim report to the final report.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Luc Pepin: This is normal. They acquire more knowledge between the interim and the final report, and sometimes they revise the views expressed in the interim report.

February 9, 1983
Oral Questions
On the second point, I can only repeat what I said. It may be cricket on the part of my hon. friend to ask me a question on a report he has not seen, but it would not be normal for a Minister to answer the question on the same basis.


TRAINING OF CREWS-REGULATORY CHANGES
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, there were 84 lives lost in the Ocean Ranger tragedy. One of the findings of the American board was that the tragedy could have been avoided with proper training of the crew in operating the ballast control system. This implies that Canadian regulations did not require proper training of the crew, or that Canadian inspectors failed to find out that the crew were not properly trained in operating the ballast control system. In other words, there was negligence and carelessness on the part of the Canadian authorities on the offshore.
Will the Minister direct officials of his Department or the Department of Energy to come before the House of Commons transportation committee, or natural resources committee, to tell us what changes they have implemented in the regulations concerning inspection procedures since then? What have they done to prevent a recurrence of this tragedy? What will they do to reassure the hundreds who are working on the offshore now, and their families, that that neglect has not continued?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The short answer to that is yes. Either the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources or myself will be pleased to go before a committee to indicate what has been done since the accident happened.


APPEARANCE OF MINISTERS BEFORE COMMITTEE
John Carnell Crosbie: The Minister has replied that he or the Minister of Energy, or both, will come before a committee. Can the Minister tell the House why the Minister of Energy has consistently refused my requests of May 4, June, and July of last year-why did he write me in September refusing to have his officials come before a parliamentary committee? I am glad to see the Minister has now changed his mind. Why has it taken this number of months to have them change their minds, and are they prepared to give a commitment to come before the appropriate committee in the next several weeks to try to reassure East Coast Canadians about the situation on the offshore?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The answer I gave is justified simply by the common practice that Ministers have had, and will forever and ever, have to answer requests from committees to go with their officials or alone to answer these kinds of questions. I have not consulted with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources on that subject, but I am quite sure there were particular circumstances why he appeared not to have been at a committee at that particular moment when he usually is before it. I can find out why, but as a general proposition Ministers are quite willing to go before committees. Indeed, they spent a lot of time before committees.


REQUEST FOR REFERRAL OF REPORTS TO PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister, since we are dealing with two departments of Government. The loss of the Ocean Ranger has been the subject of three inquiries in the United States, including a Congressional inquiry and the one that released its report this week. In addition, we have the Cross Report, which is an evaluation of search and rescue. It was released last December and was critical, admitting that there is no contingency plan in place. As well as that, this week the Prime Minister released to me a further study by the Department of National Defence into an evaluation of search and rescue in the Halifax region. These reports contradict each other.
On the eve of the anniversary of the loss of the Ocean Ranger, would the Prime Minister assume his responsibility as Leader of the Government and at least give the Parliament of Canada a chance to see which is right, the view of the Minister of National Defence, the Cross Report, or the U.S. Commission of Inquiry?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, as the Minister of Transport has said, if we wait for the final report then we will be able to judge the answers to these questions and decide who is right and who is wrong.


INDUSTRY
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Last Friday the Houston Transit Authority made an incredible decision involving many millions of dollars. It awarded a contract for a transit system to a Japanese company even though a competent Canadian company, Cancar of Thunder Bay, submitted a bid that was $29 million less. What has the Government of Canada, and specifically the Minister, done to rectify the situation?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, that matter comes under the jurisdiction of my colleague, the Minister of State for International Trade, who is in Japan at the present time attending very important trade meetings with the European community, the United States, and Japan. I know that he is very disappointed with the announcement made by the City of Houston.
Two years ago I went to Houston and was involved in the initial stages to ensure that Canada would be considered. The
February 9, 1983

fact that a Canadian company, Hawker Siddeley (Canada), was the lowest bidder and yet it has not been awarded the contract, is indeed very discouraging. We have been in contact with Hawker Siddeley officials and were advised that they are still working on that contract as well as others in the U.S. We will do our very best to ensure that they are given fair treatment by the City of Houston.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER VISIT HOUSTON
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the circumstances surrounding this decision would be described as bizarre at best. This morning I checked with the transit authority in Boston which had previously purchased equipment made by Cancar in Thunder Bay. It described the Canadian product as "exceptionally reliable".
Considering that the Canadian company made a bid that was $29 million less than the Japanese, and that its product is described by another American City as exceptionally reliable, and since the Minister has already established personal contact in Houston, instead of waiting until his colleague returns from Japan would he not go to Houston to see what he could do to save Canadian jobs?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker 1 am sympathetic with the request of the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party with respect to going down to Houston. In view of discussions that we have had with Hawker Siddeley officials, that might not necessarily be the best action to take at this time because there are other contracts that they are pursuing.
1 agree with the Hon. Member that Canada does not take second place to any other country in the world in terms of producing quality equipment for the urban transit industry. That is why our industry occupied over one-third of the floor space at the national convention of the U.S. Urban Transit Association a year ago. Also I was asked to open that convention, along with the Secretary of Transport of the United States.
Hawker Siddeley has been very well received in the United States, and we will do our very best to try to ensure that we have not lost this particular contract.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the sentiments are noble, the concern is fine, but the Minister has not told us specifically what he will do.


MINISTERIAL ACTION
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, there are several hundred Canadian jobs at stake here for a period of five to seven years, with this contract alone. The Minister knows that if we get the contract in Houston back, and we ought to because of the competitiveness of our bid, it will open up other contracts in the United States. If we lose this contract, however, it means that we will not get others. The decision on this contract was made last weekend. Will the
Oral Questions
Minister tell the House what he intends to do to get the people in Houston to reverse their decision?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, I do not quite understand the indignation of the Hon. Leader of the NDP. I quite agree about the importance of this contract. Two years ago, however, the two federal Members from Thunder Bay-not from the NDP-came to me asking me to solicit this particular contract. The Hon. Leader of the NDP is a little late in making his representation, but I agree with him about the seriousness of this situation in terms of the effects it will have on other contracts in the United States. That is why we have treated this as a priority.


RAILWAYS
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In last Saturday's edition of Le Devoir a full-page ad entitled "Farewell to the Crow", sponsored by Agriculture Canada, indicated that the new freight rate policy would not provide an advantage to western pork and beef producers. That is contrary, I might say, to the expectations of the West. How does the Minister square that statement with the statement contained in his own policy announcement contending that his transportation initiative will expand the western livestock industry by $1 billion, and the processing, packing and feed mill industries by some $350 million? Why the doubletalk?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I can square that quite easily. My hon. friend, who is very alert and knowledgeable on these matters, knows very well what I will say. There is a diversity of views in the West as to the effect of this announcement, the policy itself, on the future of the livestock industry there. There are three schools, essentially. One says that it will have the effect of only strengthening what exists there and is often in difficulties now. Another school of people say that it will do more than that, that over a period of time it will contribute a certain increase to the livestock industry in the West. A third school says that it will do more than that, that it will contribute significantly to an increase in the livestock industry. The Hon. Member can pick any one he wants, because these views are defended by very honourable people.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: 1 am not interested in the schools of thought the Minister believes are out in the West. I am interested in the Minister's own school of thought. I am interested in when the Minister will come out with a clear-cut statement, in both official languages, so that we can understand it from one region to the other, and that it is not a policy

February 9, 1983
Oral Questions
which varies from one region to the other. That is what we want to know.


REQUEST THAT ADVERTISEMENT BE PUBLISHED IN WESTERN CANADA
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, when will the Minister do the honourable thing and make a clear-cut statement which can be decipherable in both languages? Is the Minister, in consultation with the Minister of Agriculture who sponsored this ad, prepared to run the same ad in western Canadian Provinces as he ran in the Province of Quebec?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I am quite eager to make that clear statement now. The clear statement now is that there is room for development of both the livestock industry in the East and the livestock industry in the West. My hon. friend, who was the former minister of transport, knows these things. The main reasons for that are geography and cost of transportation.
For example, there is plenty of room for the export of pork from Quebec and Ontario into the eastern United States, as takes place now, because it costs $2.50 to ship a hundredweight of pork from Montreal to New York, while it costs $10.50 to ship it from Calgary to New York, simply for geographical reasons and cost of transportation. In the same way there is room in the western United States for export of beef, for example, from the western part of Canada. The two can be very well and easily accommodated.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Minister persistently refuses to answer my question. He is simply engaging in doubletalk, which is adding to the confusion, the anxiety, and mistrust in western Canada.


PUBLICATION OF ADVERTISEMENT
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I repeat my question. Is the Minister prepared to run the same ad in western Canada as he and the Minister of Agriculture ran in the Province of Quebec? Yes or no?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, when I was in the West very recently I had with me a letter which the Minister of Agriculture and myself wrote to grain producers and to the livestock people of Quebec.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Are you going to run the ad?


Jean-Luc Pepin: We made that letter extensively known everywhere we went.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Run the ad.


Jean-Luc Pepin: It is available to anybody who wants it. There is no shame at all on our part. Those two approaches are easily reconcilable. I will spend some time with my hon. friend, if he
has some, to demonstrate that. That will be a very easy job, the easiest I have had in a long time.


MACDONALD ROYAL COMMISSION
Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Yesterday, he announced or rather confirmed that Donald Macdonald, lawyer Michel Robert and a secretary general would be receiving $800, $750 and $700 per day, respectively. In my opinion, the Prime Minister is not responsible for the levels of remuneration paid in connection with this Commission. Since he has been asking Canadians to tighten their belts for a couple of years, and the Government has forced pensioners, senior citizens and children to tighten them even more, 1 ask the Right Hon. Prime Minister, in the name of justice, whether today, considering public opinion, which he already knows, he will be willing to recommend immediately a reduction in these stipends out of fairness to those who are less well-off?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member always sets himself up as the defender of those who complain about there being a double standard. I suggest, for instance, that he ask his leader or former leader how much the Progressive Conservative Government was paying the Member for Vancouver Centre when she was doing a study for the Progressive Conservative Government. Perhaps he could ask the Member for Saskatoon West what his fees were when he was a lawyer. He would then have some inkling of the levels of remuneration that are common in the private sector and which must be considered if we want to recruit competent people to serve the public.


Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary. Not long ago, in the course of a televised speech, the Prime Minister asked Canadians for their trust and co-operation. Today, he has answered my question with a question. Yesterday, I received a telephone call about these exorbitant fees which to Canadians are an absolute disgrace. Could the Prime Minister inform the House how much Mr. Robert has received in fees from the Federal Government during the last three years?
Considering all those Canadians who are worried about the situation and who think such fees are entirely unfair and in fact an obscenity, I ask the Prime Minister again, if he wants our trust and wants to keep what credibility he has left, to bring things back to more acceptable proportions by immediately restraining and blocking fee levels that are now entirely
February 9, 1983

unacceptable, considering the fact that they represent thirty times the wages-


Madam Speaker:: Order.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I can inform the Hon. Member that I asked him to get his own information because I had already answered the question yesterday. He has contacts in the private sector. He may know what it costs to retain the services of a lawyer nowadays, especially one from one of the big law offices, like the Member for Saskatoon West. Perhaps he could ask the President of Iron Ore what he is getting. If we want to attract people from the private sector to sit on a Royal Commission and if we want qualified people, we must be prepared to pay-


Roch La Salle: Not $800 a day, and $1.40 for children!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In my opinion, the Hon. Member is not only showing his surprise but also his ignorance-


Madam Speaker:: Order.
I apologize to the Prime Minister, but I decided to stop this exchange because it is no longer what oral question period should be, namely, a period of questions and answers.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, I hope the Prime Minister will be as loquacious in answer to this question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Murphy:: I think the Liberals are sensitive again.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Poverty statistics released yesterday by the Canadian Council on Social Development are a terrible indictment of the Liberal Government's policy on economics in Canada. There were 3.5 million Canadians living in poverty in 1980 and at least a million more have been added to that total, including single parents, working parents, unemployed, as well as senior citizens. How does the Prime Minister justify the scandalous poverty situation, which has resulted from his own Government's deliberate policies of high unemployment, parttime jobs, the six and five wage controls, and the abandonment of a guaranteed income policy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am afraid I did not catch the gist of the question. The Hon. Member is asking a series of questions on Government policy. We are explaining them every day. The six and five program, for instance, has in effect succeeded in bringing
Oral Questions
down inflation from a high of 12.5 per cent to something like 8 per cent or 9 per cent now, and this percentage is still declining. We could talk of every one of our policies, including the ones we adopted when the Government was first elected, the increase in the Guaranteed Income Supplement, and these are all areas where the Government is conscious of the importance of helping first those who need help the most.


Miss MacDonald:: Like Donald Macdonald.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, that is a very unclear, uncaring answer from a millionaire Prime Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I was talking, Madam Speaker, of those people-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Madam Speaker:: Order. It is Wednesday again.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Margaret Anne Mitchell: My supplementary question, Madam Speaker, is also for the Prime Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. May I remind Hon. Members that other Members have a right to ask questions.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Vancouver East.


REQUEST FOR PENSION INCREASES
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, I am talking about the over four million poor people who are living in Canada. There are four million people living in poverty in Canada, and the Liberals are laughing, including the Prime Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Margaret Anne Mitchell: The Prime Minister did not even relate to the question on poverty, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. If the Hon. Member wants to put a question, she must do just that. She knows that anything that is not a question is bound to provoke these kinds of jibes. If she could keep to her question, I think that she would get a legitimate answer.
The Hon. Member for Vancouver East.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister, after three years of lip service-

February 9, 1983
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: -and a 6 per cent cap on pensions, will he increase pensions above the poverty line, and is the Prime Minister also concerned about older women in the pre-pension age group who are suffering extreme poverty.


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, I must remind the Hon. Member as far as her first question regarding the Guaranteed Annual Income, is concerned, that the funding for all provincial and federal social programs would add up to some $8 billion, and we would pay nearly the same amount as a supplement to cover people who are now insufficiently covered by our programs. 1 would like to say that first of all, the country feels that this is certainly not something that should be done now. Second, one of the priorities of this Government-and the Minister of Finance has emphasized this several times since his appointment, doing so on behalf of the Government-is that as soon as the economic situation permits, there will be an increased supplement for single people.


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Chuck Cook (North Vancouver-Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, it may please the House to know that I have no insults for anyone, but simply a very desperate plea.
My question is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services, and I would ask the President of the Treasury Board to listen carefully. There are five shipyards in my riding of North Vancouver-Burnaby where unemployment is approaching 80 per cent for their workers. It is likely to go higher. The same situation exists on the East Coast.
The Government has announced that it will build six ships this year, a totally inadequate figure, of which two vessels have been tendered, two are to be tendered immediately, and two more in the month of March. In view of the tragedy facing shipyard workers will the Minister assure the House that he will insist that his bureaucrats work weekends and long into the night, and double their efforts not only to get the March tenders out immediately but also to cut the normal three-month time lag, from bids received to the award of contract, to a period of less than a month in order that those shipyard
workers who have hope will get their answer as rapidly as possible?


Madam Speaker:: Order. Members are making speeches. It is no longer a question period.


Mr. Epp:: 1 have a question.


Madam Speaker:: Everybody wants equal time.


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased that the Hon. Member has raised this particular question. I do not take any exception to the fact that he has taken some considerable time to put the preamble to his question. 1 recognize very well the difficulty that the shipbuilding industry is facing.
Indeed, the hon. gentleman has suggested that there be an acceleration in terms of procurement in order to ensure that the shipbuilding industry can be assisted as a result of Government procurement. That is why my officials are indeed working overtime in accelerating the program. That is why we are ahead of schedule in terms of the procurement of the two 1100 class icebreaking coastal ships that we are contemplating procuring.
The hon. gentleman should follow very closely the acceleration program I am putting in place. I would be very pleased to provide him with any additional information that he requests. I would like to-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Blais:: -count on his support relating to future measures that I would want to introduce in that regard.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. The reactivation of Boundary Bay Airport in Delta, British Columbia, was approved by the previous Minister of Transport three years ago. For almost six months Treasury Board has been sitting on a departmental recommendation to appoint a consortium to manage that airport.
Given the unprecedented 55 per cent unemployment rate among construction workers in the Vancouver region, and recognizing that approval of a management contract would lead to immediate construction of hangars, a terminal building, a restaurant, and a permanent control tower at the airport, all at no cost to the Government, why are Transport and Treasury Board officials dragging their feet and dilly-dallying while hundreds of jobs could be created immediately if the Government would only get off the pot and make a decision?
February 9, 1983


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, unfortunately my memory is not good enough to remember what happens at each of the thousand airports for which 1 have some responsibility. However, with respect to Boundary Bay the decision was made some months ago that the Department of Transport would go ahead and make the changes that were necessary. If my memory serves me well, there was $10 million worth of changes that had to be made before we could get someone to operate it. As far as I know, these expenditures have been made, are being made now, and we are looking for the operator.
The latest information I have is that we were on the verge of getting one. I will check this and I will send a letter at four o'clock this afternoon to my hon. friend to give him a blow by blow account of what has happened.


FINANCE
Mr. Lome McCuish (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The Minister knows that the forestry and mining industry are the principal employers in British Columbia. He also knows that these industries rely heavily on sales to foreign markets and that the loss of foreign sales has resulted, in great part, in the 20 per cent to 30 per cent unemployment figures which are prevalent throughout B.C.
The competitive edge in foreign markets has been lost, due in large part, to crushing tax measures imposed by his Government. Will the Minister now accept the fact that his Government's make-work programs just do not work in these two industries and are unacceptable to them? Will he consider using equivalent funds as tax relief to the wood and mining industries in order to allow them to operate and have a fighting chance in foreign markets?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. I would tell him that the first consultation 1 had in preparation for my budget was with the representatives of British Columbia industry, particularly the mining and wood industries. Those discussions have been quite productive. I must say, however, that it is not the tax burden on those companies that has created the problems they are facing. As a matter of fact, the tax burdens on the mining and wood industries in this country compare very favourably with almost any competitor. The fact is that there has been a lack of demand generally for products of the mining and wood industries all around the world. We should recognize the situation in the world today where employment in the mining and forestry sectors has declined substantially.
Oral Questions
As a matter of fact we are providing such comparatively excellent advantages to our industries that my hon. friend knows there are complaints in the United States that we are favouring the soft wood lumber industry too much. I am going to Washington this week where I intend to have a few words with my American friends in that regard, to ask them to pay attention to the Canadian situation and recognize that we are not unfairly subsidizing the soft wood lumber industry in this country.


SURREY, B.C.-APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board, who may know that the port of entry at Pacific Highway in Surrey is the busiest west of his own City of Windsor. The facilities are overcrowded and obsolete. Just last week 1 received a letter from the Minister of Public Works saying that the design for a new structure will be completed next week. He went on to say:
Assuming a favourable review by Treasury Board, a construction contract could be awarded as early as January, 1984 which would result in a completion date of January, 1986.
In view of the fact that unemployment in British Columbia had the fastest rate of increase during the past year, could he assure the House, the people of Surrey, and the businessmen who use that port of entry, that Treasury Board will in fact approve that construction contract so that we will face some employment prospects there, and so that the business people using that port of entry will see some cost efficiency in the operation?


Hon. Herb Gray (President of Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, I will be very happy to look into the matter to see what can be done to expedite consideration of the submission. I note with interest my hon. friend's support for the increasing and speedier expenditure of public funds.


METRIC CONVERSION
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I understand that his Department declared on Monday of this week that mandatory metrication "obviously does not apply to the Government". We all know it is true that international standards for many items are not in metric. To say the private sector must convert despite this, whereas the Government is free to do as it pleases, is sheer hypocrisy. How
Oral Questions
can the Minister allow this double standard, and what will he do about it?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, the hon. gentleman is dealing with a story that arose out of procurement by my Department of turbo fuel in the international market, in order to supply DND aircraft abroad. The measure that is used in the international marketplace is American gallons.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Jacques Blais: That is why we have used that particular standard, limited to the international market. In terms of the domestic market, I can assure the hon. gentleman that all of our measures are metric.


REQUEST THAT IMPERIAL MEASUREMENT APPLY TO FUEL SALES
William C. Scott: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Now that his Department has admitted that the world unit for some fuels is gallons, I ask the Minister will he withdraw all prohibitions against the sale of fuel in gallons in Canada.


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, the hon. gentleman should have listened to the reply that I gave to him initially. 1 will provide him with the details of our procurement system. In terms of international procurement, when we deal with international suppliers for DND bases outside Canada we are dealing in that context with American gallons. Inside Canada, of course, our requirements are measured in metric terms.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Yesterday the Supreme Court of Canada dealt a body blow to Canadian consumers in ruling against the class action suit that over 4,000 owners of defective Firenza automobiles brought against General Motors of Canada Ltd. The Supreme Court, in dismissing this claim, stated that there is, and I quote:
-undoubtedly a need for legislative intervention in this country ... and a comprehensive legislative scheme for the institution and conduct of class actions.
Since the early 1970s the federal Government and this Minister in particular have promised to amend the Combines Investigation Act to facilitate class action suits. When is the Government finally going to bring forward these long overdue amendments to the Combines Investigation Act to permit class actions, and stop the gouging of Canadian consumers?
February 9, 1983


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Madam Speaker, like the Hon. Member, I certainly wish this session of Parliament would end so that in a new session, we could expect to consider other bills, and especially amendments to the Combines Investigation Act. To answer the Hon. Member's question, I would say that in this particular case, since what we have here is a civil suit, the provinces would have to be asked to amend their provincial legislation so as to allow civil class actions. The Hon. Member is no doubt aware that this kind of legislation already exists in Quebec, although not in the other provinces, unfortunately. I hope that the decision of the Supreme Court will be an incentive to the nine other provinces to allow their citizens to bring class actions in civil suits in the same way this is being done in Quebec.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. As he knows, British Columbia is experiencing an excessive rate of unemployment and business failures and bankruptcies above the national average. Despite the fact that there is a mega project, the coal in the Northeast and the port development in Prince Rupert, unfortunately Canadian workers and Canadian small businessmen, in particular, are usually on the outside looking in.
I would like to ask the Minister what safeguards are being put in place to ensure that as the Minister of Transport spends $6 billion, and industrial development spends $4 billion on the upgrading of transportation infrastructure in the West, small Canadian firms and their employees will have a share of the pie. Are there tax incentives planned? Is he discussing with his colleagues the prospect of talking with the unions to ensure that average workers will get a job?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member poses a very good question. Our office of regional industrial benefits has worked very closely with the officials of my colleague, the Minister of Transport, on the industrial benefits for western Canada as a result of the changes in the Crow rate.
One example is the potential $418 million contract for signalling and communications equipment, which at the present time is being imported by the railways, which is an excellent opportunity for western Canada. We will try to break

February 9, 1983

these potential contracts into as small component parts as is possible to ensure that small and medium sized entrepeneurs will be able to bid on the specific contracts.
What is also important, I think, is that the business community in western Canada consider forming consortia to undertake a project of this magnitude.


AGRICULTURE
Hon. John Wise (Elgin):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture and is supplementary to the subject matter that was raised earlier in an exchange between the Hon. Member for Vegreville and the Minister of Transport. It is with reference to the advertisement which appeared in the Quebec newspapers. It is clear that this leaves the impression that the Government is saying one thing in one part of the country and something else in the other.
Secondly, there is a clear impression given that western Canadian agricultural producers are going to benefit as a result of the Crow rate changes. There is no question about that. Since this ad was paid for out of the budget of the Minister of Agriculture, would he agree, to clear up this misunderstanding, and I am sure that is exactly what it is, to publish the same ad in both official languages in all the newspapers in all regions of the country?
If the answer is no, obviously the impression is still going to stand that the Minister is in fact saying one thing in one part of the country and something else in the other.


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member makes mention of an ad that was placed in some papers in an eastern part of Canada. These ads are factual, they are straightforward, but the Hon. Member has not paid any attention to what the Minister of Transport has said. The Minister of Transport said that the marketing conditions, et cetera, are different in eastern Canada. For instance, pork production, which is of great concern, is exported into New York State and that part of the United States. The production is going to take place under this program, and a similar kind of an ad could be explained in western Canada just as easily, as their exports go into that great populous area, the State of California, and we want that kind of process to take place in western Canada. The people who are in livestock agricultural production know that that is what it will do for them. The Hon. Members opposite should talk to the people in the livestock industry, who are the ones who have recommended this. Of course the Hon. Members opposite do not pay much attention to anyone who recommends anything. For instance, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture unanimously endorsed Canagrex yesterday.
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Wise: Madam Speaker, that is simply a disgraceful answer. I will provide the Minister with a second opportunity to answer my question in order to clear up this confusion and misunderstanding. I am giving him the benefit of the doubt as I am sure it is not intentional.


REQUEST FOR ADVERTISEMENT PUBLICATION
John Wise: Madam Speaker, I ask the Minister of Agriculture will he simply publish the same ad in all newspapers in both official languages in all regions of the country. I would like him to answer with a simple yes or no, which is the only kind of an answer that will clear up this matter.


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, he knows-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, if they had a leader over there I would ask him to put them in order, but-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: The Hon. Member wants a simple answer, yes or no. He knows that there is a difference, because in Quebec the Government of Quebec has led a special propaganda program-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: -and misinformed the people there. No Government in western Canada has seen fit to do such a thing because Governments there know that this program is going to assist agriculture and assist livestock production, and make it possible to export more.
If it becomes necessary to explain this kind of a program in western Canada, yes, we will do it by ads, but the Opposition wants us to have restraint, so we should not do this until we feel that it is necessary to move into these areas.


CANADA LABOUR CODE
Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. We have been waiting in this House for three years for the federal Government to introduce changes to Part IV of the Canada Labour Code, which deals with occupational health and safety.
One of the problems with the incident of the Ocean Ranger is that the federal Labour Code does not protect workers on offshore rigs. The preliminary report in the United States indicates that management negligence has resulted in the

February 9, 1983
Oral Questions
deaths of 84 workers, most of them Canadian. If that happened in any other situation that would be considered a mass murder. I ask the Prime Minister when will his Government provide legislative protection under the Labour Code for workers who work on those rigs?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of Labour: Madam Speaker, I reject parts of the premise of the Hon. Member's question, but I want to assure him that we on this side of the House are as concerned as anyone else about the importance of the matter. We urge the Opposition to help us in processing and passing the legislation that is before the House so as to conclude this session and initiate the next one, so that we can introduce the amendments, to the Canada Labour Code. We are as anxious to produce them as anybody else.


Rodney Edward Murphy: You are responsible. You are a bloody murderer.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Madam Speaker:: Order. I have just consulted the list and I have to ask the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) to withdraw those words. I did hear them, even from this distance. I am sure the Hon. Member got caught up in the heat of the debate and did not really mean those words. Perhaps he would like to withdraw them.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, out of respect for the rules of the House, I won't call it murder, but I will call it manslaughter.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Madam Speaker:: Order. I am sorry, but the Hon. Member has to satisfy the rules, which I can see he is quite willing to do, and must withdraw that particular word.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, I do not know what word can be used in this House, but the Government must act. We have been waiting for three years. I am willing to withdraw the specific accusation, but not the general charge of misconduct by this Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Out!


Madam Speaker:: I will accept this today because the Hon. Member did withdraw that particular word, but I want to remind Hon. Members that there is the material fact of pronouncing certain words which has to be dealt with. There is also the spirit behind the rules which means that Members should respect each other during debate. To use a circumstance like this to make a further charge like this is not quite proper. Strictly speaking, it is not unparliamentary, but it is not really proper. However, I will accept what the Hon. Member said.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: 1 have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the reports of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Tuesday, February 8, 1983 and finds that they meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


PRIVILEGE
Hon. W. Bennett Campbell (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. 1 gave notice on Monday of my intention to raise a question of privilege on the first occasion on which the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) was in his seat.
I refer to comments made by the Hon. Member last Thursday during my absence from the House; I apologize for waiting so long. However, this is the first occasion which I have had to raise this question of privilege. It has to do with comments made in this House by the Hon. Member on Thursday last, reported in Hansard at page 22481. During his comments, the Hon. Member is reported to have said:
I am alleging that the Minister intentionally misled the House-
That is not only untrue but it is unparliamentary language. 1 would request through you, Madam Speaker, that the Hon. Member withdraw those comments.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Withdraw!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Do Government Members want to give me my chance to reply or do they want to shout me down? If they want to act like a bunch of fascists, then we are going to treat them that way. I am not replying, Madam Speaker, until I get some order.


Madam Speaker:: I just checked because I could not believe what I heard; that word too is unparliamentary. The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) has quite a problem; he has to withdraw two expressions.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I am prepared to withdraw the word "fascists" providing the Members opposite let me make my reply to the Minister without interrupting me.


Madam Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member had the floor. He could speak on the matter raised by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Campbell). There were a few jibes from the other side of the House, but that usually does not deter Members from speaking in the House. They were not that loud that
February 9, 1983

the Hon. Member could not be heard; otherwise the Speaker would have asked for order. Will the Hon. Member now take the floor?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, with reference to what my hon. friend the Minister has said, in order to deal with the matter of my comments and also comments made by the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon), a Member of the Conservative Party, the matter arose after my speech-


Madam Speaker:: Order. We do not need a speech at this time. The only thing the House requires is for the Hon. Member to get up and withdraw the words he pronounced the other day. They are unparliamentary. I heard them from my seat. At that particular point the Hon. Member, because of circumstances in the House which I do not quite recall, seemed to be withdrawing also from his question of privilege. I think this occurred while he was raising a question of privilege. Therefore, I let the matter stand; I thought he was withdrawing from everything. However, since the Minister has raised the question and since those words have been printed in Hansard, it makes it quite obvious that the Hon. Member said them in earnest. He should now withdraw them. That is all I need from him today.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I am prepared to withdraw the remarks, but I have to do it in a certain context. I just want to take 30 seconds.


Madam Speaker:: The context is not necessary. The Hon. Member will withdraw now or else I will have to deal with the matter.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I am trying to raise this matter on behalf of the old people in Canada who cannot reply. If you won't let me say it, I am not going to withdraw the remarks.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member has to be fair. I was not preventing the Hon. Member from speaking. I was asking him to speak precisely to the matter which we were dealing with in the House, and that is to withdraw those unparliamentary words. Does the Hon. Member now want to withdraw his unparliamentary words and say so quite clearly?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, in the spirit of the House and dealing with the Minister, who is a very fair Minister, I am prepared to withdraw the remarks. I am asking the Minister in the spirit you referred to before to consider the problem about the confusion of veterans as to whether-


Madam Speaker:: Order. Will the Hon. Member please say very plainly "I withdraw", not "I am prepared to if'. There is no condition to that. There cannot be a condition. The language is unparliamentary. For the last time, will the Hon. Member please get up and say whether he wants to withdraw?
Order Paper Questions


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Recognizing the fact that many veterans phone my office, recognizing the fact that they are confused about the six and five program, recognizing the fact that their cheques were delayed and they are powerless except only through me to come back to this Government, I will withdraw the remarks that I made.


Mr. Malone:: Good idea.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, I wish to present a petition to the House today which was collected from members of the Peterborough constituency. They have signed the petition stating that they are voicing strong opposition to the announced plans of "First Choice" Pay TV to broadcast "soft core" pornographic films into Canadian homes on their Pay TV channels.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Jim Schroder (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4,552 and 4,617.

DND CONTRACT-G.H. WOOD & CO. LTD.


Mr. McKinnon: Did the Department of National Defence award a $15,232 contract to G.H. Wood & Co. Ltd. for "doily paper" and, if so, for what purpose will the doily paper be used?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: The Department of Supply and Services on behalf of the Department of National Defence awarded a $15,232 contract to G.H. Wood & Co. Ltd. for doily paper, an item entirely used on trays in hospital as a sanitary precaution and to enhance meal presentation to patients.


Mr. Mitges: Has the Government taken or is it taking steps to test the more than 100,000 medical devices, including contact lenses, condoms, tampons and pacemakers, and, if so, what are or were such steps?


James Duncan Schroder: The Department of National

February 9, 1983
Criminal Code
Health and Welfare is aware of the importance of ensuring that medical devices sold in Canada are safe and effective. On July 30, 1981, the resources for the Medical Devices Program were significantly increased to cope with rapidly advancing device technology. For fulfilling its mandate under the Food and Drugs Act, the Department employs several procedures such as premarket review, imposition of standards, evaluations and testing. Devices such as the prolonged-wear contact lenses, tampons and pacemakers are subject to premarket review; condoms are subject to standards.


James Duncan Schroder: I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Stand.


James Duncan Schroder: Madam Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS

["It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning.\nAt 6.48 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.", 'Thursday, February 10, 1983']
Madam Speaker:: Shall all orders listed under Private Members' Public Bills preceding No. 464 be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



Arnold John Malone: that Bill C-664, to amend the Criminal Code (profits of crime), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the Bill which is before you, Bill C-664, is a timely Bill in terms of the Canadian mentality
towards crime at the moment. If this Bill is passed it would mean that persons sentenced for crime have the prerogative to write, to express, to act out by play or by film, their criminal deeds and those activities centering around their crimes, but any profits derived therefrom would be taxed 100 per cent. The Attorney General of the Province concerned would disburse this money to victims of crime.
In commenting on this Private Members' Bill, I feel it is important to give the background leading up to its presentation. There is a great belief in Canada today that criminals must be stopped from profiting from their heinous crimes. A few years ago as I returned to Ottawa from a speaking engagement in Prince Edward Island, upon landing at a Montreal airport I was incensed to find on the bookshelves in the airport bookstore a book entitled "Son of Sam", concerning the murders of David Berkowitz. In such a situation we have a person who has committed outlandish crimes profiting from those crimes, and doing it in a society where it is a fundamental fact, even in elementary school children's understanding of law, that crime should not pay. In a democratic society we take the view that when one goes to jail for a crime he is paying his debt to society. If at the end of his jail term he writes a book about his crime from which he profits, then in effect the debt has not been paid.
This legislation would be timely for the Canadian public, because the David Berkowitz case resulted in a New York State law being passed. Here in Canada at the present time we have two potential books: one, the recent writing of the Pierre Laporte murder story by Francis Simard and other members of the freedom fighters in the Province of Quebec; the other, of course, is about Clifford Robert Olson in the Province of British Columbia who killed many young people in that Province. Olson has said that he has hired a ghost writer to write the story of his life. These are two examples of profiting from crime.
David Berkowitz is a citizen of the United States, a person who committed his crimes in New York City. The fact that his story in the book called "Son of Sam" caused him to profit as a result of his crime stimulated the New York State legislature to put in place a law, which is now referred to as "The Son of Sam Law", which does precisely what my proposed legislation is intended to do. It takes away those profits from the person who committed the crime and such profits are used for other purposes. So we have a precedent for this particular kind of legislation.
I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that since I first introduced this legislation on first reading, numerous press reporters have asked me about my intended legislation, but more importantly, there have been a number of radio or television call-in shows with respect to having some kind of legislation which would stop people profiting from crime. The result of those call-in shows, was that the view was unanimous
February 9, 1983

that there was a need for some kind of curtailment of this kind of profit, with the exception of one person who asked the question: "What about a person's right of expression as guaranteed under Canada's new Constitution?" 1 would like to address those concerns, particularly for those who might argue or debate against the Bill.
One reason why someone would say we should not have a law which would tax away the profits of criminals-my legislation applies to those who have been sentenced to terms of five years or more-is that it would impede the right of expression as guaranteed under the Charter of Rights. I want to stress, Mr. Speaker, that in drafting the proposed legislation this was one of the things which the lawyers were asked to take into account. This Bill is not intended in any way to impede freedom of expression. Anyone may write, and there is good reason for allowing it.
I also understand the emotion of people looking at the case of Clifford Olson who would say that the person should be totally banned from writing anything at all, but I could not support that because, when one looks at restrictions on commenting on one's criminal activities, one must make the law so that it is generalized enough to be effective for any criminal activity at any period of our history.
To pass such legislation would impede those people associated with the Watergate break-ins from ever writing about what happened during the Nixon years. Such a denial would be an infringement on our right to know what took place in the history of our country. Elad this been a universal law it would have stopped people such as Albert Speer from writing his book "Inside the Third Reich".
1 think it would be the general view of Canadians that, while the facts of a crime may be heinous in nature, it is at least historically important for us to know those facts. The legislation I have proposed was drafted specifically to take that into account. My Bill will stop no one from writing about their criminal activities. What it does is to tax 100 per cent of the profits from the book and turn the money over to the Attorney General of the Province where the crime was committed-to be used to aid the victims of crime.
I believe society is ripe for legislation which will direct its attention towards victims of crime rather than simply the punishment and rehabilitation of criminals. Canadian society is ahead of Parliament in this respect and Parliament ought to take into consideration that the victims of crime, the innocent people who presumed that society was safe and the law would protect them, have a far greater right to protection than does the criminal have a right to profit.
Following the writing of the book "Son of Sam" by David Berkowitz, the New York State legislature passed a law to restrict the profiting from crime. Here in Canada Francis Simard wrote a book about the FLQ and the murder of Pierre Laporte, and Clifford Olson has said that he has hired a ghost writer to write a book about his life. Surely it is time for the
Criminal Code
Parliament of Canada, especially in light of the widespread support for the concept, to put into law the premise that, while you are free to express your thoughts, you are not free to profit from crime. If you go to jail to pay for your crime, you cannot come out of jail and turn the debt you have paid into a profit. That is unacceptable to Canadians.
In the case of Francis Simard, there are 20,000 books in first printing at $5.95 each, with a 7 per cent royalty per book to the writer. If all those books are sold, he stands to make a profit of somewhere around $8,330. This is the first printing and there could be subsequent printings. The point is that he should not be able to profit at all, not one red cent, not a nickel or dime or a dollar, from his criminal activity. It is not enough to take the view that the criminal is sorry about his crime and he therefore has a right to write about it. We have to remember that justice not only needs to be done, it must be seen to be done. I submit that the strong view of Canadians far and wide is that, no matter what the activity is, be it writing a book, a play, appearing in a Film or being interviewed on television, any profit made should go to the victim.
Just this past year, Mr. Speaker, the State of New York has made a pay-out of some $50,000 to three persons who had been held captive in a bank robbery. Not only does New York have a law which prohibits the profiting from crime, but they have already had the first pay-out to the victims of crime.
I cite that example because there are some on the other side who may argue that the law is unworkable or that it is an infringement on the Charter of Rights. I submit in defence, before the argument appears, that there are already precedents in democratic countries for the withholding of profits resulting from criminal activity. The fact is that these people are still free to express themselves, to write, act in plays, give speeches or interviews, but the profits derived therefrom go to the victims of crime.
For those who believe there is a denial of rights here, we have to ask them to recall that murder involves the denial of the rights of another person. The murdered person's rights are permanently denied. Many people will take the view that we cannot impose such legislation as this because it denies the right of free expression. But Canadians everywhere are very quick to note that those who commit murder have denied forever the right of their victims to express any thought ever again. For us as a Parliament to support the criminal as opposed to his victim is to create another injustice on top of the first injustice.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the first priority is that the victim, assuming that he survives, is compensated. In the case of a murder, of course, the victim is dead. Therefore, the second priority would be that such moneys would be paid to those people wholly dependent on the victim. If that is not applicable, then the moneys would go to the estate of the victim. The fourth alternative would be for the money to go to the victims of crime in general. Finally, if none of those situations is applicable, then the money would go to those organizations whose objective it is to deter crime or reform criminals.

February 9, 1983
Criminal Code
Essentially, this is a very simple piece of legislation before the House today. It allows for freedom of expression and thought. It allows criminals, sentenced to five years or more and now free, to express themselves but deters them from profiting from the crime.
The argument that the Criminel Code does not allow for compensation can be answered by saying that we should presume a lawful society and that crime is not profitable. There are precedents where people who committed robberies were paid for the value of the goods stolen, so the Criminal Code does make some provision for compensation. While it does not take into consideration the moral, physical or psychological wounds inflicted on victims, it is one of the fundamental bases of the law that in the past society has always believed that the victim of crime has not received the just attention of Government and that the person who commits the crime ought not to be allowed to profit. Our elementary school children tell us that crime does not pay because that is what we teach them; it is a fundamental truth of our society. Yet today, some crimes do pay when the story is written. Unfortunately, the more heinous the crime, as in the case of Clifford Robert Olson who killed many teenagers in British Columbia, the more the publicity that attends it. That offers the greatest opportunity for profit. What a foul system we would have if the result of the worst crime imaginable was profit; how objectionable that concept would be.
I should like to offer two short thoughts in closing, Mr. Speaker. The first is that justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. People everywhere believe that we should not profit from crime. Second, because Private Members are only accorded one hour for their Bills, my time will be up at 4.15 p.m. Central Time. I hope that Members will allow the Bill to go to committee. I know there is agreement for this concept on all sides of the House and amendments could be introduced to broaden or to shrink the provisions.
I know that the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) is considering ways of achieving the same thing so let us not talk the Bill out. If we do, we side with those who believe that crime should pay. That idea would be unacceptable to Canadians. We all want a system where crime does not pay.


Mr. John Evans (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we are considering a Bill introduced by the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) concerning profits derived from crime. I must say at the outset that I have a great deal of sympathy for the position he puts forward. I think very few Members do not sympathize with the views he has expressed this afternoon.
As the Hon. Member has stated in the explanatory note attached to his Bill, his objective is as follows:
To prevent persons convicted of serious offences from realizing financial gains based on the notoriety surrounding their offences and thereby making a mockery of the criminal justice system.
The explanatory note to the Bill goes on to state:
Any profits accruing from personal appearances, media interviews or published writings would be recoverable by the provincial Attorney General, to be used for compensating victims of crime or for diverting others from criminal activities.
It is clear that the genesis of the Bill with which we are concerned today is the publicity surrounding the unspeakable murders committed in British Columbia just over a year ago. These crimes, which have led to expressions of outrage and disgust all across Canada, have understandably directed attention to the issue this Bill attempts to address. The perpetrator, Clifford Olson, has clearly stated his intention of further capitalizing on these unspeakable acts by publishing a book about them-an act that will obviously give rise to further grief and pain to the survivors of his victims.
Last autumn, the publication in Quebec of a book by one of those convicted of the murder of Pierre Laporte reinforced public attention on this issue.
In the spring of 1982, the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) asserted his "opposition to criminals benefiting from their crimes; particularly from financial proceeds that could be realized from the publication of the details of their crimes". The Minister went on to indicate that possible changes to the Criminal Code were being examined in this respect in order to "prevent the miscreant from profiting from his actions, and to attack the glorification of crime through the reduction of sensational publicity". At that time the Solicitor General noted that constitutional questions involving both division of powers between the federal and provincial Governments and the Charter of Rights would have to be given careful study in the context of an examination of these options.
Since that time, work has indeed been done with respect to the various possibilities that would appear to be available. The complexity of the issues involved, identified by the Solicitor General as long ago as last May, have been remarked upon by all those who have examined this question. It is in the context of a careful consideration of the values and principles involved that we must assess the proposal put forward and the legislation we are discussing this afternoon.
While I am sure that all Hon. Members share the sense of revulsion that arises as a result of the spectacle of a convicted murderer further exploiting his victims and society at large through commercial gains stemming from publication of accounts of those crimes, it is incumbent upon us to ensure that any action we might contemplate in response to this sense of revulsion does not result in unintended, unforeseen and undesirable effects.
In examining the question raised so clearly by Bill C-664, and other suggestions similar to it, it is my contention that we must clearly identify and distinguish the various issues involved. An examination of press reports, letters to the editor, correspondence that I am sure other Members have received on the issue, and so on, reveals, it seems to me, two principal objectives which are not necessarily in harmony. The first of these objectives is that articulated in the explanatory note in Bill C-664, namely, the prevention of the evident unfairness in
February 9, 1983

an offender profiting from his crime through the royalties derived from publications about such crime.
The second major objective-and this is clearly articulated by some of the families of the victims involved-is the prevention of the publication itself of certain types of works which unduly exploit the details of infamous crimes.
In assessing whether any particular approach that may be suggested in pursuit of either or both of these objectives is suitable, we must also bear in mind other crucial interests and principles. These include the victim's right to and desire for privacy, the general interest in public decency, and the desire to afford some measure of compensation to victims of crime. Also, and in a sense working in the opposite direction, we must always consider the fundamental societal interest in freedom of expression, as well as the desirability of encouraging literature of merit.
Taking these in order, the desire of the victims for privacy is obviously a matter of public concern and militates against the right to expression of the offender. It can generally be assumed that most victims of crime lending themselves to sensational exploitation would be further offended by having the details of those events publicly exploited, especially by the publication of an account produced by the offender himself.
Concern for public decency is related to the issue I have just mentioned, in constituting an argument for restriction on the otherwise guaranteed freedom of expression. In essence, the point is that the public at large, not only the victim or the victim's survivors, has an interest in suppressing the publication of accounts of notorious or sensational crimes, especially when the accounts are lurid or exploitative and, further, the offender's desire for further publicity or commercial gain.
Running parallel in a sense to these concerns is the desire to provide some measure of compensation to victims of crime. A federal-provincial task force established at the insistence of Ministers responsible for criminal justice has been working over the past year to explore a number of issues and options aimed at ameliorating the plight of victims. Included among the issues they examined was that of alternative sources of compensation funding for victims of crime. Seizure and forfeiture of royalties and other proceeds payable to offenders as a result of contracts for publication of the details of their criminal activity certainly fall within this general heading. Such a model exists in a number of American states. The Bill we are considering this afternoon also makes provision to this effect.
I should like to outline briefly the issues of freedom of expression and the desire to encourage literary works of merit, both societal interests which give us pause in our consideration of actions that restrict or remove the ability of some individuals in society to seek financial gain through publication of their thoughts. As all Hon. Members are aware, freedom of expression is guaranteed by Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of
Criminal Code
Rights and Freedoms. This is a fundamental right all Canadians cherish. The question we must consider in the context of legislative proposals such as those contained in Bill C-664 is whether those proposals constitute a "reasonable limit ... demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society" under the terms of Section 1 of the Charter.
With respect to the final consideration to which I have referred, that related to the societal interest in encouraging publication of works having literary, historical, criminological, legal, rehabilitative or other merit, the problem is posed not so much by the particular instances which are paramount in our minds in considering this legislation, but rather by other cases which I am sure most Hon. Members would not wish to see affected by legislation of the kind presented here today. Examples of valuable works of literature produced by criminals abound in world literature throughout the centuries. To cite one recent Canadian example, we need to think no further back than a year or so ago when the Governor General's award for literature was presented to Roger Caron for his book "Go Boy".
The point I am making is that all these interests, principles and objectives must be borne in mind in assessing the various options which might be considered and, in particular, the specific option embodied in Bill C-664.


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, the sentiment behind Bill C-664 is, of course, one all decent people would share. We are horrified at the thought of a murderer like Clifford Olson profiting from exploitation in books about his crimes, or in any other way. But I should like to suggest that the Bill before us goes too far. We must explore some other means of dealing with the problem.
First, I would suggest that there is a problem of jurisdiction, whether the issue should be dealt with at the federal or provincial level. The Provinces are responsible for civil rights, for property and for contracts. Compensation for victims of crime is under provincial jurisdiction; some Provinces have boards dealing with this. All these subjects come under this legislation, and it is not clear that they could not be dealt with better at the provincial level.
There have been consultations with the Provinces on the issue. So far those consultations have been inconclusive. Some Provinces would like to see the federal Government proceed, some would not. Clearly more work has to be done. This matter has to be sorted out with the Provinces.
This Bill goes too far in a number of other respects. The motivation is to prevent serious criminals like murderers from profiting from their crimes, but in fact the wording refers to any offender convicted of a crime punishable by five years or more. This could include somebody, for example, who has been found guilty of importing cannabis for personal use, a victimless crime. It could be a person who has committed a property crime without violence. A person who has spent a number of years in prison and has, to most people's satisfaction, paid his or her debt to society could be stopped in the expression of his or her experience in prison. We know that there are people

February 9, 1983
Criminal Code
who write books as a result of prison experience. Some American criminals have gone straight and have pursued very legitimate careers in their professions. At one time they were criminals but they have reformed, have done a great deal of work, and certainly deserve to be heard on the subject.
While it is true that we want to stop exploitation of the type of situations that Olson presents us with, the far more common kind of occurrence we might be stopping is that of a person who has paid his debt to society and then writes a very modest book. We know that the profits from book writing and publication in this country are very small; they are poverty wages. To prevent somebody from being paid for that would in effect prevent the person from writing such a book.
The previous speaker referred to some important literary works written in prison. One example was Roger Caron who won the Canadian Governor General's award. I think of the example of Brendan Behan and "Borstal Boy". Would we want to prevent that type of literature from being published? The legislation simply goes too far.
Other examples of convicted offenders being prevented from expressing themselves would be a labour leader convicted of some offence in the course of a labour dispute or a person who peacefully protested the arms race but nevertheless was convicted of a crime, a crime of conscience I would suggest. Would we want such persons to be prevented from continuing their work? How could we distinguish from payment for attending a conference, writing a book or that person's legitimate work? The punishment could be far too excessive, for the person has already paid for the offence.
Third, what is wrong with this legislation is that it includes a notwithstanding section to override section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The purpose of the legislation is to deal with profiting from expression; the Hon. Member who introduced it said that the intention was not to forbid freedom of expression. If that is the case, why is there a notwithstanding section? We have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms now. We in this Party, at least, are extremely keen to see that people have free expression. We do not want to see limitation of freedom of expression. We do not want to see notwithstanding clauses in statutes before the House.
Finally, I suggest that there are other ways in which we could proceed to deal with this problem. My colleague the member for Riverdale in the Ontario House has a private members' bill modelled on successful New York legislation, the so-called 1977 "Son of Sam" law. This legislation has had some success in the United States. It is at the provincial level. It is a route that should be considered. We should not go the route we are going now without considering constructive alternatives or working out other possibilities with the Provinces.
In conclusion, normally we on this side of the House are criticizing legislation for being too little and too late. At this point I suggest we have a Bill before us which is too early and too much.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to participate in the debate on this Private Member's Bill C-664 introduced by the Hon. Member for Crowfoot
(Mr. Malone). He and I have sort of been a two-man team in this matter. He had a draft Bill at the time I first raised a question in the House after hearing the revolting press conference of Simard in Montreal on Thursday, November 18. I asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) about this repugnant act of someone who almost takes pleasure coming on TV saying how he sincerely killed one called Pierre Laporte, and on the basis of that wrote a book.
With all due respect to the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald), we are not talking about literary pieces of journalism or works of art done in prison because of some cause. I agree the Bill is imperfect. It raises fundamental questions of freedom of speech. But there is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech. Already, regardless of a Charter of Rights, there are certain things that you cannot say about people. If you do, you get charged. What is more repugnant in terms of qualified freedom of speech than one who kills, goes on public television, almost gloats over his deed and because of the sensation tries to derive profit from it?
My instinctive reaction when I saw the press conference and afterwards was that anything written by a murderer should be prohibited from publication. Any person with blood on his hands should not profit from that blood. Obviously, there are constitutional questions. If an outright prohibition on publication cannot be done, then one can certainly try to do something along the lines of what the Hon. Member for Crowfoot has done, and that is to make sure the profit that follows from a publication does not go to the murderer directly or indirectly. The profit motive should be taken away.
I will not get into a philosophical debate with my hon. friend who has just spoken, but there is no doubt that the profit motive is a catalyst for many things in this world. If that profit motive were taken away in this case, you would certainly reduce the chance of this matter being a topic in public policy debates and before a public forum, as it has.
We have an interesting situation here. There is no capital punishment in Canada. That matter has been debated and has been resolved in this House. However, it is still a very subjective issue. It is a philosophic and a moral issue. That topic has emotionally torn this House apart in a way that I have not seen any other debate. Three times this subject has come up for debate and resolution since I have been a Member of this House. Each time Hon. Members get emotionally involved as to whether they stand for or against capital punishment. The question is, do you swing or do you not swing? Capital punishment always tears the soul of every Hon. Member. However, at the present time we do not have capital punishment.
We do have something called television and we do have something called political crime. That was Simard justifying the garrotting of Pierre Laporte because the crime was a political one carried out in the name of Quebec nationalism.
If you get three ingredients together, Mr. Speaker, that of no capital punishment, people killing on the pretext that the

HnnHnHnHHHHnHH
February 9, 1983

murder is not a real murder, that it is a political crime, and with the power of television being able to sensationalize the deed immediately right across the country through a press conference, they will provoke having the issue brought to some resolution by the legislatures of the land or by Parliament.
I do not like the Bill brought forward by the Hon. Member for Crowfoot. I do not think his Bill is perfect; I think it goes too far. I agree with some of the complaints mentioned by the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood.
I do not want to try to cover the whole waterfront on crime and to get into some of the philosophical issues of which the Hon. Member spoke, but I do want to talk about the one single thing that is repugnant to everybody, and that is that a convicted murderer should not profit from that murder. We should restrict ourselves to that, and it will eliminate a lot of the argument against freedom of speech.
As I said before, freedom of speech is not absolute. There are certain rules. Surely in the interest of public policy and decency to the collective sense of the community, we can extend some restriction on freedom of speech so that the murderer with blood on his hands does not profit. After all, Mr. Speaker, I know that you are a teacher of note and you are not perhaps learned in the law, but certainly you have taught many philosophical things in the classrooms from which you come. You know as well as I that the basic law of equity in the old courts of chancery and common law is that one could not come into court with dirty hands. You could not profit from a contract if you had dirty hands or if there were something in the background that affected the contract and your hands were dirty.
What hands are more dirty than those that are bloody? In the days of old without television and with capital punishment, a lot of problems of those who might potentially profit from crime were taken care of. In the old days people were not able to profit from crime. There were extreme capital punishment penalties even for stealing a loaf of bread. But even in those days with such severe capital punishment and without the power of television, fundamental decency was taken care of in the community. No one could profit from a misdemeanor or dirty hands.
You cannot be a beneficiary of a will and bump somebody off hoping to profit from it. There are many famous cases regarding insurance policies. You cannot be a beneficiary under an insurance will and in effect help to terminate the person's life who took out the insurance. You cannot hope to benefit from that insurance policy.
We are not exploring completely new ground. This ground has been covered in the law of contract, the law of insurance and the law of wills. Now we are into the law of political crime. It is murder, justified basically for political ends.
There is something rather unfortunate in this Parliament. We all know that the chance of any Private Members' Bill even to move through this stage and into committee is very slight. Quite frankly, this Bill, regardless of differences or how far it may go, whether or not it is perfect, should have a restriction in it. The Bill wants to restrict "the criminal" from
Criminal Code
profiting from a crime. In committee 1 would say at least we could restrict that to "the murderer". Surely that is an issue because of some of the things that have been said.
The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) mentioned that there are different questions of philosophy. Is it really a restriction of freedom of speech? Does it really take away a right? Does a person have a right to profit from his work when, in effect, the basis of that work is a killing? We are talking about the undue exploitation of a murder for profit. We are not talking about someone writing about the rights or wrongs of the Cruise missile or debating a political question about the importation of hash. We are talking about someone who has committed a murder, who then sensationalizes it, uses the power of television, and because capital punishment has been abolished he can profit.
Earlier I have asked that this issue be made the subject of a white paper. It should be an issue that is referred to the Law Reform Commission. Perhaps it should be a matter for a federal-provincial conference of Attorneys General.
There is a man named Olson. Thank God he is incarcerated somewhere in this land. Let us hope he remains incarcerated. He is trying to twist things around so that he can benefit in a peculiar way from the evil he has done. He has already earned too many dollars from it as far as I am concerned.
There are ways the federal Government can move today to prevent this kind of profit. As the Hon. Member for Crowfoot said, the Income Tax Act can be used. You can tax at the rate of 100 per cent. You can make sure there is a restriction put on a person's discharge to the effect that when released that person is not able to publish any works.
It can also be done with an amendment to the copyright law. We all know that the Provinces can also pass laws under the provincial law of property and civil rights to deal with these matters within their domain. There can be a compensation fund for the families of victims of the killer. The profits of the crime, through the authoring of a book by the killer, can be confiscated and put into the compensation fund, which would then go to the victims of the crime.
It is not beyond the House at least to move this Bill into committee so that it can hear the views of the philosophers, the Attorneys General and the public. This Parliament would be enhanced if it charged the committee with this subject.
It is a poor reflection on this House when we see that not one law similar to this in the United States has been challenged by their Supreme Court in respect to freedom of speech. The Americans have had a Bill of Rights much longer than we have. It is their first amendment. I am informed that there are presently 28 States in the United States that have the type of law that is basically incorporated in Bill C-664 which was introduced by the Member of Crowfoot.
I urge that this matter be sent to committee so that all the issues can be canvassed in a meaningful way. This Bill should

February 9, 1983
Criminal Code
at least get into committee because, quite frankly, it will not be dealt with in any other way with all of the difficulties in federal-provincial conferences, with all the difficulties and pressures on the present Solicitor General. Unless we get this Bill to committee so it may be aired publicly, it will be an issue that will come back to haunt us again in Parliament in view of what is happening in the country. We will be doing a disservice to the country if we do not move this Bill to committee today.
I would be interested in restricting the provisions of the Bill in committee and eliminating the five-year provision. I am more concerned with the fundamental issue. I am talking about killers who have blood on their hands. Whether they try to justify it for political reasons or any other reason, they cannot justify it on the basic law that we all try to live by. If they have laws of chancery in England that are 200 or 300 years old which state that one cannot profit if one has dirty hands, at least this House should take one step forward and agree that the person with blood on his hands will not profit from any publication about an odious act.


Mr. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, one can understand the motives and the concerns of the Hon. Member opposite in bringing forth his Bill. 1 imagine that all Members of the House would share his basic concerns that a criminal not profit from his or her crime. However, as the Hon. Members for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) and Broad-view-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) have already noted, we must take into account a number of factors, such as the constitutional jurisdiction of Parliament to enact legislation of the kind envisaged in Bill C-664. Serious consideration would also have to be given to the implications concerning the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In addition, questions would arise about the practical effect that any action might have on the specific cases which have given rise to the real public concern so apparent at the present time.
Having noted such considerations, 1 should like briefly to turn to specific provisions of the Bill which give some concern. First, the provisions cast a broad net with respect to the category of convicted persons who would be brought within its terms. Similarly, it creates a broad definition for the kind of activities that are engaged in by those who would be affected by this legislation. Such individuals would be all those who have been "convicted of an indictable offence punishable by imprisonment for five years or more".
I wonder whether the Hon. Member is aware of the fact that the Criminal Code alone contains more than 200 offences falling into the category just mentioned. Many of these offences are, indeed, most serious, but 1 question whether the Hon. Member really intends that anyone convicted of-to pick a few random examples-defacing a mark on a piece of drift timber, neglecting to obtain assistance during childbirth, making a false statement in an extrajudicial proceeding, committing fraud upon the Government, committing assault causing bodily harm, or corruptly taking a reward for the recovery of goods or public mischief, should be subject to the kind of restrictions contemplated in the legislation.
What are those restrictions in practical terms? In effect, a reading of the legislation suggests that anyone convicted of any of the large number of offences contained in the category would thereafter be precluded from ever earning any money, unless a pardon were granted, by means of any kind of public commercial activity related in any general way to publication. The Bill explicitly makes the point that the subject matter of this publication need not bear any relationship whatever to the offence for which the conviction resulted. Thus, a member of the media, a writer or author, anyone active in radio, television, music, motion pictures or academia, who ever had any expectation of deriving a living from public appearances or participation in publications or broadcasts-no matter what the subject of those public appearances, publications or broadcasts-would have those earnings forfeited.
The obvious assumption lying behind this drastic penalty, it seems to me, is that the only possible explanation for such a person being able to derive an income from such activities is the notoriety which he or she derived by virtue of the publicity surrounding conviction for any of the hundreds of eligible offences contemplated in this Bill. This assumption is, to say the least, questionable. For example, an academic publishing a learned work in his or her field of specialization should, unless pardoned, be forced to surrender the earnings derived from that publication simply by virtue of the fact that he or she has been convicted of, say, public mischief.
One could go on to raise a number of other points or concerns with the approach taken in Bill C-664 related to its questionable consitutional validity: its Draconian effect on freedom of expression to the extent that its sponsor feels the need to employ a notwithstanding clause; its apparent retroactivity of effect, so as to apply to someone convicted of any eligible offence even prior to the passage of this Bill, and so on.
I understand that other Hon. Members wish to participate in this debate, so I shall conclude by simply reminding Hon. Members that there are several important issues and principles which must be taken into account in weighing the advisability of the particular approach suggested in this Bill. Whatever one's views as to the desirability of taking some action in respect of the publication of accounts of crimes by their offenders, the approach suggested in this legislation must be unacceptable.
The terms of the Bill are much too broad and Draconian in their effect. It may well be unconstitutional from the perspective of division of powers between the federal Government and the Provinces. It would employ, for the first time in federal legislation, a notwithstanding clause in order to overcome its obvious difficulties regarding the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In effect, it is tantamount to automatic civil forfeiture imposed by law on a particular class of persons. It would deny such persons from earning a living through any kind of public activity, on the basis of a questionable assumption that the only reason such persons would be able to command earnings through such means is the alleged public notoriety that they have gained by virtue of a conviction for any of a broad range of offences.
February 9, 1983

If Parliament is to take action on this important issue which gave rise to the Bill presented by the Member opposite, it should not take this particular action.


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could get an indication from you of how much time 1 have.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Until 4.13 p.m.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, 1 shall be brief. I want to say at the outset that I support wholeheartedly what the Hon. Member is trying to do with this Bill. Like my colleague from Etobicoke North (Mr. MacLaren), 1 believe this Bill is too broad in scope because there are situations where I do not think the penalty suggested by this Bill should apply. For instance, let us take the case of the convicted felon who spends ten years in prison and when he comes out he writes a book about his experiences, including an account of how the crime was committed. Do we then preclude him from making a profit from that work, if in fact he has been rehabilitated and is doing something positive for society?
I would, however, suggest that the Bill covers an important issue today. The Olson case made it an important issue because of the odious nature of that case and because of the odious nature of that individual. I think we should have a law in Canada that would make it impossible for that type of criminal to profit from his crimes.


An Hon. Member:: Let us send the Bill to committee then.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Therefore, if the Hon. Member would just be patient, I would like to suggest that the subject matter only of this Bill be sent to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for consideration and recommendation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I think procedurally I have to put before the House a motion. I believe the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) wanted to propose an amendment which I presume was to be seconded.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: No, I did not
make a motion, Mr. Speaker, but I would if I still had the floor.


Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, 1, too, would like to indicate my support for the objective behind the Bill which the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) has put forward. However, due to the shortcomings of the Bill itself I must speak against it.
The subject matter of today's discussion is one of keen public interest, as a result of some notorious criminal acts that have taken place in Canada in the recent past.
Criminal Code


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I hear some comments on my right. I am not exactly certain what happens but the Chair is obligated, pursuant to Standing Order (24(2), to interrupt the proceedings at this point because the time allotted for Private Members' Public Bills has now past.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe there is a disposition in the House to at least accept the content of Bill C-664. Since the House is an institution that can rule itself by unanimous consent, and since the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) has made the suggestion, may we seek unanimous consent of the House that the subject matter of the Bill go to the relevant standing committee for further study and whatever amendments that that committee so deems necessary? In this way the intent of the Bill will be put in its proper perspective, irrespective of the specific writings therein.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: On the face of the matter, 1 should indicate to the House that the time allotted for the Private Member's Public Bill has expired. In the ordinary course, I think the House would want to be observant of the clock and not permit motions pertaining to the Bill to come in after the time allowed.
There was, however, some comment from the Hon. Member to my right, and I do not know what his intention was. Because I think it is important to ensure that the rights of Hon. Members are respected, if necessary I will hear the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne). If I understood him correctly, he may wish to propose a motion, the effect of which would be that the subject matter of the Bill would be sent to committee.
I must say that from the point of view of the Chair, the time has expired. The only way I can go past that is to seek unanimous consent to determine whether or not the House is prepared to not observe the clock long enough to permit the motion that I described.
I would assume that the Hon. Member for Crowfoot would be pleased to ask the unanimous consent of the House to not see the clock for a couple of moments, for the purpose I have described, but I would have to have unanimous consent in order to proceed in that fashion. Is there unanimous consent to not see the clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: There is not.
Shall all items listed under Private Members' Notices of Motions preceding No. 58 be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

February 9, 1983
Grain


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
Mr. Bill McKnight (Kinderslev-Llovdminster) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of setting the price of Canadian Red Spring Wheat for domestic human consumption at a minimum floor level of $7.00 a bushel without any maximum ceiling price restriction.
Ele said: Mr. Speaker, I already hear comments from the other side saying "you cannot have it both ways". 1 would just like to draw a little bit of background for the motion that I put forward.
This motion first had second reading on July 7, 1980. The background to the motion is tied very closely with a Government Bill, Bill S-6, which basically removes the legal obligation of the present Government to the tune of about $200 million that it owes western producers and which legally became due on July 31, 1980 when the so-called Two-Price Wheat Act was about to expire.
The Two-Price Wheat Act was introduced by the Elon. Otto Lang in 1974 and he stated at that time that the specific purpose of this Bill was to enshrine for a period of seven years a procedure whereby the treasury supplements payments for the domestic consumption of wheat. Mr. Lang did admit that it was in the nature of a consumer subsidy. At no time in this Bill was there any consideration of cost of production and it was to stay in effect for seven years.
Bill S-6, which is the Two-Price Wheat Act, advances the termination due date to November 30, 1978 instead of July 30, 1980, which really obligates the present Government to pay the producer what he has been receiving since December, 1978 directly from the marketplace. Without the passage of Bill S-6 the Government would legally, in effect, owe the farmers $200 million.
When I put forward my motion, the price of grain had been adjusted by the Minister presently responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Senator Argue. It had been adjusted upwards and the maximum for Red Spring Wheat was set at $7 a bushel and the minimum for Red Spring Wheat was set at $5 a bushel. For a bushel of Canadian Amber Durum the price was set at a minimum of $5 and there was no maximum. There was not a cap. This shows that whoever was in charge of the Bill at that time did not understand that it takes the same machinery, the same amount of moisture and the same amount of good luck from mother nature to produce a bushel of Durum Wheat as it does to produce a bushel of Spring Wheat.
On February 4, 1983 the prices received by the producers in the Canadian Wheat Board area were, for 1CWRS in store at Thunder Bay, $5.60 a bushel; for 1 CWRS in store at Vancouver, $6.11 a bushel; 1CWAD in store at Thunder Bay, $5.22 a bushel; and for 1CWAD in store at Vancouver, $5.66 a bushel.
It will be seen that prices have fallen drastically since last year, where they had not exceeded $7 a bushel but were within 23 cents of that price. It has not been the case in the past that the producer receives funds from the Government. It was a subsidy to the consumer at the expense of the producer.
In 1979 action was taken by the Hon. Member for Vegre-ville (Mr. Mazankowski) to obtain Cabinet approval to set the price of grain at a floor level of $6 a bushel, $1 a bushel above the 1980-81 crop year price for domestic grain. As we move along, we see the price of grain dropping and we see the subsidy that has been paid under the two-price wheat system. Payments to consumers between 1973 and 1978 were $396 million, whereas in the period since 1967 the federal Government made payments to producers of only $76 million. That is a difference of $320 million by which grain growers within the Wheat Board area have subsidized consumers of grain in this country.
The problem with the Two-Price Wheat Act is that at present there is no indexing to reflect the cost of production. There has never been specific legislation by which that indexing or cost of production could be placed within the Act. Under Bill S-6, the present Two-Price Wheat Act, there is no method or mechanism to put in the cost of production.
The open-ended freight rates that we as producers in Western Canada are now seeing that will be imposed upon the producers in the Wheat Board area demand that there be some consideration within the Two-Price Wheat Act for the cost of production. The present proposal of the Government is that from the 1982-83 to the 1985-86 crop years, farmers will see the cost of moving their grain increased by 91 per cent. By the way, all this is in a six and five world. The producers of grain will have to pay an additional 91 per cent by the year 1986.
That is not as bad as looking forward to the year 1990 where producers will be paying five times what they are now paying. The railroads will be receiving 1000 per cent more, or ten times the present statutory rate. It bears drawing to the attention of the House that this Government pays someone $800 or $925 a day to study the problems of the economy. I could forward names of people from every walk of life in my riding who would supply that information to the Government without cost. They have been attempting to do so over the last three years, but the Government does not appear to be paying too much attention.
The producers of grain in Western Canada wonder who is here to protect their interests. I would assume that would be the sole responsibility of the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. However, when the announcement was made regarding the change in the statutory rate, the Hon. Senator was in Paris. I am not too sure what he was doing. Maybe he was explaining to the Common Market people that we do not have any subsidies for our farmers in comparison to theirs. I hope that is what he was doing. We found several examples. It makes one wonder who is protecting the interests of the grain producer.
February 9, 1983

The Herd Maintenance Program was originally under the purview of that Minister. It was moved to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and then moved from him to the Minister responsible for PFRA, leaving the cattlemen and grain producers in Western Canada without anyone to carry their burden to Cabinet.
Several questions have been asked by my constituents regarding the same responsibility, who is responsible for the welfare of the grain producer. Corn producers were paid for the embargo on grain sold to the Soviet Union; rapeseed producers were not eligible.
The Minister of Agriculture told us the $80 million plus came out of his budget. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) informed us that it came out of the phantom Western Development Fund. We are not sure where it came from, and we are not sure why it was paid out in the way that it was.
As producers try to feed a hungry world, adding their efforts and labour to something we all want to see in this world-selfsufficiency and everyone going to bed with a full stomach-we see the Government working directly against that. The Government is now asking food producers to pay up to 69 cents a gallon in federal tax on fuel used to produce food in this country. I would like to run through those taxes. There is the excise tax of 7 cents a gallon, the 9 per cent federal sales tax, 15 cents a gallon, the petroleum compensation charge of 18 cents, the Canadian ownership charge of 4 cents, the petroleum revenue gas tax of 7 cents and the corporate tax of 18 cents. This totals 69 cents a gallon. Even with a rebate, it is still 40 per cent of the cost of fuel that goes to the federal Government.
I see from the Chair that my time is coming to an end.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker);: I apologize to the Hon. Member; I misled him. His time will come to an end at 4.37.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The problems that 1 am placing before the House emphasize the need for the price of domestic grain, grain consumed within the country, to be raised to the level of $7. Even looking at the change in statutory rates, the Government has proposed that the grain producers shall carry at their own expense any inflation rate up to 6 per cent. However, I do not see anything in the mechanism in the Two-Price Wheat Act to allow a 6 per cent increase per year, if that is the inflation rate, in the cost to the consumers of Canada.
Who has the ear of the Government? It is hard to dispute what a lot of producers in Western Canada are saying. It is not the producers of grain that this Government listens to but the railroads. For example, in order to get the railroads to invest $806 million in 1983, the Government is offering them over $900 million. That is broken down as follows: $313 million as an interim payment for 1983, $380 million for hopper car purchases and leases, and $278 million for branch line subsidies. That totals $971 million, and it is being given to the railroads to get them to spend $806 million to expand their capacity.
Grain
We have a great deal-I was going to use a word that may not be parliamentary-a great deal of difficulty in placing too much faith in statements made by the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) recently regarding the change in the statutory rate. I want to put something on the record in the hope that someone on the Government side will be able to explain it for my information and the information of those I represent. In Montreal, Quebec the Minister of Agriculture stated:
-that the Crow rate was a major impediment to agricultural development.
That statement was made on February 1, 1983 in announcing the Government's change in the statutory rate. On May 7, 1980, during the Quebec referendum, the Minister of Agriculture said in Sawyerville, Quebec, and I quote:
The 'Crowsnest Rate' and the Feed Freight Assistance Program have reduced the cost of grain shipped into Quebec and thus lowered the cost of producing hogs and poultry here. These subsidies have resulted in benefits for western grain growers, but they have also decreased the natural comparative advantage for livestock production on the Prairies and given assistance to livestock producers in the East.
Also, the 'Crowsnest Rate' has favoured the growth in Quebec of processing plants for meat, flour and vegetable oils since products processed in the West are not eligible for the preferential statutory rate, while the raw products are.
On Saturday, February 5, 1983, there was a full-page advertisement which appeared in Le Devoir, which reads as follows:
The new Crow rate will not favour producers of pork and beef in Western Canada and will not have a negative effect on those industries in the East.
I would like to compare this with the statement on February 1, 1983, on page 18 of the "Western Transportation Initiative-The Policy Decisions". It reads:
The progressive reductions of distortions in the western agricultural economy should also yield significant benefits in terms of increasing processing, livestock production and crop diversification. On the basis of existing analysis, annual Western agricultural production should be $3.5 billion higher by the beginning of the 1990's than if the decisions announced today had not been taken.
What we would like, Mr. Speaker, is an explanation as to where the benefits are; who will benefit from the changes in statutory rates; and where, under Bill S-6, and in the Two-Price Wheat Act, is there any benefit to the producers? Is there any mechanism for increasing, even by the 6 per cent rate of inflation, the cost to the consumers of Canada, because the producers of grain will have to pay in the movement of their product a 6 per cent increase?
It is not unreasonable right now to compare 1972 in constant dollars to 1982, or this present year. The producers of grain in Canada in the Wheat Board areas are receiving the same constant dollar, whereas costs have tripled and quadrupled in many, many cases.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I hope that we will hear from the Government side that they are certainly willing to allow the producers of food in this country to have the same protection which it is giving the railroads and other industries in Canada when it comes to establishing an inflation rate plus on their products.

February 9, 1983
Grain


Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the motion moved by the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight) proposes that the Government should consider the advisability of setting the price of Canadian Red Spring Wheat for domestic human consumption at a minimum floor price of $7 per bushel without any price ceiling. As one who comes from a family which has farmed for 25 years in Saskatchewan, I could not agree more with the Hon. Member that farmers should receive a better return for the wheat they produce, whether that wheat is sold on the domestic market or on the export market. We all know that the price of equipment and parts is skyrocketing. The price of fuels and fertilizer keeps increasing. Therefore, it is only natural for the farmer to expect a greater return on his investment and his labour. However, the fact of the matter remains, Mr. Speaker, that Canada is not a country which exists in a cocoon. It is not a country covered by a dome, which is not influenced by outside forces. Canada cannot consume everything it produces. If it could, we might be able to accept the Hon. Member's motion.
The volume of production around the world will affect export prices, which will in turn affect domestic prices. If the Canadian miller has to pay $9 for his wheat on the domestic market-because the Hon. Member does not want a ceiling on this domestic price-but can buy it for $6 across the border in the United States, as a good business person he naturally will buy it in the United States. Why should the Canadian consumer be the one to be penalized, the miller, the baker, and finally the person on a fixed income living under the poverty line who has to buy that loaf of bread?
The two-price wheat program was implemented to protect both the producers and the consumers, not just the producers. The Hon. Member's motion would not achieve this balanced protection. The program also was implemented to counter short-term fluctuations, not long-term trends.
On the side of just the producer-support programs, I believe that the record of measures and policies which have been put in place by the federal Government demonstrate its commitment to obtaining a fair return for grain producers. The initial payments established each crop year for wheat sales to the Canadian Wheat Board set a minimum which producers can expect to achieve upon delivery of wheat to the primary elevator. Furthermore, these are established with a view to allowing the producer to receive as much as possible of his anticipated returns when he markets his grain. These payments are, of course, guaranteed by the federal Government.
The Western Grain Stabilization Program is intended to protect producers against sharp unexpected drops in net cash flow from sales of major grains produced in the prairie Provinces. One factor which can result in a reduction is, of course, lower grain prices, thus, the Program does provide a measure of protection against declining prices. The level of protection under the Western Grain Stabilization Program has been increased as of January, 1983, with an increase to $60,000 in the maximum level of eligibility per participant. This is up from the $45,000 ceiling which was in effect for the last few years. This change brings the Program closer to its objective of covering 90 per cent of eligible grain receipts in Western
Canada. The federal Government is paying more than $100 million annually to support the Program, and at present contributes $2 for every $1 of producer levy into the stabilization fund. The decision to increase the ceiling to $60,000 on grain receipts for individual producers is a firm indication of the concern of the Government of Canada that producer incomes be protected in these times of rising costs and low grain prices.
The Western Grain Stabilization Program also provides protection against factors such as reduced marketings of wheat. While expectations for the coming year are for continued strong exports of Canadian grain, there may be occasions when exports could fall in a particular year. This would be reflected in lower sales of wheat even though domestic requirements would not have changed.
There are other programs which protect producers' income such as crop insurance which ensures that a producer's costs of production are covered in the event that yields are adversely affected by weather conditions or disease. The Prairie Grain Advance Payments Program is another mechanism which assists producers with cash flow problems during times when producers are waiting for delivery opportunities to open up. The cash advance program has been utilized by increasing numbers of producers in recent years. These advances are interest-free as the interest costs are borne by the federal Government.
Government must, of course, be receptive to changes in policies and programs to meet the needs of agricultural community and society in general. There has been considerable interest in the quantity of grain exports which Canada will be able to realize in the coming years. One target which has frequently been quoted is that Canada's aim is for total grains and oilseed exports of 30 million tonnes by 1985. The Canadian Wheat Board developed this target, which includes 20 million tonnes of wheat and 10 million tonnes of feed grains, based on a projection of world trade by 1985 of 85 million tonnes of wheat and 94 million tonnes of coarse grains. Canada's share of world wheat and flour exports in 1981-82 was 18.6 per cent compared to 17.3 per cent in 1980-81. Improvements in the grain handling and transportation system and sustained marketing efforts have enabled Canada to maintain its traditional role in world grain markets where conditions are becoming increasingly competitive. Total Canadian wheat production in 1982 reached a new record of 27 million tonnes, following the previous record production of 24.8 million tonnes in 1981. Canadian exports of wheat and flour reached a record 18.4 million tonnes in 1981-82 and are expected to be high again in 1982-83. At the current time, wheat exports this crop year are running over one million tonnes higher than at the same time last year.
Over the longer term, the underlying world demand trend of the early seventies is expected to re-emerge notwithstanding current severe problems in the balance of supply and demand.
February 9, 1983

During the 1980s, the world agriculture situation is expected to see growing commodity demand. Grain will be among those commodities in demand as world population and incomes rise and as new uses for grains such as feedstock for energy and sweetener production are exploited. As incomes rise, the tendency is for people to consume more meat, poultry, and dairy by-products which, in turn, pushes up demand for grain. This demand pressure was experienced in the three years from 1979 through early 1981 when, even though world production was at record levels, world consumption exceeded production and stocks declined as a result. In 1981 and 1982 major grain producers were able to respond to the higher levels of world demand by expanding production. This was particularly true in North America.
United States wheat production in 1981 was 76.0 million tonnes compared to 64.6 million tonnes in 1980. This same high level of wheat production was maintained in 1982 when production was 76.5 million tonnes. In 1981 Australian wheat production was 16.4 million tonnes compared to 10.9 million tonnes in 1980; but as we all know, 1982 brought drought to Australia and wheat production was only about 8.6 million tonnes. In Argentina, on the other hand, 1981 production of
8.0	million tonnes was similar to the previous year, but in 1982 wheat production increased to 11.5 million tonnes. While increased production can be achieved, and will undoubtedly occur to meet longer-term demand, it is unlikely that world production and consumption will grow at the same rate in total or at the same rate in the various countries or regions of the world.
The result of different rates of increase in world demand and consumption will be temporary world grain surpluses such as exist at the present time. Over the longer term there should be increased opportunities for trade. This is of particular interest to Canada as a major exporter as evidenced by the Government's commitment to expanding transportation capacity to meet future export possibilities. It is necessary to continue to have a positive and constructive approach to the future of world grain trade even in a period such as the present when temporary surpluses are leading some exporters to become aggressive in competing for markets.
In a 1980 study produced in the U.S.A. of future demand for grain, entitled "Global 2000 Report to the President", the forces that will push up demand for grain during the remaining years of this century were described as follows: a) there will be a 50 per cent increase in world population from about four billion people to 6.35 billion by year 2000; b) the use of arable land will increase by only 4 per cent, so that increased production will be mainly a factor of higher yields which will be dependent on greater use of energy; c) the growth in population is not expected to slow down by the year 2000; d) there will be a greater concentration of population in urban centres; e) per capita consumption of wheat is expected to rise, but this will be closely related to increases in income. There are undoubtedly reservations to be attached to this scenario. Even so, all of these factors suggest strong demand for wheat with accompanying strong prices, and the study, in fact, suggested that the real price of food is expected to increase dramatically by about 95 per cent.
Grain
The poor world economic situation as well as the rapid production response by grain exporters in 1981-1982 has temporarily prevented these forecasts from becoming reality. The last year to 18 months have, instead, seen depressed world grain prices and the build-up of grain stocks, particularly in the United States. The thrust of the United States now is to reduce grain stocks by cutting back production, and to become more aggressive in export markets by subsidizing exports. While some of these measures may assist in reducing the large carry-overs in that country, the impact of certain elements, such as subsidized credit on producer incomes, is by no means positive in the short term.
World production growth is still expected. A recovery in world economic conditions can be anticipated. The "Global 2000" factors suggesting stronger demand and prices are likely to become relevant at some point during the remainder of this decade. Stable grain prices for Canadian consumers are important to producers. During the last three crop years, only two export markets, the U.S.S.R. and the People's Republic of China, have accounted for a larger volume of wheat than the domestic market. This demonstrates the importance of the domestic market to total wheat sales. Prices have a direct impact on per capita consumption of wheat products and, in turn, on wheat consumption. The domestic market accounts for the major proportion of sales, of flour produced in Canada. Approximately 75 per cent of flour produced by mills in Canada is sold in Canada. The quantity of wheat used by the flour milling industry averaged 2.4 million tonnes during the last two crop years. If that amount of wheat is valued at the current domestic price of $204.65 per tonne, $5.57 per bushel, basis in store Thunder Bay, then these domestic sales are contributing approximately $490 million to revenue from the sale of wheat.
The level of per capita consumption of flour is a key factor in the total domestic utilization of wheat. Between 1974 and 1978 inclusive, per capita consumption of wheat flour averaged 134.36 pounds, with the lowest in any of those years at 131.86 pounds in 1977. However, in 1979, after the price of wheat had been allowed to rise from the fixed price of $3.25 per bushel which was in effect from September 1973 to November 30, 1978, the per capita consumption of wheat flour dropped to only 124.88 pounds, although it must be acknowledged that wheat prices are not the only factor affecting consumer prices for wheat products.
The proposal by the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloyd-minster to increase the minimum domestic price to $7 per bushel, $257.21 per tonne, would have adverse consequences for domestic utilization of wheat in Canada. There is a significant two-way trade between Canada and the United States in products manufactured from wheat such as bread and bakery products. Although Canada enjoys a surplus in this trade there have, in the last year, been increasing reports of companies importing products from the United States. Increasing the minimum domestic price of wheat to $7 per bushel would be
22672

February 9, 1983
Grain
an incentive for sharply increased imports of bread and bakery products and could result in loss of Canada's exports of bread and bakery products. Although one method of dealing with the problem of increasing imports would be order controls, that type of measure would likely lead to retaliation, with the result that Canadian industry would lose existing markets.
Therefore, it is vitally important that the Government avoid policies or programs which would make Canadian industry less competitive in world markets. In view of the expectation that grain and wheat prices are likely to be trending upwards over the longer term and considering the domestic market is a large and important market for Canadian wheat, the decision has to be made between, a) exploiting the domestic market to the maximum extent possible, and b) providing that market with supplies at a reasonable price that will foster the long run growth and stability of the domestic market. I would contend that the domestic market should be supplied in a manner which will promote growth and stability.
In making the comments that I have made I want to emphasize that I am not trying to diminish the concern which we all must have with the low prices currently faced by wheat producers. But I would urge the Hon. Member to seek constructive and positive solutions which take into account the broader international aspects rather than treating the domestic market in isolation from the world wheat market.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that I should follow the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis) as we share the same background. He grew up just 15 or 20 miles from where I did, but when he was in his teens he left with his family to go and live in the Toronto area. I think that may help explain some of the arguments he has offered today. It is too had that he does not seem to pay heed to the economic history that created the circumstances that forced us to live so far apart after having started out in the same area.
He seems to have ignored the theory behind the two-price system for wheat, or for any agricultural product. It was the lack of that kind of two-price system that forced many families, like his, to leave Saskatchewan in the early 1950s. During the thirties a lot of people shifted within the prairies, but in the early 50s, the price decline forced a great many farm people to move away from the region.
About 1949 or 1950, when I was a young boy, I went to my first farm organization meeting with my father, who was active in local organizations. At that time a two-price system for wheat was discussed. The theory was very simple and had been tried in a number of countries. But in this country it was applied for seven years. It has a great deal to offer to agriculture.
The theory is that in agriculture, stability is what keeps farmers on the land, keeps them producing, keeps the farm for the next generation, provides the income necessary to keep the local rural communities alive and provides a foundation for the economy of the country. No country survives long without a strong agricultural industry. It produces the most basic
requirements for human existence. It is even more important than sex, housing or warmth. Food is the basic requirement.
Farmers attempt to make the top four to six inches of soil produce food. The most basic components of our culture and our society depend on four to six inches of soil and the fact that we sometimes get rain.
People in the industrialized economies who attempt to make that four or six inches of soil produce when it does rain, are working against the violent fluctuations in price and markets, the violent fluctuations in weather, and the plagues of grasshoppers, locusts, fungi and other pests that attack plants.
In many countries, farmers have been seeking to implement a firm, two-price protection for their products, and in some places they have succeeded. The theory is straight-forward. For products consumed within the domestic market area, a price level will be guaranteed which will cover the cost of production at a level consistent with the labour incomes of other sectors of the domestic economy, and the world price will obtain for the balance or surplus of production.
On the average grain farm in western Canada, production costs for bread wheat run between $6.50 and $7 per bushel. There is some variation according to the size of the farm, and the cost of production varies according to the input cost.
A great many city people are under the impression that all you need in order to grow wheat is a combination of soil, rain and sunshine. In order to produce grain these days there must be an outlay of money for fertilizer and fuel. These costs have more than doubled in the last seven or eight years, and the cost of farm chemicals follows the same pattern.
The two-price system that is needed to provide some semblance of stability in agriculture in this country, would set a floor price which follows the cost of production. The Hon. Member who just spoke outlined the short-lived two-price system brought in by the Hon. Otto Lang when he was in charge of transport, the Wheat Board and everything else in western Canada. There was a floor price and a ceiling price. In 1973-74, that had the effect of providing a consumer subsidy simply because the world price of wheat exceeded the ceiling. Farmers were providing wheat to the domestic market at a price lower than they could have received on the international market. That was a short-term rather than a long-term program.
The proposal before us today does not contain a ceiling price. I suppose that is because of our most recent experience with ceilings. The Lang two-price system had the effect of actually reducing the income of farmers for a good deal of the time it was in effect.
I should like to deal with an alternate proposal later, Mr. Speaker. The idea behind a floor and a ceiling price is to provide protection to producers during the years when the export price is low. It means that some part of the market will provide a return consistent with what other workers take home. It is protection for only a small part of the producer's return, however, that part sold within this country. That is fair.
February 9, 1983

A ceiling provides protection for consumers during times when the world price exceeds the price that would normally be expected to be paid in Canada for flour and bread.
The reason that farmers have always approved of the two-price system is the stability which it provides. The Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight) should be lauded for introducing the idea to the House once again. I think a ceiling would make it more fair, but I have no objection to the $7 floor price. As 1 pointed out earlier, it compares very favourably with the current production cost of producing a bushel of Red Spring Wheat.
1 am somewhat disturbed that the Conservatives have seen fit to bring forward a grain policy designed to provide some stability to farmers because the activities of Tories in the field of agricultural stabilization were not that good. It is laudable that stability is being touted for Red Spring Wheat, but we should remember what happened in terms of stability for feed grain. The same Party, along with later assistance from the Liberals, took away stability for feed grain pricing which farmers had years ago when feed grain was sold under the aegis of the Canadian Wheat Board. Under the Diefenbaker Government, when the Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) was Minister of Agriculture, feed grains were taken away from the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board. The stability which farmers used to have in the form of an initial price guaranteed by Government was taken away, and feed grain prices slumped considerably. The market for feed grain is much bigger in Canada than the market for Red Spring Wheat. It was left to the open market to decide the price, and generally the price has been below the initial price offered by the Canadian Wheat Board, and there would be a much greater undermining of the Canadian grain trade by the Conservative Party. Then it was taken up by the Liberal Party under Otto Lang when he was in charge of the Wheat Board. He not only agreed with the policy of keeping feed grains away from the Canadian Wheat Board where producers would get a fair price, but he enlarged the activities on the open market to make it apply right across Canada. This brought back the kind of market institutions which assisted in creating the economic violence to which prairie farmers were subjected during the 1930s, with the limits of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange and its open-market pricing activities.
In the remaining few minutes left to me I would like to point out the stand my Party takes with regard to the two-price system and feed grains. We say that the floor price should be set at the cost of production, which is currently somewhere in the neighbourhood of $6.50 to $7 per bushel. Also we say that it should have a ceiling that would allow a range of one-third more than the floor. For example, if the rate is $6, it would mean that the range would be $2, or a third of $6 to $8. However, if the costs of production continued to rise and the floor became $9, the range would be $3, or a third of $9 to a ceiling of $12.
Grain
In terms of increasing stability to grain farmers in western Canada, we say that feed grains should be returned to the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board so that feed grain producers would have a floor or an initial price and the guarantee of that initial price to fall back on. It is very important in maintaining stability to the agricultural community that the guarantees offered by the federal Government in 1897 and again in 1925, 1926 and 1927 under the statutory Crow rates be continued so that the agricultural sector, not only in western Canada but also in Quebec, the Maritime Provinces and British Columbia, would not be disrupted any further.
Stability and guarantees keep agricultural producers alive and prosperous. They provide incomes to rural communities and jobs in transportation, in manufacturing, food processing, retailing and wholesaling. Those aspects of agriculture account for between 25 per cent and 30 per cent of the employed people in Canada. Some politicians take great notice of the fact that less than 5 per cent of the voting public are farmers, but they forget the other 20 per cent to 25 per cent who rely on agriculture as their basic means of employment. We in the House must remind ourselves of the importance of stability at the farm level to the rest of the elements in the food chain.
It is very important that this kind of proposal be carried through the House and that a two-price system be reinstated. This particular proposal is not for a two-price system. It is simply for a floor price to be set, but I think the idea should be kept alive. We would support a genuine two-price system with the kinds of guarantees I have outlined today.


Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise and support the motion of the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight) for increasing the floor price of wheat to $7 per bushel. The importance of the motion can only be realized by farmers, especially if we consider the increased costs they now face. We are all aware of the boom or bust cycles farmers have been forced to go through. If we look at the increased costs of farmers at this time, we find that the costs of production have risen approximately 25 per cent over last year, while the price of wheat on the world market has fallen in the neighbourhood of $1 per bushel. This is why the motion is so important. Perhaps there has never been a time in the history of farming when it was more important than today. In addition, farmers are faced with the new proposals of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) which increase freight rates. This will have a significant impact upon the welfare of farmers and the whole area of the pricing of wheat.
As well as the domestic price, one must be well aware that the international price or the world price has fallen very significantly. Also there is a large wheat glut in the United States; there is a large supply of corn in that country. The European Common Market is challenging the Canadian market to some extent. The United States subsidizes its farmers. Some indications are that the figure is $2 per bushel, but European subsidies are even greater. France is now putting into the international marketplace almost as much wheat as

February 9, 1983
Grain
Canada. When one looks at these areas, one realizes that the matter certainly presents quite a challenge. Therefore, the motion put forward by my colleague is an important solution to some of the problems that we may face.
Let me refer to the LIFT years in farming and agriculture. Particularly in western Canada, although I am sure the situation relates to agriculture all across Canada, we find that the Otto Lang years of western grain farming when the LIFT program had to be brought in put farmers out of production. The repercussions from that were significant to the whole nation. I want to suggest to the House and to all Canadians that it is important to have stability in the agricultural economy of this country, and it is vital we take positive measures. The Progressive Conservative Party is trying to do that in this House today by presenting this motion for a stable floor price on wheat at $7 a bushel. This price is within the region of possibility for farmers to meet the cost of production and stay in business.
From 1930 to the present date I do not believe you will find a time as critical as the one that we will face in the immediate future. The increased freight rates alone will challenge the farmer's ability to compete in the international marketplace. The cost of production, as I alluded to earlier, will be significant. Just one spectrum of that is the increased cost of fuel. Farmers pay in the neighbourhood of 62 cents to 70 cents on a gallon in federal tax. For example, if a farmer uses 10,000 gallons of gasoline or diesel fuel, and that farmer would be operating a medium-sized farm, the tax on that fuel amounts to approximately $6,000. That amount of money would move a lot of grain. It is important that the Government, the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) take a good, hard look at their farm policy as it relates to the domestic grain price and also as it relates to freight rates.
Let me suggest to the House and to the people of Canada that the farmers cannot afford the extravagant increases put forward by the Minister in Winnipeg in the last few days. We simply cannot stand it. There is absolutely no guarantee that farmers' interests would be protected in the policy put forward by the Minister in Winnipeg last week. However, the railroads have their hands in the farmers' pockets and in the Treasury of the country, and through subsidies amounting to $600 million plus from the federal Government they are guaranteed a pretty rich program. In addition to that, hopper cars were made available by provincial Governments, by the Canadian Wheat Board and by the federal Government, a very rich program for the railroads.
This only brings attention to the significance of the whole problem we face and which we are addressing here today, namely, that of the floor price of grain.
I want to return to a subject I alluded to earlier. It is significant to the whole agricultural program and to the business of growing wheat particularly. I am speaking of the
international marketplace. If it has ever been important to have an international wheat agreement, it is today. We are facing the time when subsidies by governments around the world will cause farmers problems. I want to suggest to the Government and to the Ministers in charge, and I made mention of this to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in a question, that because of the lack of representation in the House there was not a clear understanding of the situation existing in the wheat growing areas of western Canada. The Prime Minister made the statement that we did not represent western Canada, that the Liberals represented western Canada. I think that statement could be challenged to some extent. However, I certainly challenge the Government to look at the facts and to look at the statement put forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster that we should examine the floor price to see if it would not be fair to adopt the motion put forward. This would give farmers a base to work from and a guaranteed price of $7 a bushel upon which they could depend and which would be reasonable.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 24(2), it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Is there unanimous consent that all items preceding No. 467 be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


CRIMINAL CODE CANADA EVIDENCE ACT
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe) moved: that Bill C-667, to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act in respect of computer crime be read the second time and be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Members of the House who had the opportunity to read the decision recently issued by the CRTC on the issue of content quotas in broadcasting will have noted the dissenting opinion given by Commissioners Grace and Gagnon. In that dissenting opinion, those two Commissioners pointed out that they felt the CRTC had not kept grips on modern technology in its attempt to apply the law.
That is just one instance where the law as it stands today has been bypassed by modern technology. There are many others. The whole of the communications field is an area where technology is moving very fast. Often statute law has not kept pace. Indeed, you would find, if you were to discuss the matter
February 9, 1983

with Members of Parliament, that knowledge of the issues is not very deep, that an understanding of the implications of the direction in which we are moving often is not very great. The Government's ability to make up its own mind as to the direction in which we should be going to ensure the maximum benefits from new technology and in order to ensure that we do not run into problems as new technologies develop is very much handicapped at the present time.
What we find is that in instance after instance the Government defers taking decisions and leaves Canadians in a position where they are unprotected and where the law is simply not adequate to deal with advances in new technology. What we find is that Government is not good at anticipating new problems coming along and putting legislation in place in a moment of calm when people are able to debate dispassionately a situation that may occur in the future. What generally happens is that after a crisis occurs or after there is an emergency which generates a good deal of public attention we find that the Government overreacts and brings in legislation that is far too sweeping and Draconian as a result of the temporary conditions created.
The recent fiasco over Crown Trust is a case in point. It took a threat to the security of the holdings of people who have investments in Canadian trust companies as well as considerable public concern before the Government was prepared to make amendments to improve the security for those people with investments in those companies. If we had recognized the potential problems that would exist, we would have served Canadians much better.
Nowhere is this problem more acute than in the field of computer crime. We have a situation where the law as it stands in Canada today is simply inadequate, as it is in the United States. Technology has simply rendered the Criminal Code irrelevant. Cases have already been demonstrated in the courts that the law as it stands today is simply not up to scratch with modern technology.
It is essential that Parliament act before it is too late, and there are more serious incidents which could jeopardize the security of Canadians in terms of personal privacy or which could result in the loss of proprietary rights of individuals which could cost literally millions of dollars to Canadian businesses and individuals. That is why I think it is essential for us to act today and do so in a moment of calm and with deliberation. I think it is essential that the Government itself be prepared to allow the Bill to go to second reading, to let it go to committee, to let witnesses who are expert in this field and are concerned with the whole field of computer crime be called. Let Parliament itself hold these hearings so that a consensus can be developed within Parliament and within the community that deals with computers as to what the best course of action is to take. The Government can then introduce its own legislation consistent with the recommendations of Parliament, and let us pass it speedily. The stalling must stop. The indecision must stop. The onus is on Parliament to act today.
Computer Crime
To put things in some perspective, some experts have estimated that losses due to computer crime are as high as $20 million a year in Canada and $5 billion in the United States. In 1981, it was estimated that approximately one out of every ten EBP installations was subjected to computer crime.
An example of the vulnerability of computer systems is the Data Encryption Standard which is used to code and scramble confidential data in the United States. The DES is the only technique that has the approval of the National Security Agency, and yet, ever since its development in the early 1970s, experts have been arguing that its codes can be broken by anyone familiar enough with computers who was willing to take the time to devise the right program. To put the complexity of this program into perspective, let us describe it. The DES program involves scrambling all the pulses of a digital electronic message 16 times, transcribing this to the receiver, who must reverse the 16 scrambles. This is the type of sophisticated coding that experts say can be broken.
For Canadian businesses and Government, the computer has come to play a central role, and within the years to come its predominance will only increase. An ever increasing number of employees will have access to computer terminals accompanied by a growing understanding of their complexities. With the world of teleshopping, telebanking, and so on, advancing closer to our living rooms, and with the use of personal computers dramatically on the rise, even the strongest critics of computer crime legislation must agree that the computer will democratize white collar crime. Well within our lifetimes, school-age children will be capable of operating sophisticated computer programs and equipment. Electronic data processors will be no more novel to them than telephones and televisions are to us in the House of Commons today. Accompanying this familiarity and universality of computers will be a growing potential for computer abuse. That is why it is important that we act now to consider legislation to deal with this abuse.
A good illustration of this is the great Dalton School mystery where a number of Grade eight students from a New York private school attempted to tap into 21 Canada data systems, destroying files of at least two firms. Among the firms attacked, successfully or unsuccessfully, were Bell Canada, Canada Cement, Cable Share Inc., Honeywell, several universities and two federal Government data banks with dial-in access to the data banks. On May 9, 1980, as reported at page 888 of Hansard, I questioned the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) about this matter. At that time, he stated his intention to:
-recommend to the Minister of Justice that amendments to the Criminal Code be considered for the purpose of making it clear that any such theft would be a crime under the Criminal Code.
Obviously some Members of the Government recognize the need to close the loopholes in criminal legislation so that there will be legal recourse against this type of crime. Unfortunately, they seem incapable of acting on their intentions.
On February 1, 1979, I asked another question of the President of the Treasury Board when Professor Eric Manning of the University of Waterloo, and an expert in this field, was

February 9, 1983
Computer Crime
present in the gallery. Professor Manning had warned that the Government's safeguards on the networking of computers are so lax that massive invasions of personal privacy would become possible. Perhaps if the Government had taken action then, when the problem of computer theft and unauthorized access became apparent, situations like the Dalton School mystery could have been avoided.
What is most striking about the Dalton School incident is that a group of Grade eight students, operating with a small micro computer in New York City, was able to use the telephone system to break into data banks here in Canada. When this sort of incident occurs, a great deal of discussion takes place about the fact that these children must be computer geniuses. They are not. They were run of the mill students who had no particular expertise that other students did not have. Most important, they were grade eight students.
If data bases here in Canada are vulnerable to that sort of intrusion from grade eight students, then it is time for us to recognize that we have a very serious problem and the Government must act on it.
I want to elaborate briefly on the areas where I believe current federal legislation fails to protect individuals and organizations from computer abuse. Elere the distinction between computers as the object of abuse and computers as an instrument of abuse becomes useful. Where the computer is used as the instrument of crime, there have been successful prosecutions under various provisions of the Criminal Code. As it stands today, it is against the law to commit fraud, to transfer money from someone else's bank account to your own. That can be prosecuted under the Criminal Code as it exists today. There have been a number of instances such as that where prosecutions have been successful. There is concern over how the law applies in the present situation when it comes to the introduction of evidence into the courts and whether it is possible to prove that an offence had taken place and that the individual who was accused was the perpetrator of the offence.
I will say again that there is agreement that the law as it stands today for dealing with fraud or with the computer as an instrument of abuse is generally adequate, with the exemption of law relating to evidence as it stands today. It appears there is serious doubt as to whether it is possible to introduce the sort of evidence that is necessary to prove the crime. Unfortunately, the proof for some instrumentality cases is difficult to obtain. Since the Ontario Court of Appeal held in Regina v. McMullen in 1979 that computer print-outs were only admissible as evidence if they could be proven to be true copies of the original record, a heavy burden has been placed on the prosecution.
In 1981, the evidence task force, established by the federal Justice Department, proposed changes to the Canada Evidence Act which would require a person attempting to enter a document as evidence to prove, first, that the data upon which the print-out is based are of a type regularly supplied to the computer in the regular activities of the business; second, that the entries upon which the print-out is based were made in the regular course of business; and finally, that the computer
program used in producing the print-out reliably and accurately processes the data in the data base.
One problem with this approach is that a computer print-out would still be treated differently from an ordinary manual record, in spite of the fact that these print-outs are not copies of business records but are the original business documents. Often, no other records except the original computer print-out are kept.
Since it appears that existing legislation is sufficient to charge criminals who use a computer as an instrument of a crime, an amendment to the Canada Evidence Act such as the one I have introduced could close any remaining loophole that might allow perpetrators of crimes of this variety to get off. In effect, the amendment would allow computer print-outs to be treated in evidence as originals.
Where the computer is the object of abuse, more serious problems arise because some forms of conduct-like the theft of ideas, software, or computer time-are simply not dealt with in the Criminal Code. These intangibles are not normally considered property in the legal sense. Other crimes like vandalism of hardware or the stealing of computer chips can clearly be prosecuted as criminal offences since something tangible is involved.
Consider the case where a firm has spent millions of dollars on research and development of a new high-tech item. Suppose someone without authority gains access to the computer system and obtains this valuable data. The thief may copy the information or he might steal it outright, leaving no information at all. As things stand now, it would be extremely difficult to prosecute him. Depending upon how the thief obtained the access code and entered the room containing the computer terminal, he might be convicted on a lesser offence, but he is unlikely to be convicted of theft of information.
Last summer, an individual went to court on charges of counselling an employee of a hotel to commit theft, fraud and mischief. The Crown alleged that he had approached the employee last year and offered him money in return for the names, addresses and telephone numbers of the hotel employees in connection with a union organizing drive. The information was contained on a computer print-out to which only senior executives of the hotel had access. In the fall, Mr. Justice Krever concluded that "confidential information is not property for the purpose of the law of theft in Canada". Consequently, currently under our Criminal Code, deprivation must occur in order for a theft to have been committed. Judge Krever stated that, while he had no trouble attributing a notional value to the confidential information, there was no suggestion in this case that the hotel would have ever sold the information. Therefore, they had not been deprived of anything. The accused was found not guilty on all charges.
Another situation for which there is no clear-cut legal sanction is the unauthorized acquisition of computer software. Again, because a program is really nothing more than a set of coded instructions that, when introduced to a computer,
February 9, 1983

processes information, the law does not recognize programs as property which can be stolen. Indeed, many managers and programmers in the computer industries swap programs so regularly that any legal attempt to combat software piracy would be very difficult. This problem has led some to advocate that the best form of protection is for companies to beef up their own security techniques by introducing protective codes.
Another alternative based on self-help is an attempt to bind those with whom one deals under agreements to treat software packages as trade secrets. This option would give an owner recourse in contract against unauthorized disclosures by customers and employees, but does not address the problem of how to deal with parties beyond the limits of the agreement. On the other hand, software is very expensive and shows little sign of falling in price. If software innovation is to continue, I believe some form of legal protection is needed.
The third situation for which no legal recourse appears to exist is the unauthorized use of computer time and services. In the often-quoted Alberta case, Regina v. McLaughlin (1979), two students and part-time employees gained access to a computer without authorization, examined some university data, interfered with the input of data, and acquired confidential passwords of other users. The three were charged with theft of telecommunications services under Section 287 of the Criminal Code. McLaughlin's conviction under this section was subsequently overturned by the Alberta Court of Appeal which found that a computer system was not a telecommunications facility.
Their decision was upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada in July of 1980. In that decision, Mr. Justice Estey stated:
Had Parliament intended to associate penal consequence with the unauthorized operation of a computer, it no doubt would have done so in a section of the Criminal Code or other penal statutes in which the term which is now so permanently embedded in our language is employed.
One of the other students involved was convicted under the mischief provisions of the Criminal Code because a computer shutdown or crash resulted from his unauthorized tampering. It is important to realize, however, that for the mischief provisions to apply, there must be obstruction and interruption of, or interference with, the operation of property. If the crime had been committed without causing the crash or some other tangible damage, the conviction would likely not have been upheld.
Similarly, the theft provision of the Code requires that exclusive possession must be taken of that which is stolen for "theft" to have occurred. If a program is stolen by terminal access, the "original" can remain in possession of the owner and the thief does not acquire exclusive possession. In this way the owner is not deprived "temporarily or absolutely" of his property.
The Department of Justice has been examining the issue of computer crime for quite a number of years now. Every so often we are told that legislation will be introduced "within the next few months". In October of 1980, the Justice Minister announced the Government would be introducing legislation prohibiting the theft of computer time and services, as well as
Computer Crime
the unauthorized alteration or erasure of computer data. Little more was heard at that time on the subject.
In June of 1982, after 1 began to circulate my draft Bill among industry officials, academics, and other interested people, the Department of Justice again revealed that they were studying the area of computer crime and would be introducing a number of amendments in their omnibus Criminal Code Bill relating to the problem.
At that time, officials of the Department indicated it would be October before the Bill would see the light of day in this House. October has since come and gone. The current Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) has recently informed me that he will be introducing a criminal law amendment Bill sometime during the next session of Parliament. Mr. Speaker, if the length of the session of Parliament to date is any indication, no one knows when action will be taken to deal with this very serious problem.
It appears that one of the difficulties that the Department of Justice is encountering is owing to their hesitation to apply ancient property rights to modern information sources. To define information as property raises the fundamental issue of whether or not information should be treated as a protected resource. While I agree that there is a definite need to maintain a balance between the producers of information and the necessity of having information flow freely in society, I believe that theft of information must be dealt with by criminal law.
The importance of the information industry is growing very rapidly in Canada. To ensure that society can take advantage of the benefits of computer technology, it does not seem unreasonable to expect the law to provide producers of information with at least a minimum of legal protection from computer abuse. These companies will be reluctant to invest time and money in research and development if the results of their efforts can be stolen without recourse.
Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) because the Bill that I am introducing today is, to a very great extent, a refinement of legislation that was introduced by him to deal with a situation similar to the McLaughlin case. It is a refinement as well of what appears to be the Government's approach to this particular issue. What I have done is to opt for the ad hoc approach by proposing selective amendments to two acts, the Canada Evidence Act and the Criminal Code.
In general, my Bill proposes three things: first, an amendment to the Canada Evidence Act that would permit computer printouts to be treated in evidence as original documents; second, an amendment ensuring that the theft of computer software and computer data be considered a crime under the Criminal Code; and third, new provisions making misuse, alteration, damage, manipulation, or destruction of computer software or data by unauthorized personnel punishable under the mischief section of the Code.
I will try to conclude my remarks as quickly as possible, Mr. Speaker.

February 9, 1983
Computer Crime
It is my hope that these proposed amendments will, if eventually passed, close the remaining loopholes in the Criminal Code, as well as ensure that people who commit computer crimes in the future are readily prosecuted in accordance with similar rules of evidence in other cases.
As I stated at the outset, we have many instances where technology has vastly outstripped the ability of the law to keep pace with changes. The rights of Canadians are very much in jeopardy here if we do not act today. I think it is essential that the Government not delay any further, and it is essential that it does not defer decisions. I think it is important that Canadians who have an interest in this particular field be given the opportunity to come before a parliamentary committee to state their point of view and to ensure that that is considered before legislation is brought down by the Government. Allowing this Bill to go to committee today would fulfill that purpose. It would also pave the way for the Government to introduce its own legislation and for it to act quickly before there is a serious problem arising from the Government's negligence.


Mr. Al MacBain (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I know that the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan), if he were here this afternoon, would want to pay tribute to the Hon. Member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) for the work he has put into the suggested amendments to the Criminal Code and to the Canada Evidence Act, and for the very thoughtful presentation to which I listened with interest this afternoon. Having said that, I know the Hon. Member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe is concerned about the serious consequences that a poorly drafted or ill thought out Bill could have for individual freedom, the protection of confidential information and the free exchange of information and ideas.
The Hon. Member maintains that his Bill provides a balance, but I question whether that balance is present in the proposed Bill.
Western technological society, having passed through an agricultural and industrial society, is now evolving into a postindustrial society whose basic economy is information based. Information is rapidly taking prominence over raw muscle, power and energy. It is estimated that about one half of Canada's Gross National Product and more than half of the employment of its citizens is related to the production, processing, storage and use of information. This is according to Grant R. Hammond in his article in the 27 McGill Law Journal (1981) at page 48.
There will be two critical challenges to Canadian society in respect of information. The first relates to the ability to devise new legal, economic and social arrangements that will ensure both the creation and the effective and profitable utilization of new information and technology. The second challenges the liberal society to protect its basic political and human values from unwise applications or withdrawals and restrictions of that new knowledge. The fundamental issue is whether information should be treated as a proprietary commodity or as a resource in society or, if both, in what circumstances should the emphasis be, one or the other?
The Hon. Member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe argues that he has maintained a balance as I referred to above, yet looking at his proposal, I see little in the way of balance, but rather a choice of one of a number of competing options. This choice is to treat information as property. I agree that the law must provide producers of information with legal protection. Producers and creators of information, new ideas, technologies, etc. may be reluctant to invest time and money in research and development if the results of their efforts can be freely appropriated by others. The Hon. Member made this point, and I agree with him. However, is the institution of property as defined in Section 2 of the Criminal Code, which the Hon. Member proposes to amend and which has a scope encompassing the entire Criminal Code, the best vehicle for assessing the challenges that I spoke of earlier?
Bill C-667 does not address the issue of circumstances in which the emphasis should be on the property approach as opposed to the resource approach. It wholeheartedly and solely adopts the property approach as an absolute concept. I am not saying that the institution of property may not be an appropriate vehicle. In some circumstances it may. However, it is difficult to conceive that all information in a computer could be property. Some of it may be knowledge that is already public, known and possessed by many in their own minds. Should it automatically become someone's property merely because he puts it into his computer? Why is it not property when it is in my head or in my own filing cabinet? How can it be property and thereby give the owner of the computer the exclusive right to possess it if the information is also possessed in the minds of half the population of Canada?
What if someone else independently creates the same information? Can it be said that this person has no right to possess or use the information so created? What if I access a computer without authority to check to see that personal information concerning myself which I have voluntarily given is correct? Have I committed theft of my own personal data? Bill C-667 might make that a crime. I am not sure. Clearly more study is required in this area.
Why is it only computer information that is proposed to be protected and not other types of non-computer information? What about information stored in filing cabinets, for example? What if someone misappropriates that information without taking the physical file? That does not seem to be addressed. The question is, should it be? Should all types of information be protected or only certain types, such as those to which reasonable efforts are made to maintain its confidentiality?
Maybe the inherent nature or quality of the information is a more crucial criterion than the manner in which it is stored, that is, in a computer or in a filing cabinet. Maybe property concepts are not appropriate for all types of information. This Bill proposes to protect only and all computer information and also to protect it regardless of its nature.
These are just a few of the conceptual difficulties and questions I see which the Bill inadequately addresses in its present form. I say this not in criticism of the efforts of the
February 9, 1983

Hon. Member. His efforts in attempting to tackle this subject are laudable. However, as will become more clear as I proceed, the issues are complex and transcend the issues addressed in this Bill. A more extensive and co-ordinated approach may well be needed.
I know that the Hon. Member has spoken of his concern for the economic necessity of having information flow freely in society. However, I question whether, in fact, by treating all computer information as property, this may create information monopolies which might hinder a free flow of ideas. Does society wish to attach exclusivity to something in a way which it may consider to be publicly useful simply because someone stores the information or idea in a computer?
The statutory monopolies of copyright, patents and trademark laws are based on proprietary concepts of control. If certain conditions are met, the holder of a copyright patent has the right to use that which is copyrighted or patented. However, even here the law has seen the need for a balance and has not granted absolute proprietary rights to copyrighted or patented information or technology.
The monopolies are limited by time, permit use by others for a fee or are lost if they are not used by the holder. Yet Bill C-667 proposes to grant absolute proprietary rights in the criminal law to entities to which even the civil law of property does not grant an absolute proprietary status.
Clearly there is a dilemma between, on one hand, the protection of certain types of information-I say certain because it may not be all types-and, on the other, the need for a free flow of information and ideas. A scholar in this area, Professor R. Grant Hammond, described the two poles of the dilemma as follows:
In the absence of a system of property rights to information, a market economy will probably not produce the optimal output of information. There is no point in encouraging free-rider behaviour: X has no incentive to incur costs in producting something Y then may use at no cost to himself. Thus, if a society does wish to encourage innovation and the generation of an optimal information stock, one functional vehicle it might imply could be an extended system of "private" property rights. But if that approach is adopted, a dilemma is created. There should then not only be a concern about the stock of information, but also about what happens to it. Once a fee or cost of some kind is placed on the use of information to encourage creativity, as it is through the patent and copyright systems, two very real difficulties arise. First, there may be under-usage of information, since the optimal price for a public good is zero. Second, denial of access to information in an information-based economy is clearly an affront to the most fundamental kind of rights: It is nothing less than a form of intellectual and economic subjugation. The potentiality of this situation has not gone unnoticed by Third World countries.
It is entirely possible that Western legal systems have been much too concerned with the creation of a sufficient stock of information and too little concerned with usage and access-
He continues:
It seems clear that sound policy in the field of information creation and dissemination should recognize the dilemma which has been described. The thrust of legal and economic ordering should be to acknowledge that it is better to have the information in the first place than not to have it at all. It has already been recognized in the areas of patent and copyright law that informational and innovational activity are useful to the innovator and creator and, in the long term, to the public. Further, disclosure and efficient usage of this stock of information should be encouraged. This policy is grounded partly in societal concerns: There is a very real danger that an information underclass will be
Computer Crime
created because of the over-zealous use of restrictive property theories. There are also sound economic reasons to support this policy: Research and information generation is expensive; duplication of effort is wasteful; excessive secrecy promotes espionage, and serious diversion of effort occurs every day in industry to find out what competitors are doing.
Thus, should information be considered as a private good, a proprietary commodity, or as a public good, a resource? If both, in what circumstances should the emphasis be on one or the other? These are fundamental questions.
Possibly the criminal law is not the best method to completely resolve the dilemma. Maybe the criminal law is appropriate in some circumstances, but with respect to others, it may not be. Maybe the flexibility of the civil law is more appropriate in some circumstances, and in others, it may not be appropriate. Is there an adequate civil law framework, federal or provincial, which is able to address these issues?
Criminal sanctions and deterrents can only go so far. Are there civil means to, in effect, strip a wrongdoer of any gains made through the misappropriation of someone else's work product? What is the extent of federal protection through the laws of patents, trademarks, copyrights and certain provisions of the anti-combines law? What is the extent of protection in provincial statutes, such as privacy statutes, and so on? Is there in existence an integrated approach or a patchwork quilt? Can we rationally make criminal laws without knowing how they will interact with the civil law in this area? Might not an analysis of how the civil law protects ideas and information reveal approaches which could provide a basis for legal techniques which might be adopted in the criminal law, if the criminal law were to be extended? For example, how successful has the civil law been in attempting to treat information as property? Have better and more successful legal techniques been used in this area of the law? Could these techniques be implemented within a criminal law framework at all? Could an integrated combination of both civil and criminal approaches be the best and most appropriate response to this problem?
Other countries are now beginning to realize the folly of having moved in one direction with respect to information protection without keeping an eye on the other parts of the system. Should we repeat the mistakes of others? Or should we do it right? Canada is attempting to encourage the expansion of innovation and information related industries and services. It is a new technology. There is a new scientific revolution occurring, that of information theory, whose effects may touch not only the economic realm but a vast web of socio-economic relations as well. In an attempt to keep pace with this shift from an industrial world to a new post-industrial, information-based world, our legal thinking in terms of legal institutions and remedies may also need to change. Legal concepts based on an old industrial age society may be inappropriate for a new economic age and its technology. New legal institutions and concepts may have to be developed. For example, new concepts such as the privacy law and access to information laws have

February 9, 1983
Computer Crime
been established in recent years, wherein the past such concepts, let alone actual laws, did not exist. Likewise, new criminal law concepts may be needed, rather than attempting to guide the future with tools of a bygone era. We are faced with a challenge. Let us do it right.
I think it is clear that the issues involved go beyond that of computers, computer abuse and criminal law. Criminal laws may need to be enacted to address the abuses perpetrated to or with computers and their related entities. However, because of the information implications, broader questions must also be asked and an attempt made to answer them within the entire framework of society. We should not juggle a part of an intricately woven and inter-connected economic system without knowing the effects which it may have on other parts of the system, existing institutions and law.
Of course, I am not saying that the Government should not examine this area carefully with a view to introducing a Bill containing amendments addressing the problems of abuse of computer systems. However, realizing the broader implications and the need for integration and consistency, we must also study aspects of the broader question: the use, misuse and abuse of information.
Many American experts in the field of computers are of the opinion that their computer crime statutes have only dealt with half of the issues. We in Canada have an opportunity to address all the issues in a co-ordinated and comprehensive manner. Let us not rush to enact legislation which does not deal with all of the relevant issues. Hon. Members of this House should have the benefit of the most complete information available. In addition to the study just mentioned, the Canadian Government has been consulting with experts in this field, not only in Canada and the United States, but also it has had contact with experts in Europe. Of course, consultations with Canadian associations involved in the computer and information industries are continuing. Let us not proceed prematurely with this Bill. Let us wait, but only for a short time, until this accumulation of knowledge and experience is complete. Let us not consider this Bill now but rather consider its proposals in conjunction with the work previously mentioned.
In conclusion, I do want to thank the Hon. Member for the Bill which he has proposed to the House this afternoon, and for his thoughtful presentation.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since we have not been able to complete the hour for this part of the debate, I would move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Dauphin (Mr. Lewycky), under Standing Order 8(4)(a), that the debate continue so that we can complete the hour.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: May the Chair please have the motion in writing.
Pursuant to Standing Order 8(4)(a), Mr. Althouse, seconded by Mr. Anguish, moved:
That the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of adjournment for the purpose of-
The Hon. Member for Welland (Mr. Parent) rises on a point of order.


Mr. Parent:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to call quorum.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. When the Speaker puts a question to the House, the procedure should not be interrupted. The motion continues:
-continuing consideration of Bill C-667, an Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act in respect of computer crime, on the second reading stage.
Will those Hon. Members who object to the motion please rise in their places?
And fewer than 25 Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The motion is deemed to have been adopted.


Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the seconder of the motion was the Hon. Member for Dauphin (Mr. Lewycky), not myself.
I find some difficulty understanding why the Liberal Party would not want the New Democratic Party's position on the record concerning this very important Private Members' Bill, Bill C-667, introduced by the Hon. Member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty). It raises a very interesting question in an area which has not been given a great deal of attention by this federal Government. It is an Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act in respect of computer crime.
This is an area, Mr. Speaker, where technology has gone far in advance of legislation in Canada. We in the NDP agree with the Bill in that there is a need to update the laws as they relate to computers and the information technology which exists today. Today in Canada we have very little ability to prosecute people who participate in what I think Members of both Opposition Parties would view as criminal activity. I commend the Hon. Member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe for bringing in this Private Member's Bill because it points out a need. I also agree to some extent with the speaker from the Government who said that the Bill does not go far enough. I think there are many areas not covered here, and there are a few basic points which I would like to bring out in the few moments I have.
The proposed legislation would include unauthorized copying of computer information as a form of theft. The Criminal Code definition of property would also be extended expressly to include computer data and software. Other new provisions would make misuse, alteration or destruction of computer programs or information by unauthorized personnel an offence punishable under the mischief section of the Criminal Code. The Canada Evidence Act would be amended so as to permit computer print-outs to be treated as original documents for use as evidence in the courts.
Now, I know Private Members' Bills very rarely pass, Mr. Speaker, but I hope that if this Bill does not pass this afternoon, the Government will take very serious account of the shortcomings of the legislation in place in dealing with the

*

February 9, 1983

whole area of computer technology and abuses in that area. The Hon. Member who introduced the Bill gave a number of examples of great abuses of the system where people go into other data banks, take out information, and the owner of the information has no recourse.
For example, if someone was to go in and destroy a computer disk or computer tape, he could not be prosecuted for the destruction of information, he could only be prosecuted for the actual physical destruction of the tape or disk. I think this is very wrong. In this day and age information is power; it creates wealth for the companies or individuals who assemble the information. That translates into a lot of dollars being involved in computer crime. The Attorneys General of some Provinces estimate there will be some 1,700 cases of computer abuse in Canada this year, and the loss to computer criminals is estimated to be running at some $100 million in North America alone.
This brings up a very interesting question as to who has the right to information and how it should be used. I think that not only provisions under the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act should be looked at, but I also think that copyright legislation should be looked at as well. One who researches and creates information should have access to copyrights, just as an author would have to a book he has written. It is questionable whether anyone who collects, stores and possibly retrieves information should have a proprietary interest in it, or whether it should actually be a public resource. I think that deserves examination by the House of Commons.
Some quite serious crimes have been committed involving computers. There is the case of a bank employee in the United States who transferred some $10.2 million to a Swiss bank account in a matter of a few minutes. This shows that people with an expert knowledge of computers are able to commit fraud by abusing the system anywhere in the world. However, the particular problem here in Canada should be dealt with so that these people can be prosecuted by due process, and there should be legislation in effect to protect people who have invested a lot of money in their computer programs. They should not have to put up with people who have the knowledge and technology enabling them to steal through the use of computers. There are also the employees of firms with access to the computer system. If their employer or the individual who owns the computer aggravates them, they can foul up the system and cause great expense to the individual or company who owns the computer.
I do not want to prolong this debate, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to say in conclusion that computer technology and the wrongdoings which go with it are running way ahead of the law. I think it is now time, either by way of this Private Member's Bill as a beginning, or by Government legislation in the very near future, that the law actually caught up with the state of the art in computer technology.
Computer Crime


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words about Bill C-667 and to commend the Hon. Member for bringing it before the House.
In his remarks the Hon. Member who just spoke-or who read what the Government is supposed to be doing-raised several questions about the legislation, and that is fine. It is one of the purposes of a careful analysis of legislation. I submit, however, that all his questions could be answered adequately in committee.
The subject matter of this Bill is long overdue for debate. The thefts that are taking place in the computer world should not be permitted. It is not fair to prosecute someone for stealing a loaf of bread because he is hungry, and not to amend the Criminal Code so that those who steal thousands of dollars by use of a computer cannot be prosecuted. The Department of Justice has been working on this for months and months. Surely it is not beyond the capacity of legal officers in that Department to bring in a Bill that satisfies the demands of modern society.
The points raised by the Member who spoke for the Government are not arguments against sending the Bill to committee, Mr. Speaker, but, rather, are arguments for sending it there.
I know that the time for debate on this Bill has been extended to 6.18 p.m. I should like to submit that when someone deliberately devises a way of stealing by computer, it causes worry for people who have money in a bank, for instance, where computers are used. Indeed, computers are being used to guard the secrets of our lives, and if someone has access to them because he has found a key to the formula and uses it, that is theft.
Some companies have spent thousands and thousands of dollars to find oil in various parts of Canada and the information is all on computer. Now, someone else can get that information scotfree if they can tune in to the right channel. That is theft, Mr. Speaker, and should be treated as such. If my credit card is stolen the loss is probably about 15 cents, but that card can be used to make purchases worth hundreds of dollars. Liability for the charges incurred was changed in that case, and the same should be done with computers. The trouble is not just with stealing the formula for the computer; the value of the information secured by that means or the money obtained from a bank by the same means is a major consideration.
Mr. Speaker, I move that the Bill be referred to committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I should have that motion in writing.


Mr. Cullen:: Mr. Speaker, I was under the impression that the motion that the Bill be referred had already been made and seconded by someone on the other side.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, the point is well taken. The motion has been put. I move that the question be now put.

February 9, 1983
Computer Crime


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. I apologize to Eton. Members. I was having consultations with the Table officers when the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) was recognized on a point of order. Perhaps he would make his point again for the benefit of the Chair.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I think my point has been agreed to by the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor). When the Bill was introduced at the beginning of Private Members' Hour, a motion was put by the Hon. Member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee. I think that motion has already been made. I was rising to speak on the Bill.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I believe that you have a copy of the motion by now that was moved by my colleague. His motion was that the question be now put.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Is the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) rising on the same point of order?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Yes, Mr. Speaker. A few moments ago the House agreed to a motion to extend the hour of adjournment in order to complete the hour of debate on this Private Member's Bill. The House having agreed to that, I find it a little difficult to understand how, before that hour expired and when another Member was rising to speak on the Bill, we can now consider a motion to adjourn before that hour expires. We had already agreed to-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I thank the Hon. Member for his comments. The motion I have in my hand is quite in order and I shall put it to the House.
Moved by the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) seconded by the Hon. Member for Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley):
That the question be now put.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen).


An Hon. Member:: It is a debatable motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I see a number of Members rising. The motion is debatable; I should inform Hon. Members of that. For this reason I recognize the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure which particular rule we are running afoul of at the present time. I understand that it was suggested by the Hon. Member for Bow River that the time slotted for Private Members' Hour had started at 5.18 p.m. and would go 6.18 p.m. It strikes me that the time for Private Members' Business is over. Perhaps you could rule on
that aspect before I make further comments. I am first trying to find out if we are arguing at cross-purposes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Is the Hon. Member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe rising on the point raised by the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member's argument that Private Members' Hour has expired is tenuous at best and I think he recognizes that. The motion that was moved and agreed to by the House was to extend the sitting of the House until the conclusion of the business before it. The clock cannot run out on a point of order. There is no clock on a point of order. We are currently discussing a point of order on the question that was put prior to 6.18 p.m. by my colleague, namely that the motion be now put. There is no question of the Private Members' Hour having expired on a point of order that was moved to run the clock out on that motion.
I submit that the appropriate step to be taken at this time would be to put the motion and to have a vote on it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I will recognize Hon. Members who wish to contribute to the point of order. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacBain).


Arthur Allister MacBain: Mr. Speaker, I submit that the House as now constituted does not have the authority to extend Private Members' Hour. It may be that the House is still in session, but I am submitting that the House does not have the right to extend Private Members' Hour without consent, and that consent is not forthcoming.


Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, at the time you were seized of the motion to put the question immediately and related it to the House, as long as it was before the time limit expired and the hours were extended, surely that is the point of time in question. If the Chair is seized of it before the time expires, surely it is the duty of the Chair to call the vote.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. Perhaps the Chair could clarify a number of points which have been made in the course of this exchange. The motion presented by the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) was in order, and under Standing Order 36(1 )(b) that is a motion concerning the previous question. I refer Hon. Members to Beau-chesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fifth edition, page 157, Citation 452 which reads:
The previous question is moved when the original question is under debate in order to force a direct vote on it, thereby preventing any amendments to the original question to be proposed. The form of the motion is "That the question be now put." Once it is proposed, the debate may be continued on the original question.
It was in accordance with this precedent that the Chair recognized the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen), so the debate continues.
February 9, 1983

Also I inform Elon. Members that the motion put earlier to extend the sitting did not contain a time limit and therefore the session continues indefinitely. I hope Hon. Members understand this. Of course the House by agreement, by unanimous consent, may want at this stage or at a later stage to show some agreement for a time of adjournment; but it is not for the Chair to suggest or impose an adjournment time on Hon. Members.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, 1 have one more question. 1 am sure you are appreciating or enjoying this as much as I am. I was under the impression when I raised the question earlier that there was a conflict here. In other words, there is a rule which makes provision for the Private Members' Hour. 1 wonder if that would terminate Private Members' Business. It may very well be that we go on to other business, but as far as Private Members' hour is concerned, I thought the rules specifically indicated that there was a time frame within which it could not go beyond the one hour. It does not necessarily have to go an hour, but not beyond the one hour. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if you could help me on that point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I refer Hon. Members to the Permanent and Provisional Standing Orders under which we are now operating. Standing Order 8(4) reads in its entirety as follows:
(a)	When the Speaker is in the chair, a Member may propose a motion, without notice, to continue a sitting through a lunch or dinner hour or beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the purpose of considering a specified item of business or a stage or stages thereof subject to the following conditions:
(i)	The motion must relate to the business then being considered provided that
proceedings in any Committee of the Whole-
(ii)	The motion must be proposed in the hour preceding the time at which the
business under consideration should be interrupted by a lunch or dinner hour,
Private Members' Hour or the ordinary time of daily adjournment.
(iii)	The motion shall not be subject to debate or amendment.
(b)	In putting the question on such motion, the Speaker shall ask those Members who object to rise in their places. If 25 or more Members then rise, the motion shall be deemed to have been withdrawn, otherwise, the motion shall have been adopted.
The Standing Orders provide for debate of not more than one hour on Private Members' Motions or Bills. Of course it could be less; that is for the House to decide. At this stage we are subjected to the provisions of Standing Order 8(4)(a), and it is the Chair's interpretation from the guidance it has received that the debate continues until Hon. Members decide that they wish to adjourn.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I did not mean to stand before you were seated, but I have a point of clarification, a point of order or whatever you wish to call it. If we continue to read Beau-chesne's, it indicates:
If the previous question be carried, the Speaker will immediately put the question without further debate. But, if the previous question is resolved in the negative, then the Speaker cannot pu . the main motion-
I take that to mean, as 1 suggested earlier, that once Mr. Speaker is seized of the motion to vote immediately, the motion must be put. If it carries, then we vote immediately; if
Computer Crime
it fails, then debate on the motion continues as the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) suggested.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, it seems you have already ruled on the very question. The Motion of the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) that the question be now put is a debatable motion and, therefore, I do not see what the point of order is about.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) raised a legitimate concern. 1 must draw his attention and that of Hon. Members to Citation 452 of Beauchesne's wherein it is indicated that once the question is proposed-and the Chair has proposed it to the House- "the debate may continue on the original question."
The point raised by the Hon. Member for Simcoe North addressed itself to debate ending on the motion. Once debate on the motion put by the Hon. Member for Bow River is complete, the House has to put the question. First we would dispose of the motion of the Hon. Member for Bow River and then the motion on second reading. That is the understanding and interpretation which the Chair gives to Citation 452.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I am not trying to be obtrusive in this matter. My earlier point was that we seem to have a conflict between two rules. Obviously I accept Mr. Speaker's ruling that when the motion was made earlier by a Member of the New Democratic Party we continue and the Chair not see the clock; that was well and good. I thought we would continue beyond the usual hour of adjournment, that is six o'clock, but there is something conflicting with that particular rule. I was under the impression there is a rule providing that Private Members' Hour shall not last more than one hour. Assuming for a moment, for the sake of debate, that I stand up and commence my address, which 1 am quite prepared to do, on second reading of this Bill-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. Perhaps the Chair has not sufficiently clarified the point raised by the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) with respect to the length of Private Members' Hour. The Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton is quite right. We should not go beyond a total of 60 minutes. We could have debate for less than one hour. That is not against the rules. If we go back in time, the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) proposed a motion to the House which was acceptable and which was resolved affirmatively. Therefore, we do not have an adjournment time or an end to the debate on the question of second reading of Bill C-667 which is now before the House. That explains why the debate continues at this point. I hope the Chair has been sufficiently clear in the explanation so that Hon. Members appreciate what is happening. Of course, it is the first time it has happened under the provisional rules. 1 trust the Chair has clarified the matter to everyone's satisfaction. Again, I recognize the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton for debate on the previous question which was proposed to the House.

February 9, 1983
Computer Crime


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I am participating now in this debate on the point that Private Members' Hour, as a result of the motion made under 8(4)(a) that the Private Members' Hour be extended, technically could go on all through the night and well into tomorrow, if that is the interpretation. Therefore, there is a conflict with the rule.
Needless to say, I do appreciate the opportunity of having such a large audience on this particular and very important Bill. I can understand the Opposition Members being here because last year they were defeated nine to zip in the hockey game and probably do not want to go out and see the game that is being played this evening between the Government and the Opposition Members.
To be serious, this is a very important Bill. I think the Hon. Member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) made the point that technology all too often outpaces the legislation that we need in order to cope with it and keep it on the rails, as it were. We find ourselves worrying about the intention or the meaning of a particular word. We find ourselves wondering if this is going to be inclusive enough. We find ourselves wondering if, as a result of bringing in new legislation, we may not impede communication, which was never intended by the legislation at all.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I appreciate the desire of the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) to speak on this matter. Without being too strict on relevancy, should the Hon. Member not direct his attention to the question of whether or not we vote immediately?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I thought you had already ruled on that. You indicated that the motion put by the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) was that the question be now put. You had ruled that as long as people wanted to debate, the debate on the main motion would continue. That is the basis on which I was rising.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton is quite correct. I did quote the proper citation. It is very clear that once the Speaker has proposed the motion on the previous question to the House, and I will quote the citation from Beauchesne which reads:
452(1)-the debate may continue on the original question.
This is what is happening. I appreciate the fact that Hon. Members may want to seek clarification, and I am aware of the fact they are not questioning the Chair's ruling. We are operating under new and unusual circumstances. Therefore, the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton may continue.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I find the Hon. Member's remarks fascinating and, had he read the Bill, I am sure they would have been even more interesting. However, 1 am seeking some clarification from you, Mr. Speaker. Do I understand that the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) and his motion is deemed to be out of order?
[DOT]	(1835)


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Henry Perrin Beatty: May I ask you what it is that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton is debating? Is he debating the motion of my colleague from Bow River, in which case his remarks are irrelevant, or is he debating the main motion, in which case we will have to decide how to dispose of my colleague's motion?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. With respect, we will dispose of the motion put by the Hon. Member for Bow River once debate on it has ceased. But what debate is all about at this stage, in view of the fact that the previous question has been put, is that debate may continue on the original question. We are dealing with the Hon. Member's motion at this time. Debate continues on the main motion. That is the interpretation Hon. Members have to reach when reading Citation 452 of Beauchesne. The motion that the question be now put is simply, I am informed, a device to prevent an amendment from being put. Therefore, debate continues on the main motion. These matters do not happen very frequently. I hope we all agree on the interpretation that I am attempting to give at this time.


Mr. Lawrence:: Mr. Speaker, I am rising under the guise of a point of order to seek further clarification from you. As I understand it, the practical, realistic effect of what has happened here now is that it is impossible to talk out this Bill under these circumstances. As long as there is a Member in the House who desires to speak on this motion, he can speak on this motion. If the time comes, and I say if the time comes, when there is no longer a Member in the House who desires to speak, then the question will be put and a vote will be taken. Is that correct, and is it a realistic interpretation of the circumstances in which the House is now? If that is the situation, and if there are no Government Members on the other side with the exception of the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton who desires to speak, I wonder whether discussions and negotiations could not take place so that at the cessation of the very worthwhile contribution that we are going to hear from the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton we could have a vote on the question.


Arthur Allister MacBain: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I have spoken to the Hon. Member who proposed this Bill. I suggested to him that the subject matter of this Bill, which is one of great importance, be referred to the committee rather than the Bill itself. On behalf of the Minister, I would consent to that. If the House is agreeable, we could dispose of that matter. It would be a job well done, and we could get out of here.
[DOT]	(1840)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: With due respect to the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary, he is injecting a new and
February 9, 1983

different matter into the points of order previously raised. Does the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) wish to contribute to the points just raised?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious there have been discussions taking place while I was attempting to rise and deliver my address. I have read the Bill. It is not a bad Bill but I think the subject matter is even better.
I do not know if this is in line with the rules, but I would like to suggest that we seek unanimous consent of the House to have the subject matter of the Bill referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Chair cannot receive suggestions and put them to the House in the manner in which the Hon. Member has presented them. The Chair can deal with formal proposals. Again, I now draw Hon. Members' attention to Standing Order 56(1) which reads:
The previous question, until it is decided, shall preclude all amendment of the main question, and shall be in the following words, That this question be now put'.
Therefore, we are now at the point where the Chair has accepted the motion from the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor). It is quite in order. Under our rules and practices, debate may continue on the main motion. If, at some point in the course of the next hour, no Members rise to contribute further to the debate, the Chair will put the motion moved by the Hon. Member for Bow River to the House. At that point, depending on what happens, the Chair could then immediately put the question on the main motion.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I think there is a genuine attempt by the Parliamentary Secretary to act in good faith here. I think that all of us have a responsibility to reciprocate. As you pointed out, we are going through uncharted territory. This issue is quite new to the House because of the provisional rules.
I suspect that if the Hon. Member for Bow River were permitted to withdraw his motion, we would then be in a position where, by unanimous consent of the House, we could reach the agreement that the subject matter of my Bill be sent to committee.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I was attempting to get your attention in that regard. Once the motion has been accepted, it is the property of the House. However, I believe, with the consent of the mover and the seconder, the motion can be withdrawn. I would therefore suggest we do it that way.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Chair needs the unanimous consent of the House, not simply that of the mover and the seconder.


Mr. Lewycky:: Mr. Speaker, there certainly would be unanimous consent on the part of the NDP to proceed on the suggestion that was made so that we would withdraw the original point of order and make sure that we send this subject as a reference to the committee.
Computer Crime


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The House will ask Hon. Members if there is unanimous consent to allow the Hon. Member for Bow River to withdraw his motion on the previous question? Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The main motion is now debatable. It is now before the House.


Arthur Allister MacBain: Mr. Speaker, is this the correct time to move that the subject matter of Bill C-667 be referred to the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary cannot at this time make that motion because he has already spoken. However, with the unanimous consent of the House, perhaps he could be allowed to proceed with that motion.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, would it be in order to amend that motion and put a time limit on it so that the House could have it back in order to deal with it? Could we amend the motion by adding "report back to the House by June 30, 1983"?


Laverne Lewycky: Mr. Speaker, is there not a motion already on the floor that has to be disposed of before we attempt to bring in another motion?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Of course, the Chair cannot deal with another motion until we have disposed of this one.
Does the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) wish me to comment on his remarks?


Philip Derek Lewis: No, Mr. Speaker. I withdraw my remarks.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I will then put the motion to the House. Moved by the Hon. Member for Niagara Falls (Mr. MacBain), seconded by the Hon. Member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty), in amendment thereto:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word 'That' and substituting the following therefor:
Bill C-667, an Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act
in respect of computer crime, be not now read a second time but that the
Order be discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the subject-matter thereof
referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. MacBain) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Accordingly, the order is discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof

February 9, 1983
Computer Crime
referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Is there unanimous consent to call it six o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning.
At 6.48 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, February 10, 1983