1983-03-30

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mrs. Celine Hervieux-Payette (Montreal-Mercier):: Madam Speaker, I want to ask my hon. colleagues to condemn the actions of the Quebec Government which are now causing another border dispute between New Brunswick and Quebec. Madam Speaker, we all know that the construction regulations prevent manpower mobility within Quebec and Canada. I would invite my hon. colleagues to vigorously censure this attitude which deprives Quebec workers of mobility within their own province and workers across Canada from having access to the labour market in Quebec.



Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, instead of necessarily condemning the Government of Quebec, I want to take advantage of this opportunity to condemn the lack of adequate measures to create jobs across Canada, especially in my own province which is severely affected by the lack of such measures. Unfortunately, we are experiencing record unemployment and record bankruptcies, and since we will have time for some serious reflexion during the Easter holidays, I would urge the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) to give some serious thought to proposals for effective job creation in his next budget. The Minister of Finance keeps saying to anyone who will listen that economic recovery is just around the corner, but we know perfectly well that in 1984, we will still have to support from 1,500,000 to two million unemployed workers. In the circumstances, I think the Minister of Finance should stop making promises which are almost never kept and
start making some substantial proposals in his budget providing for genuine economic recovery and job creation, and take advantage of this opportunity to make a wise choice, all of which has been sadly lacking during the last fifteen years. That is my Easter message for the Minister of Finance, and I would ask him to give the situation some serious thought and to show some compassion for and an interest in what is happening to, our unemployed workers in Canada and especially in "la Belle province".


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, it is not my intention to raise a matter that is argument or debate, but I hope it is of interest. It so happens that in 1945 and 1946 I was among those who represented Canada at the first meetings of the United Nations. The other person with me was Gordon Graydon, a Conservative Member who served in this House for about 19 years. In the process we were quite interested in certain people there, especially Andrei Gromyko. Both Mr. Graydon and I found that we could have an interesting discussion with Mr. Gromyko, and in view of this we dared to hope he might be useful to our country in the future. He wrote me a letter which was dated April 25, 1946. This was after Mr. Graydon and I had returned to Ottawa. The letter reads as follows:
Dear Mr. Knowles:
It was great pleasure for me to receive your kind letter of April 16th, congratulating me in connection with my appointment as the Permanent Representative of the USSR to the Security Council of the United Nations Organization.
I am pleased to learn that you have visited Moscow and enjoyed your stay there. I hope that we shall have frequent opportunities of meeting each other in the future. It was kind of you to remind me of Mr. Gordon Graydon. Please convey my greetings to him.
With best personal wishes and warm regards,
Sincerely yours,
Andrei A. Gromyko
I think it is of interest. I hope it might just be.

March 30, 1983



Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: A few weeks ago, Madam Speaker, I attended a meeting of the Hellenic-Canadian Solidarity Committee for Cyprus which is made up of representatives of all Greek organizations in Montreal. The meeting dealt with questions concerning a recent United Nations vote on the "disappearance" of Greek Cypriots. It will be recalled that, during the 1974 war, at least 1619 people, combatants and non-combatants alike, disappeared. That was almost ten years ago and their families still do not know what happened to them. Members of the Greek community have expressed their anger because Canada abstained from voting recently at the United Nations, and I have agreed to convey their feelings to Parliament and to the Government of Canada.
I take this opportunity to explain as well the position of the Canadian Government. Canada abstained at the third committee because the committee refused to hear the Turkish-Cypriot member of the commission on the disappearance of Greek Cypriots. The third committee debate was highly partisan and vindictive. On the basic humanitarian issue, however, Canada did join the consensus which led to the adoption of the resolution in plenary session.
I should like to emphasize that Canada has the second largest peace-keeping force in Cyprus and that we contribute more than 20 per cent of the financial resources. Our financial contribution to peace-keeping in Cyprus exceeds all our other peace-keeping commitments throughout the world.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, the Liberal Cabinet recently passed an Order in Council placing the FN-FAL combat rifle on the restricted weapons list.
The Firearms Control Research Group states that there is only one case on record of this type of firearm being used illegally. Few criminals would use a bulky, expensive weapon like the FN-FAL in the commission of an offence. By and large, criminals use pistols because they are cheaper, lightweight, and easy to conceal. Few gun collectors will follow the Government modification guidelines accompanying the Order in Council designed to prevent the rifle from being adapted to machine gun capability because these guidelines may, and could, result in the rifles blowing up in their faces when they attempt to fire them.
This Government can put anything on the restricted weapons list through Order in Council, with no review in Parliament. This totally irresponsible use of Orders in Council is just a means to bypass the House of Commons, which has become a serious irritant of this arrogant Government.
There is justifiable fear among gun owners and collectors that the eventual end to firearms registration will be the confiscation of all firearms in Canada. These are responsible Canadians who are bona fide collectors, not criminals.
The FN-FAL meets none of the criteria generally applying to restricted weapons. There is little reason to register the FN-FAL rifle when a police authorized firearms acquisition certificate is already required to purchase one. This Order in Council is wasteful, unnecessary, expensive and must be reversed.
I urge the Government to-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, last year was the fortieth anniversary of the Dieppe raid and at that time many hopes were expressed that changes would be made in the rules pertaining to compensation for former prisoners of war, changes which would recognize the unique situation in which Dieppe veterans find themselves, but no action has been forthcoming from the Government.
At present the 20 per cent compensation for Dieppe veterans does not take into account the special suffering endured by those captured at Dieppe who were tied, then chained, and finally made to go on a three-month dead march. As the national President of the Dieppe Veterans said before a Senate committee just lask week, the Dieppe veterans are fed up and are wondering whether the Government wants to do the same to them as it did to First World War veterans when it waited until most of them were dead before making them eligible for the war veterans allowance.
It is about time that the Government recognized the special claim that Dieppe veterans have on the Canadian public, not just because of their suffering but because of the importance of their sacrifice to the eventual successful landing on D-Day in June, 1944. In this respect may I also suggest that a campaign medal be struck for the Dieppe force. This, combined with improvements in the pension benefits available to them, would go a long way to meeting the long overdue need for the Canadian Government to recognize properly those who came back from that terrible morning on the beaches of Dieppe.
March 30, 1983


MEDICAL CARE
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, Members on all sides of this House should indicate their solid support for the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) and her efforts to prevent Alberta from imposing hospital user fees. At the same time we should strongly condemn the Government of Alberta for this provocative move to place a financial burden on many Albertans who cannot afford these fees. It is clear that Mr. Lougheed's Government only represents the well-heeled of that Province. This Party, this Government and, I would hope, this entire House will demonstrate a commitment to maintain first-class hospital care for Canadians without regard to their ability to pay.
Alberta Hospitals' Minister, David Russell, who stated that "these user fees are going to be way less than one night at the Holiday Inn" needs to be reminded that the people these fees may deprive of hospital care cannot afford Holiday Inns. Perhaps the Government of Alberta, with billions in its Heritage Fund, should finally introduce a retail sales tax on booze and tobacco if it is unwilling to touch its Heritage Fund to prevent user fees. This Government will refuse to co-operate with such a callous move until the Government of Alberta gets its priorities straight and drops this outrageous proposal.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Hon. Bud Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Madam Speaker, with recent developments in Quebec and Nova Scotia, I would like to call to the attention of the House a new force to be reckoned with in Canada, namely, children, or kiddie power. They have selected a biblical quotation, apparently, as their motto: "and a little child shall lead them".
Already nine-year olds have been selected as delegates to Conservative leadership meetings. They will be raising issues, no doubt, such as the size of the family allowance cheque, the misappropriation of these cheques for the parent's own use, the attack on universality of family allowances. They will have a new look at child labour laws, their share of assets when the family separates, damages arising from the trauma of separation by parents, girls wanting to play sports on an equal footing with boys, and is it safe to be a water baby and be requested to go swimming before turning one year old? Their main concern is lack of representation in Parliament, but it would seem that some nine-year old may soon lead the Progressive Conservative Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions LABOUR CONDITIONS


GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE TO GROWTH IN UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Madam Speaker, in 1982 Canada had, on average, 1.3 million people officially unemployed. Today the official number of unemployed is 1.6 million. Unofficially, as every Canadian knows, the number of people who need jobs is well over two million. The Government's response to the growing crisis has been to make promises, stall, break promises, and wait for some evidence of recovery in the U.S., all the while warning Canadians that it is unable to do much to bring down unemployment.
Today the despair of construction workers, woodworkers and truckers over their inability to find work, has erupted into violence in New Brunswick. Workers in the steel industry in that Province find out that a mine closure will put another 550 people out of work. This Government, which came to office on a promise of revitalizing Canada's industrial capacity to be better able to create jobs, and which promised to be an active player rather than a passive referee in industrial development, has now killed the notion of an industrial strategy because it believes it cannot make it work.
The Government has abandoned another major plank in the campaign which brought it to office. It has acknowledged its total inability and unwillingness to deal with the most serious economic problem facing the country, which is the obscenely high level of unemployment.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. He will know that if we look at the February unemployment figures we will find 149,000 discouraged and hopeless unemployed people, and 409,000 people underemployed or part-time. If you add this to the 1.6 million unemployed, you have a true rate of unemployment of somewhere between 18 per cent and 19 per cent. We are told by the Minister that, apart from the band-aid treatment we get from his colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, we have to wait for his budget. I would like to ask the Minister on behalf of the 824,000 longterm unemployed, those who have been unemployed for longer than three and a half months, when can we expect that budget?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, on the other side of the ledger I was happy to see today in a report of the Conference Board a survey of business confidence

March 30, 1983
Oral Questions
which indicated that the level of business confidence in the improvement in the economy has risen to the highest level in the five years since the survey began. Moreover, industrial inflation has had the slowest rate of increase since December, 1971. As a matter of fact there was zero per cent inflation in industrial production since January of this year. These are encouraging developments, and on the basis of those encouraging developments I would hope to be able to bring down a budget-I intend to bring down a budget-on Tuesday, April 19. I would hope that my budget is going to build upon that confidence and ensure further growth for the Canadian economy.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, while I can draw some encouragement from what the Minister has said, I can tell him, however, that business confidence will not put bread on the table of the unemployed.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct a further question to the Minister of Finance. Given the fact that after the 1974-75 recession it took three years to restore the 523,000 jobs which were lost, and given the fact that we have lost 551,000 jobs in the current recession, which means we have to wait until 1986 to get these jobs back on the basis of that experience, can the Minister tell us what he is doing, what can he say, or what hope can he give to the disadvantaged workers out there, the young people, the handicapped, the native people, women, who have no chance of getting a job until these jobs which have been lost as a result of the recession have been restored? We are looking at 1986. What is the Minister going to do for these people in the meantime?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I would remind my hon. friend, first of all, that the Government has direct job programs in operation already which are worth $2 billion. Second, I invite him to wait for the measures contained in the budget. Third, I will tell him that I am flabbergasted that a Conservative takes the view that the private sector has no role to play in the growth of the economy. He said that business confidence will not put bread on the table of the unemployed. Surely, in the Canadian economy, the private sector is going to be the engine of growth in this country, and the private sector is going to create the jobs which we need for millions of Canadians at the present time. Those jobs are not going to be created by the Government. We are not trying to create more bureaucrats and more officials. We are trying to arrive at a situation where there would be more jobs for Canadians created predominantly by the private sector. The statement by the Hon. Member is a flabbergasting one.


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, we now know what the problem is. The Minister of Finance is constantly flabbergasted. That is why he cannot address the real problems of which I am talking. I am talking about the problems of those who are unemployed now. He knows that, before he can get the economy restored to full level, it will take at least three years to restore the jobs which have been lost.


REQUEST FOR MORE JOB CREATION PROGRAMS
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, given the fact that all we get from the Minister of Employment's colleague, the Minister of Finance, is the band-aid treatment, I want to zero in on one of these band-aids, the NEED Program. That Program was brought in on October 25, five months ago, and was supposed to create 60,000 jobs. To date it has created less than 20,000 jobs. Even if it did create the 60,000 jobs, that, as he knows, would be a drop in the bucket considering the need out there.
Now that we know that we will not get a budget until April 19, has the Minister made representations to the Minister of Finance to bring in programs similar to the NEED Program now, given the experience of a cruel time lag between the promises and actual performance? The Minister knows it will take a considerable and cruel length of time after the budget before we get any real stimulation in terms of job creation. Therefore, has he made direct representations to his colleague to bring in programs now?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, I would like to clear up some of the misstatements the Hon. Member has just made. To begin with, as of today the NEED Program has approved over
27,000	jobs. We are creating jobs on an average of 2,000 per week right across the country. I would be more than happy to provide him with that information, particularly when one considers that much of the money is going into his own riding. Just a week ago we joined in partnership with ERCO Industries in his riding where they put up $4.5 million and we put up $500,000 and, as a result developed over 100 additional jobs through the NEED Program. It seems to me that, before he begins criticizing, he might want to go back and learn what is happening in his own area.


RATE OF JOB CREATION
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, the NEED Program was designed to help unemployment insurance exhaustees and those on welfare. It has taken five months to produce 27,000 jobs. As the Minister knows, we have 409,000 underemployed, 100,000 a month coming off unemployment insurance, and 149,000 who have given up looking for work. How can the Minister justify only 27,000 in five months from a program designed to create 60,000 jobs, which in and of itself would be merely a drop in the bucket?
March 30, 1983


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I realize the Hon. Member is reasonably new to his critic's portfolio so it would be helpful if he went back and looked at the full range of job creation programs being offered. The NEED Program has been targeted for those who have exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits. The reason why we are scaling the Program over an 18-month period is so we can respond on a monthly basis to the areas of greatest pressure or demand. That was based on consultations we had with provincial Governments, including that of his own Province, which indicated that we wanted to have one program to allow us to maintain a constant flow of jobs to deal with the exhaustee problem.
In addition to that, Madam Speaker, there is something the Hon. Member for St. John's East does not seem to recognize, even though once again there is over $1 million going into his riding for the Community Development Project Program and other forms of employment programs. We have provided close to 200,000 employment places from this Department alone over the past year. That represents a full 50 per cent increase over the year before, an expenditure of well over $ 1.2 billion. It would seem to me, Madam Speaker, that indicates this Government is heavily committed to direct employment, especially when you consider that the previous Government, of which he was a member, cancelled all the programs.


ROLE OF VOLUNTARY SECTOR IN JOB CREATION
Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration and follows from the Minister's affirmation that he is seeking to expand employment, which we are all seeking. In terms of the cost effectiveness of the money invested in job creation, has the Minister taken into account the facts which were affirmed by his colleague, the Secretary of State, that statistics have shown that the voluntary sector is the efficient, cost effective, and well situated vehicle in our communities for the creation of jobs? Research has shown that one long-term, not short-term, job such as is funded by NEED, can be produced by that area for $35,000 against $120,000 by Government. Can the Minister tell the House what consultations he has had with the voluntary sector about its full involvement in job creation, and what plans he has for it to be involved in a massive employment effort?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I am not quite sure where the Hon. Member's figures come from. I could indicate to him that, in terms of cost per job, the programs that we sponsor throughout the Government range from as low as $1,700 or $2,500 per job to an average of $15,000 per job, depending on the length of time involved. It all depends on whether we are providing a subsidy to the private sector, as we do through the PED Program where we provide a wage subsidy to hire disadvantaged chronically unemployed people, or whether we provide a full-time job as is done in other programs.
Oral Questions
I agree with the Hon. Member that we rely very heavily on the efforts of the non-profit voluntary sector. Many of the jobs sponsored under the Canada Community Development Projects are put forward by various social organizations, charitable organizations, and community organizations. Their active participation and partnership with the Government in the creation of work is a great example of how we can cooperate to put people back to work.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER MEET VOLUNTARY SECTOR LEADERS
Walter Franklin McLean: Madam Speaker, in his response the Minister has indicated the Government's lack of sensitivity to the capacity of the voluntary sector. He must be aware that the YMCA has conducted a national study based on long-term job creation which shows a three to one cost effectiveness.
In terms of job creation and of training and retraining, over 100 major national voluntary agencies have a proven capacity. Will the Minister not meet with those leaders to see that they are engaged in this, and will he see that any wage subsidy program that he plans to introduce includes that sector? In preparation for the budget that is to come in on April 19, has the Minister asked the Minister of Finance to include the "give and take" tax proposals which will provide an incentive for that sector to do this important job creation?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I am not sure why the Hon. Member is being so argumentative. We are working very closely, in a deep and abiding sense, with the voluntary community sector to create work. This morning I was looking at a project submitted by the YWCA in Halifax which has put forward a proposal, which I look upon favourably, to help train young women for new business computer skills that we will be able to fund in our Skills Growth Program. I have just written to all the voluntary national organizations encouraging them to come forward with job or training proposals that we can help fund.
We are not differing with the Hon. Member; in fact we are doing exactly what he recommends, and we have been doing it for a long time.


PRICE OF NATURAL GAS-GOVERNMENT POLICY
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and it pertains to the fact that in 1980 the Liberal Government made a commitment to Canadians to maintain the price of natural gas at 65 per cent of the equivalent price of oil.
Yesterday the Minister said that the Government was prepared to break that commitment to Canadians and see the

March 30, 1983
Oral Questions
price differential between gas and oil rise above the 65 per cent mark. Would the Minister confirm today that the Government intends to break that commitment and that the price of natural gas will rise above the committed ceiling? Would he be prepared to admit that the national energy policy on both oil pricing and gas pricing is in a complete shambles and that it is time we had a new statement on a relevant energy policy?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I explained the complexity of the problem yesterday. Because the price of gas was maintained at 65 per cent of the price of oil in Canada, through a mechanism that was a federal tax, above the price of natural gas and in order to maintain that level, we have reduced the tax. There is virtually no tax any more. The minute that the price of natural gas goes up and the price of international oil comes down, there will be no room for a tax any more. After that we will be governed by the memorandum of agreement with Alberta. In that document it is specifically mentioned that Alberta will raise the price of natural gas by 25 cents in July. It is a commitment of the Government to the Government of Alberta. I said in my comments that, if they increase the price and we cannot reduce the tax any more on natural gas, this ceiling of 65 per cent will not be kept.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, that is an excellent admission that it is a tough problem, but it is time they resigned if they cannot come up with a solution. The problem is not just for the domestic pricing of gas; it is also for the export pricing of gas. The Minister will be meeting with his United States counterpart on April 6 and 7, and it is the suspicion of many people in this country that he will cave in to American demands to cut the price of natural gas going into the United States.


PRICE OF EXPORTED GAS
Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, would the Minister give us some assurance that his term "flexibility" in pricing of exports does not mean caving in to the Americans on a fire sale price, that it does not mean giving away Canadian natural gas, and ultimately that it does not mean Canadians paying at the Toronto citygate will wind up paying more for natural gas than we are trying to fire sale it across the border?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, again the Hon. Member shows that he is not very knowledgeable about the subject because the export price of natural gas is much higher than the Canadian price. It is more like double the price, and this is the price fixed through a formula. We will be looking at the formula and how it applies at this time. On top of this, the Government of British Columbia is making representation to us because it is virtually not selling gas any more. It would like to have an adjustment in the price to keep the volume of gas being sold in the United States. It is no use for anyone to keep
a price which is unrealistic if the buyers do not buy. When one is in the business, one has to adjust price to market realities.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. I share with him that the former chief supervisor of the electronic system at the Edmonton maximum security institution indicated that the fence surrounding that institution is a complete failure and is inadequate for public safety. This directly contravenes or contradicts what the Minister indicated to me in May, 1982, when he assured us that the fence was highly reliable. Would the Minister indicate to the Chamber what steps will be taken to ensure the safety of residents in the area surrounding the Edmonton maximum security institution, in view of the statement of the gentleman I just mentioned?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, I have not heard the statements of the individual to whom the Hon. Member just referred, but I have no information that would suggest there is danger around the Edmonton maximum security institution resulting from the fence being inadequate. I would certainly be prepared to look into it, but I assure the Hon. Member and the people of Edmonton that if they compare, for example, the level of security around that institution with what there was five years and ten years ago, it would be easy to see that it is far more secure now than it has been in the past.
If they compare the levels of security which we provide in Canada at our maximum and medium security institutions with those in the United States, for example, as well they will find that the inmate to staff ratio and the amount of security provided are far better here than in the United States and than they have been in the past. Rather than try to alarm the people of Edmonton with a kind of scare statement like that, I hope the Hon. Member will look into the facts and he will find that the level of protection is more than adequate.


Peter Elzinga: I would suggest that the Hon. Minister should look into the facts because people within his own Department have indicated they are looking at the possibility of replacing the electronic equipment because it is not working. People within his own Department have indicated that, so I suggest that he should look into the facts.


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL ASSURANCE
Peter Elzinga: Madam Speaker, there have been concerns raised by the City of Edmonton which relate to this. The Minister has correspondence from Alderman June Cavanagh requesting additional funding so that they can properly control and patrol the area surrounding the prison, to ensure the safety of citizens. The reason I am raising this
March 30, 1983

matter is that the Minister has not responded to the concern which I sent to him in correspondence some time ago. I ask him to give us the assurance that he will do everything within his power to ensure adequate safety for these residents.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I have seen the correspondence from June Cavanagh. In fact I had a meeting with her when she was in Ottawa recently, to hear her concerns. I took them up with the Correctional Service of Canada. I do not believe that the concerns of the residents surrounding that institution are justified, but I will look into the matter again. I think the people who live around one of our maximum security institutions deserve protection. Providing protection to them is the top priority of the Correctional Service of Canada. I will ensure that the security there is adequate.


BANKS AND BANKING
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Several days ago, in response to a question from one of his colleagues, he made an undertaking to Canadians who were locked into mortgages with companies at high interest rates, some as high as 18 per cent over a period of five years, to represent them and in some way to ensure that the traditional three month penalty period would be respected. What guidelines does the Minister intend to use? What authority does he feel he may impose to ensure that these Canadians are treated fairly?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, first, I would like to correct the previous statement I made about industrial inflation. I mentioned zero per cent. The figure should be 0.3 per cent since January. That was a slight misstatement.
As far as the question raised by the Hon. Member is concerned, obviously there is no legal authority to force or impose any particular solution upon financial institutions. I have indicated that if there were cases of abuse which Members of Parliament could not resolve on their own by contacting particular insitutions, I would certainly be willing to have these issues raised with the institutions through the Inspector General of Banks or another agency, to have the financial institution examine the situation in terms of equity and fairness.
But there is no legal authority which would authorize me to order any particular resolution of any particular situation at the present time. It is a matter of equity and fairness and ensuring that the citizens of the country who may find themselves in difficulty are treated fairly by financial institutions. I said I would do my best to help in those cases where there appeared to be blatant abuses.
______________________________24299
Oral Questions INDUSTRY


WHITE FARM EQUIPMENT COMPANY-REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It concerns a statement which he made last night to the effect that the Government's national industrial strategy promised in 1980 is now dead. One of the victims of that is White Farm Equipment in Brantford. We have a $1 billion net deficit in agricultural implements vis-a-vis the United States. That is one of the reasons there are 1,200 angry and confused workers who have been out of work in Brantford for almost a year and have seen their unemployment insurance benefits almost exhausted.
I sent the Minister a letter in which I asked him nine specific questions with respect to the future of White Farm Equipment. In view of the fact that the Government has poured millions of dollars into research and development, into developing one of the finest combines made, or that used to be made, in the world, what is the Government prepared to do to hold on to the technology and give the unemployed hope that they will have jobs in the not too distant future? If the company should go into receivership, will the Government hold on to it until a Canadian buyer can take it over? These are all very crucial questions to a couple of thousand people in Brantford.


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, first, there is not enough time left in Question Period to answer all the questions the Hon. Member raised. With respect to his preamble, I want to assure him that this is not what I said about an industrial strategy. If he wants to check the Canadian Press story, he will find that I said. I stated as I responded yesterday to the Hon. Member for Northumberland, who has been a very distinguished Member of the House for many years, that the best way to devise an industrial strategy was business and labour in through the cooperation of business, labour and Government on a sectoral basis, the collection of sectoral strategies thus forming the industrial strategy of this country. That is what I said, and the Hon. Member should check the record.
Second, I am a little surprised at the question of the Hon. Member who indicates that he wants to save jobs with respect to White Farm. He knows that there are very delicate negotiations going on at the present time. The Government of Canada already has a substantial investment in technology for White Farm. We are trying to ensure the viability of the company, and at the same time we are trying to protect our technology. I am surprised the Hon. Member would want me to divulge publicly details of the ongoing discussions.

March 30, 1983
Oral Questions EMPLOYMENT


FUTURE OF OUTREACH PROGRAMS
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. James):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. He described Outreach Programs as an extremely effective employment counselling service for disadvantaged Canadians. Yet at this time, which is the end of the fiscal year, rather than renewing the contract for Outreach Programs across the country, the Minister has put them on hold for three months while he examines another report with regard to the efficacy of Outreach Programs. Is this delay a prelude to a policy of long-term funding for Outreach Programs, or is it just to be a continuation of the insecurity of funding for Outreach Programs? Is the Minister willing to make available the Blair report concerning Outreach Programs? It has been on his desk since January.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, to begin with, the report is already public. It was sent out to all those organizations and individuals with whom we consulted. The Hon. Member is about two months out of date, but that is normal.
What I would want to point out to him is that the consultation was requested by the users of the Outreach Programs. I would feel honour bound to follow through on the commitments being made to those organizations, that we complete the consultation program and derive from the reports those findings we have, and then present them to my cabinet colleagues in terms of improvement and long-term stability of the Outreach Programs.
By the way, close to some 300 organizations we are now supporting provide various forms of counselling and guidance to special needs groups across Canada. In this case, Madam Speaker, I would say that we are following on course on schedule. When Cabinet has made its decision, the Hon. Member will be one of the first to know.


INDUSTRY AND LABOUR ADJUSTMENT PROGRAM
Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Madam Speaker, my question is supplementary and it is for the Minister of State for Economic Development. The Industry and Labour Adjustment Program Committee, which the Minister chairs, has before it a number of requests for designation under ILAP. Among them is a very well-documented formal submission from the Regional District of Central Kootenay. This request is within the program guidelines. There are several others from Kamloops, Salmon Arm, and northwestern B.C. While I trust these proposals will receive serious consideration, I understand that the Cabinet Committee will be meeting in mid-April, not
only to review these applications but to determine whether further ILAP applications will even be considered.
Will the Minister confirm this information regarding the April meeting? If it is true, how can the Government think of terminating applications under this important program after only one designation has been granted west of Ontario, especially in view of the fact that the Government has self-admittedly based its recovery strategy on targeting economic assistance to specific areas as opposed to a policy of general stimulation?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Minister of State for Economic Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Madam Speaker, I can certainly confirm that all applications for ILAP consideration are treated very seriously by the Cabinet Committee. I take the statement by the Hon. Member as a representation on behalf of the constituency for which he speaks.


COMMUNICATIONS
Hon. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications. It concerns his recent statement on satellites. As the Minister knows, there are a number of companies in northern Canada which take pictures off satellites belonging to the United States and broadcast them over their cable networks. The CRTC is beginning a crackdown and is ordering these companies to stop the broadcast of the American pictures. Yet in the policy announcement which the Minister made recently he indicated that these restrictions would be removed. There is enormous confusion now. Could the Minister clear up the situation so that Canadians in northern Canada would know whether or not they will be able to continue to receive the American programs as they have in the past?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, I know this whole question of equalization of services right across the country is of great interest to many Members on both sides of the House. We are talking about cable companies that presently hold licences. Those licences have conditions of licence, and obviously those conditions can be enforced and probably will be enforced by the CRTC. In the meantime I would like to have the Hon. Member note that the CRTC is just licensing a new CanCom satellite. This will make available to communities right across the country, through satellite delivery, a new three plus one service and will ensure that communities in all parts of the country have access to approximately the same level of service that is available in other parts of the country. Basically, the purpose and objective of the broadcasting strategy are to ensure that there is, indeed, equality of service across the country.
March 30, 1983


FISHERIES
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans concerning the restructuring of the Atlantic Fishing industry. Would the Minister state whether the Cabinet Committee reviewing the Kirby Report and other proposals has concluded its study and reached a decision? If not, when will the study be concluded and a decision reached by the Cabinet? I remind the Minister that a new budget will be delivered soon and the financial resources for the fishing industry should be included in its provisions. I would also remind him that jobs are being lost now in the Atlantic fishing industry because of the delay.


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, I am happy to say to the Hon. Member that a Cabinet Committee has been meeting and working at an intense pace with all participants in that sector. Last week we even had the pleasure of having with us the Premier of Newfoundland. Two days ago other groups from Newfoundland forwarded other proposals to the Chairman of the Cabinet Committee, the Minister of State for Economic Development. I can tell the Hon. Member that we are giving the matter the highest priority because we know the plight of the people and the communities involved, as well as the importance of it. What we are looking for is not only the configuration of the companies but their long-term economic viability. That sector was bailed out early in the 1970s and again in the middle of the 1970s. What we want this time is a long-term solution, and economic viability will be the ultimate and paramount objective.


NEWFOUNDLAND PREMIER'S PROPOSAL
Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has mentioned the presence of Premier Peckford at a meeting. He must be aware that yesterday or today Premier Peckford announced a new plan to operate the Newfoundland based offshore vessels under a new company.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Socialism.


Howard Edward Crosby: This company would involve Government, the fishermen's union, and private interests.


Mr. Riis:: Socialism.


Howard Edward Crosby: There are other proposals besides this to nationalize the fishing industry, and others to privatize the fishing industry and keep it under private control. Will the Minister tell the House what proposal he and his colleagues in the Cabinet Committee prefer? Can he tell us now which direction he intends to go? Is the Minister going to support the proposal put forward by Premier Peckford, or the proposal put forward by Mr. Kirby in his report?


Pierre De Bané: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend refers to a proposal put
Oral Questions
forward by Premier Peckford last week. I have just received a Telex signed by the Minister of Fisheries for Newfoundland, the Premier, and the Minister of the Environment, Mr. Andrews, telling me that they are supporting another proposal put to us. I was speaking to another Premier from the Atlantic Region this morning. All I can tell the Hon. Member is that the points of view of each Government, each participant, the workers, the communities, are all being listened to. We have spent several days listening to the viewpoints of communities. I can assure the Hon. Member that what we are looking for is to establish companies whereby they would have a fair and reasonable chance at economic viability over the long term.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, I have an urgent question for the Minister of State for Economic Development about which I wrote him last January concerning the critical situation of the almost 2,000 skilled workers at Hawker-Siddeley in Trenton, Nova Scotia. As the Minister knows, this is a one industry town. Can he give any indication today of what measures he or the Government has in mind to relieve the situation? I want to remind him that this is one of Nova Scotia's largest employers, and I hope the Minister will have some initiatives to announce.


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I think that question would more properly be addressed to the Minister responsible for regional economic expansion who is charged with the specific industrial project. We are all aware of the concern of the Hon. Member and we are all aware of the problems at the Hawker Siddeley plant. We are all hopeful that the situation will be turned around. With your permission, Madam Speaker, I might ask my colleague to respond with more specifics.


REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the Minister's response and I will be happy to take up his suggestion.
I have in fact asked the Minister responsible for DREE before, but I will ask him again what immediate hope he can give to this very large skilled work force which is capable of producing such things as railway cars, offshore oil components, and so on. I would remind the Minister, without wanting to be unfair, that extraordinary measures have been taken by the Government to subsidize large industries like Canadair, Maislin, and Michelin, and I suggest, with great deference, that it is time that something was done to assist this particular

March 30, 1983
Oral Questions
company which has never, to my knowledge, received anything but occasional orders which were well merited.


Edward C. Lumley: First, Madam Speaker, I do not think that the Hon. Member or anybody in that area of the Province of Nova Scotia can complain about the amount of money that the Government of Canada has spent over the years to create jobs.
With respect to the specific question about Hawker Sidde-ley, I did talk with the President of this division of Hawker Siddeley, Mr. Corey, on several occasions, in fact. One of the reasons we undertook the Crowsnest program was our desire to expand the transportation system which will give companies like Hawker Siddeley an opportunity to bid on the substantial number of freight cars that will be needed by the two railroads across Canada over the next ten years.
Second, I did make a trip to Nigeria, when I was Trade Minister, and while there, worked on a very specific contract for Hawker Siddeley. We did offer some financial assistance and hopefully Hawker Siddeley will be successful in obtaining that contract. We have also talked with Hawker Siddeley concerning the possibility of diversifying their product line in order to be able to take advantage of the development in the offshore market.
I suggest that the Government of Canada has done a great deal for the company and hopefully by being competitive it will obtain those benefits and job creation which the Hon. Member wants.


COMMUNICATIONS AND CULTURE
Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications who stated last year that a 100 per cent capital cost allowance was absolutely essential to the development of the Canadian film industry. The Minister of Finance, who is standing right there, has announced that his budget is to be brought down on April 19.
I ask the Minister of Communications to rise in his place and say again, in front of the Minister of Finance, that the 100 per cent capital cost allowance is absolutely essential to the development of the Canadian film industry.


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member has quoted from the discussion paper that was leaked, but was not the Final version of that discussion paper which was submitted to my departmental colleagues.


John William Bosley: In fact I was referring to a quote made by the Minister in Hansard a year ago. It was in response to a
question I asked previously. It is no secret. Hansard is still a public document.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SUPPORT FOR AUTHORS
John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question for the Minister is on the same issue of public policies. Will he rise in his place today and say in front of the Minister of Finance that at long last the new budget should contain some form of public support for the public use of authors' materials from Canadian libraries as has been recommended by the Writers' Union, the Canada Council and many others, so that the authors' community who feel so hard done by in budgets of the last few years might finally feel some hope?


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, I would be pleased to rise in my place. The Hon. Member changes his question every time he rises. It is not really a supplementary question but a completely different one. With respect to the first part of the question, we did not wait for any budget announcements to increase the amount of funds available to the creative community. The Hon. Member knows that we have taken what is actually a quantum leap, when one looks at the budgets that were available in the past to the Canadian creative community in the area of films, with the announcement of a new Canadian program production fund which will amount to some $60 million.
Indeed, this Government has made a very real and strong commitment to the creative community. I can also refer to the fact that many other Government Departments have had cuts but that similar cuts have not been made in the cultural sector. For instance, the Canada Council has received an increase over the past year.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. He will know that the Newfoundland Government has stopped payment on cheques that were sent to the Conne River Indian Band. These cheques were the first funds that the band has received since the Canada-Newfoundland agreement broke down a year ago.
The band is desperate for funds but cannot accept the outrageous conditions that are placed upon these cheques by the Newfoundland Government. In light of the Newfoundland Government's action, will the Minister fulfil his earlier promise to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and ensure that the Conne River Indian people receive funds by some other method before the end of the fiscal year? As well, will the Minister indicate when the Government will act on the
March 30, 1983

Conne River people's request to be registered as Indians so that they can obtain their rights, as other Indian people in Canada have?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, I am aware of the situation which the Hon. Member has set out. There is no other way for the Government to get money to the Conne River


James Douglas Manly: Promise.


John Carr Munro: Can I answer the question, Madam Speaker? If he wants to ask a supplementary, he can do so.
There is no other way to get money to the Conne River people other than through a federal-provincial agreement, which is namely the one we have with them. The only other way is for the Government to consider registering these people as status Indians and creating a reserve. We could make direct payments in that fashion. That matter is under consideration by the Government at this time. I cannot indicate what the decision will be because the Government has not made a decision.
In the meantime, this being the situation with only a day or two left in the fiscal year, the only answer is to get the money through the agreement, and my colleagues and I are negotiating with the Newfoundland Government with respect to ameliorating these conditions that the Conne River people found so objectionable that they indicated to the Newfoundland Government that they would cash their cheques but not obey the conditions. It was at that time that the Newfoundland Government stopped payment on the cheques. I would hope to change that situation in the next day or two.


LEVEL OF CLOTHING IMPORTS
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. As he knows, the advisory board representing industry and labour in textiles and clothing met with the Minister of State for International Trade and himself on March 10 to review the failure of Canada's attempts to negotiate bilateral agreements with South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and China for the restriction of clothing imports into Canada.
He will recall that the Canadian clothing manufacturing industry is urging the Government to take immediate unilateral action to defend a fair share of Canada's market for Canadian workers and producers, with global import restrictions. Will the Minister confirm the recent report received from the Canadian Apparel Manufacturers Institute that the imports of clothing units for January and February of 1983 were 18.8 per cent higher than in the same months last year, and that this rate of increase would hand over 45 per cent of
Oral Questions
the Canadian market by the end of 1983 to imports mainly from low wage countries?
Will the Minister tell the House when the Cabinet will announce a decision to act on the request of the industry to impose global import restrictions in order to defend the jobs of the remaining 150,000 Canadian workers in the industry?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, I always thought it was the New Democratic Party that advocated more support for Third World countries. I am surprised that the Hon. Member would raise that particular question, however. Knowing his constituency and the requests from his constituency, I can understand why he requests the information. I will raise the matter with my colleague, the Minister of State for International Trade, who is responsible for the negotiations.


QUEBEC TAX ON GAS-REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT TAKE ACTION
Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Since the price of gas in my riding is terribly high because of Mr. Parizeau's gaz tax, I want to ask the Prime Minister if he would be willing, as he did on the 6 and 5 policy to call the Provincial First Ministers to order, especially the Premiers of Quebec and Ontario, who are abusing their authority to tax gas and thus putting undue financial pressure on people on low incomes and on the economy in our area.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I understand the Hon. Member's line of reasoning, and I share his indignation concerning a measure that does not seem logical from the point of view of economic development. However, I would rather not make direct representations to the Government of the Province of Quebec on a matter that falls under its jurisdiction. I am therefore depending on the Hon. Member to bring to bear whatever political arguments he may wish, but I shall not join him in that endeavour.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Hon. Erik Nielsen (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. What excuse has the Government to offer for its failure to issue pay cheques to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police? In his response let him not say it was a delay in passing the borrowing authority Bill since there is the provision of Section 39 of

March 30, 1983
Business of the House
the Financial Administration Act which the Government has exercised four times to date, and which could have been exercised for paying the cheques of the members of the Force.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I will not use that excuse because there really is no problem. The cheques are payable on April 1. As I understand it, Royal Assent will be given today to Bill C-146, the interim supply Bill. On the date of those cheques, members of the RCMP, like all other public servants, will be able to cash them. There is absolutely no problem of backing being available for those cheques to be cashed.


Erik Nielsen: We passed that legislation, the appropriations Bill, through the House. It passed through the other place on March 24 last. There is simply no excuse whatsoever for those cheques not having gone out as they traditionally have in the past so that Members of the Force would have them by now.


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) on Tuesday, March 29, 1983, meets the requirements of the Standing Order as to form.


Mr. Pinard:: As far as the business of the House is concerned when the House resumed after the Easter recess, I can inform my hon. colleagues that on Monday, April 11, we shall resume debate on the report stage-and I hope the third reading stage will follow as soon as possible-of Bill C-136 which concerns the Small Business Investment Grants Act. Hon. Members are aware that the Bill arises from a previous budget and must be passed as soon as possible. That will be the order of business for Monday, April 11, and if we do not finish on Monday, we shall resume debate on the 12th on the same Bill. The next Bill will be Bill C-95 concerning sports pools, and we would like to complete the report and third reading stages of this Bill as well. Wednesday, April 13, will be set aside for Private Members' Business, according to the Standing Orders, and I would like to officially designate Thursday and Friday, April 14 and 15, as Opposition days in connection with the business of supply. It is customary that the Government occasionally allots two consecutive days, to give the Opposition an opportunity to debate the subject of its choice, as usual. We have had so many questions about the possibility of having a debate on cruise missiles that on April 14 and 15, the Opposition, if it chooses to do so, will be free to use either both days or one day for that purpose.
Madam Speaker, that will be the business of the House for the week following the Easter recess, at least for the time being.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Lewis:: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Government House Leader if he could give us some indication of the business for the week of April 11.


Yvon Pinard: Yes, Madam Speaker, but first, now that we know the date of the budget, I would like, after consultation with the House Leaders of the Opposition Parties, to move:
That notwithstanding any Standing Order on the day designated by the Minister of Finance for his budget presentation, the House shall spend its sitting at 6:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.m., and at that time the business considered shall be the budget presentation of the Minister of Finance and the reply thereto by the Members of the Opposition, provided that when that Member's motion to adjourn the debate is adopted, the House shall adjourn.
I have raised this question with my colleagues and it seems that if the question is now put you will get the consent that is required.


Madam Speaker:: Does the House agree?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Andre Maltais (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 46(2) and in the spirit of the Access to Information Act, additional documents relating to the Coal Liquefaction Project in Nova Scotia will be tabled on behalf of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. The Minister has obtained the agreement of a third party to proceed, without violating the confidentiality of commercial aspects of this enterprise. This last set of documents, Madam Speaker, should fulfil the Minister's obligations to the House in this respect.
March 30, 1983


PETITIONS
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, the sad story of Kelly Cook is known to thousands of Canadians. On April 22, 1981, this beautiful fifteen-year-old girl was abducted from her home in Standard, where she lived with her parents, Marion and Walter Cook, and her sister and brother; two and one half months later she was found murdered, bound with ropes and weighted down with cinder blocks in Chin Lake, in southern Alberta. The murderer is still on the loose.
The broken-hearted parents, two excellent Canadian citizens, in an endeavour to make sure such a terrible tragedy would not happen to any other child, undertook to secure the names of people across western Canada asking that capital punishment be reinstated.
I present this petition today containing 1,418 signatures all wanting the Olsons, the Browns and the Peters and the murderer of Kelly to have the ultimate punishment, so that they will never again commit such dastardly crimes.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



PUBLIC OFFICERS STANDARDS OF CONDUCT ACT


Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-679, an Act respecting standards of conduct for public officers.
He said: Madam Speaker, this Private Member's Bill arises out of the so-called Gillespie affair which cast a dark shadow over the public life of Canada. The Bill would formalize into law those standards of conduct for public officials which are presently set out only as guidelines, guidelines which the Government has chosen to ignore. It would cover Ministers, ex-Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries and, I would hope, if adopted, could do something to wipe away that long, dark shadow.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 3,929, 3,949, 3,953, 3,954, 3,955, 3,956, 3,957, 4,060 and 4,540.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Lawrence: What is the name of the present (a) Director (b) Deputy Director of the Collins Bay Institution, Kingston and, in each case (a) for how long has he/she held the position (b) what position did he/she hold previously (c) what is his/her salary level (d) what formal education does he/she have?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as
the Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
A.	The Warden at Collins Bay Institution is Herbert Charles Reynett. (a) Date of appointment to present position: April 1, 1980. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Warden of former British Columbia Penitentiary, New Westminster, B.C. (c) Salary range: $39,700 to $48,500. *(d) The minimum educational requirements for this position are successful completion of secondary school or to have passed the Public Service Commission Examination 320 coupled with relevant experience.
B.	There is no Deputy Director at Collins Bay Institution but the Assistant Warden, Education and Training, Jack Holder, is presently designated by the Warden to act in his absence through a Commissioner's Directive issued in accordance with Section 29(3) of the Penitentiary Act. The responsibility may be rotated periodically in order to provide experience and training opportunities to three other Assistant Wardens.
(a) Date of appointment as Assistant Warden, Education and Training: February 1, 1980. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Regional Manager, Education and Training, Correctional Service Canada, Regional Headquarters, Kingston, Ontario, (c) Salary range: $18,003 to $43,362 plus appropriate allowance paid for added responsibilities as per ED EST contract. *(d) This position requires graduation with an acceptable degree from a recognized university and an acceptable teaching certificate from a Province or Territory in Canada.
'Information provided is for previous work experience in the federal Public Service only. The provision of any additional information on individuals regarding previous work experience outside the federal Public Service and personal educational qualifications is of a personal and confidential nature, the disclosure of which is governed under the Canadian Human Rights Act, Part IV.


Mr. Lawrence: What is the name of the present (a) Director (b) Deputy Director of the Pandora Centre, Victoria and, in each case (a) for how long has he/she held the position (b) what position did he/she hold previously (c) what is his/her salary level (d) what formal education does he/she have?
Hod. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada): In so far as
the Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
A. There is no Director at Pandora Centre but there is an Acting Superintendent, whose name is Kenneth McLennan, (a) Date of appointment to present position: March 9, 1981. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Section Supervisor, Victoria District Parole Office, Victoria, British

March 30, 1983
Order Paper Questions
Columbia, (c) Salary range: $28,118 to $31,640. *(d) This position requires a university degree, preferably with specialization in sociology, psychology, social work, criminology or some other specialty relevant to the position, or to have passed the Public Service Commission Examination, "General Intelligence Test 310" and possess the experience qualifications for the position.
B. There is no Deputy Director at the Pandora Centre, however, the District Director of the Victoria District Parole Office in Victoria, British Columbia, Murray Blyth Gaw, takes the management responsibility of the Centre when the Acting Superintendent is absent. The District Director may also designate one of his two Section Supervisors to act in the absence of the Acting Superintendent.
(a) Date of appointment as District Director: July 1, 1975. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Parole Service Officer, Victoria District Parole Officer, Victoria, British Columbia, (c) Salary Range: $33,689 to $37,913. *(d) Same as part A(d).
Information provided is for previous work experience in the federal Public Service only. The provision of any additional information on individuals regarding previous work experience outside the federal Public Service and personal educational qualifications is of a personal and confidential nature, the disclosure of which is governed under the Canadian Human Rights Act, Part IV.


Mr. Lawrence: What is the name of the present (a) Director (b) Deputy Director of the Mission Institution, Mission and, in each case (a) for how long has he/she held the position (b) what position did he/she hold previously (c) what is his/her salary level (d) what formal education does he/she have?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as
the Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
A.	The Warden at Mission Institution is Wayne Scissons. (a) Date of appointment to present position: January 7, 1982. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Assistant Warden, Security, Dorchester Penitentiary, Dorchester, New Brunswick, (c) Salary range: $38,020 to $42,919. *(d) The minimum educational requirements for this position are successful completion of secondary school or to have passed the Public Service Commission Examination 320 coupled with relevant experience.
B.	There is no Deputy Director at Mission Institution but the Assistant Warden, Offender Programs, Rodger Brock, is presently designated by the Warden to act in his absence through a Commissioner's Directive issued in accordance with Section 29(3) of the Penitentiary Act. The responsibility may be rotated periodically in order to provide experience and training opportunities to one additional Assistant Warden.
(a) Date of appointment as Assistant Warden, Offender Programs: February 9, 1976. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Head of Living Unit, Matsqui Institution, Abbotsford, British Columbia, (c) Salary range: $33,689 to $37,913. *(d) This position requires a university degree, preferably with specialization in sociology, psychology, social
work, criminology or some other specialty relevant to the position, or to have passed the Public Service Commission Examination "General Intelligence Test 310" and possess the experience qualifications for the position.
Information provided is for previous work experience in the federal Public Service only. The provision of any additional information on individuals regarding previous work experience outside the federal Public Service and personal educational qualifications is of a personal and confidential nature, the disclosure of which is governed under the Canadian Human Rights Act, Part IV.


Mr. Lawrence: What is the name of the present (a) Director (b) Deputy Director of the William Head Institution, Victoria and, in each case (a) for how long has he/she held the position (b) what position did he/she hold previously (c) what is his/her salary level (d) what formal education does he/she have?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as
the Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
A.	The Warden at William Head Institution is Archie Bender, (a) Date of appointment to present position: October 17, 1977. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Supervisor, Production and Training, Matsqui Institution, Abbotsford, British Columbia, (c) Salary range: $38,020 to $42,919. *(d) The minimum educational requirements for this position are successful completion of secondary school or to have passed the Public Service Commission Examination 320 coupled with relevant experience.
B.	There is no Deputy Director at William Head Institution but the Assistant Warden, Security, Roger White, is presently designated by the Warden to act in his absence through a Commissioner's Directive issued in accordance with Section 29(3) of the Penitentiary Act.
(a) Date of appointment as Assistant Warden, Security: June 19, 1978. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Senior Security Officer, Warkworth Institution, Campbell-ford, Ontario, (c) Salary range: $30,567 to $34,090. *(d) Same as part A(d).
* Information provided is for previous work experience in the federal Public Service only. The provision of any additional information on individuals regarding previous work experience outside the federal Public Service and personal educational qualifications is of a personal and confidential nature, the disclosure of which is governed under the Canadian Human Rights Act, Part IV.


Mr. Lawrence: What is the name of the present (a) Director (b) Deputy Director of the Mountain Institution, Agassiz and, in each case (a) for how long has he/she held the position (b) what position did he/she hold previously (c) what is his/her salary level (d) what formal education does he/she have?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as
the Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
A. The Warden at Mountain Institution is Walter Mort. (a) Date of appointment to present position: December 28, 1973. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Assistant
March 30, 1983

Regional Director, Classification, Correctional Service Canada, Regional Headquarters, Abbotsford, British Columbia, (c) Salary range: $38,020 to $42,919. *(d) The minimum educational requirements for this position are successful completion of secondary school or to have passed the Public Service Commission Examination 320 coupled with relevant experience.
B. There is no Deputy Director at Mountain Institution but the Assistant Warden, Offender Programs, Douglas Black, is presently designated by the Warden to act in his absence through a Commissioner's Directive issued in accordance with Section 29(3) of the Penitentiary Act. The responsibility may be rotated periodically in order to provide experience and training opportunities to three other Assistant Wardens.
(a) Date of appointment as Assistant Warden: February 2, 1977. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Assistant Director, Red Deer Sub Office, National Parole Service, Innisfail, Alberta, (c) Salary range: $33,689 to $37,913. *(d) This position requires a university degree, preferably with specialization in sociology, psychology, social work, criminology or some other specialty relevant to the position, or to have passed the Public Service Commission Examination, "General Intelligence Test 310" and possess the experience qualifications for the position.
Information provided is for previous work experience in the federal Public Service only. The provision of any additional information on individuals regarding previous work experience outside the federal Public Service and personal educational qualifications is of a personal and confidential nature, the disclosure of which is governed under the Canadian Human Rights Act, Part IV.


Mr. Lawrence: What is the name of the present (a) Director (b) Deputy Director of the Matsqui Institution, Abbotsford and, in each case (a) for how long has he/she held the position (b) what position did he/she hold previously (c) what is his/her salary level (d) what formal education does he/she have?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as
the Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
A.	The Warden at Matsqui Institution is David Dhillon. (a) Date of appointment to present position: May 1, 1979. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Warden, Mission Institution, Mission, British Columbia, (c) Salary range: $39,700 to $48,500. *(d) The minimum educational requirements for this position are successful completion of secondary school or to have passed the Public Service Commission Examination 320 coupled with relevant experience.
B.	There is no Deputy Director at Matsqui Institution, but the Assistant Warden, Administration, Normand Blamire, is presently designated by the Warden to act in his absence through a Commissioner's Directive issued in accordance with Section 29(3) of the Penitentiary Act.
(a) Date of appointment as Assistant Warden, Administration: June 7, 1976. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Visits and Correspondence Officer, Regional Psychiatric
Order Paper Questions
Centre, Abbotsford, British Columbia, (c) Salary range: $26,212 to $29,168. *(d) Same as part A(d).
Information provided is for previous work experience in the federal Public Service only. The provision of any additional information on individuals regarding previous work experience outside the federal Public Service and personal educational qualifications is of a personal and confidential nature, the disclosure of which is governed under the Canadian Human Rights Act, Part IV.


Mr. Lawrence: What is the name of the present (a) Director (b) Deputy Director of the Kent Institution, Agassiz and, in each case (a) for how long has he/she held the position (b) what position did he/she hold previously (c) what is his/her salary level (d) what formal education does he/she have?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as
the Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
A.	The Warden at Kent Institution is John Stonoski. (a) Date of appointment to present position: November 10, 1981. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Warden, Mission Institution, Mission, British Columbia (c) Salary range: $39,700 to $48,500. *(d) The minimum educational requirements for this position are successful completion of secondary school or to have passed the Public Service Commission Examination 320 coupled with relevant experience.
B.	There is no Deputy Director at Kent Institution but the Assistant Warden, Education and Training, Kenneth Peterson, is presently designated by the Warden to act in his absence through a Commissioner's Directive issued in accordance with Section 29(3) of the Penitentiary Act. The responsibility may be rotated periodically in order to provide experience and training opportunities to six other Assistant Wardens.
(a) Date of appointment as Assistant Warden, Education and Training: July 30, 1979. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Assistant Warden, Education and Training, at former British Columbia Penitentiary, New Westminster, British Columbia, (c) Salary range: $19,627 to $47,485 plus appropriate allowance paid for added responsibilities as per ED EST contract. *(d) This position requires graduation with an acceptable degree from a recognized university and an acceptable teaching certificate from a Province or Territory in Canada.
Information provided is for previous work experience in the federal Public Service only. The provision of any additional information on individuals regarding previous work experience outside the federal Public Service and personal educational qualifications is of a personal and confidential nature, the disclosure of which is governed under the Canadian Human Rights Act, Part IV.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the answer to question No. 3,085 which stated in part that purchases of white wine by the National Arts Centre were made from Almaden Wines of California in the amounts of $2,434 on September 11, 1980; $9,576 on December 5, 1980; $9,576 on April 16,1981; and $23,673 on July 28,1981 (a) is the wine being used as a house wine (b) were those the largest purchases made by

March 30, 1983
Order Paper Questions
the Centre in the past three years (c) for what reason was a Canadian house wine not used?
2.	Are there plans to use a Canadian house wine and, if so, what are they?
3.	Is it government policy to be prejudiced against Canadian wine producers and, if so, for what reason?
4.	(a) Does the Government have a "Buy Canadian" program (b) will the program apply to the purchasing of wine at the Centre and, if so, on what date?


David P. Smith: I am informed by the National Arts Centre Corporation and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce as follows:
1.	(a) Yes.
(b)	No. Three of those were the largest single purchases in the period referred to but not the largest in volume or amount.
(c)	Canadian wines are always available in the restaurants and for banquets. In the opinion of the Director of Restaurants, however, Almaden provided the best quality at a reasonable price for use as house wine. Surveys of patrons' opinion indicated their preference for this wine, also.
2.	It is the responsibility of the Director of Restaurants to periodically check quality of wines and public acceptance. When the combined quality and relative price of Canadian wines lead to greater acceptance they will be introduced as house wine. See reply to question No. 3,085 tabled February 22, 1982.
3.	No.
4.	(a) No, the Government does not have a legislated "Buy Canadian" program. The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, however, administers a "Shop Canadian" program which encourages Canadians to purchase Canadian made products where price and quality are competitive with imported counterparts. This program is purely voluntary, (b) Not applicable.
FILM "FOUR CENTURIES: FIREARMS IN CANADA"


Mr. Beatty: 1.	Was a film entitled "Four Centuries: Firearms in Canada" produced by the National Film Board and the Department of the Solicitor General and, if so, at what cost to the Government?
2.	What amount is being spent on the (a) promotion (b) distribution of the film?
3.	To whom is the film being made available?
4.	Will there be any charge to individuals or organizations who view the film?
5.	For what reason has the film been produced?


David P. Smith: I am informed by the Ministry of the Solicitor General and the National Film Board as follows:
1.	Yes, the film entitled "Four Centuries: The Firearm in Canada" was co-produced by the Ministry of the Solicitor General and the National Film Board. Production costs were approximately $118,535 for the Ministry of the Solicitor General and $84,633 for the National Film Board for a total cost of $203,168. Running time: 26 minutes 52 seconds in both official languages (two films).
2.	The estimated amounts to be spent by the Ministry of the Solicitor General are as follows: (a) $32,000 on promotion which includes production and distribution of a poster/bro-chure and special regional showings of the Film; and (b) $31,850 on distribution costs which include copies of the film for regional National Film Board libraries.
In so far as the National Film Board is concerned: (a) $12,330. (b) An amount of $26,557 has been allocated for the distribution of this film of which $6,000 will be spent in the first year.
3.	The film is being made available to: the general public through N.F.B. film libraries across Canada, television and cable stations, chief provincial territorial firearms officers, provincial hunter safety co-ordinators, Canadian Wildlife Federation, Dominion of Canada Rifle Association, Shooting Federation of Canada, Royal Canadian Mounted Police film library.
4.	No.
5.	The film has been produced to assist provincial and local authorities involved in firearms safety to reduce the number of accidents and fatalities caused by carelessness and the misuse of firearms. With the emphasis on responsibility and safety, the film demonstrates the correct care and handling of firearms, explains Canada's history of firearms use and how today's controls were designed to deter criminal and irresponsible use.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, if question No. 4,650 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 4,650 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Greenaway: 1.	Since the inception of the New Horizons program in 1972, how many applications were made from senior citizen groups in the Constituency of Cariboo-Chilcotin?
2.	What was the name of each group that applied and in which year did the group apply?
3.	What was the amount of funding asked for in each application?
4.	Which applications were approved and funded?
Return tabled.
March 30, 1983


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


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed
to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


-	MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


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


Madam Speaker:: Shall these motions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS

['I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following Bills, without amendment:\nBill C-130, an Act to authorize continuing financial assistance to be provided to certain international financial institutions;\nBill C-143, and Act to provide supplementary borrowing authority; and\nBill C-141, an Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and to amend certain other Acts in consequence thereof.']
Madam Speaker:: Shall all items listed under Private Members' Public Bills preceding No. 212 be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



[Stage Direction]
On the Order: Public Bills.
May 2, 1980-Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections of Bill C-412, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (campaigning by non-residents).
Mr. Rose:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to ask for unanimous consent of the House-and we have given various Parties some notice of this-to allow Bill C-412 to stand in favour of Bill C-678 of my colleague, the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish).


Madam Speaker:: Of course, this can only happen if the House gives its unanimous consent. Does the House give its unanimous consent to the proposal made by the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody that his Bill stand and that the Bill in
Private Members' Business
the name of the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake be considered instead? Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Yes.


Mr. Herbert:: No.


Madam Speaker:: There obviously is not unanimous consent.


Mr. Deans:: Madam Speaker, the Member who said no did so, as I understand it, because he did not believe that he had been consulted. I would like to point out in order that it be clear that we did in fact consult all Members in the House a week ago and indicated that we would be seeking unanimous consent. That is clearly on the record. Recognizing that, I wonder whether the Hon. Member would reconsider his negating of the question that we asked.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Mr. Speaker, I feel very strongly about the right of Members to decide for themselves. I did hear the discussion at that time and 1 heard the response to that discussion. I think maybe I made the point that we, the Members present at the particular moment when the point is brought up, which is right now, should have the right to say yes or no. I made my point. I will reverse my decision. The matter can proceed.


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, some Members are aware of the exchange that did occur the other day wherein the Government House Leader indicated his great displeasure at the demonstration which the New Democratic Party brought about, and at that time he indicated he would not give consent. He is not here today. I think he made his point. We do have a long-standing tradition where Members agree to swap positions that we on this side as a rule do not interfere. Therefore, I do not believe there will be any objection from this side, as the Hon. Member has so indicated.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: My understanding is that the House had achieved unanimous consent. Accordingly, it is moved by the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose), seconded by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans):
That the motion moved by Mr. Rose be withdrawn and be replaced by the motion moved by Mr. Anguish.
Accordingly, since there is unanimous consent-


Mr. Lambert:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair is faced with a difficulty in that a moment ago there was unanimous consent. However, another Hon. Member indicates there may not be unanimous consent. The Chair will determine whether or not once again there is unanimous consent. Accordingly, I will hear the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert).


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I did just come to the House. I have heard of these propositions where Bills get tacked on at the end of the list, then there is some fancy footwork and it is

March 30, 1983
Private Members' Business
announced at the beginning of this Private Members' session that this swap has gone on. It happened last year with regard to Canada Day and Dominion Day. I refuse to go through that sort of thing again.
I have three Bills that are spread throughout the list and I would welcome the opportunity of debating any one of them. We could go through the list and pick one of my Bills. I forget their order. One is on income tax, one on redistribution and one on whatever it may be, I will soon find out.


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, clearly had the Hon. Member been here when the question was put, he could have denied unanimous consent; but I submit that when the question was put, he did not object at that point. I do not believe he can turn back the clock. I may not agree with the Hon. Member on this issue, but it is an important issue and we do not want to stand in the way of there being some debate on it.


Mr. Anguish:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I think you have shown some leniency, Mr. Speaker, in calling a second time for unanimous consent after we had in fact achieved that. I point out to the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), who rose just a few moments ago, that this is a very different situation from that to which he was referring. If he can find a Member in his Party to defer his position on the Order Paper with regard to Private Members' Bills, he can do that.
We have not asked to tamper with the order other than the fact that the New Democratic Party, in the name of the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose), has a Private Members' Bill on for today. However, he feels that the Bill I have put forward, seconded by the Hon. Member for Dauphin (Mr. Lewycky), is of paramount importance to be discussed before this House recesses for the Easter break.
The Members of the Conservative Party should take this into consideration. We are not asking that their Bills be put lower on the Order Paper, only that a Bill put forward by one NDP Member be changed to a position held by another NDP Member. In light of that, Mr. Speaker, possibly you could seek unanimous consent again. Maybe the Hon. Member will reconsider.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I wonder if I might just address myself to the House, and in particular to the Hon. Member for Edmonton West. The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith) is quite correct. I sought unanimous consent and the House gave its unanimous consent.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I beg your pardon. I called "no", but I was not in my seat.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: As a courtesy to the Hon. Member for Edmonton West, after in my opinion the House had given its unanimous consent, I then noticed and heard the Hon. Member for Edmonton West indicate that he would not be agreeable to unanimous consent.
The Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish) put the point very well. What has happened, and I will review the matter very briefly, is that the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose) had a Private Members' Bill to amend the Canada Elections Act before the House. There seems to have been some discussion. As a matter of fact, as I understand it, the House was agreeable to exchanging that Hon. Member's Private Members' Bill for another standing in the name of another Member of the New Democratic Party, the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake. I am hopeful that the Hon. Member for Edmonton West will accept the understanding that has arisen, particularly because I declared that there had been unanimous consent given.
After an explanation of what happened, perhaps the Hon. Member for Edmonton West might want to reconsider. If I am put in the position of having to rule whether unanimous consent was given, it will in a sense be difficult. It may consist of trying to make a judgment based on a split second of timing, and I would rather not do that. Obviously it is the preference of the House and of the Chair that the Hon. Member for Edmonton West consider the proposal that has been put forward and allow the House to ascertain whether in those circumstances he agrees to give his consent as well in order to provide unanimous consent. I have to hear the Hon. Member for Edmonton West in that regard and then I will hear the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the position you are in, but I want to tell you that as I came into the House the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith) was on his feet saying that there had been some agreement to exchange Bills and that there would be no objection from the point of view of the Government, notwithstanding what the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) said yesterday or the day before.
I came into the Chamber in the centre, saw precisely what was happening and I shouted "no". Then I had to go behind the curtain and again come forward. By that time the Speaker was on his feet and putting the motion. I still called "no". If it is a judgment call and you feel that you have called a strike as against a ball, and you are not going to change it, so be it.
I want to put on record my objection in principle to some of these deals of swapping Bills at the bottom of the list for those at the top. That is the wrong way to proceed. As a matter of fact, I object to the way the Parliamentary Secretary proceeds with Private Members' Bills. They are supposed to be proceeded with in the order in which they have been filed; then after that, in the order in which they appear. Then the Member in question whose Bill appears shall be canvassed as to whether he wishes to go forward. There seems to be a tight little old boys' club of some sort, or whatever it may be, to get certain Bills forward for discussion and then there is some further playing under the table, some meetings going on, with regard to others.
March 30, 1983

There is no reason why a Bill which has just appeared on the Order Paper, or relatively recently, should be called when there have been Bills which have been on this Order Paper for nigh on three years, such as mine, and I object to that. Within that context, Mr. Speaker, you can make up your own mind.


David P. Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: No, I believe I will use the privilege which is given to the Chair in these circumstances. I appreciate the offer and the courtesy indicted by the Hon. Member for Edmonton West. He has indicated that he will live with the decision that is made. My problem is that I believe the Chair has, as its first duty, to consider the individual rights of every Hon. Member of this House. I must say that the Hon. Member has made his own argument. He indicated that on his entry into the House he did not consent to unanimous agreement. If he is not willing to change his view in that regard, then I am sorry, I believe, despite the feeling of the House and despite my initial reaction that there was unanimous consent, it is the Chair's responsibility to defend an individual Member's right. He has indicated, and obviously the Chair and the House must take his word, that at the moment unanimous consent was requested he said no. Once an Hon. Member stands on his feet and tells this House and the Chair that he had indicated that he would not give unanimous consent, I believe it is the duty of the Chair to accept that Hon. Member's word.
Because the Hon. Member for Edmonton West was so courteous in his willingness to abide by the ruling of the Chair, 1 feel I have no further choice but to put to him a request that he consider the will of the House and indicate whether or not he will give his consent to the exchange of two Private Members' Bills. The Hon. Member for Edmonton West?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: There is not unanimous consent.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understood that the Hon. Member for Edmonton West, who said he had made his point, had indicated to you that while he objected to the procedure, he was willing to go along with the decision which you had made and called a little earlier. That is my view. He did not say it perhaps explicitly, but he is a distinguished Hon. Member and fair minded. He is a former Speaker and is sensitive to these matters.
I appeal to him to let this matter proceed, if you need further word from him, on the ground that we have no intention in this Party of making any deals which would interfere with the order of his Bills at all. It was a matter that I voluntarily gave up my place to my colleague. I will certainly lose my place because I have given it up. That does not interfere with the place of the Hon. Member for Edmonton West's Bills at all. I am interested in his argument. I respect his decision. However, I believe he indicated to you that while he felt another way when he was walking in here, he respected your
Private Members' Business
decision that there was unanimous consent. That is where I will leave it.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Mr. Speaker, this is a rather unfortunate exchange. I would like to point out what I understand of the rules under which we are operating since the beginning of the year. First, this is not a Party matter, it is a matter for individual Members. Therefore, there is no question that one New Democratic Party Member can exchange Bills with another Member of his Party because Party affiliation has nothing to do with the selection.
Second, that selection is not according to the Bills which are listed on the Order Paper but is according to a list of names. For purposes of convenience we have taken the names as they are printed on the Order Paper so that the Member has his choice.
I feel that the exchange today is unfortunate because if there had been a little diplomatic discussion prior to this matter coming up on the floor of the House, these Bills would have been printed on the notice board which appears in our lobby. We would then have known what the order of business was, and we could have prepared for it.
The two points which I would like to make are that, first, the selection has nothing to do with Party; and, second, the Member is called and the Member makes his choice as to which Bill or which Motion is discussed. If you will make sure I am correct, Mr. Speaker, I believe this is important for the rest of the Hon. Members of the House.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to follow where we are going here. I understood from the comments of my colleague the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody, and from watching you in the Chair, that you tended to agree that in fact you had drawn the conclusion that there had been unanimous consent given, and that you tended also to agree with my colleague the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody that the Hon. Member for Edmonton West had also indicated that whatever you ruled he would abide by.
I want to say to the Hon. Member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) that in fact the request for unanimous consent was raised over a week ago. I rose in the House and said that at the appropriate time we would ask the House for unanimous consent. We thought that was in fact noticed. I did consult some people, I must confess not the Hon. Member, but it is hard to consult everyone, and we thought we had general agreement to allow it to occur. I would ask you, sir, in the interest of proceeding with the business of the House, if you could not simply agree that the ruling you made is a ruling which is acceptable and we could proceed from there?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I will hear other Hon. Members, but may I explain in very simple terms that my understanding is that the House had granted unanimous consent to the exchange of the two Bills. That is clear; I indicated that. However, an Hon. Member has risen in his place and indicated that he did not give unanimous consent. The Chair is not about to dispute that Hon. Member's word. That Hon. Member told the Chair that before the Chair had

March 30, 1983
Private Members' Business
expressed a verbal understanding that unanimous consent had been reached, he had said no. I believe the Chair has no option but to accept the word of an Hon. Member who denies that unanimous consent had been given.
That is the difficulty which I am in. I have done what I could. I have requested the Hon. Member for Edmonton West reconsider the matter in any way he can. I certainly would recognize the Hon. Member for Edmonton West in order to facilitate the business of the House. Once he has risen and has indicated to the House that, prior to my indicating that I understood there was unanimous consent, he himself had denied unanimous consent, I have no choice but to take his word.


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) said he was trying to find out where we were going and, obviously, the answer to that is exactly nowhere.
It seems to me that the question at issue here is whether or not a Private Member's Bill which has been put in of late is going to take precedence over Bills which have been on the Order Paper for a long time. One Hon. Member of this House, the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), has said no, which it is his perfect right to do. I do not know why we are still arguing. Let us get on with the business of the House.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, in light of the way things are going, you did in fact acknowledge, and other Hon. Members have agreed, that there was unanimous consent within this House for what we proposed, and the ruling has obviously been changed. Does that mean we can go back a little further to when the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) came in here this afternoon, only a few minutes ago, and asked for unanimous consent to bring in the budget on April 19, with the attached items? Can I now say that I did not give unanimous consent to that? Will that be a "no" agreement within this House?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Now you are
being deliberately stupid.


Douglas Keith Anguish: What is the line? Is it one minute after, Mr. Speaker? Can you do it 15 minutes after, half an hour?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I do not know the answers to the Hon. Member's questions. Certainly he does raise quite appropriate problems of procedure. But what I am faced with is that an Hon. Member has risen in his place and indicated that he did not give unanimous consent. I do not think it is necessary for the Chair to repeat this again and again and again. I cannot proceed when an Hon. Member stands in his place and assures the Chair he did not give unanimous consent.


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, when the Hon. Member for Edmonton West indicated that he was not giving consent, he made reference to disagreeing with the way Private Member's Business was handled by this side of the House, and by myself in particular. I wish to assure him as an Hon. Member that I have always taken the position that if one Member has the agreement of another Member to trade places, I do my best not to stand in his way. If next week he comes to me with the same proposition, my reaction would be the very same. So if he is taking this position to make a point to me, I wish to assure him that he has misinterpreted the position I take, which is consistent throughout regardless of the political stripe of any Member when it comes to a request during Private Members' hour.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, this whole thing could have been completely avoided if the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) had taken the right steps. At 11 o'clock this morning I received a sheet with item 1 and item 2 included, and the third space was empty. I did not get the sheet with the third name until just before coming into the House. The office of the President of the Privy Council makes the decision, so why did he not put this item in? It is a pretty sloppy way of doing business, I suggest.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I will try to recognize Hon. Members on a point of order who have not already been heard. The Hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to confirm what our Deputy Whip has said in that the Notice Paper we got earlier today simply listed two items under Private Members' Business. It is my understanding, and perhaps you can confirm it, Mr. Speaker, that it is not the Table which draws up the names and finds Members who can perhaps participate in Private Members' hours; it is the Government House Leader's office. If that is so, it seems to me they could have avoided this problem.


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, simply to clarify that, you will note that all three Members listed here today are Opposition Members. I certainly hope no one is suggesting that somehow we were picking and choosing under any other criterion than-


Gordon Edward Taylor: Oh no, never.


David P. Smith: Any Member who wants to accuse me of that is going to have a pretty rough ride from me.


Gordon Edward Taylor: I have had a Bill on the Order Paper for two years and it has still not been chosen.


David P. Smith: We are not always able to put a Member's name down until we have confirmed with him that he is ready to proceed, Mr. Speaker.


Gordon Edward Taylor: I confirmed it with you.
March 30, 1983


David P. Smith: They are not always able to do that. But anyone suggesting that the criterion in is any way discriminatory is getting on to pretty dangerous ground.


Gordon Edward Taylor: That is exactly what it has been, discriminatory, and you know it.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, if I may add my two cents worth, first of all I would point out that the Bill being proposed is the last one on the list and is therefore being raised to first place today. Probably everyone knows that, but I think it is worth noting.
The second point I wish to make is that someone on the Government side said that the list for today was posted in their lobby. It may very well have been posted in their lobby but it was not in our lobby. The last selection of legislation for Wednesday in this lobby is dated February 22.


Philip Derek Lewis: But it is 1983.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I regret very much this hassle has developed and we have had this misunderstanding. It would have been much simpler just to allow this to have proceeded. No one wants to ride roughshod over anyone's sensibilities, but it seems to me that an act to declare Canada a nuclear weapons free zone is of major consequence and importance compared to my own particular concerns. It is for that reason that I asked to have my Bill withdrawn in favour of the Bill presented by my colleague, in whose riding it is at least comtem-plated that the Cruise missile will be tested. So we are very concerned about that and so are lots of Canadians.
If we cannot get this by agreement, Mr. Speaker, under Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, types of motions, I note that a dilatory motion is designed to enable the House to proceed to another order of business. Therefore, I move that the House proceed to Order No. 678.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: He cannot make a motion on a point of order.


Mark Willson Rose: I am sorry, that is the Bill number, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I think procedurally the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody, if I may assist him, wishes to seek the unanimous consent of the House on a point of order to produce the motion he is now referring to. That, I think, is the way he has to proceed. Before he does so, because I envisage the possibility that this may cause division bells-


Douglas Keith Anguish: A distinct possibility.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: -I know, as do all Members who were here, that last week the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain pursued this matter. I know he sought unanimous consent at that time. I know other Members indicated that the preferable procedure would be to bring it up at the appropriate time, making that appropriate time today. So there is nothing surprising coming before the House at this moment. There has been extensive discussion of this issue. I repeat that because I think perhaps some Hon. Members may
Private Members' Business
think this matter has arisen by surprise. I want to assure all Hon. Members that there is no surprise in this. The possibility of exchanging these two Private Members' Bills occurred something like a week ago.
Therefore, before I pursue that issue raised by the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody, which is on a point of order to seek unanimous consent of the House to put a motion to hear another Bill, it may be that there are some other Hon. Members who want to be heard on the issue being debated under a point of order. May I do that in the hope that this issue can finally be resolved?
Are there other Hon. Members who wish to be recognized? The Hon. Member for Edmonton West.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, may I first address a word on the competence of the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody in making a motion, having first stood on a point of order.


Mark Willson Rose: I did not rise on a point of order.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The motion he put was out of order. He was standing on a point of order-well, all of us have been standing on points of order ever since I raised the question with Mr. Speaker about consent. Every one of us has been standing on a point of order, whether we said so or not. That is my respectful submission to the Chair and to the Hon. Member.
As to the question of choice, this is item 212 on the Private Members' list and there are pages and pages of Bills and debates to be resumed that the Parliamentary Secretary could avail himself of before he reached the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody with respect to today's Private Members' Business, item No. 1. Unless the Hon. Member can tell me that he consulted any and all Members before No. 212, or that for some reason or other he was able to ascertain they were not ready to go today, the rules of this House say that item shall
go-
Why do we have a draw? I agree that at one time a Member whose name had been called could substitute another item from his portfolio if he had filed several. He was asked to elect which shall be his first or second item, etc. I think this happened when the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council was new in the House and was not aware of the procedure.
The priority was set in May of 1980. We have over 600 items and now there has been a change because somebody, somewhere, was able to come up with an item for the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody. Just the day before yesterday the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) said the Government was not going to allow this Bill to be brought forward. Now the Parliamentary Secretary has said that the Government has changed its mind. That is quite fair, Mr. Speaker. If the President of the Privy Council does not speak for the Government, who does he speak for in this House?

March 30, 1983
Private Members' Business
If the Minister changed his mind, that is up to him, but I object to playing fast and loose with Private Members' hour. It has already been terribly abused by the Government, first of all by extending this session into the fourth year. This denied a great deal of debate on Private Members' Motions under the previous rules. It was simply a takeover of Private Members' time by the Government as a result of not having a new session. Those on the Government side who are responsible for this do not observe the rules. The fact that they are on the opposite side today does not mean that there is an absence of prejudice. There is prejudice in that the Parliamentary Secretary did not go to those persons at the head of the list. It is not his prerogative to go up and down the list and at random ask someone if he is ready to go ahead today. That is not his privilege.
I submit it is totally wrong for one Member to exchange his place on the list with another Member. I do not know if the Parliamentary Secretary has ever attended a major cattle show and has seen classes of animals, the get of a sire or a herd. Has he seen the exchange of an animal that has done poorly for a much better animal at the gate? I have been told how this is done. He suggests that Hon. Members engage in this compliance with the rules and we arrive at the gate today and suddenly see one Member slipping the rope off his animal on to another animal-another Member. In other words, one Bill is exchanged for another Bill. We cannot do things that way, Mr. Speaker.
I am going to insist that I have a right, Mr. Speaker. My Bill was set down a long time ahead of this one and there are hundreds of others as well that have priority over this Bill. The Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) pointed out that the list had only two names on it and the third place was blank. At two o'clock we saw the change, and that is what I object to as well.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following Bills, without amendment:
Bill C-130, an Act to authorize continuing financial assistance to be provided to certain international financial institutions;
Bill C-143, and Act to provide supplementary borrowing authority; and
Bill C-141, an Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and to amend certain other Acts in consequence thereof.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

["Mr. Speaker, Canadians are very conscious of the alarming number of nuclear weapons presently in the hands of the superpowers. They dread the thought that they might one day be used, and ponder over the dangers inherent in the existence of such arsenals. We are all aware of the devastation that would result from a nuclear war. In the face of the uncertainty that exists, many groups and individuals in the West are calling for an end to the development and deployment of new weapons, judging the quantity already in existence to be ample. This applies to strategic weapons as well as the intermediate-range missiles in Europe. Is it possible to accept the status quo in these two areas, and does it make sense to do so?\nThe governments of the NATO countries have decided to deploy Pershing II rockets and Cruise missiles in Europe as of this year if sufficient progress is not made in negotiations concerning this category of weapons in the coming months. It would have been much easier, in the short term, to pretend that the gigantic armament effort being made by the Warsaw Pact nations, in both the conventional and nuclear areas, was only a figment of our imagination. That is what the European countries did in the thirties. The imbalance that already existed in 1979, when NATO saw the need to react to the massive deployment of Soviet SS-20 missiles, has now become even greater, because the U.S.S.R. has since almost doubled the number of these missiles. Our allies are being held under a constant threat of destruction by more than 350 of these missiles, for which the West has no equivalent.\nCanada has always been an advocate of peace, justice and freedom, but it must honour its commitments. The North Atlantic Alliance, of which Canada is a founding member, was formed to avoid a recurrence of war in Europe. Our soldiers who gave their lives for the liberation of Europe must not be said to have died in vain.\nThe Canadian Government, in accord with the other members of NATO, is very much in favour of verifiable agreements that would limit and then reduce nuclear weapons stocks on both sides, hopefully leading to eventual elimination. However, such an objective can only be achieved if the West shows its determination not to remain indifferent in the face of what\nNuclear Weapons Free Zone\nmight constitute a means of applying considerable pressure. History has demonstrated that it is impossible to bring about a substantial diminution of armaments when the forces of one side outweigh the other's, as is presently the case in Europe. What reason would the side with the greater forces have to destroy or to dismantle the weapons that give it its hard-earned advantage, when no similar reduction had to be made by the other? Aggression is fostered by a state of inequality and a lack of determination, with the appearance of weakness.\nOur policy is not one of confrontation. On the contrary, it is the only way open to us in the slow process of nuclear arms limitation and disarmament. It is based on the concept of deterrence, which has given us a hitherto unequalled period of almost 40 years without a major conflict in this region of Europe where military forces of unprecedented size are facing each other. And this is where the real merit of mutual deterrence lies. There can be no recourse to atomic weapons, because the superpowers have the capacity to resist a preemptive strike and to inflict on the aggressor a degree of destruction that would obviate the political acceptability of initiating a strike. Nor has there been any use of conventional weapons, which over the two World Wars alone were responsible for tens of millions of deaths and so much destruction.\nThere were more victims in the bombardment of Tokyo on March 9, 1945 than at Hiroshima; 83,600 deaths and 102,000 wounded, compared with 80,000 deaths and 70,000 wounded at Hiroshima. That is no exoneration of the travesty that happened at Hiroshima. We all hope and pray that that will never be repeated. It will not be repeated if one side, the West, shows weakness in fight in the face of Soviet might. This is the result of the state of mutual deterrence that has gradually established itself between the superpowers and opposing alliances.\nThe strategy of non-war and non-use of forces can exist only in so far as the fragile equilibrium is maintained. There exists a moral obligation to keep intact the state of deterrence and to negotiate in good faith nuclear and conventional arms control agreements which are balanced and verifiable and which will reduce the arsenals of both sides to the lowest possible level. It is my hope, Mr. Speaker, that both sides in this very important issue, this issue upon which the very survival of our world depends, will in fact be responsible, so that neither side will proceed to the development of any further new weapons, but will put all of their resources which they are now expending on the development of new weapons into the development of a means of peace, the development of a means of reduction of arms, and the development of the means to achieve a world where men and women and future generations can live without the fear of a nuclear holocaust and can have a reasonable hope that the world, as we know it, will survive. We will then be able to truly progress and leave the world a better place for future generations.\n24322", 'March 30, 1983\nNuclear Weapons Free Zone']
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Government House Ottawa
March 30, 1983
Madam,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Brian Dickson, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber to-day, the 30th day of March, 1983, at 4:30 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain Bills.
I have the honour to be, Madam,
Your obedient servant, Edmond Joly de Lotbiniere Administrative Secretary to the Governor General.
It is up to the Parliamentary Secretary to give ample notice to the House. The notices should have been in the lobbies yesterday showing what Bills would be heard, rather than the final list being issued at two o'clock today.
For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I refuse to withdraw my "No". As I have already said, if it is your decision that the "No" was not heard and that there was unanimous consent, I would have to abide by your decision-or appeal. I could not appeal, since you were acting as Speaker. But I did say no, Mr. Speaker, and I wanted to draw that to the attention of the House.


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I think the Chair has heard sufficient argument. Before I recognize the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary, lest some other matter of privilege be raised, I had better deal with Royal Assent at 4:30 p.m.



[Stage Direction]
On the Order: Public Bills.
May 2, 1980-Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections of Bill C-412, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (campaigning by non-residents).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I want to recognize the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary on a question of privilege, but I wonder if we are getting lost on the point of order because, for the last time, I think I have to indicate to Hon. Members that, despite the courtesies-


Ian Deans: May I ask-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. Despite the courtesies offered by the Hon. Member for Edmonton West, he repeats and has repeated on several occasions that he
March 30, 1983

refuses unanimous consent. He also informed the House-and his word must be accepted-that he made that statement. He denied unanimous consent before I had indicated that I had heard unanimous consent.
If the House wishes to address itself to the point any further, I will listen; otherwise I want to advise the House that I intend to accept the Hon. Member's word and to rule that we will have to continue with the motion in the name of the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose).
The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) on a point of order.


Ian Deans: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the circumstances, it is a very difficult case that we have been faced with. My colleague may well have an agreement signed some time between now and the time the House reconvenes with regard to the testing of the Cruise missile. It may well affect his riding directly. It is a matter of considerable concern to him and in the circumstances, given that the Hon. Member for Edmonton West, after all of the requests made to him, has decided not to allow this debate to proceed notwithstanding that at least a week's notice was given, I move that the House do now adjourn.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I must indicate that the counsel I have received is that the Hon. Member cannot adjourn the House on a point of order.


Ian Deans: I am not on a point of order. I did not rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I cannot imagine what else the Hon. Member would be rising on.
I want to make clear that when the Bill was called, the House will recall that unanimous consent was sought to dispose of all times preceding item No. 212. That consent was given. At that point, before any Bill or motion could be put to the House, the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose) rose and indicated that he would like to exchange his position for that of the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish).
I am in a rather awkward position. I do not think at this moment I have any motion before the House other than that made-and I think this would be acceptable-by the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody seeking unanimous consent to exchange the two Bills. Then I must ask myself whether or not subsequent to that, as indicated by the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), every individual Member of Parliament who rose in his place was speaking on a point of order. I would like to take a moment for consultation. If some Hon. Members would like to assist the Chair, I would be pleased if they do so.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I want to draw to your attention that I did not rise on a point of order. I rose and you recognized me without any mention of a point of order. I rise again
Canada Elections Act
without mentioning a point of order, and I again move that the House do now adjourn.


Mr. Gauthier:: You cannot do that.


Ian Deans: I can. It is always in order. Read the rules.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: There is nothing before us.


Ian Deans: I happen to have been recognized, my dear friend, if you would listen to what is going on.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: On a point of privilege. On a point of order!


Ian Deans: I did not rise on a point of order and I did not rise on a point of privilege.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: We have nothing in front of us.


Ian Deans: A motion to adjourn is always in order, and I have moved a motion to adjourn.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sitting about as close to you as anyone in the House. I heard you recognize the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) on a point of order, and I am sure the record will show that. One cannot move the adjournment of the House on a point of order. We are wasting the time of the House. It is no wonder the public says that we look like a bunch of children; we are certainly acting like that this afternoon. For God's sake, let us get on with the business of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The House will see that I have benefited from the advice of the Clerk. I think the will of the House can best be expressed if we have some motion on the floor of the House, and hopefully at that point these procedural difficulties will be eased.
I have indicated several times to the House that I believe it is the responsibility of the Chair to honour the rights of individual Members. I cannot go any further than that. I must indicate that I accept the word of the Hon. Member for Edmonton West that there is not unanimous consent to proceed to an exchange of Bills. Therefore, that issue I now declare to have been ruled upon; it is not subject to the necessity of further discussion. The House has had nearly three quarters of an hour to deal with that matter. Accordingly, the proposition which I have to put before the House right now is the one standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody. Once that begins, of course, the Chair will recognize anyone who wishes to enter into debate and who may, during the course of debate, propose certain motions. That would be perfectly in order.


Mark Willson Rose: that Bill C-412, an Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (campaigning by non-residents), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.

March 30, 1983
Canada Elections Act


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


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Incidentally, before I proceed further, I might indicate that the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain, who I think is attempting to find the appropriate precedent, should look at Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, page 91, Citations 283(1) to (4) inclusive, and he will find the basis for what I have just indicated.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, therefore I move that we move to the next order of business standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon), No. 458.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The intent of the Chair is to assist Hon. Members who wish to move the House in certain directions, but I am faced with procedural difficulties. The Hon. Member has a motion before the House. He cannot amend it himself unless he has unanimous consent of the House, and he cannot move another motion which is not related to his motion. Possibly he could do so, I suppose, with unanimous consent of the House, but I must ask him to seek such guidance as he wishes so that we can proceed in accordance with our Standing Orders and precedents. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith) on a point of order.


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose) has a Private Members' Bill. Presumably he agrees with the contents of it. I wish to advise him that we on this side of the House have no objection to that Bill. It could be passed, as far as we are concerned, without debate. I suspect that if he sought the consent of the House to go into Committee of the Whole to deal with it, since it does just a bit of housekeeping with regard to the Canada Elections Act, he may well obtain that consent. If he wants to get his Bill, I think he might get it very expeditiously.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I think it would be advisable for the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody to indicate whether he is seeking the floor for the purpose of debate on his motion or whether he is rising on a point of order.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the motion which I put to you earlier, that we proceed from the Bill standing in my name to the one standing in the name of the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake.


Some Hon. Members:: You cannot do that.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: There cannot be two motions at the same time.


Ian Deans: Why not?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Because the rules say so.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. Again I indicate that I have had the benefit of consultation with the Clerk. Under the provisions of Standing Order 50, the Hon. Member cannot move a motion which in the current situation is not applicable to his own motion, and in any event because he already has his own motion on the floor. However, what I am attempting to do is to find a procedural mechanism which would allow certain Hon. Members to put before the House the issue they feel they wish to put before the House. It is not clear to me exactly what issue they want.
It might be that some Hon. Member wants to move to adjourn the House. It might be that some Hon. Member wants to put a motion, the effect of which would be that the two Private Members' Bills be exchanged one for the other in terms of debate. My responsibility is to facilitate the wishes of Hon. Members. In order to do that, I know I do not need unanimous consent. I will simply seek to recognize the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain in debate and what transpires thereafter will be the business of the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain and then possibly of the House.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I move under Standing Order 50 that the House proceed to deal with Bill C-678.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It is moved by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain that, pursuant to Standing Order 50 of the House of Commons, this House now consider that Bill C-412 be withdrawn by unanimous consent and be replaced by Bill C-678 for purposes of debate now. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


An Hon. Member:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: There is not unanimous consent. I will now move to put the yeas and nays. All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In my opinion the yeas have it.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am still on my same point.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: This is worse than Friday! In my opinion the yeas have it.
Motion agreed to on division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Accordingly, the House will address itself to Bill C-678, an Act to declare Canada a nuclear weapons free zone.
March 30, 1983


NUCLEAR WEAPONS FREE ZONE
Douglas Keith Anguish: that Bill C-678, an Act to declare Canada a Nuclear Weapons Free Zone, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the co-operation of all Members of the House this afternoon in having this Bill come forward for debate in Private Members' hour. I would like to thank the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose) who agreed to defer his Bill in favour of mine. I would also like to thank the Hon. Member for Dauphin (Mr. Lewycky) who seconded the motion so that Bill C-678 could come before us this afternoon.
It is of paramount importance to debate Bill C-678 before the Easter break for a number of reasons. One is the possibility that the Cruise missile might be tested any day now over Canadian territory. This missile has been slated for testing in the area of the Cold Lake Air Force Base and into the Primrose Lake Air Weapons Range, which is part of The Battlefords-Meadow Lake constituency that I represent here in the House of Commons.
In addition, I am very concerned about one Karen Harrison who has been fasting in our galleries for a number of days. She has stated that she will not cease her fast until such time as this Bill is given debate in the House of Commons.
I would like to say, however, that I hope this debate is only a beginning to the nuclear question and not an end in itself. We have to continue addressing the nuclear weapons problem very seriously. Bill C-678 basically does two things. First, it would declare Canada a nuclear weapons free zone. That would prevent the testing of the Cruise missile over Canadian territory. The Bill would go on from there to do a number of other things. This Bill would prevent the manufacture, use, importation and export of any nuclear weapons or weaponry on or over Canadian territory.
Second, the Bill puts forward the will of this Parliament and country for the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) to go to the United Nations and present a resolution calling for the United Nations to conduct a world referendum on nuclear disarmament. This opinion, I think, has been demonstrated in referenda in municipal elections across the country. There is a growing concern over nuclear weapons and the testing of nuclear weaponry over Canadian territory.
I have a local concern having to do with the testing of the Cruise missile in the Primrose Lake Air Weapons Range. If the testing of the Cruise missile is granted within Canadian territory, the air launched Cruise missiles will be dropped over the Beaufort Sea from B-52 bombers and will cruise over the Northwest Territories, northern Alberta, into Saskatchewan in the Primrose Lake Air Weapons Range. This local concern arises over the possibility of a Cruise missile landing in some area other than the Primrose Lake Air Weapons Range. I know the Cruise missile does not have an explosive capability in the initial testing but I think that matters not for someone living in Beauval, Canoe Narrows, Meadow Lake, Pierceland
Nuclear Weapons Free Zone
or Goodsoil if this Cruise missile were to land in someone's livingroom or somewhere in those communities. This is a real concern of the constituents of The Battlefords-Meadow Lake about the testing of the Cruise missile.
If this Bill were to pass with the consent of Members of Parliament here and go to committee, it would clear up that concern for a great many people in The Battlefords-Meadow Lake constituency and for people in other areas who are concerned about the testing of the Cruise missile over Canadian territory.
In addition to that, I have a much more serious and global concern about the nuclear arms question. Many people do not see much hope for the future in face of the possibility of nuclear war. Regardless of what some people say, you would have very little chance of limiting a nuclear war once it began. People are concerned about the destructive capability of nuclear weaponry. The two superpowers have likely more parity in destructive capability than they have ever had at any time in our history, certainly since the nuclear arms race began and since the devastating effects of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki toward the end of the Second World War.
This is not a question of the different countries involved, be it the U.S.S.R., the U.S.A., Canada, or any other country in the world. It is not a political question about nuclear arms and about Canada becoming involved in the nuclear arms race, because it not only affects New Democrats, Progressive Conservatives and Liberals, but the Canadian community and beyond that the global community of this planet.
Canadians have been respected worldwide for a number of years, likely since Confederation, in terms of being a peacekeeping force in the world. We have, however, risen to arms during certain times in our history. Canadians have fought for the cause of this country and our freedom as well as for the preservation of democracy in other places around the world. I am sure in the face of pressing times and world confrontation that Canadians would rise to that call again. Canadians have always been viewed as peace-loving people, but a people that will fight for democracy. We are not aggressors but we do believe in the rights of individuals.
You have to have conventional armed forces, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, there may still be a need for them because of other aggressive forces in the world. But that concern and need is very different from nuclear warfare or nuclear weaponry. It is not a matter of a young person fighting in a nuclear war. Conventional armed forces would have very little play in such an event. A nuclear war, once started, would be devastating for all people whether involved in military or in public life.
I believe we have to start looking for a way to gear down, to freeze, nuclear weapons and at some point eliminate nuclear weapons from the face of this earth. I know at this point in time that might seem very idealistic to many Canadians. It is not idealistic to me. It is something that we must seriously work toward if we want to preserve this planet, if not for our

March 30, 1983
Nuclear Weapons Free Zone
own future, for the future of our children, our grandchildren and for the generations to come.
Canada has respect as a peacekeeper, and I think it is within the realm of possibility that Canada can play a role as a mediator between superpowers. We can start working toward serious arms reduction on the face of this planet, which has an economic cost which boggles the mind. If the amount spent on armaments throughout the world during a two-week period was spent on education, clothing, housing and medical needs, most of the poverty throughout the world would be eliminated. In many cases that poverty has caused some of the world conflicts which we have seen. It is that poverty and lack of equity throughout the world which has caused dissension among different races of people and within races of people themselves.
In order to maintain our credibility, we should not become involved in the nuclear arms race. If we want to seriously strive for a world free of nuclear arms, we must clean our own house before we advise others on how to solve the nuclear weapons issue.
I believe that the argument that we have a NATO obligation to test the Cruise missile over Canadian territory is somewhat false. There are other countries within NATO which disagree with the testing of the Cruise missile and the escalation of the arms race. I believe that Canada should be counted among those countries so that we may keep the respect and dignity which we need and deserve in international affairs.
There is nothing in writing which obliges Canada to test nuclear weapons on or over our territory. I hope that this Bill will pass through Parliament during Private Members' Business today so that it can go to committee where Parliamentarians can begin seriously to address the nuclear weapons issue.
There are presently 32 NDP Members of Parliament in Canada. We are united and have the total support of the NDP caucus for having Canada declared a nuclear weapons free zone and to work seriously toward nuclear disarmament throughout the world.
Since I believe this is largely a non-partisan issue, I wish to point out that there are Members from the Liberal Party and Members from the Conservative Party who support the concept of which I speak today. I do not wish to alienate those Members but have them join us in an agreement that can give Canada the self-respect and international respect that we need to meaningfully work toward having a world free of nuclear arms.
I would point out to the people of Canada that they can play a very important role in this process. Since Canadians have access to their elected officials, I would urge all Canadians who are listening to this debate, watching it on television or who will read it in Hansard, to go to their Member of Parliament or provincial member of the legislature, and to their municipal councillors, aldermen and mayors, to ask them to take a stand on the nuclear weapons issue.
With respect to Members of Parliament in particular, I think constituents should be buttonholding their MPs to make them stand up and call for a country that is a nuclear weapons free zone. As a result of public pressure, more Members of Parliament will come onside in support of the intent and purpose of Bill C-678. I believe there will eventually be a majority of Members of Parliament who support what I and my Party are proposing today.
There are many Members of Parliament who are still undecided about the nuclear weapons issue and the most effective way to persuade those Members of Parliament, from a public point of view, is to pressure them to support a nuclear weapons free zone within Canada. As I indicated, it is important that we clean our own house before we begin to tell others how our world can be improved. While our world has great potential, its people face great uncertainty in the future largely because of the nuclear weapons issue.
I also want to say that I believe that unilateral disarmament is an unreasonable scenario, as far as I am concerned as an individual Member of Parliament. A multilateral agreement among all nations with nuclear capability is required to freeze the production of nuclear arms and eventually eliminate nuclear arms throughout the world. Until that happens there will continue to be a great deal of uncertainty about the future of our world. No one wants to face the prospect of another Hiroshima or Nagasaki or face the even greater destruction which is possible today with weapons which are hundreds and thousands of times more powerful than those of World War II.
I will conclude by asking all Members of Parliament to allow Bill C-678, an Act to declare Canada a nuclear weapons free zone, to move into committee where we can give it the very serious consideration that it needs. I would like to thank the Hon. Member for Dauphin for enabling me to bring this Bill to the House, and I would like to thank Members of Parliament for their co-operation earlier today. I ask for that co-operation in continuing to work toward a solution for this real and pressing problem which not only faces Canadians but the world.


Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, it has been a long and interesting afternoon so far. My own Bill is to be dealt with this afternoon and I doubt we will be able to deal with the third Bill on this short list.
I have some objections to the form of Bill C-678 which was brought before the House for the first time two days ago. It declares itself to be an Act to declare Canada a nuclear weapons free zone. That is something which this Party has favoured historically and which can be proven in the last 20 years of Hansard. It was approximately 20 years ago that the Conservative Government of Mr. Diefenbaker was defeated because of its position on keeping Canada a nuclear free zone.
If I may be forgiven for saying so, this Bill does show signs of being given hasty writing or editing. While it says that this Bill may be cited as the Nuclear Weapons Free Zone Act, the explanatory note says that this Bill would declare Canada to be a nuclear weapons free nation. The Bill continues to discuss
March 30, 1983

such things as flight testing and the production of components therefor, which deals with many weapons. We are left somewhat puzzled as to exactly what this Bill entails.
Making Canada a weapons free zone is a fairly simple operation. I should first point out to those people who are not conversant with this subject that if Canada is made a nuclear weapons free zone, it in no way gives anyone any guarantee that other nations will respect that declaration and decide not to target us in case of a conflict. It does not mean that everyone in the world will say that they will not bomb Canada because it has declared itself a nuclear free zone. Otherwise, each of us would declare our own domiciles a nuclear free zone as well.
Back in 1979, an interesting development occurred. I was Minister of National Defence at that time and I stated that we would move the nuclear weapons that we had out of Canada by 1982. Having taken that position, which is so much in sympathy with the NDP position, they immediately voted us out of office to make sure it would not happen and put the Liberals back in. This was only history repeating itself. They did exactly the same thing in 1963, when Mr. Diefenbaker outlined his position clearly in the House of Commons. He had been to a NATO meeting in Nassau. He said:
I was in Nassau. I formed certain ideas. I read the communique that was issued there and I come to certain conclusions based on that communique. Those conclusions are as follows, and these are the views expressed also by the United States under secretary of state, George W. Ball: that nuclear war is indivisible; that there should be no further development of new nuclear power anywhere in the world; that nuclear weapons as a universal deterrent is a dangerous solution. Today an attempt is being made by the United States to have the NATO nations increase their conventional arms.
Mr. Diefenbaker went ahead with his speech in which he pointed out why they were not going to arm the Bomarc with nuclear warheads in Canada. At that time Mr. Pearson was the Liberal leader and his biographer, who is the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), as we all know, pointed out that that great Liberal leader, Mr. Pearson had reversed his position entirely and taken a bunch of sheep with him. Going from direct opposition to nuclear weapons, he turned them into a Party supporting nuclear weapons in Canada. That night, after a speech by Mr. Tommy Douglas that I am sure he would not want to have repeated in the House, the NDP once again sided with the Liberals on nuclear weapons and voted the Conservatives out of office.
So the Conservative Party has nothing to be ashamed about in our position on nuclear weapons in Canada. We were in favour of not having them in Canada in 1963 and we lost the Government over that issue. We were in favour, in 1979, of a stated fixed date to get rid of the last of the nuclear weapons that the Liberals had brought to this country, and to have them out of here in 1982. It is now 1983, but thanks to the NDP support of the Liberal position in December, 1979 we were not allowed to go ahead with freeing this country from nuclear weapons.
Nuclear Weapons Free Zone
Bearing that in mind, one looks with a certain amount of skepticism at this latest endeavour of the NDP to take no responsibility for their actions whatsoever, when they keep on bringing this militaristic, nuclear-favouring Government that we have at the present time into office and getting rid of the Conservatives who agree with them that we would like Canada to be a nuclear free nation.
I do not wish to belabour this point. One can be a little bit cynical about the approach that has been taken to date, but it is a very serious problem. The end that I trust we all wish to attain is to see a control of nuclear armaments not only in Canada but in nations throughout the world, and particularly among the superpowers. This Party would suggest to the Government that their first duty is to do everything in their power to approach both the U.S.S.R. and the Americans and persuade them to do their very best to find a way to have an agreement to de-escalate the arms race, to bring it to a stop, and then start reducing the number of nuclear weapons that are deployed in Europe particularly, but all over the world as well.
In line with this, the President of the United States today stated that he was making a new counteroffer, moving away from the zero/zero option that he had placed before the Russians more than a year ago to an offer that he would cut down the numbers of Cruise missiles and Pershing IIs that they intend to deploy in Europe, provided that the Russians would cut down their number of intermediate-range ballistic missiles that they have deployed anywhere in the world to an equal number.
One of the reasons that I wish to sit down before we hear the knock on the door for Royal Assent is that I would like to hear what the Liberal reaction is to this initiative by the President of the United States. The United States has responded to public pressure and to pressure from allies, and I think has taken a very reasonable and forward step to resolving the impasse that both of the protagonists have had for the last six months in not moving one millimetre from their original positions. Perhaps we could then have a more hopeful Easter.
Thank you for the time, Mr. Speaker, and it looks as if my Bill will be discussed a little later than expected this day.


Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, rather than go into any partisan discussion on steps being taken to control nuclear weapons concentration, I would like to give the Government's position as it currently exists.
At the end of the World War II the Canadian Government decided not to develop its own nuclear weapons. Ours was the first country with the ability and means to do so which chose instead to devote all of its expertise to the peaceful uses of the atom. We are a member of an alliance which depends for its security on the nuclear deterrent. But the Canadian Forces do not have a nuclear role in NATO's forces in Europe. When the CF-18 is fully operational, replacing the Voodoo, the last nuclear warheads will be withdrawn from Canada.

March 30, 1983
Nuclear Weapons Free Zone
Although Canada does not itself have a nuclear role either in Europe or, shortly, in North American defence, we are considering permitting the U.S.A. to test a weapons system, the Cruise missile, which can carry nuclear warheads. I would like to explain why.
In the 1970s the United States and the Soviet Union were involved in negotiating the SALT II agreement to limit at equal levels their strategic intercontinental nuclear weapons. At this point the Soviet Union began deploying a new intermediate-range missile into Europe, the SS-20, exceptionally accurate and carrying three nuclear warheads. With a range of
5,000	kilometres, it represented a potential threat to every city in Western Europe. Several Western European Governments feared that, by introducing a new, devastating missile for use in Europe, while it was codifying a balance in intercontinental weapons, the Soviet Union intended to threaten European NATO members and split the defence of Europe from the defence of North America. Chancellor Schmidt of West Germany first drew attention to the danger.
In December, 1979, at the request of the European members of the Alliance, NATO Ministers therefore took their two-track decision. They agreed to deploy 108 Pershing II launchers and 464 ground-launched Cruise missiles each with a single warhead to replace other shorter-range missiles, in order to balance the threat of the SS-20s. Secondly, they proposed negotiations between the Soviet Union and the United States to limit land-based intermediate-range missile systems on both sides.
The Soviet Union initially said it would not take part in the negotiations unless the deployment track was cancelled. However, it subsequently agreed to discussions and negotiations began in 1981. After consultations with its allies, the United States proposed the zero option, to abolish all land-based intermediate-range nuclear missiles on either side. This would clearly be the best result, because it would remove an entire category of weapon.
NATO has always made it clear that this is not a take it or leave it proposition. NATO members have repeatedly said that they are willing to consider any serious Soviet proposal. As the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) told the House last week, we are not certain that the zero option is a realizeable goal. With other allies, Canada has urged the United States to look at a compromise or an intermediate solution, even though the ultimate goal of removing all of those weapons would remain. At the meeting of NATO defence ministers last week in Portugal, they listed the basic criteria for balanced and effective arms control: significant reductions based on equality of rights and limits between the United States and the Soviet Union, no inclusion of third party systems, global limitations so that Soviet missiles would not just be removed from Europe to Asia, no weakening of the USA contribution to NATO's conventional deterrence and defence, and effective verifiability.
Throughout the period of negotiations the Soviet Union has continued deploying SS-20 missiles. When NATO took its two-track decision in December 1979, the Soviet Union had
just over 100 SS-20s. Now it has 351, with over 1,000 warheads. These are in addition to over 250 older SS-4 and SS-5 missiles, which have enormous warheads in the megaton range, equal to a million tons of TNT. The Soviet Union has not yet made a serious proposal which would recognize the legitimate security interests of the West. On the contrary, the most recent Soviet proposal would actually leave them with more missiles than they had when the negotiations began, and allow the United States to deploy none.
On February 10, the Canadian Government concluded a framework agreement concerning the test and evaluation of U.S. defence systems in Canada. Under that agreement, specific test and evaluation proposals may be put forward by the U.S. Department of Defense for consideration by the Canadian Minister of National Defence or his representative. If approved, a project arrangement would be concluded between the U.S. Department of Defense and the Canadian Department of National Defence. Canada may refuse any proposal.
When the framework agreement was concluded, we were aware that Canada would likely be approached for a project arrangement to test the guidance system for the Cruise missile. Because this was expected, the framework agreement specified two restrictions on such testing. Cruise missiles shall be unarmed, and any flight corridors for such testing shall be selected to ensure minimum disruption to civil aviation operations and minimum disturbance to persons on the ground.
Ministers have made it clear that if Cruise missiles are tested, the testing would be linked intimately to Canada's security as a member of NATO and NORAD and to Canada's policy on arms control and disarmament. Successive Canadian governments have supported the NATO two-track decision, which called for the deployment of ground-launched Cruise missiles in Europe if the INF negotiations fail. We are convinced that the negotiations will not succeed if the Alliance shows signs of weakness. We cannot accept a result which would require NATO to abandon the modernization of its forces in Europe while the Soviet Union retains its force of SS-20 missiles intact.
Our European allies have volunteered to deploy new missiles on their soil, in order to provide an incentive for the Soviet Union to negotiate seriously in the intermediate-range nuclear force talks. NATO did not take the initiative in introducing this class of weapons into Europe. Its European members do not want ground-launched Cruise missiles or Pershing IIs for their own sakes, but they want Soviet SS-20 missiles aimed against them even less. They are convinced that the only way to persuade the Soviets to remove these or even reduce their numbers, is to prepare to deploy intermediate-range missiles on our side.
Canada will not be providing sites for the missiles. We expect merely to be asked to help with the testing of unarmed versions of the missiles. As the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)
March 30, 1983

has pointed out, we would be poor members of the Alliance if we said we would not even consider testing the guidance system of the missiles which our allies will be deploying in accordance with a NATO decision which Canada supported.
The United States has not yet formally approached the Government to conclude a Project Arrangement for testing Cruise missiles. Ministers have made it quite clear that Cabinet will have to consider such an arrangement carefully, and that no prior commitment has been given to the U.S.A. Government. In considering the issue, they have also made it clear, however, that one of the major considerations will be the need to support our allies in carrying out NATO's two-track decision.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are very conscious of the alarming number of nuclear weapons presently in the hands of the superpowers. They dread the thought that they might one day be used, and ponder over the dangers inherent in the existence of such arsenals. We are all aware of the devastation that would result from a nuclear war. In the face of the uncertainty that exists, many groups and individuals in the West are calling for an end to the development and deployment of new weapons, judging the quantity already in existence to be ample. This applies to strategic weapons as well as the intermediate-range missiles in Europe. Is it possible to accept the status quo in these two areas, and does it make sense to do so?
The governments of the NATO countries have decided to deploy Pershing II rockets and Cruise missiles in Europe as of this year if sufficient progress is not made in negotiations concerning this category of weapons in the coming months. It would have been much easier, in the short term, to pretend that the gigantic armament effort being made by the Warsaw Pact nations, in both the conventional and nuclear areas, was only a figment of our imagination. That is what the European countries did in the thirties. The imbalance that already existed in 1979, when NATO saw the need to react to the massive deployment of Soviet SS-20 missiles, has now become even greater, because the U.S.S.R. has since almost doubled the number of these missiles. Our allies are being held under a constant threat of destruction by more than 350 of these missiles, for which the West has no equivalent.
Canada has always been an advocate of peace, justice and freedom, but it must honour its commitments. The North Atlantic Alliance, of which Canada is a founding member, was formed to avoid a recurrence of war in Europe. Our soldiers who gave their lives for the liberation of Europe must not be said to have died in vain.
The Canadian Government, in accord with the other members of NATO, is very much in favour of verifiable agreements that would limit and then reduce nuclear weapons stocks on both sides, hopefully leading to eventual elimination. However, such an objective can only be achieved if the West shows its determination not to remain indifferent in the face of what
Nuclear Weapons Free Zone
might constitute a means of applying considerable pressure. History has demonstrated that it is impossible to bring about a substantial diminution of armaments when the forces of one side outweigh the other's, as is presently the case in Europe. What reason would the side with the greater forces have to destroy or to dismantle the weapons that give it its hard-earned advantage, when no similar reduction had to be made by the other? Aggression is fostered by a state of inequality and a lack of determination, with the appearance of weakness.
Our policy is not one of confrontation. On the contrary, it is the only way open to us in the slow process of nuclear arms limitation and disarmament. It is based on the concept of deterrence, which has given us a hitherto unequalled period of almost 40 years without a major conflict in this region of Europe where military forces of unprecedented size are facing each other. And this is where the real merit of mutual deterrence lies. There can be no recourse to atomic weapons, because the superpowers have the capacity to resist a preemptive strike and to inflict on the aggressor a degree of destruction that would obviate the political acceptability of initiating a strike. Nor has there been any use of conventional weapons, which over the two World Wars alone were responsible for tens of millions of deaths and so much destruction.
There were more victims in the bombardment of Tokyo on March 9, 1945 than at Hiroshima; 83,600 deaths and 102,000 wounded, compared with 80,000 deaths and 70,000 wounded at Hiroshima. That is no exoneration of the travesty that happened at Hiroshima. We all hope and pray that that will never be repeated. It will not be repeated if one side, the West, shows weakness in fight in the face of Soviet might. This is the result of the state of mutual deterrence that has gradually established itself between the superpowers and opposing alliances.
The strategy of non-war and non-use of forces can exist only in so far as the fragile equilibrium is maintained. There exists a moral obligation to keep intact the state of deterrence and to negotiate in good faith nuclear and conventional arms control agreements which are balanced and verifiable and which will reduce the arsenals of both sides to the lowest possible level. It is my hope, Mr. Speaker, that both sides in this very important issue, this issue upon which the very survival of our world depends, will in fact be responsible, so that neither side will proceed to the development of any further new weapons, but will put all of their resources which they are now expending on the development of new weapons into the development of a means of peace, the development of a means of reduction of arms, and the development of the means to achieve a world where men and women and future generations can live without the fear of a nuclear holocaust and can have a reasonable hope that the world, as we know it, will survive. We will then be able to truly progress and leave the world a better place for future generations.
24322

March 30, 1983
Nuclear Weapons Free Zone



[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the Chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Deputy Speaker with the House went up to the Senate Chamber.
And being returned:
["Therefore, it being technically six o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(3) this House stands adjourned until Monday, April 11, 1983 at eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 2(1).\nAt 5.20 p.m. the House adjourned until April 11, 1983, pursuant to Standing Order.", 'Monday, April 11, 1983']
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House did attend His Honour the Deputy to His Excellency the Governor General in the Senate chamber, His Honour was pleased to give in Her Majesty's name the Royal assent to the following Bills:
Bill C-139, An Act to amend the statute law relating to income tax (No. 2)- Chapter 140.
Bill C-144, An Act to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act (No. 4)- Chapter 141.
Bill C-130, An Act to authorize continuing financial assistance to be provided to certain international financial institutions-Chapter 142.
Bill C-141, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and to amend certain other Acts in consequence thereof-Chapter 143.
Bill C-143, An Act to provide supplementary borrowing authority-Chapter 144.
Bill S-34, An Act to revive Polyventreprise Ltee and to provide for its continuance under the Canada Business Corporations Act.
Bill C-145, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1983- Chapter 145.
Bill C-146, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1984- Chapter 146.



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Anguish that Bill C-678, an Act to declare Canada a Nuclear Weapons Free Zone, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.
Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that my name was mentioned just before we had word from the other place. At the same time the
Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett) was coming to her seat and had anticipated in the usual course of events to be the next speaker. At this time, if it is agreeable,
I will allow her to share the time with me and speak first.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Under normal circumstances we alternate. The Hon. Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore was recognized to make his speech. He either speaks or he does not. He has to make up his mind. Otherwise the Chair will look to the other side and recognize another Member. That is, unless there is a disposition of the House to proceed otherwise.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Is it agreed that the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam speak now?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: There is no agreement to the proposal put forward by the Hon. Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore.


Miss Jewett:: Thank a lot, chaps.


William Kenneth Robinson: Mr. Speaker, it is my intention at this time to follow up on the comments of the Hon. Member for Hamilton West (Mr. Hudecki) which he made on behalf of the Government.
The primary objective of any arms control and disarmament initiative, including the concept of a nuclear weapons free zone, is to enhance security. The control and reduction of armaments, particularly nuclear armaments, can constitute an integral component of Canada's security policy. The Speech from The Throne at the opening of Parliament in 1980 outlined Canada's balanced and coherent security policy. The Government expressed its commitment to do its full part in increasing the military capability of the North Atlantic Alliance, to provide security for its members, and its dedication to active cooperation in efforts to achieve international agreements on equitable and verifiable arms control and disarmament measures.
For many years Canada's security position has been based on these two essential and complimentary elements. We have sought, through the vigorous and determined pursuit of arms control and disarmament agreements, to reduce the risk of global conflict and nuclear war inherent in a situation where a nation or groups of nations face each other with large and destructive arsenals. We have done this because any such war would not only threaten the survival of all Canadians, given the destructiveness of nuclear weapons, it would destroy most of our civilization. As stated in the 1980 Throne Speech:
Canada's imperative is clear. This Government must continue its strategy to suffocate the deadly growth in the nuclear arsenals of the world. We must, and we will, actively cooperate in international efforts to negotiate agreements on
March 30, 1983

verifiable means of arms control and disarmament, and seek to rally others to a cause that is no less than human survival on this planet.
But we have to recognize that nations will not lightly give up the security which military strength and modern weapons provide them. For this reason arms control and disarmament agreements cannot be ends in themselves; their objective is to enhance security at a lower level of armaments. Nor can they be achieved easily and quickly. Acceptable and workable arms control and disarmament formulae are not found in the course of negotiations in which one of the parties is at a significant disadvantage vis-a-vis the other in military power. It is for this reason that the other element of Canadian security policy has required close and, in recent years, increasingly urgent attention. This is in the maintenance of adequate forces to protect Canada by contributing to the collective deterrence and defence capacity of the North Atlantic Alliance.
We are determined to do what we can by negotiation to ameliorate the international security environment, mindful always that it will be a long and difficult task and that we must tread warily. We have no choice but to make the effort. The future of our civilization may be at stake. We have therefore tried, and will go on trying, in conjunction with our friends and allies, to prevent an escalation of the nuclear arms race.
Three Canadian priorities in the nuclear arms control and disarmament field are: to support strongly negotiations to limit and reduce nuclear arms; to promote early progress toward the realization of a multilateral comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty; and to promote the evolution of an effective nuclear non-proliferation regime based on the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The Government has attached particular importance to the implementation of Article VI of the NPT, which commits all parties to pursue negotiations in good faith toward the cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date, nuclear disarmament and a treaty on general and complete disarmament.
Canada continues to pursue these priorities in appropriate international forums and in bilateral negotiations. The Government takes every opportunity to stress the importance it attaches to the negotiations to limit and reduce nuclear arms. We will continue to promote, through consultations with our allies, progress in the START and INF negotiations intended to limit and reduce inventories of both strategic and intermediate-range nuclear weapons.
The priority which Canada continues to attach to the limitation and reduction of nuclear forces and to progress toward a comprehensive test ban reflects the complementary dual approach which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) set out in his address to UNSSOD II last year. On the one hand, this approach would include progress to implement the strategy of suffocation through agreements designed to inhibit the development of new weapons systems. A comprehensive test ban treaty would be one of the main elements. This approach would be complemented by active pursuit of agreements on qualitative and quantitative reductions in nuclear arsenals
Nuclear Weapons Free Zone
through the INF and START talks to achieve a stable nuclear balance at lower levels.
The strategy of suffocation is being actively promoted in international forums, in particular at the United Nations. Moreover, we continue to contribute concretely to more specific discussions which deal with implementing elements of the strategy. Canada has called for the resumption of the U.K./U.S.A./U.S.S.R. talks on a comprehensive test ban. In the Committee on Disarmament in Geneva, we are actively participating in the work toward the realization of a nuclear test ban agreement and in the efforts of the Seismic Experts Group, which is developing an international verification system for an eventual test ban treaty. We have also continued our efforts to effect implementation of the second and third elements of the strategy. Although we are also doing our utmost with regard to the fourth element, agreements to reduce military budgets cannot be concluded until the U.S.S.R. assumes a more open policy with regard to information about its military spending.
As a strong supporter of the non-proliferation treaty, Canada is fully committed to preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The non-proliferation treaty also requires the sharing of knowledge regarding the peaceful use of nuclear technology, particularly to the energy-poor countries of the world. Canada is also fully committed to doing this, but only if the transfer of such nuclear technology is properly and adequately safeguarded. Canada's non-proliferation safeguards policy has been developed to ensure that our nuclear exports do not contribute to nuclear weapons proliferation.
All Candu reactors are fully safeguarded, and operate under strict international controls supervised by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Indeed, Canadian safeguards are more comprehensive than those demanded by competing nuclear suppliers. Despite suggestions that these measures are too restrictive, the Government of Canada has consistently resisted pressure to downgrade its requirements.
It should furthermore be understood that nuclear reactors are by no means synonymous with nuclear weapons. Candu reactor technology is designed exclusively for the generation of electrical power. To produce weapons grade materials, the spent reactor fuel must be reprocessed to extract plutonium. This process is technically sophisticated, enormously expensive, difficult to conceal and strictly regulated internationally. In the contemporary situation it is unlikely that sufficient quantities of plutonium could be diverted, reprocessed and a nuclear device constructed without these actions being detected by international authorities. Accordingly, the sale of Candu reactors abroad cannot be equated with the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Consistent with our non-proliferation policy, Canada has been strongly sympathetic, in principle, to the concept of nuclear weapon-free zones where they command the support of the countries in the area and promote regional and international stability. While we have not considered such zones to be a fully satisfactory alternative to the ratification of the nonproliferation treaty by the countries of the areas concerned, we

March 30, 1983
Nuclear Weapons Free Zone
do believe that, in the absence of universal or near universal adherence to the non-proliferation treaty and provided certain principles are observed, the creation of such zones can make a significant contribution to the objective of preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Canada has supported United Nations resolutions calling for such zones in Africa, the Middle East and south Asia. We have also backed measures which would consolidate the establishment of a nuclear weapons free zone in Latin America in accordance with the Treaty of Tlatelolco, in spite of Canadian opposition to a provision in the treaty which allows for the explosion of nuclear devices for so-called peaceful purposes.
We believe that, to be effective, such zones must apply to a well-defined geographic area; be based on proposals which emanate from and are agreed to by most countries in the area concerned, including the principal military powers of the area; not give military advantage to any state or group of states; contain adequate treaty assurances and means to verify that all countries abide by the commitment involved; and not permit countries of the area to have independent nuclear explosive capability.
As stated above, the objective of any arms control and disarmament initiative, including the concept of a nuclear weapon-free zone, is to enhance security. The Canadian Government continues to believe in the concept of mutual security-a collective effort to deter aggression or to counter it if it occurs. That is why we are in the North Atlantic Alliance, which is also the framework for the NORAD agreement with the USA. The Alliance relies on a deterrent strategy in which nuclear weapons play an important part. This is unfortunately unavoidable in the world as we know it. The idea of a nuclear weapon-free zone for Canada would be realistic only if the Canadian Government were prepared to withdraw from the Alliance which has served us well and has helped to preserve peace for more than thirty years. The Canadian Government continues to believe that our defence partnership, cooperation and defence production sharing arrangements with our allies make a greater contribution to preserving peace and security than would our withdrawal into the isolation of a nuclear weapon-free zone.
In order to rationalize the defence production arrangements which we undertake in support of our collective security commitments, Canada has, since 1959, participated in Defence Development and Production Sharing Arrangements with the United States and our other Alliance partners. These were undertaken by the government of the day in recognition of the fact that Canada could not continue funding the development of complex and high cost aerospace and electronic systems for the small domestic market.
The decision to develop certain limited sectors of Canadian expertise has proven highly successful. The Canadian defence industry has established itself as a competitive producer of such diverse products as short take-off and landing aircraft,
STOL, airborne reconnaissance vehicles, radio communications and flight simulators. The dual military-civilian application of such technology has allowed Canada to become a major competitor in both markets.
Given that such development and production sharing arrangements put Canadian firms in direct competition with well-established foreign manufacturers, often supported by Government subsidies and military procurement programs much greater than those of Canada, the Government of Canada has provided domestic firms with financing assistance to compensate for these disadvantages. The eligibility criteria of this program were expanded in 1968 to include civilian aerospace and avionics projects in recognition of the spill-over from military technology and Canada's increased ability to penetrate this broader market. In recent years this program has increasingly emphasized more profitable civilian production in order to enhance the return to Canadians on their investment.
Litton Systems of Canada Limited was awarded a subcontract by the United States Department of Defence through its parent company in the United States, Litton Industries, to produce a portion of the inertial guidance systems for the Cruise missile. Such production comes under the Canadian-American defence production sharing arrangement and as such is eligible for and has received financial assistance from the Government of Canada. Litton's participation in a small part of the Cruise missile vehicle program should not be taken as a change in Canadian policies instituted at the end of the 1960s to divest our Armed Forces of a nuclear weapon role. However, it is consistent with our joint defence efforts with our NATO allies who rely in part, as we do, on the maintenance of a credible nuclear deterrent against attack from hostile states.
Finally, as is well known, the only nuclear weapons in Canada are the United States air-to-air missiles which enable the CF-101 to play an effective role in the defence of North America. When the CF-18A have replaced the CF-101, this role will be carried out with conventional weapons and therefore there will no longer be a requirement for these nuclear weapons to be held in Canada.
I think my time is almost up-


Pauline Jewett: There are other speakers.


Mr, Robinson (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: I think Private Members' Hour has almost expired. In any event I have a few more things to say. I do not know how much time is left. Perhaps Mr. Speaker will tell me.
The Hon. Member has presented Bill C-678 today. It is a very interesting Bill for all of us because the testing of the Cruise missile has received coverage in our newspapers and on television throughout the country today and in the recent past. There is one thing about the matter which really concerns me. The Bill indicates that it would declare Canada to be a nuclear weapon-free zone. My understanding of the Cruise missile and for what it would be used in Canada is that it would be merely to test certain pieces of guidance equipment, and that it would not be armed in any way. Therefore, in my view it is really not a weapon. It is not a weapon in the usual sense in that, so far
March 30, 1983

as 1 know and have been advised, there are no weapons whatsoever on the Cruise missile.


Pauline Jewett: There will be.


William Kenneth Robinson: There may be, but in
reading the agreements I do not think we have any reason not to test this guidance system, the same as we would test guidance systems for other pieces of equipment which were not considered to be weaponry, in this sense being nuclear weapons.
The Eton. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) suggested that in effect it was unrealistic to have such a declaration that Canada would become a nuclear weapon-free nation, when other nations may not be inclined to comply. If this is something that Canada would be expected to do unilaterally, it certainly would not be very effective. However, if there were some way that Canada in concert with other countries felt the same way, perhaps this could be considered.
The substance of the Bill would apply not only to the testing of the Cruise missile as such or the testing of the guidance system of the Cruise missile. Clause 3 of the Bill reads:
No person, corporation, government agency or association of any nature whatsover shall develop, test, manufacture, import, transport or store any nuclear weapon, nuclear weapons system, nuclear weapons support system, or any components therefor, within Canada, its territorial coastal waters, its inland bodies of water or its airspace over which Canada has jurisdiction for any reason whatsover, including the defence of Canada or any ally thereof.
It is such a broad, all-encompassing Clause that in effect it would probably mean virtually no testing or development of any kind. In fact, in my view we would not be able to meet our commitments with the United States in agreements we have already signed. It would seem-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. Pursuant to Standing Order 24(2), it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings.
Shall all items listed under Private Members' Public Bills preceding No. 458 be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Canadian Forces Superannuation Act CANADIAN FORCES SUPERANNUATION ACT


AMENDMENT RESPECTING RETIREMENT FOR MISCONDUCT
Allan Bruce McKinnon: that Bill C-658, an Act to amend the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act (retirement for misconduct), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) on a point of order.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for recognizing me on a point of order. I have not been waiting for days to have this Bill considered; I have been waiting for years to have it considered and I find myself at the short end of the afternoon. I would ask for unanimous consent of the House that I be allowed to call it six o'clock and have this Bill considered at the next Private Members' day after the recess, so that all those people who wish to contribute to this very important Bill, which really deserves to pass, can be heard.


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, that is a reasonable request. We on this side of the House always try to be reasonable, and we would be glad to accede to it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. The House has heard the proposal of the Hon. Member for Victoria to the effect that his Private Members' Bill, Bill C-658, retain its position on the Order Paper and that we call it six o'clock. Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Therefore, it being technically six o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(3) this House stands adjourned until Monday, April 11, 1983 at eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 2(1).
At 5.20 p.m. the House adjourned until April 11, 1983, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, April 11, 1983