1983-06-08

NEW MEMBER INTRODUCED

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Lee Clark, Member for the electoral district of Bran-don-Souris, introduced by Hon. Erik Nielsen and Hon. Jake Epp.


Mr. Garnet M. Bloomfield (London-Middlesex):: Madam Speaker, I wish to bring to your attention a recent court case in the city of London where Judge Menzies acquitted a restaurant owner charged with allowing an exotic dancing female to perform indecently in his tavern.
The judge was reported to have said that the standard is what the community will tolerate in a tavern performance and not what the tavern patrons will tolerate. The performance he was considering involved "a nude dance with gestures", and he noted he could not find a legitimate claim to artistic merit in the performance. It would be difficult to explain away the dancer's movements as being other than indecent, when taking into account the description of the act by morality officers.
The judge said he had no doubt that many people would find the performance, or a portion of the performance, offensive. However, he doubted whether the particular dance went beyond the tolerance of the community.
The judge would have been much more correct, I believe, if he had said "most" instead of "many" people would find the act to be offensive because I can assure Your Honour that by far the majority of the London and Middlesex community would find this to be totally unacceptable behaviour. The judge, by further suggesting that the community would be served by appealing his decision, either did not disagree with this performance or did not have the intestinal fortitude to rule against it.
Madam Speaker, I am beginning to wonder if we should set up some kind of a review board similar to the doctors' to make sure that judges remain qualified to deal with their cases.



PIPELINES


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, the report of the National Energy Board on pipeline construction costs was released one year ago in June, 1982. This report confirmed that pipeline costs had been rising at a rate appreciably greater than the general rate of inflation since 1975, and it recommended certain approaches whereby the problem might be alleviated.
In response, the then Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in August of 1982 created the special Task Force on Pipeline Construction Costs headed by Mr. Vernon Horte, and we were told that the task force would report by June of 1983. The Task Force was to have examined costs of materials, and labour, and contracting costs, and particularly regulatory costs.
It is now June, 1983, and no report has been forthcoming. We therefore urge the task force to complete its work as soon as possible, and urge the new Minister to make the report public within the promised time period and to state what positive action will be taken by the Government to keep Canadian pipeline construction costs competitive.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, three members of the African National Congress are scheduled to be executed tomorrow in South Africa, which is late this evening Ottawa time. It is the first politically motivated execution in four years. At the same time three other ANC members have had their sentences commuted to life imprisonment. This inconsistent and excessively harsh execution decision is a tragic move which will make peaceful settlement of South Africa's difficulties almost impossible.
Despite warnings from human rights groups and Amnesty International that the executions will only serve to intensify racial conflict in that unhappy white minority ruled country, the South African Government persists in its inhuman, racist policy of apartheid, and in a provocative declared war on the African National Congress. It is a war which was recently extended into the territories of neighbouring countries.

June 8, 1983
Canadian officials made representations to the South African Government last fall asking that the sentences be commuted. In keeping with Canada's opposition to capital punishment and in recognition of South Africans, both black and white, who are struggling for racial equality in that country, on behalf of the whole NDP federal caucus I urge the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to issue a personal plea for the lives of these three South Africans while there is yet time before an&ed250;-l y more blood is added to the judgment which white South Africa must face sooner or later for its unjust policies.
While the Prime Minister is at it, will he also make representations on behalf of Nelson Mendela, leader of the largest section of the South African population, who is in prison and has lately had the severity of his punishment while in prison increased to the point where he, and other leading political prisoners, are having their very survival threatened.



BILINGUALISM


Mr. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Madam Speaker. I am rising to defend a very deserving fellow Newfoundlander, who has been mercilessly misrepresented by the press. My good friend, the Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) has been accused of lacking the ability to communicate with Francophones as well as he does with other groups in this country. This gross allegation is a cowardly distortion of the facts, which must not be allowed to go unchallenged. I have known the Hon. Member for St. John's West for 20 years. I know him as a federal politician, and I have known him as a provincial politician, both as a Tory and as a Liberal, and, Madam Speaker, I can assure you-and I do not think anyone will be able to deny-that during his mandate as a provincial politician, we in Newfoundland were able to fully appreciate his ability to understand and respond to the poor, the unemployed and people on low incomes. Francophones, have no fear! You will be understood as well or even better by the Hon. Member for St. John's West, once he has been elected Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party. There is no doubt about that!



AIR SAFETY


Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, some 48 hours after the Dallas to Toronto Air Canada fire tragedy, my family and I confidently climbed aboard a Tampa
to Toronto flight on Air Canada, which we still regard as one of the world's safest airlines.
Until all investigations are completed in both Canada and the United States, we will not know for sure what triggered the blaze in a rear washroom and killed 23 people. What we do know is that any fire aboard the most sophisticated airliners can spread with frightening intensity. A professional chemist who witnessed the fiery landing says he saw the billowing smoke changing from white to deep gray, and then to black, which made him "pretty sure that was PVC, polyvinyl chlorides, burning . . . Those folks were stunned to their seats and couldn't breathe."
It deeply worries me, Madam Speaker, that anyone who smokes on a commercial airliner can accidentally or deliberately set fire to an airplane's cushions, fabrics, plastic panelling, and other highly flammable materials. My first instinct is to ban all smoking on all airlines under Canadian registry. Realistically, this would be a monumental regulation to enforce. We do protect passengers from guns and explosives through security detection devices, but we cannot prevent people from torching planes, or even the chance that someone might stealthily light up in a lavatory.
What this Parliament can and must do is require domestic air carriers to refit their planes with fire retardant materials. One expert in the field says this could cost passengers an extra two cents a ticket.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Yesterday he suggested that we go to the committee and ask the Minister who is in the other place to answer our questions. Unfortunately, we got no answers.


Mr. Nielsen:: Stonewalled.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Yes, we were stonewalled by him. That is correct.
I would like to point out to the Prime Minister that in 1975 the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce came out with a report stating that Canadair was not equipped nor did it have the personnel to build a plane from the ground up. Further, in 1982, another report from the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce came out stating that this company would lose at least $1.8 billion and possibly $2.3 billion.
June 8, 1983

I would like to know from the Prime Minister what right the Government has to provide more funds for the Corporation until such time as a comprehensive audit is completed by the Auditor General.


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, in 1975, the Government supported Cana-dair, and when it received the corporation's proposal for the Challenger program, the Government agreed with great enthusiasm, because it knew that Canadians were capable of tackling this job and putting the program on the right track. Today, we have an aircraft that is among the most sophisticated in its field. While this program was being developed, Canadair experienced management problems. Yesterday, the Minister responsible tabled a report analyzing the problems of Canadair. The Government was aware of these problems and knew that a business-like response was necessary. The Government provided that response by establishing the Canada Development Investment Corporation, through which the shareholder, in other words the Government and Canadian taxpayers, is represented at Canadair and the program can be put back on the right track, and we shall then be able to market an aircraft of which all Canadians are proud and that will make its way in the international aeronautics field.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Madam Speaker, that is a total coverup. The Prime Minister will not answer questions regarding Canadair and other Crown Corporations. CDIC has been created to absorb Canadair, and TeleGlobe's profit can be-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. All we need are questions, not comments on the answers.


JUSTIFICATION FOR ESTABLISHING NEW CORPORATIONS
Thomas Scott Fennell: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. What justification does the Government have to set up any further Crown corporations when the already existing corporations, as exhibited by Canadair, cannot manage themselves, are not supervised by the Ministry, and are not watched over by the Government of this country?
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, the Members opposite have been asking repeatedly to have Canadair and other Crown corporations given the opportunity to testify before committees of the House, and to provide answers to questions that have been and are being raised by Parliamentarians and the Canadian public. Yesterday, today and probably next week, there have been and will be committee sittings, at which Members have an opportunity to direct questions to the people responsible for Canadair, to the people responsible for the new Corporation representing the Government and to Canadians employed by Canadair. The Hon. Member seems to think we are hiding something. How can he justify that assumption when, in fact, opportunities are being provided for examining the accounting practices of
Oral Questions
Canadair before the Committee on Public Accounts and for examining the policy that will be adopted by the new Corporation vis-a-vis Canadair before the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. We are providing a golden opportunity for Hon. members and the public to ask questions about the actions of the Government and its Corporations.


AUDITING OF CROWN CORPORATIONS-GOVERNMENT POLICY
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It concerns a matter of policy. The Prime Minister will know that Canadair, according to his favourite, Joel Bell, carried on a liberal accounting policy. It did not quite account for its losses. Indeed, in every year since we have owned this company it showed a profit, despite the fact that it had over $700 million in losses. Would it now be the policy of the Government to require the Auditor General to audit every Crown corporation so that at least we would have consistent auditing and no fancy tricks, and Members of Parliament, and indeed the Government, would know when they looked at a financial statement that all reports were prepared with the same degree of clarity, honesty, and forthrightness?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, if the Hon. Member is following the debates in committee, he will see that the decision to transfer the assets of Canadair to CDIC and to bring the matter before Parliament by way of a supplementary estimate was precisely so that Members on all sides, and the public, could be satisfied with the auditing. I do not think the debate is on the quality of the auditing or on its frequency, because the Government is undertaking, through CDIC, to ensure the most complete auditing done by respected auditors. Whether or not they be in the Auditor General's office, in my mind is a secondary matter.
The main matter is what decision the Government should be taking with Canadair and, in a parallel way, with de Havil-land. The Government decided back in the middle 1970s that it should not let the aircraft industry go under when de Havil-land, on the one hand, and General Dynamics, on the other hand, were letting Canadair and de Havilland in Toronto go under. They were letting them get out of the business. The Government decided at that point that the aeronautics industry was too important for Canada to let it disappear because there were no private takers to keep it going. That is why we kept it going.
There is no doubt that some of the events in the development of the Challenger, in particular, in Canadair have been most unfortunate. The Minister responsible has been saying that in front of the committee. The question for the Government- and I would think for the whole of Parliament-is what do we do for that industry. Do we let it sink? Do we write it off? Do we forget the potential for Canada in the aeronautics industry,

June 8, 1983
Oral Questions
or do we try to rescue it? On the matter of rescuing it, I do not think the Hon. Member could come forth with anybody in the private sector who would be prepared to take over or buy the assets of Canadair or de Havilland now.


Some Hon. Members:: Not now.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: My case rests. Since the Opposition recognizes that the private sector would not take it now, we have a choice of letting that industry die or of keeping it going with government funds. We chose the latter. If the Opposition chooses to let it die, it should say so now.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: The Prime Minister will know that we have lost $1.4 billion. The Government has come to the House of Commons for another $240 million. That will not even last us through the balance of this year. The Government will have to return to the House of Commons for more money later this year. Somewhere along the line we need some sense of accounting and some sense of accountability.


REQUEST THAT ALL CROWN CORPORATIONS BE AUDITED BY AUDITOR GENERAL
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister another question. In the CDIC Bill there is no provision for the Auditor General to audit the accounts of CDIC. The Auditor General has indicated that every other aircraft company audited its books in such a fashion as not to capitalize interest, as not to capitalize free flights to "nowheresville", as not to capitalize promotion items, but this company did.
If we had one consistent auditing system we would know where we have been going, and where we have been going wrong. We would have known five years ago, four years ago-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I cannot let the Hon. Member go on. He must ask a question.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I am just trying to have equal time, Madam Speaker.
Will the Prime Minister now undertake, as far as the Canada Development Investment Corporation is concerned, that that corporation-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member very often asks questions in Question Period. He knows that he cannot go on in this manner.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I will repeat the question. Will the Prime Minister now undertake that the Canada Development Investment Corporation and its subsidiaries will be audited by the Auditor General?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I think the Government is doing even better. It is asking that the accounts be audited by the House of Commons. That is why their accounts are in front of the House of Commons. Surely, if the Hon. Member wants to address the
real question, it will be on how we manage that company now and in the future. Whether it is audited by the Auditor General or not is secondary. There are successful companies in Canada in the private sector which are obviously not audited by the Auditor General, yet the audits made by qualified auditors in Canada are accepted by everybody. Therefore, that is a secondary question.
The main question is how to ensure that management in the future should be good and should be accountable. That is the question. Short of being able to pass it on to the private sector, which the Opposition says is not possible at this time, we can either let it die or we can make sure that it is managed in a way which is responsible to Parliament. This is the purpose of giving it to the CIDC. That is why we now have the Minister in front of the parliamentary committee responding on the management and undertaking to do certain things.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, the tensions in Central America grow greater every day. The U.S. military involvement, directly and indirectly, is also growing greater. The Prime Minister, to whom I direct my question, has called for an end to all foreign intervention and the opening up of political discussions and negotiations. On Friday evening the Secretary of State for External Affairs, although he repeated that call at the meeting of the United Nations Association, failed to condemn increased U.S. military presence in the area and justified U.S. actions in the area because it is strategically important. Is the Government now saying that there is a need and a justification for U.S. military involvement in the region?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I agree with the Secretary of State for External Affairs that Central America is an area of strategic importance to the United States. I agree with the proposition put forward by the President of the United States that all sides should withdraw outside military systems and other forms of arms. That is the Canadian Government's policy. In the meantime, it is obvious that the other side is not withdrawing its military support. Therefore the bargain put forward by President Reagan is not being accepted by the other side.
The question the Hon. Member asks is on what is best for the future of that area. I think it is arguable that merely military intervention will not solve the problems of Central America. The problems go far beyond that. In that regard the Secretary of State for External Affairs and myself have held views which are somewhat divergent from those of President Reagan and the U.S. administration. I know that when one begins to say that, the Opposition gets all bewildered and says: "Well, is he in agreement or is he not in agreement?"
June 8, 1983

There are some things that we do agree with, Madam Speaker. We do agree that Central America is an area of strategic importance to the United States. The ways in which it tries to ensure that Central America remains within, shall we say, the influence and the camp of democratic societies rather than going over to communist societies can be a subject of difference. On that subject, the Secretary of State for External Affairs has indicated several times that the problems there are social and economic before they are military. That is the position of this Government.


Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, within that long answer the Prime Minister is still broadcasting to the Canadian public two different signals. On the one hand, the Secretary of State at the United Nations-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Order, please. Today's Question Period is off to a bad start. Questions are far too long. I can see that the Hon. Member is about to repeat what the Prime Minister has said. I would like her to go directly to her question.


Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, I believe that that is most unfair, because I asked a very short question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


CANADIAN POSITION
Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, I will ask the Prime Minister if there is not an inconsistency between, on the one hand, saying at the United Nations that Canada is opposed to all military intervention and, on the other hand, saying that some military intervention is all right if it is in the strategic interests of the United States.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I will try to keep my answer very short. I think that the two propositions are not exclusive. If all military intervention ceases, as we hope, then obviously it would be bad for the United States to intervene militarily because the hypothesis is that all should cease, including both sides. But if all military intervention does not cease, then we do not think that the United States must necessarily cease when the other side continues sending arms.


Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, perhaps the Prime Minister will say that at the United Nations next time.


CONTADORA GROUP CONFERENCES
Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, my final supplementary question is to ask whether or not Canada would, if asked, agree to be an observer at the Contadora group conferences.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I think that I would have to take that question as notice. It is a suggestion that I have discussed myself with the
Oral Questions
Secretary of State for External Affairs. I raised the subject at Williamsburg with the other Summiteers. I had the assurance from our main partners that they are sympathetic to the actions of the Contadoras, but as to whether we will or should be an observer or not, I would have to say that I have not had an answer yet from the Department or from the Minister.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance and deals with the National Energy Program which was introduced in the Minister's budget of October 28, 1980. Yesterday the C.D. Howe Research Institute released a study confirming the widely held if not universally held view that the National Energy Program has had disastrous consequences for the Canadian economy by costing Canadians billions of dollars and thousands of jobs. The study concludes that the NEP must be scrapped, and calls for a parliamentary task force to reassess Canada's energy objectives. Will the Minister accept the recommendations of this non-partisan research institute, admit the failure of the National Energy Program, and appoint a task force with a mandate to do the job quickly and report back to the House quickly so that new and more appropriate energy policies can be implemented?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, first the Hon. Member refers to a report prepared by two researchers. Second, I would invite the Hon. Member to read the report. The report does not say what the Hon. Member has indicated that it says. Third, I would indicate to the Hon. Member that many changes have been made to the National Energy Program since its announcement in 1980 to take into account the evolution of the oil and gas sector. Some changes were announced in my last budget and others were announced as part of the agreement made with Alberta in September, 1981. Other changes have been made at various times through various budgets. There has been a flexible examination of the situation at all times, and adjustments have been made.
I would argue to the contrary and say that the situation in Canada compared to that in the United States, for instance, is very good at the present time. I could mention a number of foreign companies that have decided to move some of their investments back to Canada or expand investments in Canada rather than in the United States at this time.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, the Minister's answer indicates the vital necessity for such a task force because he is completely out of touch with reality. The report says that the National Energy Program failed to promote Canadianization. It did the opposite. The report says that the National Energy

June 8, 1983
Oral Questions
Program failed to bring about fair taxation. It did the opposite. The report says that the National Energy Program has delayed self-sufficiency until well into the next century, if we ever get out of the current recession.


REQUEST THAT TASK FORCE STUDY BE INITIATED
Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, in view of the incredible damage being done to Canadians through the loss of jobs, will the Minister not put the future of the country ahead of his own pride and at least admit that there is some truth to this report which everyone except the Minister, supports and will he initiate such a study so that corrections can be made and Canadians can be given some hope for the future now, and not have to wait for the next election?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, not only does the Hon. Member's question show that he has not read the report, but it shows as well that he continues to live in his own dream world. I will deal with the three points he has mentioned. Canadianization has been substantially expanded since 1980. The share of Canadian ownership in the oil and gas industry has expanded very significantly and Canada will, within this decade and at long last, own and control 50 per cent of its oil and gas industry.
As to the question of self-sufficiency, I would remind the Hon. Member that the country has been self-sufficient since last August, some seven years previous to the 1990 target date set by the National Energy Program. It is true that there will be some problems as consumption increases, but again everyone recognizes that the target date of 1990 for self-sufficiency is a very modest one, and most people recognize that the country will achieve this well before 1990.
As to the point the Hon. Member made about taxation, I remind my hon. friend that a company such as Total, which had decided to withdraw from Canada and sell its assets, has reversed its position in the last few months and, on the contrary, has decided to expand its investments in Canada because returns on investments in Canada are higher than they are in the United States. Net profits going back to oil and gas companies are higher in Canada than in the United States.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has explained why the Government bought Canadair seven years ago, and he has explained some of his plans for its future, but he has not explained why his Government managed Canadair so badly that it lost $1.4 billion last year creating the largest corporate disaster in Canadian history. The question that Canadians want to ask is this: since there were at least
two task forces on Canadair, and since the Government does have its own members on the board of directors, why did the Government not know that Canadair was going into such a deep dive and, if it did know, why did it not do something about it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, it is because some of the members of the board of directors alerted us to some of their worries that we set up the task forces. It is because the task forces reported that we decided to take over the management of Canadair in a way that would see it become responsible to Parliament. As the Hon. Member knows, the previous situation was one of having a commercial type Crown corporation, one which was not under direct Government management and which did not prevent the same kind-


Mr. Stevens:: Why not?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Why not, Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member asks? It is because when we took over Canadair and de Havil-land, we did it in the hope that we would be able to turn in over to the private sector as soon as possible and therefore-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The Prime Minister was the manager.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, perhaps the Hon. Member for York-Peel will rise on a supplementary question, but I cannot answer two questions at the same time. I am sorry.


Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, we are making some progress. The Prime Minister has just told us that his Government, through either cash injections or loan guarantees, committed the Government-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: Ask the question.


Pat Carney: I think the Prime Minister should be allowed to hear my question. He has just told us that he committed Canadians to-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I saw the Hon. Member shake her head when another Hon. Member was repeating an answer. I would urge her to ask her question and not repeat the answers.


FUNDING AND MANAGEMENT
Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, could the Prime Minister tell the House why his Government made either cash injections or loan guarantees totalling $2.3 billion, or roughly $1 million per employee at Canadair, without bothering to manage the company, which he has just said they did not do?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member will have to understand the type of Crown corporation.
June 8, 1983


Pat Carney: We sure do.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It was a commercial type Crown corporation which the Government does not directly manage. It names directors, it has a management group, and from time to time the Department, in this case the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, through representatives of the bureaucracy on the board, attempt to follow the matter. It has been proven that this is not the best way of managing because the civil servants in Departments are not equipped to second guess, nor should they, perhaps, second guess the management and say, "You should have decided this rather than that." All they can do is send out danger signals. It was because the danger signals became very worrisome that we decided to change the form of management.
We now have management through the CDIC which is managing a commercial company which in a way has more responsibility to parliament. The CDIC is that, Madam Speaker. It is appearing before Parliamentary committees now and it will do so in the future. It has undertaken to give quarterly reports on the management so that Parliament and the Government can be more up to date on how the management is performing. That is why we made the change. Until then, Madam Speaker, we thought-


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Trinity.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the recent Economic Council of Canada studies which suggest that information about new technological advances is slow to reach potential users in Canada, will the Minister consider enlarging the role of the Patents Office to allow it to play a more active role in the diffusion of knowledge about technological advances as is done in the countries of some of our competitors?
[ Translation]


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Madam Speaker, this is a very interesting question. I should be happy to discuss this point with my departmental officials, and I wish to thank the Hon. Member for making this very interesting suggestion.


CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General and it concerns the
Oral Questions
proposed legislation to create the new Security Service. If a member of this new Security Service, or even an informer for the Service, commits a serious criminal offence, is convicted of the offence and possibly fired, the Minister knows that under Clause 12 of the legislation any member of the press, or anyone else who reports that fact or details of the offence, can be sent to prison for five years. How can the Minister possibly justify this totalitarian media gag which, in effect, is a denial of the right of freedom of the press under the Charter of Rights, and makes a mockery of the safeguards under the law?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, Clause 12 is intended to protect Service members who are under deep cover or in cases where revelation of their identity would be injurious to the operations of the Security Service. It is not intended as a coverup for wrongdoing. I look forward to dealing with that Clause and others in a constructive way in committee when the Bill is referred.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, the Minister knows very well that is in fact a coverup of any details whatsoever of any possible wrongdoing.


ACCESS TO CONFIDENTIAL RECORDS
Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, under Clause 22 of the new Bill the new Security Service is given carte blanche access to all confidential records, including tax records, medical records, journalists' notes, lawyers' files, MPs' records, social insurance numbers and, incredibly, even census records. How can the Minister possibly justify this massive invasion of the privacy of Canadians? Specifically, what possible reason can there be for the Minister's ignoring the recommendations of the McDonald Commission and allowing the new secret police carte blanche access to census records which are obtained from all Canadians on the basis of total and absolute confidentiality?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, what the Hon. Member has forgotten to mention, as he misrepresents the Bill across the country, is that there is a very strong safeguard provided in the fact that none of these new intrusive powers can be exercised without a member of the agency approaching a judge and satisfying the judge that the target is a threat to the security of Canada under the tight definition provided in the legislation, and that the operation is justified. I think if the Hon. Member would inform people about the balancing safeguards, as well as telling them about the powers, and about the requirement that this country has, as do all countries, for a national security program, he would be serving the interests of Canada better.

June 8, 1983
Oral Questions CROWN CORPORATIONS


CANADAIR-FORMER MINISTER'S STATEMENT ON FUNDING OF EXECUTIVE JET PROGRAM
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, I would have liked to have put my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources but, in his absence, I will put it to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
To keep the Canadair fiasco and its causes in proper perspective, could the Minister tell the House what the former Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce meant when he said in Hansard on October 18, 1976, speaking about the finances of what was then called the Lear jet proposition, as reported at page 142:
We took no decision yet concerning this proposition which seems extremely interesting and which does not require direct financial intervention by the Government.
Could the Minister explain that gross misrepresentation to the House?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I think the Hon. Member should take a careful look at the report submitted yesterday to Members of the Committee by the Minister responsible. This report is available to all Members. Furthermore, I fail to see how attempts to seek contradictions in various answers that were given can clarify the subject we are discussing at the present time.


CLAIM OF SALES OF CHALLENGER JET AIRCRAFT
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, I will direct my supplementary question to the same Minister. In 1977 the then Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, now the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, speaking about the Lear jet challenger program said, as reported in Hansard:
Some people felt I was taking a gamble going into that. I am glad to report to this House today that as of yesterday we signed sixty-five contracts and another ten will be completed very soon. The marketing is so good that we hope by the end of the year to have sold at least 125, the break-even point. We have done this in the past two months. 1 wish the Opposition would open their eyes once in a while.
Seeing that the then Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce was boasting about the program at that time, is the Minister now agreed that the Minister who boasted about it should accept some of the responsibility for this financial bath of unparalleled proportions?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, earlier, in response to a previous question, I
indicated that the Government had been enthusiastic in its support for the Challenger program, and that it was still supporting the Challenger marketing program. Obviously, the outlook for marketing and sales may be revised at some point, because of a number of conditions that are going to change according to the report tabled yesterday by the Minister responsible. Furthermore, it seems that a great many conditions have changed throughout the program, including marketing conditions, delivery of engines for the aircraft, and so on, so that the original forecasts are no longer entirely accurate. These forecasts have now been revised. The commercial development plan for Canadair is based on new forecasts, and we hope they will be positive.


AIR SAFETY
Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland):: Madam Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Following on the tragedy of the Air Canada flight which had to land at Cincinnati, and following on the statement made today by my hon. colleague on the other side, could the Minister tell the House if he would consider imposing a ban on smoking on Air Canada flights? If not, would he consider imposing a ban on smoking on all flights of a duration of less than two hours? Surely people who are smoking could give it up for a couple of hours if it would mean greater safety for the people of Canada.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, to my knowledge that question has not been addressed as yet. Smoking in our country is still considered to be socially acceptable, rightly or wrongly.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: It depends what it is.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Certain sections of aircraft are designed for smokers, others for non-smokers. There are regulations concerning the precautions which must be taken in the aircraft, for example in the washrooms. There are all kinds of regulations concerning extinguishers, detectors, and so on. This is implemented now. The real cause of the DC-9 accident, as everyone knows from reading the newspapers, is still unclear. I feel we should wait until the report is addressed to us.
I am toying with the idea, because this is such an important subject, of suggesting to the Transport committee when matters are clarified, to have a meeting where experts could come and explain to Hon. Members what took place.
June 8, 1983


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and it has to do with the reported $1.4 billion loss by Canadair. A billion dollars is a lot of money for most Canadians. To put it in some kind of perspective, $1.4 billion would mean that in Manitoba, for instance, the taxation level could be half of what it is now for one year. Would the Prime Minister tell the House how his Government establishes spending priorities for such large sums of money when there are so many obvious requests on the public purse for Government to get involved in different programs?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member obviously realizes that this loss was not a spending priority of the Government. It is an unfortunate loss and one which, indeed, has to be shared by the taxpayers of all Provinces, and that is very unfortunate. What a responsible Government must do now-and I would suggest what a responsible Opposition should do, if we had one- would be to ask itself the question: do we kill the industry? Do we let it die because of these unfortunate incidents? Or do we try to keep it alive and manage it in a better way? For the time being the Government has chosen the latter option. The Opposition does not seem to have taken any option at all. It does not dare say to let it die. It just bemoans the past. It has no plans for the future, which has been proven by that Party throughout its leadership campaign.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. It concerns the possibility of a grain port shutdown on the West Coast. It also concerns the important $5 billion per year grain trade. Last Friday in the House we suggested the possibility of having Mr. Justice Emmett Hall mediate this dispute. The union was reported yesterday as having welcomed the idea of Mr. Hall being a special mediator-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, can you get those crows to quiet down over there, please?
Given the Government's reluctance to intervene in this dispute, will the Minister now at least propose the idea of Mr. Hall being a special mediator to both sides, and let them decide whether or not they would accept this avenue of solving a dispute which is so potentially damaging to the economy of western Canada?
Oral Questions


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, who was answering the question for the Minister of Labour on this subject a week or four or five days ago, has explained very, very well, in my view, that in this, as in other instances, the responsibility for settling labour problems belongs to the employers and the employees. It is apparently, and that is obvious for everyone to see, the judgment of the Department of Labour that the problem is better left now in the hands of the parties. This is a judgment call which it has made. This is the present situation.
I have read in the newspapers that the union has said that it has no intention to strike, and that the employers have said that they have no intention to lock out. That would indicate a willingness on the part of the two parties to compromise, and that is the judgment call which the Department of Labour has made. While I respect the suggestion made by my hon. friend of Justice Hall as a possible conciliator, he should go along with the judgment which has been made. Because both parties seem to want to reconcile their views, we should let them exercise this particular right.


CALL FOR MEDIATION
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, the union has repeatedly called for mediation and is now willing to accept Mr. Justice Hall. We have had no opposition to the idea expressed by the grain companies. Our Party and the Conservative Party have both called for mediation. The people in western Canada want mediation. I wonder when the Government is going to act. When is the Minister going to show some compassion for the people of western Canada? Why is he going to sacrifice the West once again? When is he going to act?


Erik Nielsen: Act responsibly.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member seems to postulate his question on the grounds that the parties have no intention of coming to an agreement, that it is a wrong judgment call on the part of the Department of Labour. Be that as it may, I can only assure the Hon. Member that I am informed the Department is keeping in very close touch. There is a certain gentleman there by the name of R. Kelly, who knows something about these questions. He is on the job and watching events.


PROVISION OF NATURAL GAS FOR MARITIME PROVINCES
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Among the

June 8, 1983
Oral Questions
many broken promises of the Government since the last federal election was a firm commitment to make the maritime Provinces energy self-sufficient through natural gas by this very year, 1983. Will the Minister tell us how the Government can justify blowing hundreds of millions of dollars, probably more than $2 billion in all, on Canadair Ltd., when for a lesser amount it could have solved the whole energy problem of an entire region, with enormous job and economic spin-offs?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, first of all I would like to remind the Hon. Member that Canadair eight years ago had 700 employees. During the period since it was taken over by the Government it employed directly up to 7,500 employees and the average employment maintained during that period was about 5,000 people, who would not have had jobs otherwise. That does not include the hundreds of suppliers all across Canada who have benefited from orders from Canadair. My hon. friend should bear that in mind. What has happened in the meantime has been the creation of jobs and benefits all over Canada. That money did not disappear into a hole. It went into the hands of Canadians who have been kept at work, and these people are taxpayers, which has benefited the whole country.
As far as the maritime program is concerned, I would remind my hon. friend that the decisions have been taken as a result of extensive consultation with the provincial Governments in the Maritimes. The Province of Nova Scotia, in particular, is on the verge of being a supplier of natural gas from off Sable Island and we have decided, rather than bring gas from Alberta, for instance, into the Maritimes, it would be to the benefit of the maritimers if they could use gas which is going to be produced in the maritimes area. We have invested hundreds of-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Given the record of Crown corporations such as Canadair and the fact that there are close to 400 Crown corporations, how can the Prime Minister justify allowing his Government to create another Crown corporation called "Canagrex", which will add to the bureaucracy, with powers to buy and to sell and to control the entire food industry of Canada?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member knows what he says is exaggerated. I do not know how far his exaggeration goes, but it is widely exaggerated, that is for sure. His Party was the one which created the first Crown corporations in this country, the
Canadian Wheat Board, the Canadian National Railways, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. He has not said he wants to get rid of any of those. There are Crown corporations in his Province which his Province is not getting rid of such as the Saskatchewan Potash Corporation. The Deputy Premier of that Province said the other day, "We are not getting rid of it. It is making money for us". If you look at Alberta you find they have successful Crown corporations there which are working. They are not intending to get rid of any of those, either. We are putting Canagrex into operation because the farmers of Canada have asked for it


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: -the vast majority of farmers. There are a few farmers, a few exporters and so on, who are objecting to it, but, Madam Speaker, it is something the Liberal Party promised in two campaigns. It was endorsed by the vast majority of farm organizations. That is why it is being put forward.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADAIR-LEVEL OF DEBT-SALARIES OF MANAGEMENT
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Madam
Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Is he listening to me? Is he prepared to admit in the House that Canadair's total debt, that is $2.3 billion, is equivalent to the debts of all small and medium size enterprises which went bankrupt last year and, second, is he prepared to admit as well in the House that Canadair now has 120 senior officials earning more than $95,000 a year?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, the facts mentioned by the Hon. Member confirm that there are indications which indeed made the Government aware that the situation at Canadair was not normal. That is why the Government reacted by advocating a realistic solution, namely to be present so as to make it possible to keep a closer watch on Canadair's files and strengthen its commercial position.


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions, with the exception of one, presented by Hon. Members on Tuesday, June 7, 1983, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
June 8, 1983

The petition presented by the Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) did not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, on behalf of all the Members of the House, it is a pleasure for me to welcome back to the House the Hon. Member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Lanaudiere (Mr. Yanakis) after having undergone a very serious heart operation involving several months of recuperation. I know I reflect the thoughts of all the Hon. Members of the House and wish Tony Yanakis continued good health in all the years ahead.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to inquire of the Government House Leader whether he can confirm that the House will not be sitting this Friday, in keeping with tradition, in order that we may carry out the Progressive Conservative Convention.


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Yes, Madam Speaker, we want to go by tradition. It is with pleasure that we agree not to sit this Friday, knowing that in the past and in the future the same courtesy has been and will be extended to the different Parties in this place. Therefore this Friday the House will not be sitting.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, I have the duty and honour today to present a petition in the House signed by residents of the Shaunavon and Dollard frontier areas in Saskatchewan, all members of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool who oppose any changes in the statutory Crow rate. And, as in duty bound your petitioners ever pray.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Madam Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition from residents of
Order Paper Questions
the town of Semans in Saskatchewan, who exercise their right to present a petition to the House which reads: "Whoever wants to test the Cruise missile should test it in their own country, not in Canada. We call on the Government to refuse to test the Cruise missile".


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4,621 and 4,841.


Mr. Stewart: 1.	Did Lavalin International Incorporated make application to the Export Development Corporation for financial guarantees or credit insurance in connection with (a) four construction projects in Algeria (b) the construction of a sour gas plant in the Astrakhan region of the USSR?
2.	Is (a) Algeria (b) the USSR eligible for credit from the Corporation and, if so, what would be the total dollar amount of credit that each would be eligible for?
3.	What interest rates does the Corporation apply to credit loans from foreign buyers in such instances and do standard Canadian bank interest rates apply?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of State (International Trade)):: Export Development Corporation states that:
1.	(a) and (b) As a matter of general policy the Corporation does not disclose where applications are made to the Corporation for financial guarantees or credits insurance, information on transactions such as that which is of the subject of the present request. In view of the intense competition that prevails among countries in foreign trade and because information on bids, participation or negotiations, given at the application stage by companies to EDC in confidence, would assist an exporter's competitors both foreign and domestic, the Corporation, to respect that confidence, refrains from even indicating that it has been approached for financial guarantees or credits insurance in a transaction.
2.	(a) and (b) In principle Algeria and the USSR are eligible for export credits financing from the Corporation to facilitate the sale of Canadian goods and services only. Such credits are available in support of Canadian exporters on a case-by-case basis after giving consideration to certain criteria applied by EDC to each transaction such as: the creditworthiness of the foreign borrower and country; the nature and extent of the security offered; the Financial and economic soundness of the project, the financial justification for extended credit terms; the level of Canadian material and labour content; the industrial benefits to Canada; and the expectation

June 8, 1983
Order Paper Questions
of future markets for Canadian exports in the geographic area concerned.
3.	Loans to foreign borrowers are at interst rates established in competition with Export Credit Agencies in other countries and are generally below commercial rates.


Mr. Howie: What was the (a) Government contribution (b) total cost of construction under the Atlantic Provinces Highway Strengthening Agreement with reference to the Geary-Oromocto-Lincoln-Fredericton Bypass, including bridges and overpasses?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Total expenditures and federal Government contribution to the Geary-Oromocto-Lincoln-Fredericton By-pass, including bridges and overpasses under the Canada/New Brunswick Primary Highway Strengthening/Improvement Agreement (Phase I): (a) $ 8,479,244.80; (b) $16,958,489.60.


David P. Smith: I would ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered.


Mr. McKenzie:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary about a question 1 placed on the Order Paper in November of 1981 which reads as follows:
Did the (a) Minister of Supply and Services (b) Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (c) Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development take a JetStar flight to Winnipeg for the official opening of General Aluminum Forgings Incorporated on October 30, 1981 and, if so, in each case, other than the Minister and the aircraft crew, who was on the flight?
I find it to be very strange that the question has not been answered, because Mr. A1 Holman of the CBC requested manifest information on Liberal Cabinet Ministers' misuse of the JetStar flights and, in particular, with regard to the Minister of State for International Trade, who was flying his mother-in-law around the country. Mr. Holman requested this information in October of 1982, and he received the information in May of 1983.
I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to explain to me or inquire from the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) why this double standard is being applied by the Government. Members of Parliament have placed questions on the Order Paper which the Government refuses to answer, but all members of the press have to do is phone up and ask for information on the misuse of these JetStars and they receive the information.


Erik Nielsen: Freedom of information.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Will the Parliamentary Secretary explain to me why my question, which dates back to 1981, is not being answered?


Erik Nielsen: Damn good point.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I am unable to give the Hon. Member an explanation, and I think his point is well taken. I do not know why this information has not been provided to me. I will again make inquiries. I think there has been enough time to come up with the answers.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I rise on a point of order. Madam Speaker, along the same theme, and in view of the assurance of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) that any MP who wants to receive details with respect to ministerial travel on Government planes will be provided with such detail, I would point out to the Parliamentary Secretary that on January 29, 1981 I asked two very simple questions, the first being: "What was the total cost of the Prime Minister's December 1980 to January 1981 world tour?" Second, I asked: "What percentage of the total cost of the trip will be paid by the Canadian taxpayer?"
Madam Speaker, you will note that I did not even ask who the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) took along as guests on the trip. I just asked about the total cost and how much the Canadian public would be called upon to pay. Can the Parliamentary Secretary explain to the House why, almost two and one half years after the event, we are still unable to receive those simple figures?


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I am unable to offer an explanation in this case either, although I do know that in this particular case a number of departments are involved and that the answer to the question is, in fact, more complicated. However, in any event I will make further inquiries to see if I can expedite an answer.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, again I would direct the Parliamentary Secretary's attention to question No. 3,216, asked by myself on October 23, 1981. It simply asked: "Did the Prime Minister travel to New York in March, 1981 and, if so, what was the total cost of the trip and what percentage will be paid by the taxpayer?" Again, in question No. 3,217 on October 23 I asked: "Did the Prime Minister travel to Algeria in May, 1981 and, if so, what was the total cost of the trip and what percentage will be paid by the taxpayer?"
Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell me why we are still not furnished with answers to those two questions? Surely he cannot keep saying that more than one Department is involved.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, the reason the answer has not been tabled is that I have not been provided with it. However, I will, of course, as always, be delighted to look into this matter on behalf of the Hon. Member and see what I can do to expedite an answer.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A point of order.
June 8, 1983


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I recognize the Hon. Member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe on a point of order.


Mr. Beatty:: 1 rise on the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would like to draw the Parliamentary Secretary's attention to question No. 2,670 which stands in my name, which was placed on the Order Paper on June 23, 1981 asking about Cabinet Ministers and the use they have made of Government aircraft. Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell the House why that question is yet to be answered almost two years after the day? Will he also give us an answer with regard to question No. 2,673, also put on the Order Paper on June 23, 1981, asking on what occasions Cabinet Ministers employed or otherwise used the services of professional speech writers. Why could he not have answered by now?


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, the answer again is that I have not been provided with the answer by the appropriate Ministers. I will certainly make inquiries. I will be happy to see what I can do to expedite the forthcoming answers.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, if I could continue my line of questioning to the Parliamentary Secretary, I would point out to him that question No. 3,218 asked by myself on October 23, 1981, asked if the Prime Minister travelled to Washington, D.C. in July, 1981 and, if so, what was the total cost of the trip and what percentage will be paid by the taxpayers.
Question No. 3,219, also asked on October 23, 1981, deals with another almost world jaunt by the Prime Minister to Australia, Korea, the Philippines and Fiji in September and October of 1981. That question has not been answered.
Again, there is another trip to Mexico inquired about in question No. 3,220. Could the Parliamentary Secretary indicate why those three questions are so tough? Who really has the ultimate responsibility to report back to the House with answers? You are handling this almost as poorly as Canadair itself.


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to look into those matters on behalf of the Hon. Member. I am not in a position to advise him as to the exact status of the preparation of the answers to those questions.
However, I would totally reject the suggestion that these are jaunts. They are official working visits on behalf of the country wherein the Prime Minister represents all of us. He does a very good job and it is money well spent.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I think what this calls into question is the whole process that is followed here. I already raised a point of order some weeks ago with respect to question No. 2,672 which was put on the Order Paper on June 23, 1981,
Motions for Papers
asking about public opinion surveys commissioned by the Government since the last election. The Parliamentary Secretary undertook then, as he is undertaking today, to look into our representation.
What does he do about this? Does he not do anything? Is there any point to our raising questions with him that have not been answered for years? Does he not feel that it is his responsibility not simply to wait for some initiative by the bureaucrats but, as Parliamentary Secretary, to start going through the Order Paper and calling up these people to ask when we will get answers to these questions?
No other parliamentary system in the world with this sort of dilatory behaviour on the part of the Public Service and Government would be tolerated in terms of withholding information from Parliament. Does he think that he is doing his job if he does not follow up on these unanswered questions after years?


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe there is any other parliamentary system in the world that spends as much money in the preparation of answers to Parliament.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Storing them.


David P. Smith: I might say that as of today the Government has answered 4,126 questions this session. That amounts to 83.1 per cent of all questions put on the Order Paper this session. Some of them have been lengthy responses to questions tabled by the Hon. Member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty). I think one response a few days ago was about two or three inches thick.
Any suggestion that serious efforts are not being made to answer these questions is, of course, quite inaccurate. I want to assure the Hon. Member, however, that I will make representations to the Ministers involved, as I always do. Upon receiving a reply it will be tabled in the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Shall all remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Shall all notices of motions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

June 8, 1983
Technological Change



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS

["Order, please. It being six o'clock, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).\nAt 6 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.", 'Thursday, June 9, 1983']
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Shall all orders listed under Private Members' Notices of Motions preceding order No. 81 be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



Lorne Edmund Nystrom: That a Special Committee on the Social and Economic Impact of Technological Change be established which would have the mandate to chart a direction and to recommend policies to respond to the revolutionary impact of technological change.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the motion which I put on the Order Paper and which you just read states that we should have a special committee on the social and economic impact of technological change which would have the mandate to chart a direction and to recommend policies to respond to the revolutionary impact of technological change in our society. I hope that we can dispose of this motion today and that it will not be talked out. I hope all three Parties in the House will agree to establish such a committee.
I believe there is a feeling in the country that this should be done. We are in the midst of a very exciting era of transformation to the information society. I have heard spokespeople from the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party say that such a committee should be welcomed and established. The President of the Science Council of Canada, Dr. Stewart Smith, has said many times in the past that there should be such a committee. Other science reports have recommended such a committee to look at the social and economic impact of technological change.
This afternoon I want very briefly to outline a few reasons why I think this should be done. First, I believe it is obvious that we are in a society in transition whether we like it or not. We are undergoing a tremendous revolution from the old industrial age into the information society whether we like it or not. Since this transformation is taking place now, it is important that we in Canada be part of this new society. It is very important that Canadians make sure we introduce this new society in terms of human values, objectives and the moral values that benefit all Canadians.
There are a number of factors which I believe should be studied to explain why we should establish this committee. First, Parliament is the highest court in the land. I believe Parliament should provide more leadership in advanced technology. We must be implicated in the production of advanced technical goods in Canada to a much greater extent than we are today. If one looks at the many reports, one can
see that we are lagging behind most other industrial states in the world. In fact, the Science Council said a month ago that we are about five years behind most small European countries in terms of the production of high-tech goods and commodities. We had a deficit of some $8 billion in high-tech in this country last year. That deficit is growing very rapidly every month. In fact, by the year 1990, according to some spokesman in the computer industry, our deficit in computers alone will be approximately $10 million a year. This deficit will exist in a society in which very soon every child in every classroom in this country will have a computer on his or her desk. In a few years 75 per cent or more of the jobs in our society will be connected with the use of a computer. Yet we do not have a computer industry in Canada of which we can be proud. This is an area that the committee could look into.
Second, as I said previously, we must plan the introduction of this new society and technology in accordance with human goals and objectives. This committee could look at a number of areas where this is very important to Canada in terms of production and how it implicates our people. We can first look at the impact of world-wide technological change on cost competitiveness in Canada and abroad of our manufacturing sector. There is much unemployment in Canada. There is a tremendous deficit of approximately $21 billion in manufacturing trade.
Let us look at the economies of Britain, France, Germany, Japan, the Scandinavian countries and the United States. We find that we as Canadians are lagging farther and farther behind most of these countries' manufacturing sectors. We also notice that advanced technology is having a tremendous impact in these areas as well.
A couple of days ago I had a chance to tour a factory that produces frames for cars in southern Ontario. I was told that around five years ago there were approximately 3,000 people working in this factory. Today there are about 1,200 working in the factory and the factory is more productive now than it was five years ago, despite the fact that nearly two-thirds of the jobs have gone because of automation and the introduction of robotics.
We have to take a look at whether or not our manufacturing is going to be competitive in terms of preserving what jobs we can, in terms of exporting what we can and in trying to supply the domestic market in the age of robotics and fully automated factories.
I think this kind of committee could look at the impact of technological change on jobs in every sector of the Canadian economy. What are we doing about retraining? What are we doing about relocation for our working people? How do our efforts compare to those in other countries? I have already mentioned the impact on jobs in the existing or so-called mature industries. I want to say a word now about retraining and relocation.
June 8, 1983

We are lagging far, far behind almost every other industrialized country in the world in terms of retraining our people and preparing our young people for the information society. Japan, for example, has about five times the population of Canada, yet the Japanese have about 40 times as many young people in electrical engineering schools as we have in Canada. Is it any wonder the Japanese are leading the world in electronic goods, microelectronics and computers when they put such emphasis on retraining, the retraining of the young as well as the middle-aged and older worker?
The impact on jobs is there. I heard a researcher speak at a convention in Chicago last September. This gentleman was director of research for the UAW. He said that by the year 2000 around 80 per cent of the jobs that existed in the auto industry in the United States in the last 1970s will have disappeared. We have to make sure that we retrain those workers, that we have some alternative for them because they have to provide incomes for themselves and their families. In many ways it is like the great revolution in technology and agriculture a number of years ago.
When my father was growing up in Saskatchewan he used to have great threshing crews in the days before the combine. There would be 20 to 25 members of the threshing crew hauling the sheaves, throwing them into the threshing machine and hauling away the grain. Today that job is done by one person with a modern combine. Those farms are now more productive than they were 40 years or 45 years ago. We cannot turn back the clock to the days of the threshing crews and the oxcart. We have to make sure the transition into this new society is one that ensures people are retrained and have a job.
Third is the whole area of labour-management relations and the question of who should control the introduction of new technology. Can we continue with existing management prerogatives regarding production and planning functions? Has the federal Government a leadership role to play? Has this Parliament a leadership role to play? I suggest we must look very carefully at having the workers in the plants, the consumers, the farmers, and everyone affected more involved in the decision-making about the introduction of new technology and the introduction of technological change.
I think we should look at the whole question of democracy to make sure that ordinary people have a say in the economic destiny of this country and their own lives. This should not be in the hands of just a few people holding the stocks or the shares, or the management of a company having the whole say over economic destiny and the introduction of technological change.
The fourth area is the whole question of Canadian ownership. This is something we should look at very seriously as a Parliament. There is the question of public intervention or public investment in high technology. The economic transition to the information society is characterized in most other nations by increased public investment, by increased public participation in terms of the direction of these industries.
We have to ask ourselves in comparison to others-the Germans, the French, the Japanese, or whomever-whether Canada has an adequate investment strategy. Does Canada have an adequate strategy in terms of making sure that high
Technological Change
technolgy is Canadian, that it serves Canadian purposes, that it provides Canadian jobs, that it is developed quickly enough that we will have an industry here to supply not only Canadian needs but the export market for many people around the world?
Fifth, this committee can look at occupational health and safety. We have had many complaints about the low level of radiation in many offices. We have had problems dealing with stress on the new production line in the case of VDT operators in many offices and plants across the nation. We have to look at this scenario. We have to ask ourselves about the present health and safety measures in legislation, as to whether or not they are adequate or have to be revised.
Sixth is the question of privacy. Is the privacy of Canadians adequately protected given the profusion of data banks and the extension of information on individual finances, health, medical records and things of that sort? The whole question of privacy in the information society will become something that we should look at as legislators in this House.
Seventh is the question of research and development. Historically we have lagged far, far behind most every other industrial state in the world in terms of spending money on research and development. In fact, if we were to take away the foreign-owned industries in Canada or the branch plants, you would find, Mr. Speaker, that our Canadian firms spend roughly as much in Canada on research and development as do the French, the Germans, the Japanese, the Austrians and the Scandinavians. But because our economy is foreign-owned, about 26 per cent compared to 3 per cent in the United States and 1 per cent in Japan, we find that these branch plants of the foreign firms spend virtually nothing at all on research and development. Because of that we are lagging far, far behind in product innovation, modernization, new ideas, jobs for the young people of Canada, in scientific research, technology and development. High technology is a brand-new field for which we should be training our young people in the years ahead.
Eighth is the question of co-ordination of efforts between the federal Government and the provincial Governments vis-a-vis our different procurement policies, how we use the public purse in terms of high technology and economic strategy in Canada. I think, for example, of my own native Province of Saskatchewan where the Government three or four years ago, together with the Saskatchewan Telephone Company, decided to go into fiberoptics. It was decided to transform the telephone system into one based on fiberoptics. The Government used leverage it had with Northern Telecom to get Northern Telecom to establish a plant in Saskatoon to produce fiberoptics. The Government said to Northern Telecom that it could have the contract but it had to establish a plant in the Province and provide jobs for its people.
Once we have a fiberoptics industry established in our Province, we want a plant which will provide world leadership

June 8, 1983
Technological Change
and have the efficiency and productivity to export fiberoptics and fiberoptic technology around the world. This type of thing could be done by the federal Government and by the Governments of Ontario, Quebec or any other Province, particularly in the field of computers with all schools, hospitals, municipal offices and Crown corporations using computers.
We should use Government procurement policies more to promote Canadian industries in a planned and rational manner instead of buying many of these things abroad. We as Canadians could produce these and provide long-term economic security and job security to Canadians for the rest of this century.
My list is far from complete, but finally-and ninth in terms of the items I have listed this afternoon-this committee could take a look at the human and moral implications of high-tech. It could ensure that its introduction is in accordance with long time accepted human values and objectives. We must ensure that high-tech in Canada is introduced in such a way as to give more freedom and liberation to people, not enslave them to the robot and the computer. We must ensure that the tasks done are the dirty, dull, boring or dangerous jobs, not the more creative ones. We have to ensure that this technology does not make our society a less productive one, a poorer one or an unemployed one. We must ensure that the introduction of new technology makes us more productive, more exciting and wealthier, each and every one of us in the country.
One could say many other things about advanced technology and its importance in the country, but mainly I believe that we need a committee of the House to study the social and economic implications of high technology in Canada. I have listed a number of reasons for that and a number of things at which we should be looking. I call on Hon. Members of all political Parties in the House to come together on this idea and agree to pass this motion and establish such a committee for the fall session of Parliament, so that Canadians through their Members of Parliament will have some input into one of the most exciting and massive transformations in society in many, many years.


Mr. Jim Schroder (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) for bringing this matter to the attention of the House and making us aware of the impact of technological change on our society. I think he gave a very useful list of things about which we as a Government and as a Parliament should be concerned. This afternoon I intend to talk about some of the things the Government is doing and to indicate that indeed we take into account many of the things he mentioned.
I am pleased to take the opportunity this afternoon to outline the Government's efforts to manage the technological change for the benefit of all Canadians. The recently announced technical policy clearly recognized the social dimensions of technology and the need for greater efforts to manage the social impact of technological change. Among the primary national objectives of the policy is our determination to manage the process of technological development to ensure
that Canadians are aware of both the opportunities and the problems which might arise.
Our efforts are focused on longer term economic goals which will be achieved through the increased management of technological change. The Government has approved a $10 million fund to be spent over the next two years to encourage business and labour to establish a centre for productivity and employment growth.
The federal Government has set more detailed objectives for itself to support individuals and institutions in responding to the changes, challenges and opportunities posed by technological development. One objective is to ensure that all Canadians are aware of technological change on their lives, which is very important. Another is to anticipate the impact of technological change and to minimize its negative impacts in close consultation with those most likely to be affected, particularly working Canadians whose jobs may be affected. Also we want to provide access to training and educational opportunities that will help individuals take advantage of new opportunities. We have a fear that people will get the impression that there is nothing they can do about the technological revolution and that it will leave them behind. As 1 said, we have to provide access to these training and educational opportunities so that individuals will take advantage of them rather than fear them.
Another objective is to ensure that individuals in all regions of the nation have similar ranges of opportunity and that all regional economies take advantage of technological opportunities in line with their comparative advantage. The recently announced budget allocated an additional $155 million over the next two years for human resource development programs, to upgrade the skills of Canadian workers and to ease their adaptation to technological change.
A subcommittee on technological development has been formed. As was announced in the recent technology policy statement, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has established a special subcommittee of Cabinet, chaired by the Minister of State for Economic Development and Minister of State for Economic Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Johnston), to deal with all matters concerning technological development. Because of their departmental mandates, the Ministers on the subcommittee have the power and resources to influence all matters concerning the implementation and impact of new technologies. The subcommittee provides a vital policy link which will assess the social impact of technological growth and initiate programs to ease the negative aspects of technological change on our social environment.
At the meeting of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, Members of all Parties favoured the idea of establishing some sort of parliamentary committee to look at important science and technology policy issues, including the socioeconomic impact of technological change. This is being considered now, although the concept of a standing committee rather than a special committee is attractive because we are concerned with the effects which will take place over the longer term. This will require continued attention rather than
June 8, 1983

a short, one-time study. As well, such a parliamentary committee would consider a wider range of issues, such as how technology can be successfully transferred and implemented and how technology development will benefit Canadians in the long term. One of the fears of many people is that there will be displacement of jobs by new technology, that robots will take over and there will be a tremendous loss of jobs. The adoption of new technologies will not sweep away large numbers of jobs in spite of the short-sighted views of alarmists who seem to say that the gains in productivity we are now realizing thanks to the new technologies will somehow be bad for the economy.
A recent study by Informetrica, an Ottawa-based consulting firm, indicates that while the new technologies will result in massive labour-saving effects, productivity increases nevertheless, and the recycling of the income benefits by the consumers, the investors and Governments will generate tremendous offsetting and provide jobs elsewhere in the economy. This study concludes that failure to adapt to the latest technologies would result in the loss of competitiveness for jobs far more serious than the direct displacement effects. In other words, if we are to be competitive in this world of change, technological change, we have to look at what must be done.
It is important to look at technological change and women. The federal Government is particularly concerned about the impact of technological change on women. The recent "Office of the Future" trials in federal Government offices will have special implications for the secretarial and clerical professions. They were conducted with that in mind in order that we would have some idea of what the impact of technological change in the office will be on women.
I recently saw a telephone system developed in Canada which has its own information screen. I can find out from that screen what my appointments are for this month, this week or this day. I do not have to phone my secretary and ask what I will be doing tomorrow at ten o'clock. I do not have to flip through the calendar to find out whether I can do something next week. It could be said that this has an implication for jobs. Does that mean that a secretary will be replaced? It is this kind of information that studies about the office of the future will give us. What is going to happen? What do we have to do? What are the social and economic concerns?
The federal Government is increasingly aware of the importance of encouraging young women to continue their studies in the sciences and mathematics. It is vital for the future economic and social well-being of this country that we encourage women to enter professions, such as engineering and scientific research and development, and to make contributions which will benefit all of us.
What about the changes that we have brought about in some of our federal departments? Let us talk about some of the recent studies on technological change by federal departments. Several federal departments have recently released studies specifically related to the impact of technology on society and the economy. One of these studies is "Employment
Technological Change
Impacts of New Technologies" by the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council. The recommendations made in this report are now under consideration by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Caccia). The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council will spend $700,000 in the current fiscal year on its strategic grants program in the human context of society and technology, a program which promotes research and research training relating to the interaction of science and society.
The Hon. Member who spoke previously to me made some very important points with regard to the fact that it is time we started looking seriously at the possible impacts, rather than just going to sleep thinking that everything will turn out all right in spite of the fact that we are afraid. It is important that we begin thinking about the interaction of science in society. We have had the industrial revolution. We are now into the biomedical, biotechnology revolution, a whole new revolution. We have had trouble adapting to all these kinds of changes throughout our lifetime. Surely it is time we learned that as well as making use of these technologies we have to start thinking about the kind of impact they are going to have on people. If the new technologies do not benefit people, we have to ask seriously whether it is worth while having anything to do with it.
It is very important to think about public awareness. Scientists have to take the public into their confidence and try to explain as simply as they can how the technology works, why it works and who it will work for. We are entering a technological era when most career and day to day activities directly involve working with, understanding and living comfortably with science, mathematics and technology. That is important. A growing number of personal, public and professional decisions require awareness and familiarity with the activities, principles and methods of science and technology. We have to face that. The federal Government has established a $1.5 million fund to promote public awareness and understanding of science and technology issues and their impact on society.
As the Minister of State for Science and Technology noted in his statement of May 3 before the House of Commons on a technology policy for Canada, the federal Government will be sponsoring a "Canada Tomorrow" conference in the fall. The purpose of this conference will be to bring together in one forum the issues related to the impact of technology and technological change, not only on our economic environment but also on our social environment. Dialogue and discussion of this kind will promote a better understanding on the part of all Canadians of the forces which are currently shaping our lives.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker-


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: En franqais!


Roger Simmons: My good friend for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom)-


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In French, in French!

June 8, 1983
Technological Change


Roger Simmons: -is urging me to speak in French. I would rather speak in English now since my notes are in English. Besides, it is a subject on which I prefer to comment in English.

For his benefit, but especially for mine, I will stick to English. I had not realized the demand for my French was so great or I would have brought some French notes for the occasion. It is a subject so important that one would not want to ad lib on it in any language. For that reason, I say to my good friend from Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) that I shall rely on the English notes before me.
The notes inform me that the gentleman from Yorkton-Melville has put down a motion today that there be another special committee on the social and economic impact of technological change. He is for the establishment of that committee. I suppose it would be wrong of me to say I would be against such a committee, except that I do not see the need for it, given the present situation.
I am referring in particular to the policy that my good friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Hon. Member for Guelph (Mr. Schroder), referred to a few moments ago. Just a month ago, on May 3, 1983, the Government introduced in the House a technology program for Canada. I am sure my friend, the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville, has seen the policy, has read and understood it and no doubt subscribes to the main tenets of that policy. The policy, like the Hon. Member's motion, is like motherhood. Who can be against the kinds of admirable things that have been advanced in the policy which the Government has now adopted and made public?
I may say, Mr. Speaker, that the policy is one result of a very concerted effort made by the Government at the Cabinet level, an effort which flowed from an appointment by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) of a special subcommittee of Cabinet on technology development. That subcomittee did its job and brought forward the makings of a technology policy. I would like to take a moment to bring to the attention of the House the broad objectives which are embodied in that technology policy, as follows:
The first objective of the technology policy is to strengthen the Canadian economy through the creation, application and diffusion of state-of-the-art technologies.
Second, we intend to manage the process of technological development so that Canadians are aware of both the opportunities and the problems that might arise...
Third, we must ensure that the benefits of technology development are shared equitably among all Canadians in every region.
And last ... we must encourage a social climate that places a premium on scientific and technological excellence, curiosity and innovation.
I submit to the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville that these four objectives are the very objectives that he would seek to achieve in his resolution. I say to him and to the House that the Government, as is sometimes the case, is ahead of him. The Hon. Member is known to be a forward thinking individual
who has spent a long time in the House and has served his constituents and the House well, but I must say that on this particular issue the Government has at least caught up to him and is perhaps slightly ahead of him in that the course that he would have the committee chart has already been charted by the Government. The evidence for that is the policy statement made public by the Minister of State for Economic Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Johnston) a month ago, on May 3.
I am sure that the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville has seen that policy statement with its accompanying documents that deal with the Government's support for technology development and outline in detail the various aspects of the policy, including the "Canada Tomorrow" conference which my friend the Hon. Member for Guelph made reference to, a conference which the Government will sponsor a few months from now in the fall of this year.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if the Hon. Member would entertain a serious question.


Roger Simmons: By all means, Mr. Speaker.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I have followed closely and undertand very well all the points the Hon. Member is making and I am quite aware of what the Government is doing. I would like to ask the Hon. Member whether or not he would agree to a committee so that those of us who are Parliamentarians but are not in Cabinet, including himself, could have some input into these very, very important questions that we as a nation must address. I wonder if the Hon. Member could address that question. Why should we not, as Members of Parliament, have some input? After all, this is a democratic country and I think that my suggestion is nothing more than an extension of parliamentary democracy.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. I submit to him that Members have had a fair amount of input. I hope that the hon. gentleman is not suggesting that during the various debates in which he has participated in the House he has not used the occasion to inform the House of his views on this particular subject. While he is not a member of Cabinet and while 1 am not a member of Cabinet, I understand that the Cabinet subcommittee took full cognizance of the views that had been expressed in this Chamber and elsewhere.
When I say elsewhere, I include in particular a reference to another task force which has just recently concluded its work, the Task Force on Employment Opportunities in the Eighties. Part of that task force report deals specifically with the issues that we are discussing today. That task force operated under a mandate from the House, was appointed by the House and had representatives from all Parties of the House, including representations form the New Democratic Party of which my friend, the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville, is a member. In response to his question, I must say to the Hon. Member that I do not believe there has been any lack of input by
June 8, 1983

Members of the House, particularly through the task force but in other ways as well, and for that reason I see no real need to adopt the Hon. Member's suggestion.
I would also say to the Hon. Member that if this were only an academic exercise and something that could take a number of months or years to accomplish, I would support his resolution for the creation of a special committee on the subject. The fact is that at this point in time it is my view that we have not yet taken full advantage of the economic opportunities and job opportunities which high technology has to offer the country. I commend Cabinet for having focused on the issue and having made, so expeditiously, a decision which allows that policy to be formulated and to become public, as it did on May 3. I would invite the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville not to pursue a course of action, however much it resembles motherhood on its surface, that would have the effect of delaying the implementation of a very good policy.
I would be remiss if at this time I did not note the occasion of the occupancy of the chair by my good friend, the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), who performs in this capacity extremely well, as he does in all others. I hope he stays there a long time.
It is true, Mr. Speaker, that we have had to deal with the issue of radical changes in employment patterns in the past and we have coped with it. We expect that we will have to deal with this issue in the future and we will cope with it. We will cope with it again just as long as we face the issue directly and continue to devise intelligent policies to deal with it.
I say that we have dealt with that problem in the past, Mr. Speaker, and I will give you an example of it that involves the field of agriculture. In only 15 years between 1946 and 1961, the number of people employed in agriculture dropped from just over one million to just over 600,000, a drop of almost half a million jobs. Over the same 15-year period, the percentage of employed Canadians who worked in agriculture dipped from 25 per cent to just over 11 per cent. In 1981 that percentage stood at only 4.4 per cent.
This was indeed a wrenching change in employment patterns and one we would have viewed with alarm if we had been able to forecast the disappearance of farm jobs without any clear idea of the opportunities that would emerge as the economy grew and changed. It has always been far easier to identify the jobs at risk than it has been to identify the jobs likely to be created by change. But hundreds of years of experiencing the emergence of new technologies have shown that there is always a parallel and unforeseen set of new opportunities that will emerge to create wealth and jobs.
Before we become too disheartened, Mr. Speaker, it is worth remembering that in the 1970s total employment grew by almost three million. It grew from eight million employed in 1971 to 10.9 million a decade later. Moreover, massive adjustments in the labour force are taking place all the time. The Task Force on Labour-Market Development in the 1980s found that every year one million new jobs are created and three-quarters of a million jobs disappear in the same period.
Technological Change
I should like to return for a moment to my agricultural example. It is clear that we managed transition because we had a strong economy, one that was creating wealth and favouring the growth of capital investment. In turn, that called for a work force adapted to new circumstances. In the 1950s and 1960s the economy was able to provide that growth, and in order to maintain our ability to adapt to new technologies and to changing world patterns, we need a strong economy again.
Regaining that economic strength is the objective toward which the efforts of the Government are targeted. It seems clear that the future will be a highly competitive one. If Canada is to prosper, the Canadian economy must be competitive in terms of cost, quality, technological sophistication and marketing.
The reality is before us; it is inescapable. If we try to hide from the reality of the new product and production technologies, we will slip into an economic backwater. If we refuse to hide our heads in the sand and if we meet the challenge head on with intelligence, I foresee continued growth and social wealth, the wealth of our society as a whole and the emergence of new ways of work and wealth sharing.
Perhaps we should look at this not as a problem but as an opportunity. I am told that in the Chinese language there is one set of symbols for two words. They use a set of symbols to designate on paper the word we know as "problem", but they use the same set of symbols, without rearrangement, to connote "opportunity". I submit that those who see the coming high technology as a problem would do well also to look at it from the perspective of it being an opportunity-indeed, a set of opportunities-for Canadians.
Human beings have always been at their best when facing challenge. Our adaptability has always been our strength. The technology policy that the Government has proposed and the specific initiatives it has announced are actions which will facilitate the transition of our economy and our society to a new world, the shape of which we can only begin to guess. I for one face that new world with some optimism. I repeat the essential point, that job losses are always easy to see and forecast while the new opportunities cannot be nearly as readily predicted. These opportunities will emerge just as long as we continue to put in place the programs and policies that will ensure we are able to seize the advantage in a timely way. No one will argue that the period we face is not one of profound structural change. That change will eliminate jobs; no one would argue with that. My point is that it will also create new jobs.
The choice is an important one, Mr. Speaker, but a fairly simple one-to hide our heads in the sand, to try to freeze everything in time, to fight high technology as some kind of evil monster or, conversely and more positively and certainly more productively and sensibly, to see high technology as a set of opportunities we must latch on to, a new door which opens to create new kinds of job opportunities to replace those which have disappeared because of passing technology. That is the

June 8, 1983
Technological Change
story of civilization, is it not, Mr. Speaker? Those who oppose would have us go back to an earlier time; they would have us remain nomadic herders.
I would like to hear the views of my good friend to my right, the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen), who indicates that he would like to have a little time to speak on this. I realize that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) would like to hear some other comments on the subject. My colleague has words of wisdom that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill has never heard. The Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton is a former Minister of a department which was so concerned about these new opportunities that we require that he must take a fair amount of credit for the policies that are now in place. It is the policy of great foresight which this Government has launched, building on the foundation laid by the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton during his period in the ministry. I have pleasure in concluding my remarks so that we may all listen with rapt attention to the wisdom of my colleague.


Hon. Bud Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his very kind comments about the foresight of earlier Governments. Unfortunately, it did not impress the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) enough to reappoint me to that particular post. Here I am today, in Private Members' Hour, carrying this particular heavy load.
I do not want to make light of the subject that the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) has introduced because it is one that pricks the conscience of all of us. It is easy to see all the benefits that would accrue as a result of technological change. Governments of all political stripe, both at the provincial and federal level, are doing what they feel is appropriate to see to it that we do not drop into some black hole as far as technology is concerned, but that we remain in the forefront and take advantage of all these marvellous improvements. Many of these are labour-saving operations that can be done better by the improvement in technology, machinery and the intelligence that is applied to the kind of scientific miracle that is taking place around us every day.
When I heard that this motion was coming up for debate today I wondered if it might not be somewhat redundant. 1 am given to understand by the chairman of the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration that that particular Committee has a reference to study basically the same sort of thing-the impact of technological change, particularly on the work force. If that is the case, it may be that even if all of those who wish to participate in this debate find they will not have the opportunity to do so because of the limited time, the Hon. Member may find that he has gained his victory in any event by highlighting the subject in a motion, only to find that he has been pre-empted by the Committee with the eight or nine points that he made. No doubt he will be making those points again for the consideration of the Committee.
This subject is a matter of serious concern to those of us who are charged with the responsibility of governing. We have to recognize that as a result of technological change jobs will be lost. In the automobile manufacturing industry in particular there are jobs which will never be occupied again because of
robotics and other technological changes. But these changes have to be made in the interest of being competitive, particularly in the automobile industry, in the world economy.
As I was listening today to the debate, I happened to glance through the most recent issue of Maclean's magazine. I see that the Conservative convention which is taking place at the present time has also become the victim, or the beneficiary, 1 suppose is more correct, of technological change, in that if the candidates do not keep up with the changes and advancements made since 1976, they feel they will be left in the backwaters somehow. We find, therefore, there are no fewer than 1,000 walkie-talkies at that particular convention. On the last occasion, those who were using walkie-talkies found themselves on the same frequency. One individual indicated it was like listening to ten telephone conversations at the same time.
The powers that be then decided that was inappropriate, that there must be a more effective and efficient way of contacting one another without the Opposition knowing exactly what was being talked about, who was talking and what the various plans were. Therefore, as a result of technology there will be different transmissions. What does that create? It creates for the television people an additional difficulty because they must be concerned about interference. Special casings must be built. So we find as a result of all this modern technology and advancements more jobs are being created at this particular convention and more expertise must be used if candidates for leadership in a political convention are not to be left in the wake of other candidates.
I suppose our prime concern, and I am sure the concern of the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville who moved this particular motion, is that it is all well and good to talk about the positive aspects of technological change and, heaven knows, there are many hundreds of thousands of them, but there will be employment fallout, the loss of employment as the result of machines or electronic devices and technological devices taking over and doing work which at one time was performed by ten people. One man or one woman operating one machine can now do that particular amount of work.
This was brought home to me most forcefully as a young man in those days when I was working my way through school. It was quite usual in the area of Sudbury to have young students working underground. Obviously, during the pre-war years there were not sufficient numbers of miners so they were hiring students to do a lot of the "bull-work", if you will. A lot of us were at the business end of a shovel and doing that which was necessary in order to muck out the ore. With technological change there were mucking machines, slushing machines, trains and trams, better drills, and more diamond drilling equipment, to the point that where 10, 15 or 20 people had been employed in a particular drift or shaft construction, much of that work was done, as the result of technological change, by about one-tenth the number.
What also came about as the result of technological change is that there were a lot of people working on new machinery, so
June 8, 1983

there was a tendency to have accidents. To the credit of the union, it was brought to the attention of management that it was appropriate that they should be concerned about safety first and production second. To their surprise, by proper use of machinery, proper instructions to the employees, adequately trained people, and putting the emphasis on safety, production actually increased. Therefore, it was to the benefit of the workers and management that this particular change was effected. It did have the impact, of course, of doing away with a lot of jobs, but it did save a lot of the "bull-work". It also enabled the management of the mine to move faster, to build larger drifts and shafts, and to do more "slushing" work, as they called at that time. As a consequence they were able to maintain their workers at a pretty comparable level to what it was in pre-war days. With the advancement of machinery they were able to do much more work in open pit mining.


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


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Shall all orders listed under Private Members' Public Bills preceding Order No. 384 be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough) moved: that Bill C-584, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (capital punishment), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He Said: Mr. Speaker, we are now at second reading of bill C-584, which is an Act to amend the Criminal Code to reinstate capital punishment for cases of premeditated first degree murder. We are discussing the subject today after a very long and sustained effort on the part of the Official Opposition, the Progressive Conservative Party, to have the serious question of capital punishment referred to committee and to allow a free vote in the House of Commons. I am attempting to satisfy the majority of my constituents who wish the Government to review the possibility of a return to capital punishment for premeditated first degree murder.
On December 15, 1980, as reported on page 5742 of Hansard, I asked the Government House Leader to allow one of the many Private Members' Bills dealing with capital punishment to come to a vote. I subsequently introduced this Private Members' Bill, Bill C-584, which received first reading on
Capital Punishment
May 2, 1980. I hoped then, as I do now, that the Bill would come up for debate during this session of the Thirty-second Parliament. Again, on January 27, 1981, as reported on page 6589 of Hansard, I rose under Standing Order 43, asking to refer the subject of capital punishment to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
On June 11, 1981, the Progressive Conservative Party managed to arrange an Opposition day in which I had the opportunity to present the motion which appears on page 10504 of Hansard once again to refer the question of the reintroduction of capital punishment as the penalty for some classes of murder to the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. Bill C-584, which has been on the Order Paper for four years, would effectively reimpose the death sentence in cases of first degree murder.
The decision to bring this matter to the attention of the House of Commons is not only representative of an enlightened leadership, but more significantly reaffirms the sense of responsibility towards the electorate which is shared by all Hon. Members of the Progressive Conservative Party.
In a poll conducted in the riding of Peterborough in 1981, 87.2 per cent of persons polled favoured a return to capital punishment for premeditated first degree murder. On a national level in 1982, a poll carried out by the Ottawa Citizen revealed that nearly three-quarters of the Canadian population want the death penalty restored and, even more, support a referendum on the question. The surveys accurately reflect the desire of a strong majority of all Members of Parliament to have a free vote on the question of capital punishment in order to fulfil their obligations and responsibilities to their constituents. I hope that this Bill, C-584, an Act to amend the Criminal Code, will be read a second time today and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-584 is a Bill to bring back capital punishment. I suggest that is a very wrong and mistaken principle and that this is a very wrong and mistaken Bill. We can understand why people want to reinstate capital punishment when there are murderers like Clifford Olson. However, I suggest that the risks are far too great. In addition to Clifford Olson and, far more likely, we have examples like Donald Marshall, who spent 11 years in a penitentiary for a murder he did not commit and for which someone else has since been charged. One of the last people executed in the United Kingdom, where there is a system of criminal justice very much like our own, was executed for a murder which it was subsequently found out he did not commit.
We now have plenty of information that capital punishment does not act as a deterrent in any general or specific way as for police officers. There have been many United Nations studies which have demonstrated this in many countries. We have actually seen the murder rate decline in Canada over a number

June 8, 1983
Capital Punishment
of years, after the effective abolition of capital punishment here. I will not suggest that if capital punishment were reintroduced the murder rate would rise again; there are slight fluctuations from year to year. I suspect that there is in fact no relationship in terms of deterrence and the actual murder rate with capital punishment.
The Hon. Member who introduced the Bill spoke of the popularity of capital punishment in the general population. I will concede that a majority of Canadians at the present time would like capital punishment to be reinstated, at least for some purposes. However, I happen to be a sociologist, and a criminologist in fact, and I have done a little bit of work on this subject. In a book that I published: "The Sociology of Law and Order", I reported results from a survey in which I not only asked "Would you like to have the penalty of capital punishment?", but, as well, "If so, for what kinds of offences and what kinds of circumstances?" I found that support for capital punishment was highly qualified. People said that they only wanted it for mass murderers, multiple murderers, or cases where there could be no mistake because there were actually eye witnesses, or in situations of child abuse; in other words, extremely rare situations in terms of the crime committed and the witnesses to it, conditions which would almost never obtain.
I believe that when people indicate that they still want punishment, they really want a symbol on the books. They want to demonstrate that murder is really a heinous crime and that capital punishment is the sort of sentence which would be appropriate for it. They do not really want to see executioners back in business.
I understand the need for symbols, but I would like to suggest that this could be a very poor symbol. Symbols could have effects that we do not want. Bringing back capital punishment could give people a false sense of security. It could give the appearance of something being done to give them better protection against violence than, in fact, would be the case.
When we think of capital punishment and murder, we are, of course, focusing on an individual criminal. We have all been raised in terms of personal morality. It is easier to see a wicked person than to think of wickedness and evil in terms of corporations and generalities in institutions. Our stereotype of the criminal is of a wicked-looking deviant, an evil-looking person. If we lock him up and throw away the key or kill this person, we have a sense of security that something is better.
However, murder is in fact very infrequent in Canada. We are not a violent society. People who watch too much American television are left with the impression that there is far more murder than is actually the case, especially elderly people, who are far too often presented on television as being victims of crime. This gives them the impression that they are in great danger when, in fact, they are not. We are much more likely to be killed in a car accident, in a fire or because of bad working conditions. Here the time span is such that people do not realize they are being killed by hazardous conditions at
work or where they live. We are much more likely to be killed by the unintended effects of corporate decisions than by premeditated murder. The culprit here is not a wicked person, but, rather, a negligent corporation, or a municipality or provincial or federal Government which licenses, permits, or, in the case of Crown corporations, actively perpetrates bad working conditions, such as pollutants, or low level radioactivity. There are many situations which cause long-term cancers in large numbers of people, such as pollutants in drinking water, in the air, the general conditions around us. There is no evil-looking crook here but the glossy pages of annual reports of corporations and smiling Cabinet Ministers saying that all is well.
[ Translation]
There is no easy remedy for violence, but I am confident we can at least reduce the rate of violence, if we cannot eliminate it altogether. In fact, crime was worse in the 19th century, but further improvement can be expected only if we tackle the causes of violence.
Violence against women will be reduced as soon as women are respected in our society and accepted as equal partners. Meanwhile, we can improve the investigation procedures used by police in so-called domestic conflicts. We need research and experimentation, and the results of new procedures must be analyzed. Psychologists advise using the principles of negotiation in family conflicts and elsewhere. These procedures can be taught to young people. We should carry out experiments in resolving conflicts in our schools and with young people convicted of violent crimes.
We must seek out the best way of rehabilitating offenders and criminals. Recently, remarkable results were obtained in federal prisons through the use of post-secondary education. And then the Solicitor General dropped this program, which had the best record in the country! I feel this experiment should be continued and extended to other programs, instead of cutting the program.
It is generally agreed that there is a direct relationship between alcoholism and drinking, and the murder rate. However, in our society, the consumption of alcohol is encouraged by the advertising media. Prohibition is impossible without creating a black market, but we should not encourage consumption through advertising.
Hard-core pornography actually encourages violence, especialy towards women and children. Nevertheless, the federal Government has now given licences to pay television companies for broadcasting pornography. I say we should put a stop to hard-core pornography. That would be better than building new prisons for violent criminals. What does the Progressive Conservative Party intend to do about this? They would rather talk about capital punishment for murder instead of preventing murders. Did the Progressive Conservatives support my proposal for introducing measures to control pornography on pay TV? Are they against the causes of violence? No, they are not.
June 8, 1983

Recently, a Progressive Conservative Member introduced a Private Member's Bill aimed at removing certain firearm control measures. We must have very strict laws to control the possession of firearms. No more firearms, no more violent crimes including murder! It is mostly the Progressive Conservatives who want to bring back capital punishment, but the Liberals are also making false promises with respect to security. The Solicitor General has proposed amendments that will provide for longer incarceration of prisoners considered to be dangerous. He says this is to protect society by preventing violent crime. At least the public will get the impression that the Government is listening and is doing something about violent crime. However, I would like to point that fraud is also a crime. If such measures are to be successful, we must be able to determine which prisoners will continue to live a life of crime and which have been entirely rehabilitated. That is impossible, however. We would like to hope it would be possible, but that is not what reality tells us. It was the fond hope of reformers at the end of the 19th and at the beginning of this century. It was also a fond hope of my own party when it was founded in the thirties.
The Regina Manifesto recommended doing away with the present system of prison yards and prisons and so forth, and introducing a so-called scientific system with experts in psychology and psychiatrists who would treat crime as a disease. We know now that there is no system for the treatment of criminality. We in the New Democratic Party have abandoned these false dreams of science, but the Liberals still have a misguided confidence in the possibility of making scientific predictions on recidivism.
My point finally is that both the Liberals and the Conservatives will hold out false solutions and give false promises to the Canadian public. The Conservatives do so by suggesting that we can have security with capital punishment when there is no evidence that it has ever had this effect in the past or any reason to believe that it will in the future. The Liberals would do so by building more prisons and special handling units and by investing in more hardware. They are both simplistic, hardware solutions-gallows and steel bars-but they will not work. Life is more complicated than that. I am not saying there are no solutions in the sense of measures that would reduce violence. I would encourage experiments at rehabilitation and re-education, conflict resolutions, new methods of policing on the streets and in crime investigation, as well as gun control and measures to reduce alcoholism and drunkenness. Others include early identification of child abuse and reeducation of parents, modest experiments with research followup to see how successful they are and changes in practice if they are warranted.
Finally, let me note that the rate of violence including murder would be reduced if we build a more decent society, a society in which there is care for those with difficulties, and
Capital Punishment
help so that people will not be driven to desperate measures by unemployment, illness and despair. There is nothing to be gained by holding up false promises. Indeed, we may be lulling people into complacency with false measures and preventing the development of better measures. A bill such as the one before us today will accomplish no good. Let us not attempt to delude the public. Let us be honest about the problems, diligent and careful about seeking better solutions. We must now allow this Bill to pass.


Mr. Roland de Corneille (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is to Bill C-584 that I address my remarks. In its simplest terms, this Bill is an attempt to reinstate the death penalty. Clause 2, subclause (2) states:
Everyone who commits second degree murder is guilty of an indictable offence and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life.
Subclause (1) states:
Everyone who commits first degree murder is guilty of an indictable offence and shall be sentence to death.
One can see what kind of lugubrious subject we are dealing by reading the terms of Clause 3 which states in regard to section 597;
A female person who is sentenced to death may move in arrest of execution on the ground that she is pregnant.
It continues in its humanitarian way:
Where a motion is made under subsection (1), the court shall direct one or more registered medical practitioners to be sworn to examine the female person together or successively and to determine whether or not she is pregnant.
In other words, we are talking about how we will ascertain whether we will give a stay of execution on the ground that she is pregnant.
It is with deep sorrow and sadness that we find ourselves as legislators having to address the subject of those who have taken the life of another by murder. Certainly murder is the most gruesome and awful crime we can think of because murder is the violation of the most precious and basic human right of all; that is to say, the right to life. It is very hard for us to think that people could reach such a base point that they feel they have to take someone else's life. We talk about human rights. Certainly the most fundamental right of all is the right to life. It is the right to enjoy one's life and live it out.
I have to say that all too often we are only concerned with the subject of what we do with a person we think has committed murder, overlooking the suffering that has been wrought upon those who are relatives of the person killed. We spend a lot of time thinking about what we should do to the offender and perhaps too little time thinking of how we can try to help those who have been bereaved, those who have lost a loved one. All in all, it is a very sad subject.
It surprises me that we so often find ourselves faced with this same debate. We know that in 1976, the year of abolition, there were many debates. The debate raged on for three months. When the final vote on abolition of the death penalty was reached, the leaders of all three Parties agreed that the

June 8, 1983
Capital Punishment
Bill should be passed and the death penalty abolished. The subject has been debated ever since.
One has to wonder why this debate is continually recurring. I ask Members and the people of Canada if it is because there is a deterrent when capital punishment is reinstated. Would the death penalty eliminate the murders that take place in Canada? All of the studies that have been made seem to indicate that most murders that occur in Canada are murders within the family.
We know also that the record and the facts show that the rate of homocide in 1975 was 2.77 per 100,000 in the population. In 1976, the year of abolition of the death penalty, the rate dropped to 2.66. In 1977 it rose marginally to 2.72. It fell again in 1978 to 2.62. In 1979 it was 2.5. In 1980, it dropped to 2.1 and in 1981 to 2.5. In other words, ever since capital punishment was abolished, since the death penalty was eliminated, the rate of homicide has been less than it was the year before. The rate was 2.77 per 100,000 of population in 1975 and it has continually been below that figure since. It was at 2.5 in 1981.
Would any reasonable person suggest that if we bring back capital punishment we will deter people from committing murder? All the statistics we have indicate to the contrary. There is no sociological explanation for that. There is no pragmatic evidence that we would be able to lessen the number of murders.
Why would capital punishment be reinstated? Do we want to try to discourage murders or is there another reason that people wish to bring back capital punishment? The pragmatic evidence certainly shows that it cannot be because it is a deterrent. If the obsession of certain Members of the Progressive Conservative Party to constantly bring back the request for capital punishment is not then based on deterrent, it must be based on some other reason. There must be another reason why they want to bring back capital punishment and go back to the olden days, the days of horror.
I suggest that if there is no evidence of deterrent, there must then be a desire for punishment in order to punish or get revenge on someone because they committed a murder. That must be the reason. Certainly it is not because it will reduce the number of murders. The facts indicate the contrary.
I am surprised that anyone would want to give the impression that they were speaking on the basis of moral suasion. Surely they cannot turn to the Scriptures, to religious organizations, or to the facts to support the idea that there should be a return of hanging. This Bill does not even say capital punishment, but leaves to some humanitarian discoveries what should be done and how it should be done. In fact, it prescribes hanging. In any case, where is the moral backing for the idea that we should have a return to capital pune?
The sixth United Nations Congress on the prevention of crime and the treatment of offenders called for all Governments that retained capital punishment to cease employing it.
It called upon the General Assembly of the United Nations to promulgate a declaration that would urge its total worldwide abolition, to call on all non-governmental organizations concerned with human rights to make every effort at the national and international level to secure the abolition of capital punishment.
This opinion was submitted by such organizations as Amnesty International, Caritas Internationalis, Commission of the Churches on International Affairs of the World Council of Churches, Friends World Committee for Consultation (Quakers), International Alliance of Women, International Association for Religious Freedom, International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, International Council of Jewish Women, International Federation of Free Journalists, Pax Christi, Pax Romana, World Alliance of Young Men's Christian Associations, World Federation of United Nations Associations, World Jewish Congress, World Muslim Congress, World Student Christian Federation and the World Young Women's Christian Association.
All these world bodies condemned punishment and called for the elimination of capital punishment in every nation throughout the world. Surely, hon. gentlemen cannot suggest that this is some kind of moral cause these bodies are espousing. Nor can that argument be supported in terms of Canadian religious organizations on the suggestion that maybe these others are all communist infiltrated because they are world bodies.
When it comes to Canada, the argument is that maybe these are pinko organizations. But, these are world religious organizations. On the Canadian scene we have a similar endorsement in that the following churches and organizations have also condemned capital punishment and have called for its elimination-


Mr. Darling:: What about the people in the churches?


Roland de Corneille: -the Anglican Church of Canada, the United Church of Canada, the Canadian Catholic Conference, the Central Conference of American Rabbis, the Presbyterian Church in Canada, the Baptist Convention of Ontario and Quebec, the Canadian Unitarian Council, the Lutheran Church in America, the Quaker Society of Friends and the Mennonite Central Committee. They all oppose the death penalty.


Stan Darling: What about the people in the congregations?


Mr. Fretz:: What about the Canadian people?


Mr. Taylor:: Don't the Canadian people count?


Roland de Corneille: I am astounded that these people would try to set forth an idea that simply calls forth some idea of brutal revenge and punishment.


Gordon Edward Taylor: You are talking about 80 per cent of the Canadian people, you know. They do not matter to you.


Roland de Corneille: They do not wish to hear the truth. They do not wish to be confused by the facts, but the pragmatic
June 8, 1983

evidence is, as I have tried to show you, Mr. Speaker, that bringing back the death penalty cannot act as a deterrent but acts, if anything, as a stimulus to murder.


Gordon Edward Taylor: It stops them. They will never do it a second or a third time.


Roland de Corneille: All the evidence indicates that since we have brought in the abolition of capital punishment the rate of homicide has gone down, not up, year after year after year.


Stan Darling: What about attempted murders? The numbers are way up.


Roland de Corneille: I have cited those statistics for you, Mr. Speaker. They are official statistics.
I hear a lot of noise from the other side, Mr. Speaker. They have had their chance to present their points of view. They do not need to make this noise. It is my turn to speak. I hope those in the Tory benches will allow me to have my say in a democratic society, something which is hard for them.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Go ahead and mollycoddle.


Roland de Corneille: There is this objection that has been raised. It is said that there are people in Canada, in terms of statistical who according to polls indicate they would like to see the return of capital punishment.


Some Hon. Members:: Right.


Roland de Corneille: When one phrases the question in different ways, one gets different results. When you ask Canadian people whether they would like to see capital punishment brought back and that we use the rope or whatever, you find that the number of people who want to bring back capital punishment, when confronted by those specifics, drops to less than 40 per cent. When one phrases the wording one way, one gets perhaps a kind of an emotional reaction. When one puts the facts before the Canadian people, one gets another.
If people still say to me, "nevertheless, you are the Member from Eglinton-Lawrence and we think there are more people in your riding who want a return of capital punishment than there are who want to eliminate it," I would have to say to them that I have to use my judgment-


Some Hon. Members:: You tell them-


Roland de Corneille: -as a Member of Parliament. There is still noise from the other side, Mr. Speaker. It is incredible.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. The parliamentary secretary has the floor.


Roland de Corneille: I appreciate your bringing order back to the other side, Mr. Speaker. I have to say that I still have to use my judgment.
I want to quote from a speech delivered by Sir Edmund Burke upon his election to the constituency of Bristol in 1774. I address these words to my hon. friends on the other side in the hope that they will take them to heart. This excerpt from Sir Edmund Burke's speech reads:
Capital Punishment
Certainly, gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion high respect; their business unremitted attention. It is his duty-
That is the duty of a Member of Parliament.
-to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs, and, above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But-
And this is a point that Hon. Members on the other side have not taken into account.
-his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you-
The speech continues:
They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion-
To deliver an opinion is the right of all men; that of constituents is a weighty and respectable opinion, which a representative ought always to rejoice to hear; and which he ought always most seriously to consider.
The last excerpt reads:
Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him he is not a member from Bristol, but he is a member of parliament.
I suggest it is my duty to look at the statistics and the facts.
I have a responsibility if I want to try to reduce the number of murders in this country to make sure that we do not reintroduce capital punishment. Since we have eliminated capital punishment, the number of homicides has gone down. In all conscience as an individual and as a Member of Parliament I must speak out and say that there is no moral reason to bring it back. Every major religious denomination in Canada, indeed throughout the world, whether Christian, Jewish or Muslim, has condemned capital punishment and called for its elimination.
I must use my judgment, and I believe the judgment of my constituents would be the same as mine; with these facts and with the knowledge of the opinions of all moral and religious leaders, I feel that they would not agree with this Bill or want to see it passed.
I would like to commend the speaker who preceded me, although I disassociate myself from her remarks regarding the Liberal Party. I commend her approach when she said it is sad that we constantly have Bills introduced in the House dealing with homicide and how to deal with murderers, instead of dealing with the far greater slaughter throughout this country about which we hear so little from the Official Opposition. All kinds of gruesome things are going on, not only in this country but throughout the world. Let us remember our sins of omission. Millions of people are dying of hunger and starvation, yet all too often we in this country wallow in a great deal of

June 8, 1983
Capital Punishment
affluence. Perhaps we should concentrate more on having Private Members' bills introduced, perhaps by Opposition Members, to draw our attention to those problems. Perhaps they would like to bring in more bills which deal with the unnecessary slaughter of so many people on our highways, or the lack of adequate protection of our workers in the workplace. It would be better if we had more bills that dealt with the prevention of violence and murder rather than a constant repetition of the desire to bring about revenge.


Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in complete support of Bill C-584. My reasons for this support are very well documented. I would like to indicate to the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille) that although I am not a member from Bristol, I am a Member of Parliament and my duty is to convey the wishes of my constituents in an outright manner. It was interesting to listen to the statistics given by the Hon. Member, but he did not give us any statistics on how his constituents think. Did he give the percentages shown by the poll conducted among his constituents?
The previous speaker, the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald), is a so-called expert on criminology and a sociologist. She said that she studied the system completely, but she did not study the wishes of her constituents. We did not hear any statistics from her about what those constituents want.
What we saw today was that same old socialist marriage; the Liberal-NDP coalition. We saw performed here a homicidal marriage of one side of the House to the other. I presented a petition in the House on behalf of my constituents in favour of the return. I have stood here in the House time after time indicating the wishes of my constituents. Approximately 88 per cent of them say, "Please return". I hope the constituents of the previous two speakers took due note of that unholy alliance.

Mr. Alain Tardif (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-584, particularly since I was not a Member when a historical debate was held on that issue in 1976. I am also very pleased to take part in the debate because I have never had an opportunity to voice my opinion on this very important question. The general public is very much aware of the issue, if only because every day newspapers' headlines relate to odious crimes which make capital punishment the main topic of discussions and conversations.
I think that people do seek such sensational news reports as a forum to debate the pros and cons of the death penalty. In all honesty, I think that we ought to admit that most Canadians are in favour of the return of the death penalty.
Still, a serious study of the matter would show that most if not all Canadians at first react intuitively and emotionally but that basically they are opposed to capital punishment. In my
opinion, in 1983 we have a lot more data than was available when the law was changed in 1976, and we can now collate, quantify and interpret statistics which prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that the death penalty is not a deterent. On the contrary, statistics reveal that in recent years, since the death penalty was abolished, the number of qualified murders has declined.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to review everything connected with this topic. Given the vast amount of publicity related to it, it is very difficult to speak on such an issue without repeating old arguments or referring to certain aspects which have been heard one way or another in practically all discussions and debates.
My intention today is to mention only a few. First of all, as I have just said, it seems to me we should deal with the death penalty itself and ask ourselves whether we ought to devote part of the precious time of the House to this subject at a time when there are so many pressing problems to consider because Canadians are a lot more concerned about them than they are about capital punishment.
First, let us review very briefly what the problem is at the international level and in the Canadian context as a result of the Canadian Parliament's 1976 decision to abolish the death penalty for all Criminal offences. Second, I think it is important to examine the main arguments of capital punishment supporters. Although Hon. Members know that already, perhaps I ought to remind the House that a free vote was held on this question on July 14, 1976 with the results as follows: 130 for and 124 against, so the House abolished the death penalty for all Criminal offences. This vote brought to an end a most animated debate that lasted over three months and in which more than half the Members of Parliament took part. Bill C-84 was therefore in keeping with an abolition process started more than a century before in countries with the same common law system as Canada. The British criminal law was introduced in Canada in 1763, then called the blood code, and required the death penalty for over 200 types of offences, from the simple theft of turnips to being caught in disguise in a forest.
Following in the steps of Great Britain, Canada restricted the application of the death penalty in 1859 and again in 1865, when it was decided that it would be carried out only in cases of murder, treason or rape. In addition, changes were gradually made to Canadian laws dealing with the application of the death penalty, to reflect the reforms brought about in the United States.
A whole series of private bills calling for the abolition of the death penalty were also introduced in Canada between 1914 and 1917, but these bills gave rise only to short debates that were not followed by votes when they were not immediately ruled out of order. After the Second World War, both Canada
June 8, 1983

and the United Kingdom passed legislation to restrict even more the types of offences punishable by death. After the royal commission responsible for considering the possibility of limiting and amending the statutes on the death penalty tabled its report in 1953, the British Parliament passed in 1957 a piece of legislation entitled the Elomicide Act, which differentiated between crimes punishable by death and all the others.
In Canada, a joint parliamentary committee was set up in 1953 to consider various issues, including the death penalty. Following publication in 1956 of that committee's bulky report, a whole series of procedural amendments were passed which granted additional rights to the accused. In fact, a piece of legislation was introduced in 1960 to differentiate between offences punishable by the death penalty and the others, as the British Parliament had done in 1957.
In 1966, a multipartite resolution calling for the abolition of the death penalty was introduced in the House of Commons and was defeated, but one year later, following a free vote, the Government put a moratorium on the death penalty, except for the murder of a police officer or a prison guard. The last executions in Canada took place in December 1962. The five-year moratorium came to an end in 1972 and an act to extend it for another five years was passed by a narrow margin after another free vote in November 1973.
These, Mr. Speaker, were the various legislative steps taken over a rather long period which preceded the discussion and passage of Bill C-84 seven years ago. It is appropriate to note that all parties represented in this House participated actively in some very interesting and positive debates on this issue in 1966, 1967, 1973 and 1976. It should also be pointed out that all the arguments for and against the death penalty invoked today and during every one of those debates are very similar to those raised by the proponents and opponents of the death penalty through the years, and even by the Roman senators more than 2,000 years ago.
This issue should also be placed in its proper context, that is in a more global or internatonal context. While most countries still retain the death penalty at least for certain offences, for some decades, its application has been gradually restricted, not only theoretically, but also in practice, throughout the world.
In fact, the General Assembly of the United Nations passed resolutions in 1971 and 1977 asking all its members to reduce the number of offences punishable by death, which several countries have done in recent years.
Quite recently indeed, in April of 1980, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe voted with a very strong majority a resolution and a recommendation in support of abolishing capital punishment in the Council's 21 member countries. According to a report submitted by Amnesty International, the 1977 Nobel Prize winner for Peace, three countries have completely abolished capital punishment last year, and another one has abolished it for crimes committed in
Capital Punishment
peacetime. And, finally, another one has drafted a new constitution which was to come into force in July of 1980 and has abolished capital punishment for crimes committed in peacetime. Also, in 1979 and early 1980, significant attempts to reinstate capital punishment aborted in several countries.
If I am allowed to digress, I would say that each time we go through highly dramatic experiences, I admit that ... In fact,
I am referring of course to what unfortunately we have gone through on two occasions in Montreal penitentiaries, involving wardens. Each time, people see a relationship between capital punishment and what goes on inside penitentiaries. In other terms, the public at large, I do suggest, is often under the false impression that were capital punishment to be reinstated, incidents of that sort would not occur or would be prevented. As for as that aspect is concerned, I would merely refer Hon. Members to Bill C-584, which would provide that anyone sentenced to death could appeal. Under that legislation, there would be automatic appeals. Various sections of the Act provide for a whole series of time periods, whether to appeal, to review the proceedings, some sort of stay of execution.
I would therefore remind those who believe that capital punishment could prevent such tragedies from occurring, that convicts sentenced to capital punishment would still be under the supervision of wardens for relatively long periods of time.
I would therefore ask the following question: Is it not a fact that persons knowing that they have been sentenced to death could in theory and in practice be considered as a lot more dangerous to their fellow inmates than those who still hope to get out, even though their prison terms could be very lengthy ones as compared to someone whose life would be subjected to a specific term, namely the date of his execution?
In my view, that person would be a much'greater, a much more serious potential danger for the institutional environment, for those who would have to come into contact with him or her while awaiting execution. This in my view flies in the face of the suggestion that capital punishment could prevent or put an end to tragedies such as the ones we have been through.
And outside Canada there is worldwide experience on the matter. The United Nations Report on the Abolition and Suspension of Capital Punishment which came out in 1962 did conclude that this does not have the immediate effect of significantly increasing the crime rate.
Let us now look at the Canadian experience since capital punishment was abolished in 1976.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I cannot let this go without saying that it is obviously a filibuster on the part of Members of the NDP and the Liberal Party. We have only taken five minutes of the 55 minutes allowed for debate in order that we can refer this to the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. It is regrettable that Members of those Parties

June 8, 1983
Capital Punishment
have gotten together again in order to filibuster any discussion on the subject of-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. That is not a point of order. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada has the floor.
[ Translation]


Mr. Tardif:: Mr. Speaker, this was hardly a point of order- [English]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. Would Hon. Members resume their seats, please?


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to ask how we can discuss that as a point of order when in fact it has insulted the Members on this side who are debating this subject with all sincerity.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. The Chair has ruled that the point raised by the Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) was not a point of order, and the Chair invites the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada to continue his remarks.


Alain Tardif: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I must remind my hon. friends of the Opposition that if they only spend five minutes on the subject, it is likely because they have nothing to say. For that matter, in case they are interested, I wonder why there are only six of them present in the House now.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall continue my remarks.
As I was saying, capital punishment was abolished in 1976 in this country, which means that we can look back to seven years of statistical data. What, then, is the current murder rate? If Canada had witnessed a disproportionate increase in the murder rate since the abolition of capital punishment, I could understand why some members want one more debate on this issue, but what are really the facts? I refer Hon. Members to "Murder Statistics", a booklet published by Statistics Canada in August 1979. Tables I and II of this document provide full detailed information on the number of murders committed over the last few years. Table I deals with murder incidents, while Table II deals with individual murder cases. The incidents refer to the circumstances under which a murder was committed, irrespective of the number of the victims. On the other hand, individual murder cases found in Table II refer to the total number of murder victims per year. Well, in each case, the murder rate in 1978 was the lowest since 1974, that is, two years before capital punishment was abolished. I should add, for the information of my hon. friends opposite, that the
1978 data are the latest available. Now, let us have a look at these data.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order! I regret but I have to inform the Hon. Member that the time allotted to him has expired.


Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: Mr. Speaker, 1 simply wish to take a few minutes to point out to what extent the issue now before us may appear to be a fundamental choice for society.


An Hon. Member:: The question!


Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: Of course, when I say a fundamental choice, I mean that the fact that a society may or may not have capital punishment is a measure of its progressiveness.


An Hon. Member:: Filibuster!


Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: The Hon. Members who spoke before me, Mr. Speaker, have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that there has been a steady progress, not only in Canada but in almost all of the democratic societies of the world, and this goes to show how much enlightenment is part of our everyday life.
I listened earlier to the Hon. Member for Simcoe-South (Mr. Stewart), who would have capital punishment reinstated. We are reminded that the same Hon. Member had suggested earlier that the Durham Report should have been implemented in Canada, in other words that there should be one official language in Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. The Hon. Member who was given the floor to make a speech should not be interrupted.


Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I was saying, we are faced with the same kind of bigotry, because indeed there are prople in our society who like to promote confrontation. They will not face the facts. We have two languages in this country, because some of the people have French as their mother tongue while others have English. If there are criminals in our society, it is because of deficiencies in society. Why should society resort to the same tools as were used by murderers to wreak vengeance on them? What benefit can society derive from seeking vengeance, Mr. Speaker? None at all, and if there is one thing-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 24(2), it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings.
June 8, 1983


ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. It is my duty to inform the House that an objection signed by the Hon. Members for Timiskaming (Mr. MacDougall), Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson), Peterborough (Mr. Domm), Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Vankoughnet), Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. Bradley), Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen), Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling), Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis), Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) and Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) has been filed with me pursuant to Section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, Chapter E2 RSC 1970, to the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Northwest Territories. If the House agrees, I would suggest we follow past practice and print the text of the objection as an appendix to this day's Votes and Proceedings. Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. Shall all orders listed under Private Members' Public Bills preceding Order No. 246 be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


CANADA EVIDENCE ACT
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North) moved: that Bill C-446, an Act to amend the Canada Evidence Act (incriminating statements), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of my Bill, as you have indicated, is to amend the Canada Evidence Act in respect to incriminating statements. It is my belief that a fundamental principle of our system of justice is that accused person are deemed to be innocent until they have been proven guilty. Yet, if and when these people are questioned or charged by the police without being giving the opportunity to be represented and protected by counsel they can in fact make admissions or statements and answer questions in ways which would very seriously prejudice their rights.
I am sure it is known by many Members of Parliament who receive reports from their constituents, and it is certainly known by lawyers, especially criminal lawyers, that frequently people who are being held by the police are not permitted to contact their lawyers when they ask for that right, or are not permitted to do so until after they have been questioned for as long as the police wish. There are many examples of that, Mr. Speaker.
Canada Evidence Act
I would remind Hon. Members of the Stephen Truscott case. This man was questioned by the police for long periods of time without counsel and was later charged and convicted of the most serious of offenses in our society, the offense of murder, without having had the opportunity, which I submit he should have had to have counsel present to make sure he was being questioned in a correct and proper way.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association conducted surveys in the 1970s to find out what experiences arrested people had experienced in this regard. They conducted several hundred interviews and found that of those who requested access to the telephone a minority reported that such requests were granted immediately. In the greater number of cases, access to the telephone was denied outright or delayed until after questioning took place.
This survey only dealt with people who were later charged. Many of the people who were questioned and not given the right to get counsel were never charged. Even for those who were charged, the number permitted to get in touch with a lawyer was quite small.
I submit that the law should affirmatively oblige the police-and this is not the case now-as soon as practicable to advise an arrested person of his right to counsel and to make telephones available for such purpose. Some people will say that the law gives rights so that they cannot be involved in selfincrimination, and ask if this right does not also represent protection against police harassment. The answer is no. Many arrested people do not know they have such a right and many who do know lack the courage to exercise it. I refer to young people, native people, immigrants and particularly those who are not familiar with or comfortable in either of the official languages.
To repeat, I submit that the law should oblige the police, and it does not now do so, as soon as is practicable to advise an arrested person or people being questioned by the police of their right to counsel, and to make telephones available to such people. Until this is done the police should be barred from conducting interrogations until the arrested person has consulted with counsel or, having been advised of his right to do so, has waived the opportunity. To enforce such a provision, all of the information obtained by ignoring such measures should be inadmissible as evidence in court. What I propose is not something very revolutionary as I will try to indicate. It is the practice in Scotland and in the United States.
Let me list some of the major aspects of the Bill, Mr. Speaker. First of all, statements made by the accused must be made voluntarily to be admissible as evidence. Second, no statement is admissible unless its author is warned that he is not obliged to make a statement or that if he voluntarily chooses to make a statement it will be taken down in writing and can be used as evidence. Third, an accused is entitled to counsel and if he cannot afford counsel, one will be assigned.

June 8, 1983
Canada Evidence Act
Fourth, the accused shall have the opportunity to contact counsel or advise the local legal aid officials. Fifth, no interrogation shall take place after the person has requested counsel until the person has reasonable time to confer with counsel. Six, every person has the right to the presence of counsel during the interrogation. And seven, no statement made without the presence of counsel is admissible unless the person knowingly and voluntarily waives his right to counsel.
Such a clause does not exist in the Bill which is now before the Senate to amend the Canada Evidence Act, Bill S-33. Some protection for the person accused or questioned about a crime might be available in the Charter of Rights, Section 24(2), which deals with the exclusion of evidence bringing the administration of justice into disrepute. The problem with this is that the Section has not yet been tested. There is some indication that the Charter is being interpreted in a relatively conservative manner, particularly in the Province of Ontario. It will be some time before test cases indicate the strength with which the Charter will be interpreted.
To put the measure I propose into a statute makes it more all-encompassing and offers more positive protection-a more readily accessible protection-and puts the onus on the state to inform the person of his rights. It is a direct and positive action.
I said earlier that I am not suggesting something that is new and untried. In Scotland there is a total ban on custodial interrogation by the police and the restriction is backed by an exclusionary rule for any statements obtained in violation of it. Despite that, in 1971 Scotland had a crime clearance rate of 38.2 per cent, which compares very favourably with Canada which had a crime clearance rate of 35.5 per cent in the same year.
Similarly in the United States, where the procedures are much as I have indicated in the Bill, as a result of decisions brought down by the United States Supreme Court in the Miranda case among others, in-depth studies have shown no significant reduction in conviction or clearance rates since that major decision.
I think the principles I have enunciated in the Bill would widen the protection given to people and would further implement the fundamental principle that people shall be considered to be innocent until proven guilty. I know that what I propose is extremely controversial, not only among the general public but among lawyers and judges. I doubt very much that Members of the House would agree to pass the Bill today, but I would urge them to at least permit it to go to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs where it may get the kind of study in depth which I think it merits.


Mr. David Weatherhead (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak on Bill C-446 and to follow the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) who has been in this House since 1962. During this period of more than 20 years he has been in the forefront of social policy matters, legal, labour and employment matters, including issues such as the one we are discussing this afternoon.
Bill C-446 proposes to amend the Canada Evidence Act with respect to incriminating statements. Although the Bill's intent may be judged laudable in that it says it seeks to clarify the law, Members should be aware that, in fact, it fails to do so. In order to appreciate how this Bill fails to do so, one must begin with an appreciation of the existing state of the law. The subject of incriminating statements or, more colloquially, "confessions" has received and continues to receive a great deal of attention in our law.
I need not remind Members that the rule that a confession must be voluntary to be admissible is of long-standing. The rule can be traced back to two oft-quoted passages on the subject of confessions. The first, contained in Lord Sumner's speech in Ibrahim v. The King, (1914) A.C. 599 at pp. 609-10, is as follows:
It has long been established as a positive rule of English criminal law, that no statement by an accused is admissible in evidence against him unless it is shewn by the prosecution to have been a voluntary statement, in the sense that it has not been obtained from him either by fear of prejudice or hope of advantage exercised or held out by a person in authority. The principle is as old as Lord Hale. The burden of proof in the matter has been decided by high authority in recent times in Reg. v. Thompson-
The second is found in the case to which Lord Summer refers: Mr. Justice Cave's judgment in Regina versus Thompson, 1893, 2 Queen's Bench 12 at page 16, wherein Mr. Justice Cave said:
The material question consequently is whether the confession has been obtained by the influence of hope or fear, and the evidence to this point being in its nature preliminary, is addressed to the judge, who will require the prosecutor to shew affirmatively, to his satisfaction, that the statement was not made under the influence of an improper inducement, and who, in the event of any doubts subsisting on this head, will reject the confession.
This Bill seeks to define the term "voluntary statement" and in doing so adopts the rule in the Ibrahim case. What the Bill fails to do, Mr. Speaker, is to resolve the considerable debate which has raged over the proper definition of the term "voluntary".
I would refer Members to the leading Canadian authority in this area, Mr. Justice Fred Kaufman, of the Quebec Court of Appeal, who in the third edition of his classic work," Admissibility of Confessions", published in Toronto by Carswell in 1979, sets out the debate in the chapter dealing with the definition of "free and voluntary".
Mr. Justice Kaufman, on page 106, refers to an article by Professor Vincent Del Buono entitled "Voluntariness and Confessions: A Question of Fact or Question of Law", 197677, 19 Criminal Law Cases 100, which speaks of the two definitions of the term "voluntary" which have been adopted in Canada. This article was, by the way, cited with the approval by Mr. Justice Lamer of the Supreme Court of Canada in his judgment in the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in Rothman versus The Queen, 1981, 59 Canadian Criminal Cases at page 31, and I quote:
The first of the two definitions of "voluntary" comes from what may be termed a "narrow" reading of Lord Sumner's speech. In this reading, "voluntary" simply means that neither "fear of prejudice" nor "hope of
June 8, 1983

advantage" was "exercised or held out by a person in authority." Accordingly, the only onus on the prosecution is to show affirmatively that neither of these elements led to the making of the statement. The two elements "fear of prejudice" and "hope of advantage" together are regarded as exhaustively defining those circumstances which would render the statement involuntary. The second definition of "voluntary" takes what may be seen as a "wider" view of what the term encompasses. "Fear of prejudice" and "hope of advantage" are not regarded as exhaustive, but rather merely as illustrative, of those circumstances which would render a statement involuntary. After a consideration of all the surrounding circumstances, it would still be open to the trial judge, under this "wider" definition, to find that the statement was not voluntary, even though he was satisfied that the Crown has discharged the onus of showing affirmatively that no threat was made and no promise held out by a person in authority.
This illustrates the two approaches and concludes as follows:
An approach to the issue of voluntariness based on the "narrow" definition of the term fails to satisfy a "wise rule of policy" in that it impels a limited and mechanistic application of a "special legal definition" and at the same time prohibits the exercise of a suitably wide measure of judicial discretion-a discretion which, as Lord Sumner observes, even predates his discussion of it in Ibrahim. It may be, as well, that the "narrow" definition is anachronistic, since it evolved from a set of historical circumstances which no longer obtain. It should be borne in mind that the Board's decision in Ibrahim came only two years after the promulgation of the first set of Judges' Rules in 1912. In one sense, the "narrow" reading of Lord Sumner's speech may be said to consider the speech as nothing more than a further exposition of those rules. The import of the "narrow" definition is to place a stricture upon police officers and other comparable "persons in authority" to neither exercise "fear of prejudice" nor hold out "hope of advantage" when obtaining a statement from an accused. The focus of this definition, then, is on the conduct of "persons in authority", and it proceeds from the premise that every statement made by an accused is presumed to be voluntary and true unless "persons in authority" are shown to have engaged in a certain specific course of prohibited conduct, namely, exercising "fear of prejudice" or holding out "hope of advantage". The proper concern of the courts, however, ought to extend beyond a mere review of the conduct of the authorities; moreover, the presumption on which the "narrow" definition is premised is, I submit, no longer warranted-if, indeed, it ever was. The "wide" definition quite properly shifts the focus of the inquiry from determination of whether or not a person in authority engaged in a certain category of prohibited conduct, to the real issue of whether the confession was made in such circumstances that the court may rely on its truthfulness. It is to this latter question that the trial judges in Rasmussen (1934), 62 CCC 217 (NBCA), Washer (1947), 92 CCC 218 (Ont. SC), Murakami (1951), 99 CCC 347, affirmed 100 CCC 177 (SCC), Gillis (1966) 2 CCC 219 (BCCA), and Beaulieu (1968) 1 CCC 143 (Alta. CA) were addressing themselves, and this ought to be, 1 submit, the true concern of all trial judges faced with questions of voluntariness. The absence of certain prohibited types of conduct on the part of persons in authority does not in itself guarantee the trustworthiness of a confession, although it is certainly some evidence of it. An inquiry into all the circumstances surrounding the making of the confession, including the mental state of the accused at the time, would provide a much greater guarantee of the statement's trustworthiness, since the trial judge would be free to address his mind to the entire question of voluntariness rather than being restricted to examining the conduct of "persons in authority".
It must be borne in mind that the ultimate concern must be to guarantee "the evidentiary trustworthiness of statements". Unfortunately, the present Bill, although intending to enhance the rights of the accused, may in fact inadvertently have the exact opposite result. The Bill reproduces the rule in the Ibrahim case and adds an additional ground of exclusion, oppression.
Is it the intent of the proponent of the Bill that oppression constitute an entirely separate category of exclusion? If so, should not the Bill seek to define that term with more exactitude? Further, while statutorily providing for the definition of "voluntary statement", the Bill has not explicitly provided for judicial discretion to exclude the confession in circumstances which, although not falling within the conduct prohibited to
Canada Evidence Act
persons in authority, nonetheless places the trustworthiness of the confession in doubt.
The second major deficiency of the present Bill is that it does not seem to take cognizance of Section 10 of the Charter. Under Section 10, any accused has the right on arrest or detention to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right. The ambit of that right is at present under consideration by the courts. Clearly the courts have the power to exclude statements obtained from accused who have not been informed of their right to counsel. The courts will exercise that power when, in the words of Section 24(2) of the Charter which was referred to by the previous speaker, the admission of the confession into the proceedings would, having regard to all of the circumstances, bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
The law surrounding the admissibility of confessions has evolved slowly and carefully through the case law. This long development has attempted to balance the interests of society against the rights of the accused. The law as it presently stands is continuing to evolve, now within the context of the Charter. It may be useful if at sometime in the future police departments experiment with the procedures outlined in the Bill to see whether the number of controversies would, in fact, be reduced. But in the absence of such evidence, it would be a grave mistake to pass this Bill, for its effect may be exactly opposite to what its proponents intend.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak briefly on the Bill. I would like to commend the Hon. Member for bringing it before the House. I acknowledge the legal arguments which have been made by the Hon. Member speaking for the Government. However, I believe we are discussing people who are not acquainted with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or acquainted with the law, or learned in the law. Many of them have never had any contact with the law before.
People have come to me time and time again saying that when they were arrested and taken to the police station, they were not even permitted to use the telephone. Some have told me that they did not know they had the right to ask to use the telephone. Many of them, most young people today, for instance, do not have a lawyer. They might not even know a lawyer. Therefore, when one of them is asked whether he wants to phone his lawyer or is told that he may phone his lawyer, it is superfluous because the lad probably does not know a lawyer in the whole city and would not know who to phone.
If there are one or two deficiencies in the Bill, as the Parliamentary Secretary just outlined, they could certainly be corrected in the committee. That is why we have committees. I feel very concerned about the fact that almost every Bill, no matter what its merit, that comes before Private Members is talked out by the Government. Surely some of these Bills have merit and would be worth while. I think that the Government

June 8, 1983
Canada Evidence Act
must have adopted a policy of talking out Bills. We have committees set up. We could all learn from a number of these Bills. If a Bill cannot be amended so that it is satisfactory in committee, then, of course, it should be defeated. However, a search light could be put on many of these Bills. The importance of a committee carrying out a study of a particular matter should be brought out. This is not a study by highly legally trained lawyers, but rather by ordinary, everyday representatives of the people who come in contact with those who face these difficulties.
I suppose there is a great number of people who do not know their rights and who are alleged to have breached criminal law. Many of them were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Maybe they had no business being there, but they were not there fore any criminal purpose. However, I can understand a police officer taking such a person to the jailhouse or to the court room to question him about these matters. I am not worried about the seasoned criminal who may have been before a court two times, five times, ten times or, as in one case with which I am familiar, 150 times. Such people know their rights and demand them. There is no bluffing them. However, I am greatly concerned about young people who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, with no criminal intent, who are apprehended and taken to be questioned. I certainly object to any type of law that deems that these people have been properly notified and advised, because, in some cases the police officers do not take the trouble to do so. As a matter of fact, as one or two police officers have told me, some police officers cannot be bothered. They are satisfied that a certain person has committed the offence, and that is it.
Let us say, for example, that John Doe is in a park at two o'clock in the morning and is taken by the police who believe him to have breached some criminal law. Why should he not be asked if he wants to phone his parents? His parents should have the right to know. If he is a young teenager, I think it should be a requirement that his parents be notified. He is there, never having been in a courtroom or perhaps never having been that close to a police officer, surrounded by policemen, and he is frightened stiff. He does not know what to do. He is simply a victim. He may or may not have committed a crime. Whether he did or did not, surely our laws should require that a teenager be permitted to phone his parents and have his father or mother come down. If he has a lawyer, he should be asked whether he wants to phone his lawyer. The police should not wait for him to demand it. Many of these young people would not think of demanding; they do not even know thay have the right to demand.
I think we can enhance this right of access to counsel, and the more we do the closer we will come to the desirable standard we have set out in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is a right. However, if these young people do not ask for that right, or do not know they have it then often they may be accused and charged when, actually, they should not even have been charged. Once they are charged they do have a terrible feeling about it all.
The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that we must weigh the rights of society versus the rights of the accused. I say that is fine if we are satisfied that the accused, the person charged, is the one who has committed a terrible crime. Then we must weight the evidence. Even so, why should he not have the right to counsel, as set out in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Why should the police not ensure that he has the opportunity to call his counsel or at least to call a friend or someone? People have told me that they were refused the right to phone a friend. They did not know a lawyer. Their parents were not in the city and they wanted to call a friend. They were refused that right. I do not think that is at all right. That is not weighing the merits of society against the merits of the accused. Let us give the accused every possibility to prove his innocence. He should be considered to be innocent. If he is found not to be innocent, then the punishment of the law should come into force or effect.
It would be a very good idea to send this Bill to the committee for examination. It should be examined with a spotlight, a searchlight; making corrections when something is not right, and maybe adding to it to make it a better Bill. I am sure the mover of the Bill would have no objection to either. However, it would tend to make our people in Canada realize that when they are picked up, wrongly or rightly, then they will have the full right of a citizen to prove innocence before being found guilty.


Mr. Robert Daudlin (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, like my friend, the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Weath-erhead), I would like to compliment the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) for having brought this issue forward. I also share some of the concerns just placed on the record by the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor). All of us have had experience with respect to those people uninitiated with the law and proceedings before the bar who have found themselves involved with local police officers and law enforcement agencies, very much at a loss in terms of how to deal with it.
My hon. friend for Scarborough West raised a number of issues with which this Bill does not deal. Obviously, all of us in the House would not want to be party to a piece of legislation that could result in the requirement of a pro forma, the likes of which all of us have seen on TV. I do not believe we would see it as an improvement of individual rights for an arresting officer to read from a card or by memory "You have the right to remain silent and if you decide to waive that right you have the right to counsel. If you cannot afford counsel you have the right to have one appointed for you by the court under the legal aid system ..." The confusion that could exist in the minds of those individuals who are brought before legal authorities under those circumstances would prevent them, I believe, from having the opportunity of really knowing what was being put to them by way of choices.
Under the current laws and rules of evidence that have evolved, as my friend from Scarborough West has indicated,
June 8, 1983

the court at least has the discretion to look at all the circumstances and determine whether or not in that instance a voluntary and informed decision was made to make a statement in the absence of counsel.
I suggest that as a result of the confining definitions that exist in this particular Bill, there quite frankly might be a loss of some of the protections that now exist rather than their enhancement. It certainly would in fact require a pro forma. I wonder if that is the end result my friend is seeking by putting forward this Bill. I suspect not.


David Orlikow: It has worked much better in the United States.


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: My friend says that it works much better in the United States. I have had the opportunity to discuss this issue with defence counsel, prosecuting attorneys and people from the bench in the United States. It seems to me that the Miranda decision in the United States has fallen onto rather hard times and into disrepute. In fact, while the civil libertarians apparently heralded that decision tremendously when it came in, I think a contrary view of it is being taken now. They rather suspect that by giving at least lip service to the Miranda decision substantial erosion of civil liberties is taking place instead of increasing protection. I think one would want to be very careful that that line of reasoning not be taken here.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would the Hon. Member permit a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Hon. Member wishes to put a question to the Hon. Member for Essex-Kent. Is it agreed?


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to entertain a question, but perhaps a little closer to the end of my allotted time.
I wish to indicate to my friend for Winnipeg North that I do in fact have a great deal of sympathy for what he is attempting to accomplish by way of this Bill. I think it would be imprudent if we were to act upon it for the reasons I have indicated and others which I will make now.
I am sure the House is aware that the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee has before it Bill S-33, a proposed new Canada Evidence Act. Though not a complete code, it is nevertheless quite comprehensive in its treatment of the law of evidence. The question of admissibility of statements made by an accused to persons in authority is one of the areas dealt with in that Bill.
I understand that we are likely to have Bill S-33 before us in the fall and I think it would be wise to postpone discussion of the important questions raised by the Hon. Member in Bill C-446 until it can be debated in the context of the proposed new Canada Evidence Act. It has been said that the law of evidence is a seamless web. I submit that it would be counterproductive for this House to consider Bill C-446 out of context and without full awareness of the substance of Bill S-33. It is my understanding that we will not have to wait long for this
Canada Evidence Act
opportunity, as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lalonde) indicated his intention to proceed with the proposed new Canada Evidence Act as soon as possible.
Members of the House may not be aware of the amount of work that has gone into the preparation of Bill S-33. I think it might be of interest for them to know something of its history.
The law of evidence is, of course, one of the most technical subjects in the entire legal system. I think my hon. friend from Scarborough West demonstrated that in his speech a few moments ago. It is an accumulation of common law rules, exceptions to the rules and exceptions to the exceptions. As a result, it is extremely difficult to state the law with respect to many aspects of evidence and the principles of the law are frequently obscured in a morass of details.
Nor is the present Canada Evidence Act of much assistance in clarifying the law. The core of the Canada Evidence Act dates back to 1893 and represents the social values of that era. Such amendments as there have been occurred on a piecemeal basis, with the result that the Act displays a lack of consistency and, indeed in some instances, actually confusion as to its meaning and application. The law is further complicated by the fact that all Provinces except Quebec also have Evidence Acts to govern civil proceedings in their jurisdictions. There is no uniformity either between the provincial and federal Evidence Acts or between the Evidence Acts of different Provinces.
In an effort to bring some order into this important area of the law, the Minister of Justice in 1971 referred the subject to the Law Reform Commission of Canada for investigation and report. The Law Reform Commission studied the subject extensively over a period of four years, submitting its final report in December, 1975. The Commission recommended the adoption of an evidence code that would have replaced the common law entirely insofar as proceedings within federal jurisdiction were concerned.
Following reception of the Law Reform Commission Report the Department of Justice carried out consultations with the bar and bench across Canada over a period of almost a year. The reaction of the profession was generally unfavourable. The common law lawyers were particularly opposed to the concept of a code that would eliminate further reference to the common law precedents and principles that had become part of their intellectual and professional capital. Likewise, they were opposed to any change that would increase the area of discretion accorded to the judge in deciding whether or not evidence would be admissible. The climate was therefore clearly not favourable to rationalizing the rules of evidence along the lines proposed by the Law Reform Commission.
At about the same time some of the Provinces were showing interest in reform of their own rules of evidence. Indeed, the Law Reform Commission of Ontario published a report a few months after that of the Law Reform Commission of Canada in which it recommended passage of a new Ontario Evidence Act.

June 8, 1983
Canada Evidence Act
In an attempt to develop common rules of evidence that would apply to all the court proceedings, whether under the jurisdiction of the federal or the provincial Governments, the Ministers of Justice and Attorneys General in June, 1977, decided to approach the Uniform Law Conference of Canada to see whether it would be interested in acting as a nonpartisan host for a project aimed at developing a uniform Evidence Act.
I should perhaps mention that the Uniform Law Conference of Canada is an independent body comprising legal experts from both the public and private sector. It was established to promote uniformity of legislation. The Deputy Ministers of Justice and the Deputy Attorneys General are ex officio members.
The Uniform Law Conference agreed to undertake this project, and in the fall of 1977 established a federal-provincial task force to study the laws of evidence, examine the recent reports on evidence by the Law Reform Commissions of Canada and Ontario and other recent reports and legislation in the area with a view to recommending uniform legislation. The task force, which was to complete its work and report back
within three years, submitted its final report and a draft act in January, 1981.
Unlike the evidence code of the Law Reform Commission of Canada, the task force report recommended a legislative statement that, though broadly comprehensive, left room for development of certain areas through the common law. In addition, the common law would continue to serve as a guide to interpreting the new legislation and less scope would be given to judicial discretion in the interpretation and application of the rules than was given under the Law of Reform Commission code.
The report of the task force was accompanied by a draft uniform evidence act. The report and draft act were considered at a series of special plenary sessions of the Uniform Law Conference held from April to July, 1981.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. It being six o'clock, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, June 9, 1983