1983-05-25

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Gaston Gourde (Levis):: All Quebecers involved in the agri-food business have welcomed the changes made by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) in his plans for improving the Crowsnest Pass rate.
On the Opposition side, both the Progressive Conservatives and the New Democratic Party have been filibustering in order to prevent passage of Bill C-155, either by refusing to appear in the House for a vote, as was the case yesterday with our Progressive Conservative friends, or by presenting a staggering number of petitions-there were 92-as our friends from the New Democratic Party did.
Both parties have been courting the Quebec electorate for many years without ever making any serious commitments. I therefore challenge the Progressive Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party to explain before the House the positions of their respective parties on the transportation of grain as it effects the Quebec agri-food industry.
We shall then hear, in public, in front of the television cameras, what our colleagues opposite have to say to Quebec farmers.
It is the truly controversial issues that are a test of character.
1 therefore ask the Members of the New Democratic Party and the Progressive Conservative Members to rise and speak frankly to Canadians in the Province of Quebec.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Madam Speaker, yesterday, May 24, an event of national importance took place in the federal riding of Brandon-Souris. The overwhelming victory which resulted in the Progressive Conservative candidate, Mr. Lee Clark, receiving 62.1 per cent of the votes cast, was confirmation of support for the Progressive Conservative Party and an expression of the desire of thousands of electors, when given an opportunity, to pass judgment on the Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The result is a tribute to the late Hon. Walter Dinsdale who faithfully represented Brandon-Souris for 31 years, and was a positive endorsement of an excellent candidate, Mr. Lee Clark. It was a response by thousands of citizens to get involved in the electoral process and, through that process, send a message to the Government. The Liberals sent in Cabinet Ministers, its Party President, and workers who offered jobs, airport extensions, and a voice in Government if their candidate would be elected. For their efforts the Liberal Party received 17 per cent support. It is the hope of all Manitobans that the Liberal Party will conduct itself in an uncharacteristic manner and keep the election promises it made.
The NDP, too, should take no comfort from the results. It tried to hold its vote in the city of Brandon, and especially in the provincial riding of Brandon East. The electorate judged the NDP and recognized that that Party, which has supported the Government on major issues, is certainly no spokesman for the western Canadian farmer. The NDP is not an alternative to the Government, and consequently was rejected absolutely.
Lastly, the byelection in Brandon-Souris gave the voters an opportunity to state in clear terms-


Madam Speaker:: Order.


Some Hon. Members:: More!


AVIATION INDUSTRY
Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Hamilton West):: Madam Speaker, Canada has an international reputation for excellence and reliability in specialized aerospace systems and products. This has resulted in Canadian aerospace industry sales of $3 billion a year in a highly competitive international export market. To sustain this worldwide reputation and to achieve the potential foreseen for the Canadian aerospace industry through the 1980s and the 1990s requires a very positive attitude on the part of prospective buyers. With that in mind it is with great

May 25, 1983
concern that 1 mention the recent criticism of one of Canada's outstanding high technology products, the Canadair Challenger Executive Jet. It is one of the finest aircraft of its class ever produced. It only requires a chance to work out some of its developmental problems.
Because of Government funding the aerospace industry is always going to come under public questioning. In this regard Canada is no different from any other nation. But, to achieve growth, the marketability of our aerospace products must be maintained and not be undermined by destructive expressions of opinion. As the editor-in-chief of the Aviation Week & Space Technology magazine commented editorially, "Canada's aerospace industry has served the national interest better than its critics allow. Canada should look at both sides of the issue and not drift into an anti-aerospace mode that would lose the economic and technical benefits generated by this industry."


MOVEMENT OF GRAIN THROUGH PORT OF CHURCHILL
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, I would like to make a statement on behalf of the New Democratic Party, which is the only Party in this House to support the Port of Churchill consistently. Senator Argue recently offered to give $50 million to the Port of Churchill if the advisory board to the Canada Wheat Board would guarantee 700,000 tonnes of grain for export through the Churchill Port. Yet the Liberal Government has taken a number of steps to hurt that Port.
The Government has cut off grain sales to Poland, one of the main users of the Port of Churchill, on the basis of less than credible arguments-first of all, that Poland is a bad credit risk, yet we continue to deal with countries which have worse debt records; secondly, that Poland has a poor human rights record, yet we continue to sell grain to Chile and Brazil; thirdly, that we are punishing the U.S.S.R., while the U.S., pushing for a de facto embargo of Poland, recently sold 22,000 tonnes of wheat to Poland.
In the past the Government also failed to make improvements to the railway and port facilities necessary for the Port of Churchill. The Liberal Government has also refused to provide icebreakers to lengthen the shipping season on a regular basis.
However, the major concern of the people in western Canada is that the proposed changes to the Crow rate will kill the Port of Churchill. Once variable rates come in, then no grain will go through that Port. How can Senator Argue ask for-


Madam Speaker:: Order.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Madam Speaker, Canada is one of the few countries exporting food, and therefore food production must be doubled on available arable land in order to feed the expected world population of about seven billion in the year 2000. Technology exists to double our food production by less summer fallow and applying fertilizers and pesticides. However, this would involve a threefold increase in energy use by farmers. As the price of oil and gas keeps rising, the cost of farm inputs increases.
Recent oil product price hikes will cost our farmers more than $70 million a year. Last February's increase in the price of natural gas will directly raise the Prairie's fertilizer bill by approximately $2 million annually. The cost of pesticides and other natural gas based chemicals is also rising.
The federal farm fuel tax accounts for 44 per cent of the cost of fuel paid by farmers. The PC Party has consistently pointed out the need for elimination of taxes on fuel used to produce food. However, the Government continues to turn a blind eye to the plight of farmers already hit by low commodity prices and high interest rates.
If the Government's irresponsible policy toward the cost of energy for agriculture persists, future generations may well find themselves desperately short of food.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, it is interesting to note the reaction of Brian Mulroney to a CBC news item which suggested his organization was making some efforts to rally the non-Clark supporters around Mr. Mulroney. The story so irritated Mr. Mulroney that he is reported to be considering suing both the CBC and Michael Duffy, the CBC's highly respected parliamentary correspondent.
Such a sensitivity and overreaction can only be explained by Mr. Mulroney's lack of political experience. Had Mr. Mulroney run and won in 1979, 1980, or in any of the numerous by elections since the last election, he would long since have become immune to these slings and arrows which those of us who have actually taken the plunge are subjected to regularly.
If this is Mr. Mulroney's reaction to the gentle and evenhanded Mike Duffy, I fear he will become apoplectic when the likes of Allan Fotheringham is turned loose on him. Those of us on this side of the House who would welcome his entry into electoral politics, urge him to remain calm and to press steadfastly on to the convention lest this attack of the media jitters turns out to be the big mistake of 1983.
May 25, 1983


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Madam Speaker, the statement made today by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) about the bombing of Mozambique is a weak statement which does not begin to meet the occasion. The fact is that South Africa has admitted bombing a city of a neighbouring country; it has claimed to have killed guerillas, which claim is disputed; and it has used as an excuse a bombing in Pretoria which was neither proven against Mozambique nor has been admitted by Mozambique. Yet the statement by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs appears to lay equal blame on all parties for the violence that is occuring there.
The fact is that the source of the violence, both the violence which we condemn among the terrorists and the violence of the Government of South Africa against a neighbouring state- the source of all that violence is the violent regime of South Africa against the majority of its people, which is carried out through murder, starvation, and enslavement. Therefore the Government of Canada ought to condemn not only apartheid in South Africa but its blatant act of war against a neighbouring state and its continued murder of its own black people.


Madam Speaker:: Order.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Madam
Speaker, in Brandon-Souris yesterday, Lee Clark, a university professor, defeated the NDP candidate, a corporation president, in all but eight out of 200 polls. Apparently there was also a Liberal candidate in the race.
Permit me to focus today briefly on the myth in a few quarters that the Liberal Party is still on the free enterprise side of the political spectrum. Last week an extremely interesting Gallup poll was published on the question, "Do you think the future development of Canada should depend more on private enterprise, more on Government control, or on the same mixture of private and Government control as we have now?"
The result showed that, across Canada, of those surveyed only 10 per cent favour more Government control and 40 per cent favour the present mix. For the Prairies and B.C., the percentages favouring more free enterprise are, respectively, 56 per cent and 57 per cent. Across Canada, 61 per cent of PC supporters favour more free enterprise and 41 per cent of NDP supporters, but only 30 per cent of Liberal supporters.
Oral Questions
In other words, Madam Speaker, Liberal partisans across Canada appear to be more hostile to free enterprise than both the NDP and the Canadian population as a whole.


Madam Speaker:: Order.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for International Trade. For over a week we have known the thrust of the report of the automotive task force on the industry. We have heard from the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce who has not said anything that would instil confidence in the unemployed workers, and the Minister responsible for international trade has been conspicuously absent on this extremely important matter affecting his portfolio.
Is the Minister in a position to tell the House and the industry today whether he-not Cabinet-as Minister and International Trade at least supports in principle the recommendations contained in the report? If so, what is he doing about it?
Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of State (International
Trade)): Madam Speaker, I can tell the Hon. Member that I have been more conspicuous by my absence since I have been out of the country on a very successful trade mission to the ASEAN countries during the time since that report of the task force came forth.
I think that this was an extremely well qualified task force. The report that they have presented to my distinguished colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, is one that will be studied very carefully by Government in relation to determining whether it provides the best method of assuring that our industry will be competitive and able to provide the necessary jobs for Canadians. I believe that is the goal that we all seek.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, I am simply trying to find out where the Minister stands on this very important issue.
Notwithstanding the task force report, could the Minister tell the House whether he is in agreement in principle with the position that I, for example, have been taking for the last two years, which involves two basic principles-one the provision of incentives for offshore importers to invest in Canada and

May 25, 1983
Oral Questions
therefore create jobs in this country, and the second, to establish content regulations for all offshore importers as we do with the Americans, also to create jobs in our country? Forgetting about the task force report, does the Minister believe in principle in those two viewpoints, or does he categorically oppose them?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of State (International Trade)):: Madam Speaker, I would find it unusual if 1 were in agreement with the usual right wing reactionary views of the Hon. Member. In this particular case I certainly am in agreement with the principle of providing incentives for offshore producers to invest and produce in Canada when such investments are in the Canadian interest. That has long been the stand of the Canadian Government.
When the Hon. Member says that we should be strict on content on all types of products-


Otto John Jelinek: Automobiles.


Gerald Augustine Regan: -and require that production occur in Canada, I think that would go to the absolute heart of destroying the multilateral trading system. Since we are a country that depends upon our exports for over 30 per cent of our GNP, we of all people would stand to lose. I think the Hon. Member must keep in mind that whenever we sell locomotives overseas, or boilers overseas, or power stations, or anything else, that means jobs in Canada just as much as the goods that are sold in Canada. Indeed, it is a very important part of our economy.
We must find solutions that will protect the existing jobs, those that relate to sales in Canada and those that relate to our export sales, and not throw away one or the other. If we erect protectionist barriers we have to expect that we will be countered by retaliation in those markets.


Otto John Jelinek: If I understood the Minister correctly in the long speech that he just made in answer to my question, he is categorically opposing content regulations for automotive imports. Therefore he is opposing the thrust of the tax force report on the automobile industry.


VOLUNTARY RESTRAINTS ON IMPORTATION OF JAPANESE MANUFACTURED VEHICLES
Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, on a related matter, as the Minister knows, voluntary restraints on Japanese auto imports under last year's agreement run out in just over a month, on June 30. Once again the industry is being kept in the dark in this regard.
Could the Minister shed some light on this matter and relieve the anxiety that exists in the minds of many unemployed automotive workers and their families, in my riding and right across the country?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, I want to say first to the Hon. Member that I am not rejecting any of the recommendations of the task force at this point. I think they need to be carefully studied. If the Hon. Member will reflect on the words I said,
he will find I said that we cannot have a general system of that type. But GATT itself has recognized that, from time to time, for the protection of a vital domestic industry temporary conditions can be arranged.
If you want to refer to the Auto Pact with the United States, that is a question where two parties entered into an agreement. There well may be agreements that we can enter into with the Japanese. There are interesting areas there to be discovered and I think the work is worthy of very careful examination.
In relation to the state of the negotiations for a continuation of an agreement level beyond July 1, these are continuing. We as yet do not have an agreement. We are hopeful that an agreement on figures for an ongoing period of time will be achieved before July 1. If it is not, then I will recommend appropriate steps to the Government.


CANADIAN CONTENT REQUIREMENTS
Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I trust 1 will get more succinct and shorter answers. First I would like to commend the Minister and the authors of the task force report. However, there is one concern which many auto workers have, namely, the content under the Canada-United States pact at the present time is approximately 74 per cent. Is it possible for the Minister to keep the Auto Pact for the North American automotive manufacturers separate from any other foreign manufacturers so that their content of 74 per cent will be kept intact, and the 60 per cent mentioned would only apply to the new outside foreign manufacturers who set up business in Canada?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, I am sure the members of the task force will appreciate the Hon. Member's compliments. The matter, however, will depend on what can be negotiated. The Auto Pact was something that was negotiated between the U.S. and Canada. Therefore, the answer to the second part of the Hon. Member's question will depend upon what could be negotiated with a third country.


ENCOURAGEMENT OF PARTS MANUFACTURERS
Thomas Scott Fennell: Madam Speaker, could we leave the 1965 Auto Pact in place and deal country by country on the other ones? A new agreement is not going to be as beneficial to Canada as the one we have now that was arranged in 1965.
In many other countries there is tremendous assistance for small business related to the automotive industry, namely, grants, tax write-offs, and high technology assistance. Could the Minister address himself to encouraging those industries that are supplemental to the major automobile manufacturers?
May 25, 1983


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, with respect to the first part of the Hon. Member's question, because it should be negotiated obviously it would be predicated on what the two countries could negotiate. Second, 1 hope the Hon. Member was here on April 19 when my colleague, the Minister of Finance, announced a substantial number of investment incentives for Canadian companies to expand and to modernize. There is also the $25 million ILAP program for the auto parts industry. The Hon. Member knows that an expansion has been requested. The new Industrial Regional Development Program which was announced during the budget will provide further financial incentives for industry right across Canada in the manufacturing and processing sectors in order to expand and modernize, or even to establish new industries, Madam Speaker.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MINISTER OF STATE ENTERPRISES AND OF MINISTER OF INDUSTRY, COMMERCE AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS, OFTRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
Madam Speaker:: I would like to draw the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery today of Mr. Ronald Jay Williams, Minister of State Enterprises for Trinidad and Tobago, and of Mr. Desmond Hugh Cartey, Minister of Industry, Commerce and Consumer Affairs, of Trinidad and Tobago.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for international trade. It is clear the Government's vacillation on the principle of the task force report on the automotive industry has given the upper hand to the Japanese in these negotiations. No one can have any doubt about that.
Will the Minister confirm that the level of imports for trucks from Japan is up over 50 per cent this year compared to last year? And while the Minister is answering that, will he acknowledge that a clear commitment by the Government to accepting the principle of the report would strengthen his hand immeasurably in negotiations with the Japanese?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, in response to the Hon. Member, again I have difficulty in dealing with the premises to his questions. It seems to me again and again that Hon. Members, of all Members in the House, fails to show any concern about the jobs of people who work in plants that depend upon export orders. He never takes the trouble to think through the consequences as to whether every other country would lamely lie
Oral Questions
back and buy our goods regardless of how we treat its goods. 1 ask the Hon. Member to take just a little time to learn a bit about the multilateral trading system which means so much to the workers of our country.
The next thing I say to the Hon. Member is, no. I think our negotiations with the Japanese, with reference to the levels of car imports, are going well. 1 am confident that we will be able to reach a settlement. In relation to the number of trucks coming into the country, which was his third question, the Hon. Member will recall that we can only make judgment on how many automobiles come in, at the end of the year, because in the first portion of the year there is often a surge in products coming in at that time.


John Edward Broadbent: When it comes to lying back, one can just observe that the Government has performed that way for the past ten years, and that is why we are short some 35,000 automotive jobs today. That is a result of the Government's actions.


COMPARISON WITH SITUATIONS IN AUSTRALIA AND UNITED STATES
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, considering that we in this Party are interested in maintaining exports in resources, as well as having a manufacturing nation, would the Minister tell the House how it has been possible for the Australians to continue to sell resources to Japan and also obtain automotive plants from Japan? Could he tell us how the Americans have been able to obtain the commitment of the three largest automotive companies to put plants in the United States, and continue to sell resources? Why is it that every other industrial country with an automotive sector and resources is able to achieve success in both, while this Government fails in both?
Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of State (International
Trade)): Madam Speaker, it is obvious the Hon. Member has never had the experience or the responsibility of carrying out office and has only been in the comfort of opposition, and 1 am afraid he never will. I think if he did have that experience it would be very sobering to him very quickly.
Let me just tell him about the differences between the United States and Canada. The difference is that we sell a great deal more to the Japanese than we buy from them, while the Americans have the reverse situation. Therefore the Americans are in a different negotiating position. The same thing applies in relation to trade relations between Europe and Japan.
Having said that, we are selling a great deal more to the Japanese than we are buying from them, and we are in the position that we have now received a task force report, which was called for by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. That report has been in our hands for a very short period of time. The Japanese are cognizant of its existence.

May 25, 1983
Oral Questions
They are fully aware of our concern about having greater Canadian content. The Hon. Member is not on sound ground when he says that this Government is not proceeding in a way to best protect not only automotive jobs but all Canadian jobs.


CANADIAN NEGOTIATING POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, continuing the Laurel and Hardy routine, I will direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Would he tell the House whether in his view, as a person who should be interested in the preservation of jobs in this key sector, it would strengthen his amateur colleague's negotiating position with the Japanese if we had a bill in the House which indicated that all foreign producers selling cars in the Canadian market had to reinvest their profits to produce Canadian jobs?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, as I indicated to the Leader of the NDP when my colleague, the Minister of State for International Trade, was out of the country, as he has throughout his illustrious career, I am sure the Minister will be very successful in his negotiations with the Japanese.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Yesterday I talked with the Minister briefly about having a task force formed on youth issues. He should know now that his colleague, the Secretary of State, has indicated his plans for a parliamentary committee to deal with youth issues. Will the Minister advise when the two of them will be getting together to sort out whether or not we will be having such a committee?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, the position put forward by my colleague, the Secretary of State, is to look at a broad range of issues relating to young people. I presume that because employment is a matter of continuing concern it will be one of the issues referred to that parliamentary committee. I look forward to any deliberations. Considering that the Secretary of State has over-all responsibility in the Government, for youth matters, obviously we will continue our concern with their employment prospects.


REQUEST FOR EARLY ESTABLISHMENT
Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, is the Minister saying that we can expect the formation of this
committee very soon, that he will support it, and that we can begin on it in the next couple of months?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I think the Hon. Member should refer that question to the Secretary of State.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. It arises out of the current dispute between the grain handlers and the elevator companies which could lead to a strike or a lock-out as early as this week, thereby curtailing the flow of grain out of the western ports. What action is the Minister taking to ensure that such a work stoppage will not occur? In other words, can he give the producers of Canada assurance that grain will continue to flow through the West Coast ports in an orderly fashion?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Labour, who is presently representing the country at 1LO meetings, I am the Acting Minister of Labour. I can inform the Hon. Member that the Department of Labour has kept in constant communication with the two parties to the dispute. We have received the proposal for some form of mediation at this particular time, but no decision has been taken on the issue because that may prolong the strike rather than have it come to a proper settlement, which we would all like to see.


INQUIRY RESPECTING POSSIBLE APPOINTMENT OF CONCILIATOR
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Acting Minister. Since the dispute centres around the Government's six and five program and the issue of wage parity with the longshoremen, has the Minister had any consultation with his colleague, the Minister of Labour, and has the Minister of Labour been actively involved? Also, is he considering the appointment of a conciliator to ensure that this matter will be resolved in an orderly fashion, having regard to the fact that there seems to be two government policy issues that are directly related to this issue?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, that question could be more properly handled by the Minister of Labour on his return. According to the briefings we have received, they have been in very close contact with both parties. The question of whether to appoint a commissioner of conciliation was raised. It was
May 25, 1983

felt that at this particular time it would delay a settlement. The facts of the case are clearly known. Certainly all the facts are on the table. The concern of the Government is to get a resolution of the problem as quickly as possible and not to intervene at this time as it could simply appear to prolong the problem.


EASTERN PROVINCIAL AIRWAYS DISPUTE-SAFETY AUDIT REQUESTED
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Transport concerning the airline pilots' strike at Eastern Provincial Airways. The Minister knows that the matters in dispute must be resolved by the Canada Labour Relations Board, but in the meantime EPA continues to fly its aircraft with management and new pilots, at 70 per cent capacity. My question relates to air safety.
There are reports of incidents involving potential accidents, long flying hours, and overworked pilots. Has the Department of Transport made an audit of safety regulations at EPA? If not, will the Minister ensure that a safety audit is made? Also, will he assure the House that the situation will be closely watched and that EPA will not be allowed to reduce safety standards during the strike?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Frankly, Madam Speaker, I have been told by the Minister of Labour that problems concerning labour are his responsibility and 1 should stay out of them. I am doing that now. I am sure he is attending to this problem. The subject of safety is indeed my responsibility. My Department has assured me repeatedly that all precautions are being taken to prevent a loosening up of safety rules by the company.


Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, the Minister did not indicate whether he was aware of breaches of any safety regulations by EPA during the course of the strike. He knows that the strike creates a very difficult situation in relation to safety measures.


AIR TRANSPORT
Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, 1 want to ask the Minister another question involving EPA. It does relate to the Ministry of Transport. EPA and CP Air have proposed a joint service in Atlantic Canada and have made a presentation to the Canadian Transport Commission. How can EPA announce that this service will be instituted in early June in the absence of any approval from the CTC? Will he look into that situation and advise the House how EPA can promote this service during the course of a strike, and without the approval of the Canadian Transport Commission? Will he look into that and advise the House of what is going on?


Jean-Luc Pepin: As I said previously, Madam Speaker, and I was laughed at to a certain extent, it is very difficult for me to know when the CTC
Oral Questions
announces a decision that is made or when it makes it. Indeed,
I was informed of that today. For the moment I can only say that the possibility of EPA operating from Montreal to Halifax appears to be a very favourable one.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Madam Speaker, the Work Sharing Program of the Government expires on May 27. I wonder whether the Minister of Employment and Immigration is able to indicate to the House whether there are any plans for the future of the Program?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, 1 thank the Hon. Member for the question. I hope to have an opportunity to discuss the issue in committee later on today. 1 can inform the House, because I know the Hon. Member is anxious about this very positive Program continuing, that it may be extended for a further year so that some 13,000 agreements signed up until now will continue to have that kind of security in the workplace. I can also indicate that we will be undertaking a number of controlled pilot projects to use work sharing to help industries affected by job dislocation to retrain workers, and also to help permanent lay-offs. We will be undertaking additional modifications to the Program which, I believe, will be of great benefit to Canadian workers.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It concerns the possibility of a grain port shutdown or lockout as early as midnight tonight on the West Coast, and the importance of our $5 billion grain export trade, as well as the fact that a conciliator was involved, but the talks broke down about a week or ten days ago. I would like to ask the Prime Minister precisely whether he would agree to the appointment of a conciliation commissioner, or a board, since my understanding is that both parties agreed to this procedure. If they both agree, why does the Prime Minister not agree to the appointment of a conciliation commissioner?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, in reply to the Hon. Member I would only repeat what I indicated in a previous answer. The Minister of Labour has been in constant touch with the situation in Vancouver. While a strike vote has been taken, full authority has not been given by the membership. The judgment at this time is that we would like to see the parties arrive at an agreement through the collective bargaining process

May 25, 1983
Oral Questions
without introducing an additional factor that might only prolong the disagreement and, therefore, add to the problem. At this time the best situation for the Government, in the judgment of the Minister of Labour, is to continue a close monitoring of the situation without having any direct intervention.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, there is also the possibility of a lockout. In light of the fact that both parties have called upon the Government and are willing to agree to a conciliation commissioner being appointed, why does the Government not try to get an agreement from both sides to keep the operation going while the conciliation commissioner or the board does its work, and thereby keep the ports open for that period of time? In that way grain could continue to be exported and, hopefully, there could be a satisfactory settlement. Why does the Government not follow that procedure since it makes sense to both sides?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, there is a very basic principle involved in the whole system of collective bargaining. Each side to a dispute must accept its own public responsibilities. It is not up to Government to intervene at every point in time. It is our sincere hope that both sides in this dispute will recognize their public responsibility and come to a settlement without in any way injuring the public interest.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Yesterday, Ralston-Purina, the owners of the St. Louis Blues hockey team, launched a lawsuit in the United States under American anti-trust laws. The National Hockey League is a type of public trust, Madam Speaker. Numerous benefits have been granted by Canadians to the League, including the amateur draft, a virtual monopoly status, and public money for arenas and television rights. More than that, hockey is central to the Canadian identity.
In view of the Minister's undertaking to launch an investigation under the Combines Investigation Act, and in view of the fact that legal proceedings have now commenced in the United States, can the Minister indicate to the House when this examination and investigation will be concluded?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I understand that the Director of Investigation and Research is pursuing the matter. He has been in touch with some of the Governors of the NHL. I
understand that he has also been in touch with the directors of Ralston-Purina and he is looking into the matter. No decision has yet been reached as to whether there is any breach of the Combines Investigation Act, but as soon as the Director terminates his fact-finding search, I will report to the House.


REQUEST THAT COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT BE AMENDED
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I appreciate, and the Minister will understand, that time is of the essence in this matter because there was a real question raised as to whether the Saskatchewan application was given a fair hearing. According to all reports, the hearing was merely a charade. There should be some principles of natural justice that apply to these particular applications.
Under the present provisions of the Combines Investigation Act, the matter of transfer and operation of professional sports franchises is specifically excluded from the operation of Section 32, the Freedom of Trade Section. Has the Minister given consideration, or will the Government give consideration to amending this provision in order to make it applicable to the transfer of franchises within the National Hockey League?
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Madam Speaker, it may be a little premature to deal with this aspect of the law at this time. I hope in the near future to be able to introduce a series of amendments to the Combines Investigation Act. I hope that at that time the Hon. Member will support my initiatives.


QUERY RESPECTING INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I wonder if the Minister can tell us today when we will see the Canada Health Act. Could she also tell us whether the Canada Health Act will be centred on more control for Ottawa or on better Health care for Canadians?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, we will see the Canada Health Act as soon as possible and, of course, its purpose has always been to strengthen the best social programs Canadians have ever had.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MEETINGS OF FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL MINISTERS
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, under the British North America Act, jurisdiction over health and welfare is shared with the Provinces. I wonder if the Minister could share with us any information she has as to when she last met face to face with any provincial Minister in terms of the preparation of this Act.
May 25, 1983


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, in terms of the negotiations I have had, no, I do not think that it is a good practice for me to show my hand before the time comes, but I will be meeting face to face with Mr. Russell in Alberta tomorrow.


CANADIAN HERITAGE
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services. While I have not had time to give him the courtesy of notice, the Minister is aware that I am concerned about the final resting place of HMCS Bras d'Or. May I ask the Minister of Supply and Services whether or not, when making the decision to move the Bras d'Or from Halifax, or from a logical site at the Alexander Graham Bell Museum on Bras d'Or Lake, the federal Government undertook to expend any federal money for the transport of that vessel, for its relocation, and for its maintenance?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows, we have recently made an announcement to the effect that the Bras d'Or will be brought to an exposition centre at L'Islet-sur-mer which is down the St. Lawrence River from Quebec City. Had I received notice of the question, 1 would have been able to provide the hon. gentleman with more details in terms of the expenditure of funds in order to transport the Bras d'Or. I will have to take his question as notice and provide him with more details at a subsequent time.


ARRANGEMENTS FOR MOVING VESSEL
J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Speaker, it had been a very clear undertaking on the part of the federal Government that it would provide no funds to any interested group with respect to a final resting place for the Bras d'Or. In checking as to whether or not there were any federal funds involved in this, because if there had been, the Minister would be aware that many other places, including the Bell Museum on Bras d'Or Lake where in fact it should be, would have wanted it, would the Minister undertake very clearly to expose to the House, to the Canadian people, and particularly to those members of the Canadian Armed Forces who had the privilege of serving on H.M.C.S. Bras d'Or, just what arrangements were entered into with respect to the Bras d'Or, and tell us just exactly how many other areas were explicitedly or implicitedly interested in receiving the Bras d'Or as a museum piece?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I might say that my Department has been asked to provide help in moving the ship to its final destination, which is the museum already referred to by my colleague. No decision
Oral Questions
has been made yet, but I understand that there are precedents to that effect where the Coast Guard has helped such ventures.


EMPLOYMENT
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, at one o'clock the Minister of Employment and Immigration sent me a statement on work sharing and said that it was embargoed until he was to meet the press at three o'clock. Obviously the embargo only applies to Conservative Members of the House. Now that we know just exactly what the Minister's word is worth, I want to ask him questions that I was unable to ask before because I gave my word.
Now that the Minister intends to extend the Work Sharing Program, what are the extent of the changes in the Program with regard to training, and how will these changes and the extension of the Program affect those who are already in the Program under contract?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, let me explain first that there was no intention to have any embargo on the statement. I indicated that we would be presenting further elaboration on the concept at the committee at three o'clock, and we intend to do that, but certainly there was no intention to restrict the Hon. Member's to ask questions to which I would be very glad to reply. I hope he will not take any serious umbrage at that. That was not the intention. 1 think that we were simply giving him advance notice of statements that we would be making at committee this afternoon.
As far as the question on training is concerned, as indicated we want to undertake a number of controlled pilot projects in relation to using the Work Sharing Program to provide for a training alternative in firms which see themselves facing a possible change in technology and equipment. Rather than having workers simply take the extra day away from work, they would use that day to be retrained over a period of time. We would have the Manpower Consulting Services work out the terms and conditions under which that training would take place as an alternative, with each company and its employees. This is a matter which the Hon. Member has raised several times. He has asked how we intend to deal with the problems of industrial change. 1 point out to him that this is one potentially very effective answer, but we do want to test it out first to see if it can be fully applied.


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, 1 want to tell the Minister that 1 phoned his office and I was told by one of his senior aides that the statement was embargoed until three o'clock, and that I was not to ask questions in the House. That is all 1 can say, Madam Speaker, but I am glad that the Minister is at least prepared to answer questions in the House.

May 25, 1983
Oral Questions EFFECT ON PARTICIPANTS


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, perhaps the 1415;-1 Minister can address the latter part of my question. How will the changes in the Program and the extension of the Program affect those who are already under contract? Will they be able to take advantage of the new changes? Could the Minister tell the House as well, since he will be telling the press at three o'clock, just exactly how much money the Government intends to spend over and above that which has already been allocated, and how much will go into the training aspects of the Program?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, on the specific question of the training allocation, the contracts which we already have under way would hold firm. This is a new extension of the Program which we want to try on a pilot project basis. Therefore, existing contracts would be honoured under the existing conditions, but 1 believe the development of alternative ways of training are to be tried out in a new phase which would be subject to the kind of negotiation which I have described. It would take place between a firm and the Manpower Consultative Services which we presently employ. The over-all budget for the Work Sharing Program has been increased to $250 million over the life of the next year's agreement. We have not a specific target for the training portion of it, although we have set a $15 million target for those contracts which would be entered into, to avoid permanent lay-offs.


BANKS AND BANKING
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance who will be aware that thousands of Canadians who are attempting to renegotiate their mortgages are finding that lending institutions are asking them to come up with penalty payments far in excess of the three-month standard clause. The Minister himself said two months ago that he would undertake to take such cases and submit them to the institutions involved, either through the Inspector General of Banks or any other appropriate agency, so that they would be closely scrutinized in an effort to prevent financial institutions from being unfair to some citizens. There is no question, Madam Speaker, by any definition, that the excessive penalties being requested of these people are unfair. Has the Minister of Finance followed through on this promise?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member refers to thousands of Canadians. I would like to refer him to the millions of Canadians who would like to see this House debate the Crow issue and ensure that we will modernize railway transportation in this country. This
House is prevented from doing so by the New Democratic Party. In effect it is preventing Parliament from working, and preventing Canadians from having an opportunity to have their views heard in this Parliament.
I want to tell the Hon. Member with respect to the issues with which he is concerned, that indeed, all the representations I have received have been referred to senior officers of the corporations concerned so that they may be examined and the people concerned could get a fair hearing and a fair review of their situation.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER TAKE ACTION
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I want to tell the Minister of Finance that most of us in the House of Commons, I am sure, have sent along to him dozens and dozens of letters over the last two months. I would be surprised if any of us have even heard a response from the Minister's office, let alone from any of the financial institutions. In other words, if he believes that the financial institutions are examining each case and adjusting them in order to be fair, he has been misled.
I would ask the Minister of Finance not to provide us with a little discussion on the Crow debate and the proceedings in this House.
Is he now prepared to take some action and himself approach the financial institutions in an effort to have them stop this usurious practice of requiring people to pay out penalty payments far in excess of the traditional three-month penalty clause?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I am not arguing about the Crow debate. What 1 am arguing against is the tactics of the New Democratic Party in preventing this House from debating the Crow, and preventing Parliament from working in a normal way.
As far as his specific question is concerned, I must tell my hon. friend that he is probably not reading his correspondence because, indeed, Hon. Members who have written to me have received answers reasonably quickly. If he has not received his answer, I would certainly want to check with him. I want to point out also that I have sent the list of reviewing officers in the corporations concerned to all Hon. Members who have written to me, and if the Hon. Member has the interest of his constituents at heart he will do his own job and pursue the matter himself with the reviewing officers of the corporations.


DISARMAMENT
Hon. Erik Nielsen (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister explain what Canadian Government policy purpose is served by the presence in Canada of a delegation, 1
May 25, 1983

believe called the "Peace Committee", from the U.S.S.R., apparently sponsored by the Canada-U.S.S.R. Association, perhaps the Gorbachev visit, whose chief purpose appears to be the dissemination of propaganda to Canadians with respect to the high degree of freedom to be found in, and the peaceful intentions of, the U.S.S.R.?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member asks me what purpose is served. 1 know of no direct purpose which the Government has sponsored. I suppose, if there is a general purpose, it would be that Canadians feel free to invite people from other countries who have other views so they would be exposed to a debate on disarmament, which is very important for Canadians. It is not in the traditions of this country, and certainly not of the Liberal Government, to prevent Canadians who want to hear varying points of views from listening to those points of views.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, may 1 ask the Prime Minister if it is the policy of the Government to encourage the propagation of such propaganda in Canada by such groups from the U.S.S.R.? If that be the case, is the Canadian Government requesting reciprocal courtesies from the U.S.S.R. so that Canadian peace groups can similarly demonstrate the peaceful intentions of Canada and the high degree of freedom in this country, to the citizens of the U.S.S.R.?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: As they say in the Ukraine, fair is fair.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member asks me if it is the purpose of the Government to encourage. The Government, as far as I know, and I have just consulted with the Secretary of State for External Affairs, has not done anything in particular to encourage or discourage. Canadians in this country are free to invite people of other lands, if they do not come here for subversive or illegal purposes. They are free to invite people from anywhere to come and espouse points of view. This Government does not propose to interfere with that.


INQUIRY RESPECTING POSSIBILITY OF RECIPROCAL VISITS
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister failed to answer that last half of that question, namely, whether the Canadian Government was encouraging reciprocal courtesies from the U.S.S.R. so that Canadian groups could travel to Russia for similar purposes.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member asks a question which is not reciprocal. There is no parallel here. I know of no invitation extended to Canadian groups to go and talk peace in the Soviet Union. That is a reflection on the Government of that country, not on the Canadian Government.
Oral Questions IMMIGRATION


ADMISSION OF POLISH PROFESSOR TO TEACH AT UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I would like to ask the Minister about the appointment of Professor Jerzy Wiatr to teach an introductory course in political science at the University of British Columbia this summer. There have been complaints that Professor Wiatr should not be admitted to Canada because he is an adviser to the Polish Government and is the director of the Marxist-Leninist Institute of the Polish Communist Party. Will the Minister investigate the acceptability of Professor Wiatr for admission to Canada, in view of his position in Poland and in view of allegations that he was refused admission to the United States, and in view of the fact that many other academics are capable of teaching the introductory course which he has been invited to teach?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, if the Hon. Member would be good enough to submit the information he has, to me I would be glad to look into the case.


SHIPS AND SHIPPING
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. It involves Canadian content, and shipping used to develop the offshore resources in Atlantic Canada. The Minister probably knows that a formal protest has been entered by Ferguson Industries Ltd. of Pictou, Nova Scotia, which company spent a great deal of money developing a vessel for offshore standby and rescue purposes. At the same time the Department is permitting foreign-owned and built vessels, like the Rescue Kim, a 1957 whale chaser of Norwegian manufacture, to come into Atlantic Canada, without any Canadian content, and take charter, presumably, away from this vessel built by Ferguson Industries Ltd. Will the Minister use whatever powers he thinks he has under Section 22 of the Canada Shipping Act and protect some of the shipping interests in Atlantic Canada from this kind of incursion from foreign-owned vessels?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, Canadian ships are protected on coastal trade at the moment. It is only when no Canadian ship is available that foreign ships can come and take contracts, and that necessitates the approval of the CTC. However, I will check into this particular incident to ensure normal procedures have been followed, but I have no doubt that they have been followed.

May 25, 1983
Point of Order-Mr. Deans


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Tuesday, May 24, 1983, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



METRIC CONVERSION


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, yesterday when the Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) put a question to me, I misinformed him. On page 25683 of Hansard he said that:
-under pressure from provincial Governments, from agricultural associations and organizations, and from consumers, the federal Government has decided to return to Imperial measurement in the weighing of beef on import and export and that all the stockyards from Montreal through to Prince Rupert will remain or return, if they have converted, to Imperial measurement?
I stated:
I believe the arrangement that the Hon. Member is talking about has been made.
It has not been made, Madam Speaker. There are ongoing meetings. All the meat packing firms are on metric in Canada at the present time, and they are encouraging the livestock yards and dealers to go metric also.


Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) for his correction but I point out that the Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) is not in the House and he may want to reply at a later date.



POINTS OF ORDER


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I have two points of order arising out of yesterday's proceedings.
I would like to deal with them in a way which does not reflect necessarily their relative importance but simply for ease of handling.
Yesterday afternoon, during that time normally referred to as Routine Proceedings, specifically that part dealing with petitions, on page 25686 of Hansard there appears the following under the heading "Business of the House":


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin):
That the House do now proceed to Orders of the Day.


Madam Speaker:: That motion, of course, is in order, pursuant to Standing Order 50. All those in favour of the motion please say yea.
I rose at that point, Madam Speaker, but was not recognized. That is incidental. However, my point of order is that the motion was not in order.


Madam Speaker:: I just want to tell the Hon. Member that if he did rise at that point and say that he wanted to raise a point of order, I know that some time lapsed because I was waiting for the sheet of paper to be brought to me, but I did not see or hear the Hon. Member. I am very sorry but I did not see or hear him.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I accept that you did not see me. I am not suggesting that I was intentionally ignored. I just make the point that I attempted to rise at that point to raise with you my concern about the procedure. I also attempted to rise, as you may recall, at the point of adjournment to raise the matter I am now going to raise.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member has to understand that I did see him after six o'clock yesterday, but I had just adjourned the House and therefore I could not listen to his point of order at that point.


Ian Deans: That is fine; I am not quarelling with that either.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That is two strikes, lan.


Ian Deans: Now that we are in agreement about something, let us get to the disagreement.
Standing Order 50, Madam Speaker, under which the Minister moved his motion, says:
When a question is under debate, no motion is received unless to amend it; to postpone it to a day certain; for the previous question; for reading the Orders of the Day; for proceeding to another order; to adjourn the debate; to continue or extend a sitting of the House; or for the adjournment of the House.
Now, the portion I want to refer to is that which says:
When a question is under debate, no motion is received-
Unless it does one of the things listed. There have been numerous rulings, Madam Speaker, including by yourself, that there can be no debate during the presentation of petitions. Yours is not the first ruling in that regard; there have been numerous others going back to the beginning of the practice of presenting petitions. It is therefore clear that Standing Order 50 is not applicable inasmuch as no matter could be under debate during the time when petitions are being presented.
Debate, Madam Speaker, is quite clearly spelled out in a number of different ways going back over many, many years. I do not want to bore the House with all the definitions but I think it is important to set out clearly how debate takes place. In Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 295 says:
The proceedings between the rising of a Member to move a motion and the ascertainment by the Speaker of the decision of the House constitute a debate-
There was no motion moved at the beginning of the part dealing with petitions, nor was there any debate taking place. Beauchesne goes on to say:
May 25, 1983

The interval between the proposing and the putting of the question, which is usually used for discussion, gives an opportunity for further proceedings such as the moving of an amendment-
Or the moving of a motion. This is equally clearly set out in the standard Oxford Dictionary which says "debate" means "dispute about; discuss (a question); hold formal argument. Generally in legislatures or public meetings. To consider; to ponder; to contest." That quite clearly sets out what debate is. Neither of those things was taking place, nor can they take place during the consideration of petitions.
The Nineteenth Edition of Erskine May, Chapter XVI11, says at page 358:
The proceedings between the rising of a Member to move a motion and the ascertainment by the Chair of the decision of the House constitute a debate-
Going back to your rulings. Madam Speaker, and the rulings of others in the chair, there can be no debate during the presentation of petitions. There are many other arguments to be made, but based on just that and that alone, Standing Order 50 cannot possibly be used during that period of the day reserved for petitions. That Standing Order, as I said, says quite clearly that when a question is under debate these motions may be made. Quite clearly, by every ruling of every Speaker I have been able to find there is no question under debate at the time petitions are being received. Therefore, for the Government House Leader to rise at that point and, using Standing Order 50, move the motion he attempted to move would be quite out of order. The motion could not be received at that time.
However, Madam Speaker, in the event that the Chair should believe there was perhaps an error in citing Standing Order 50 and that it was possible to move it under another Standing Order, I refer the Chair to Standing Order 28 which
says:
A motion for reading the Orders of the Day shall have preference to any motion before the House.
Again under the provisions set out for dealing with petitions, quite clearly there was no motion before the House. Standing Order 29 deals with a motion to adjourn, and a motion to adjourn shall always be in order. If Standing Order 28 said that a motion for the reading of the Orders of the Day shall always be in order, then, of course, a motion at the point of petitions would be acceptable, I submit. But it does not say that. It says simply " ... shall have preference to any motion before the House".
I suggest that yesterday, as every other day, at that part of the Routine Proceedings that deals with petitions, there was no motion before the House. So neither under Standing Order 50, I submit, nor under Standing Order 28 is it possible to move a motion for the reading of the Orders of the Day.
I suggest, Madam Speaker, in addition to that, that a motion for the Orders of the Day, being a privileged motion, falls into a category that has been dealt with by many other Speakers but not necessarily in this way. I can find no precedent for this having happened in exactly this way, although
Point of Order-Mr. Deans
perhaps the Speaker may be able to find one and point it out to me. But Speakers have moved that other privileged motions, such as a motion to adjourn the House, are unacceptable under certain conditions even though the Standing Orders quite clearly state that they are always in order.
This Standing Order has been interpreted by many Speakers, including the Speaker immediately preceding the present occupant of the Chair who ruled quite clearly on a number of occasions that even a motion to adjourn, which might be considered a privileged motion, cannot be accepted during the Question Period. The Speaker ruled that at that point in time it was unacceptable.
That ruling was based, I contend, on a decision made many, many years ago that the Speaker has the right, even in a privileged motion where the motion may appear to be in order under the Standing Orders, to refuse to accept the motion. It is the prerogative of the Chair, even if the motion appears to be in order under existing Standing Orders, to refuse to accept that motion.
I raise this with you, Madam Speaker, because you can imagine the consequences if this were to be established as a precedent. You can imagine the consequences if yesterday's actions were to be established as a precedent. It would then be possible for the Government to rise at two o'clock on any day and move that we go to Government Orders and to forgo all the normal proceedings of the House, including the Question Period, the moving of motions by Private Members, the introduction of bills, the making of motions by Government Members or other Members, all those things that normally fall under routine business.
I contend that to allow that precedent to stand would be to deny Members of the House their rights, long established by Parliaments long before this Parliament, to take part in the proceedings and properly to represent their constituents. It is a right of Members of Parliament to present petitions in the House, standing in their place, on behalf of their constituents. That right goes back to a point in history before Parliaments were even established. That right goes back to the right of citizens to present their petitions to the Crown and was subsequently adopted by Parliaments as a right. Initially it was not even in writing; it was initially an accepted right and as an accepted right I agree with Philip Laundy, who in his book when discussing matters such as this said as follows:
The right of petitioning the Crown and Parliament for redress of grievances is acknowledged as a fundamental principle of the Constitution. In considering the history of the petition it should be realized that law originated as unwritten custom and as such could not be changed.
1 put this argument to you succinctly. Madam Speaker. Under Standing Order 50 it was not possible for the Minister to rise on other than a petition. Anything other than a petition at that point in time was out of order. On rising during the petition part of the Routine Proceedings, the Minister was recognized for the purpose of presenting a petition or, if he was not recognized for the purpose of presenting a petition, then he should have advised the Chair in advance that he was rising on

Point of Order-Mr. Deans
another matter. I do not believe that was true. If he was not rising on a petition he would have had to advise that he was rising on another matter. If he was rising on another matter it was clearly out of order. If it was his intention to rise under Standing Order 50, that was out of order for the reasons that I have stated.
I ask you, Madam Speaker, in the interests of preserving the integrity of Parliament, in the interests of protecting the Opposition from a Government that would steam-roller over rights that have been long established, to find in a ruling that these proceedings were completely out of order and do not constitute a precedent to which reference can be made on any future occasion.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I do not think that the Hon. Member's interpretation of Standing Orders 50 and 28 is correct. His interpretation is restrictive as to the appropriate time for presenting the motion I moved yesterday to proceed to Orders of the Day. I think there is no justification for a restrictive interpretation, which is not supported by Standing Orders 50 and 28 because of our parliamentary practice and also because of the nature of the motion presented. First of all, I think that the title of the motion clearly indicates its nature, and we can therefore conclude that it can only be moved at a certain time of the day. It is a motion inviting the House to proceed to Orders of the Day, so that logically, if we had reached Orders of the Day, the motion could not have been moved. However, it is my view that at any time before reaching Orders of the day, this motion, which is provided under Standing Orders 28 and 50 and which invites the House to proceed to Orders of the Day, is entirely in order. I think this is eminently logical. Standing Order 50 says, and I quote:
When a question is under debate, no motion is received-
With some specific exceptions, it does not exclude a motion inviting the House to proceed to Orders of the Day before that stage has been reached. The same applies to Standing Order 28, which says, and I quote:
A motion for reading the Orders of the Day shall have preference to any motion before the House.
That does not mean that if a motion is not before the House, we do not have the right to move a motion inviting the House to proceed to Orders of the Day. On the contrary, if, as it says in Standing Order 28, a motion for reading the Orders of the Day has preference to any motion before the House, all the more reason for it to have preference during Routine Proceedings to any other item before the House. This is particularly true, and the implications of Standing Order 28 are so far-reaching, that our conclusion is that we can present a motion to proceed to Orders of the Day, even when the House is not actually debating a motion, since this motion is far more important than any other item under Routine Proceedings.
May 25. 1983
To justify this interpretation of the Standing Orders, I think it would be useful to see what the experts have to say, and to consider the nature of the motion itself. Yesterday's motion was basically a dilatory one, but it was not moved to prevent debate but to enable the House to get on with the Orders of the Day and consider the main question. It was dilatory in that it was meant to postpone other items preceding the Chair's call for Orders of the Day. And if we look at the reference work whose title in English is:

"Dubroy, Bourinot, Rules of Order":
The term "dilatory" is used by most writers on parliamentary law as a convenient means of grouping together motions that postpone a question for the time being. For instance, motions for reading the orders of the day, for proceeding to another order of business, for the adjournment of the House or debate, have the effect of superseding or delaying the consideration of a question. Such motions must be decided forthwith without debate or amendment.
[ Translation]
Bourinot says that the motion in question, that is, a motion inviting the House to proceed to the Orders of the Day, is in fact a dilatory motion and takes precedence over any other question-not only motions but any question before the House-before the Chair has called Orders of the Day, and that this motion must be put forthwith, without amendment or debate.
I think it is therefore clear, Madam Speaker, that the motion I moved yesterday to enable the Opposition to consider a major piece of legislation-an opportunity that was turned down by the Opposition-clearly conformed to our Standing Orders. The Chair called a vote on this motion and also had Members called in. Unfortunately, the vote could not take place for reasons we all know.
Finally, I have a subsidiary argument. I would like to refer the Chair to Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Fifth Edition, Citation 282, where it says under the following heading, and I quote:
Motions to Pass to the Orders of the Day
When an Order of the Day is under debate, a motion "That the Orders of the Day be now read" is a nullity as the House has already reached that stage of its proceedings-
Upon reading this citation, and in the light of what I said earlier, I must conclude that although this kind of motion cannot be called once the House has reached Orders of the Day, the motion is, by its nature, acceptable at any other time. Madam Speaker, that is why I must conclude that the objection made by my learned friend from the New Democratic Party has no basis in law. He certainly cannot complain about the fact that we moved to give his party an opportunity to consider Bill C-155. He had the privilege of voting on the motion. He also had the privilege of considering the Bill. However, they preferred to obstruct the proceedings and to prevent Parliament from considering an important issue. That was their choice, but it does not strengthen the Hon. Member's
May 25, 1983

case, because the motion was moved at the right time, that is, just before we reached Orders of the Day.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, 1 followed with interest the remarks of my friend from the New Democratic Party with respect to Standing Order 50. I will be interested to hear the Chair's comments on his remarks.
I point out that if the tactic that was used yesterday is available under Standing Orders, that very same tactic might very well have been used by the Government during the constitutional debate when various questions of privilege, points of order and other parliamentary items available to the Opposition were used. 1 would be interested to hear if the Chair could differentiate between the situation that existed then and the situation which existed yesterday.
In joining the discussion on the ruling, it would also be interesting to note Citation 417(b) at page 151 where there is a definition of a dilatory motion. It refers to the motion "that the House do now proceed to ... " That motion is described as being one which is:
-though independent in form, are moved in the course of debate on questions which they seek to set aside.
The Chair may also want to draw that into the discussion on the argument. It would seem to me that Routine Proceedings must be defined. If there are questions to be decided, I would be interested in knowing exactly how the Chair would deal with Citation 417(b) under those circumstances.


Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin-Swan River):: Madam Speaker, I wish to make my small contribution to this particular item under discussion. Yesterday I had a petition from my constituents which I was prepared to present. The Government House Leader (Mr. Pinard) is normally a very reasonable person and I have found that when he makes mistakes in the House he rises to correct them. I submit that the hon. gentleman erred greatly by affecting my privileges as a Member.
I submit that it is a privilege of the House to present a petition. Citation 666 of Beauchesne clearly indicates:
The right of petitioning the Crown and Parliament for redress of grievances is acknowledged as a fundamental principle of the constitution and has been exercised without interruption since 1867.
Furthermore, with respect to the method of presentation, Citation 692 makes it very clear that:
(I) While a Member may, if he desires, present a petition from his place in the House during Routine Proceedings and before the Introduction of Bills-
That is the part of the sentence that concerns me. I was standing in my place prepared to present a petition during the Routine Proceedings. This was during the time provided to make representations in the House on behalf of my constituents.
I submit that as a result of the Hon. House Leader bringing in his motion, he infringed upon my privileges to present a petition. That is the only time when I can present a petition. I
Point of Order-Mr. Deans
had a petition on behalf of my constituents, mainly on behalf of those in Swan River, that I wanted to present at that time.
1 submit again that the House Leader greatly erred and affected my privileges as a Member of Parliament representing my constituents. I wish to present that argument, Madam Speaker, for your consideration and hope that in the future the Hon. House Leader and others in the Government would not violate privileges of Members to present a petition on behalf of their constituents.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, I wish to make two points. The first is in response to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) when he cited Citation 282 of Beauchesne. It states:
When an Order of the Day is under debate, a motion "That the Orders of the Day be now read"-
And it goes on. The citation reads "When an Order of the Day is under debate", and I remind the chair that we were not under Orders of the Day yesterday, we were under Petitions. I think that is an important point. I do not think the House Leader can use as support Citation 282 of Beauchesne which describes what he can do once we are on Orders of the Day.
The second point he made concerned when Orders of the Day are under debate. 1 believe there is a number of precedents of previous Speakers as well as yourself that said we were not engaged in debate at that particular time. 1 refer to a ruling that you made on October 24, 1980, as reported at page 4069 of Hansard. I quote:
Order, please. I believe I have a number of petitions today. I must remind Hon. Members that they are allowed to present their petitions but not to enter into debate. The presentation should be kept extremely short-and when I say extremely short, I mean generally within a minute.
In other words, no debate is allowed during the presentation of petitions. I am sure you are referring to Standing Order 71(3) of our green book on rules of the House.
I think it is very clear, Madam Speaker, that we had not reached Orders of the Day. There was no question before the House and there was no debate before the House.
The last point concerns Standing Order 50 itself. I think it is very clear. It states:
When a question is under debate, no motion is received unless to amend it-
It goes on from there. I remind you that we were not debating a question yesterday. I think it is very clear that we were discussing petitions yesterday and there was no question before the House. If there was no question before the House, I do not think a Member can get up to propose a motion.
As has already been mentioned by our House Leader, the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), we were not conducting a debate. I have already referred you to your own ruling of October, 1980 when you supported that position at that particular time. As a result I wish to argue that the motion presented by the House Leader yesterday was out of order. Indeed, if that motion was in order, I suggest this whole place could become very chaotic as Members of the House could rise at almost any time to move a motion that we proceed to Orders of the Day or something else.

May 25, 1983
Point of Order-Mr. Deans


Madam Speaker:: I think I have to dispose immediately of the arguments brought forward by the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) because he did use-I do not think it was a ruling but an admonition I was making to Hon. Members as they were presenting their petitions. I reminded Hon. Members that they should not debate while presenting a petition. I was simply admonishing their Members who go on for an excessive period of time describing petitions, debating in fact, when the only thing they are allowed to do when presenting a petition to the House is to give the title of the petition or something of the substance of it. That argument I have to dispose of because I do not think it is relevent to the situation we are discussing.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. Should this occurrence of yesterday prevail, as my colleague from Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) has already said, a member of the Treasury bench can eliminate the Question Period, Questions on the Order Paper, Private Members' Bills, Government Bills, Petitions and even motions.


Yvon Pinard: The House can.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Routine Proceedings, Madam Speaker, by their very definition mean routine. They are firm and they are fixed, except the House by unanimous consent can do anything it wants with Routine Proceedings or with anything else in this Chamber.
If this practice were to prevail, then the Government or anyone else can say that Parliament cannot exist when Members on all sides are prevented from exercising a right, as my colleague from Hamilton Mountain said which is inherent by practice and by history. Only Members of the Treasury benches need to be in this place if what I heard yesterday is to prevail. All other Members from both sides of the Chamber may as well proceed to their home constituencies and stay there.
The Government House Leader mentioned the word "dilatory". What is dilatory about an authentic petition with the actual signatures of citizens who exercise the right to petition their Parliament and their Sovereign through their Parliament?


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I have to stop the Hon. Member because I want these arguments to be put to me so I can decide on the question. 1 will not allow Hon. Members to go beyond the scope of this discussion. The Hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard), when he spoke of dilatory practices, was not saying that petitions were dilatory. He was saying that the motion to proceed to Orders of the Day had to be considered as a dilatory motion or the contrary, a motion to advance to Proceedings of the House.


Yvon Pinard: That is what 1 said.


Madam Speaker:: I do not think the Government House Leader referred to petitions as being dilatory.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: That is right.


Madam Speaker:: As we all know, it is the right of Members to present petitions.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, you have helped me very much with what you have just said. Whether the presentation of petitions is dilatory or whether the Minister wants to be dilatory himself in terms of how he deals with the Routine Proceedings of this Chamber, it seems to me the Minister is drawing a very long bow without an arrow in it. May I remind Hon. Members on the other side that when-I did not say if but when-they are in opposition, as they will be whether after the next election or ten elections from now, they will regret what happened yesterday because then any member of the Treasury benches can prevent anything from happening under Routine Proceedings in this Chamber. If Routine Proceedings do not mean Routine Proceedings, why are they on the Order Paper every day?


An Hon. Member:: Why don't we all go home?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Where does this stop, Madam Speaker? If 280 Members of this Chamber-I will leave out Madam Speaker and 1 will leave out the Prime Minister-by some accident each had a petition to present on a given day, it would take up the remaining time of the Chamber that day, the following day and the day after. Would the House Leader then rise in his place and move to proceed to Orders of the Day, interrupting the presentation of petitions of citizens of our country by Members of Parliament from all sides of the House? Surely, Madam Speaker, yesterday's occurrence, which because it was the first time-and I submit it was illegal-caught Members on all sides, except the Government House Leader, with some degree of surprise and shock, cannot be allowed to prevail unless you want this Parliament to become impotent, a shambles and chaotic.
1 submit the points made by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), and the House Leader for the Conservative Party are well taken. I ask on behalf of Members on all sides that that kind of motion should not be allowed. The very presentation of it means debate at a point where debate is not allowed and it is totally out of order. Just the presentation of the motion is debate, and that is not allowed during the presentation of petitions.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, I too was on my feet yesterday to present a petition when the Government House Leader put forward his motion which was accepted by Your honour pursuant to Standing Order 50, as you then stated. I certainly want to concur with the remarks of the House Leader of my Party and other speakers who have indicated that we are talking about a motion which goes right to the nature of Parliament and indeed to the nature of parliamentary democracy itself.
May 25, 1983

There are three relevant Standing Orders here. The most important is Standing Order 50 to which the Speaker herself referred. That Standing Order talks about a question being under debate and then refers to a series of possible motions which might be received under appropriate circumstances. One of those motions is to read the Orders of the Day. Yet another motion is to proceed to another Order, including Orders of the Day.
There is a point which has not yet been raised but one which 1 believe is very important in the context of what the Government House Leader has said. The Government House Leader referred to Standing Order 28. Standing Order 28 refers to a motion for reading the Orders of the Day which shall have preference to any motion before the House. The fact of the matter is that that was not the motion that was before the House yesterday. Why the Government House Leader would make reference to Standing Order 28 which refers to a motion for reading the Orders of the Day, and then go on to refer to a citation from Beauchesne, which also refers to a motion for reading the Orders of the Day, I do not know. With respect, that is completely irrelevant.
That was not the motion before the House yesterday. The motion before the House yesterday was that the House do now proceed to Orders of the Day, not that Orders of the Day be read. How the Government House Leader can argue that a motion which refers to reading the Orders of the Day somehow applies to a motion that refers to proceedings of the Orders of the Day, which is also entirely separate and comes under Standing Order 50, when both are distinct and separate motions, is certainly beyond me. I suggest, Madam Speaker, that any purported reliance on Standing Order 28 is entirely without foundation.
The final point is once more with respect to Standing Order 50. Standing Order 50, as has been noted by a number of my colleagues, starts out with the words "When a question is under debate". Madam Speaker rose at one point to indicate in response to a submission from my colleague from Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) that there was no real issue in terms of the Speaker's earlier ruling on the question of debate, that she merely indicated that there should not be debate. With respect, the issue goes beyond that. Standing Order 71(3) does not leave any discretion. It indicates very clearly:
On the presentation of a petition no debate on or in relation to the same shall be allowed.
How could it possibly be argued that Standing Order 50, which refers to a question being under debate, is relevant when pursuant to Standing Order 71(3) there can be no debate? Therefore I suggest that Standing Order 28 is not relevant in the circumstances because that was not the motion on the floor. Standing Order 50 is not relevant because there was no question under debate. We were dealing with petitions which pursuant to the Standing Orders cannot be debated.
Point of Order-Mr. Deans
1 strongly urge you, Madam Speaker, to recognize that what was attempted yesterday was an undermining of the parliamentary process itself which must not be allowed to be repeated.


Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Madam Speaker, 1 do hope that when you announce your decision in a few moments you will act as you did on many previous occasions, namely render your ruling not only in keeping with the intent of the Standing Orders, but also in light of the circumstances surrounding the events.
Upon hearing the arguments just made by some of my colleagues opposite, a visitor in the gallery might come to the conclusion that someone on this side of the House is attempting to question the right of any Member to present a petition. Obviously, such is not the case.
As the Hon. Member for Dauphin-Swan River (Mr. Lewycky) has said, the privilege of presenting a petition is one that I have as much as he has, as have all other Members in the House.
However, what some Members may object to and, in my opinion, what Your Honour must object to, is the abuse of that privilege. In addition to the number of Members who rose yesterday to present petitions, we now have a few who take the floor today to shed tears over the fact that, unfortunately, they were deprived of that privilege. Since I simply want to prove my point-


Ian Deans: Be honest!


Jacques Guilbault: Ah, that hurts. 1 guess it hurts, because they are trying to prevent me from speaking.
I must point out that when someone imputed motives to the Government a moment ago, when the Member opposite said that the Government was trying to do away with Routine Proceedings, they were on a witch hunt. The Hon. Member who is at fault wants to blame somebody on this side of the House, and that is quite amusing. They impute motives to the Goverment, and yet yesterday they did try to delay the business of the House.
What I am asking you, Madam Speaker-and I am convinced that you can and that it is your duty indeed to do so-is that in your interpretation of the Standing Orders you do not take into consideration the academic arguments which were made earlier about the Standing Orders without reference to the circumstances, but on the contrary that you keep in mind as well the incidents which have occurred when the situation first came up. You cannot really make a judgment without keeping the circumstances in mind and concluding that even what is going on today could be interpreted by some Members, including myself, as being an attempt to slow down the debate and keep us from reaching the Orders of the Day. Some Members want to pursue the debate and proceed with Government Orders.

May 25, 1983
Point of Order-Mr. Deans


Ian Deans: I will stop your Bill, but that is not the way 1 will be doing it.


Jacques Guilbault: 1 can see that some of my remarks must have an element of truth since a few Members opposite are trying to cut me off.
I can say that the rights and privileges of this House will always command better respect when individual Members enjoy the privilege of taking the floor without their colleagues making attempts to prevent them from debating the real basic issues, which is what we have been elected for.


Madam Speaker:: Presumably the Hon. Member is rising on the same point of order, because we cannot have a new one until this one is settled.


David Kilgour: On the same point of order, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: I will allow only a very brief commentary because I think I am now in a position to rule on this particular point.
[ Translation]


David Kilgour: Madam
Speaker, I will be quite brief. You have already made a decision and delivered your judgment almost 45 minutes ago. Today is allotted to private members to allow them to introduce private Bills. The left wing of the Liberal Party is trying to encroach on the rights of the Members to introduce their legislation. Would you kindly allow us to proceed without delay?


An Hon. Member:: You have no lesson to give to anybody. [English]


Madam Speaker:: I have listened with great care to all the arguments which have been presented on this particular point of order. I thank the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) for raising it because he saw some grounds on which it was possible to do so. It is always good for the House to have someone explore the meaning of the different Standing Orders so that we can be guided by those arguments for the present and for the future.
I listened very carefully to the arguments and I must say that to a certain degre the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain is right in saying that Standing Order 50 is not applicable. That is true in one sense because quite obviously there was no debate going on in the House at the time at which the motion to proceed to Orders of the Day was proposed. However, it is very difficult to say under which Standing Order a motion of this particular nature could have been moved because there are no other references concerning motions to proceed to Orders of the Day in the Standing Orders. One cannot conclude it cannot be used because it has been used innumerable times in the House. We know that a motion of this nature can be moved.
The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain referred to Standing Order 28 which reads:
A motion for reading the Orders of the Day shall have preference to any motion before the House.
There is reference to the circumstances surrounding the moving of a motion to proceed to Orders of the Day, but it does not completely enlighten us on the particular point which the Hon. Member raised. Nowhere in the Standing Orders is it indicated that we cannot move it at any other time but when something is under debate. Standing Order 50 says "When a question is under debate", and then refers to motions to proceed to Orders of the Day. It is not indicated anywhere in the Standing Orders that at any other time one cannot move a motion to proceed to Orders of the Day.
Also the Hon. Member pointed out that, contrary to what we have in the Standing Orders concerning a motion to adjourn, where the Standing Orders indicate that it is always in order, we do not have that either in the case of a motion to proceed to Orders of the Day. I think the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain will follow the logic of the Hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) in his presentation. It cannot be said that it is always in order, for once we have reached Orders of the Day we cannot move that we should proceed to Orders of the Day. There is a logic there which allows me to retain the idea that the motion to proceed to Orders of the Day was in order. The logic of the President of the Privy Council suggests that it has to be moved before we get to Orders of the Day, that is to say, before debate commences.
I have to conclude that Standing Order 50 refers only to the fact that use can be made of such a motion but does not explain-


Ian Deans: Under certain conditions. It says so quite clearly.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Madam Speaker:: No, I do not think that means that when a question is under debate, it has to apply to every possible motion that is enumerated in Standing Order 50. That preface is relevant to certain of the motions described in Standing Order 50, but not to all of them.
The basic point that we are discussing is whether a motion to proceed to the Orders of the Day can be moved before we reach Orders of the Day. In the particular circumstances we are discussing, if it can be moved when a Member was presenting a petition, I have to say to the Hon. Member that we have a precedent which goes along with what I have explained about a motion to proceed to Orders of the Day.
A motion to proceed to Orders of the Day was moved in the course of the Question Period at a time before which my predecessor, in an agreement with all of the leaders of this House, determined that the Question Period could not be interrupted by any kind of dilatory motion. It was decided that even questions of privilege would be considered only after the Question Period. But prior to that time a motion was moved
May 25, 1983

during Question Period to proceed to Orders of the Day. That was on November 13, 1970. That motion was moved by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and was accepted by the Chair.
Based on that precedent and on my interpretation of the particular situation, I have to say that the motion presented by the President of the Privy Council was in order.
To refer to the arguments presented by the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) and others as to the sacredness of the right of a Member to present a petition, that right is not affected by using a dilatory sense motion, or as in this particular case a motion to advance the proceedings of the House. That right is not affected because, to quote Standing Order 71(1), Members may present a petition to the House during the sitting of the House "by filing the same with the Clerk of the House". There are other ways of presenting a petition. I do not feel the right of Hon. Members to present a petition has been affected, other than what is acceptable in this House. We all know that dilatory motions are an acceptable procedure which is confined by certain rules which we look at when a certain dilatory motion is presented to the House. In this particular case I have to say to Hon. Members that the motion presented by the President of the Privy Council yesterday was in order.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I listened to your ruling with a great deal of care because our House Leader presented what I thought was a totally cogent argument about an unfortunate ruling that came yesterday. I heard you make two points, Madam Speaker.
IMadam Speaker: Order. I am very sorry, but I could not hear the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain on a point of order today because I did not make a ruling yesterday. I did certain other things at six o'clock. I adjourned the House on the basis of the logic of certain circumstances, but I cannot allow Hon. Members now to discuss this particular ruling. I just caution the Hon. Member about that.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I do not want to quibble on the point. We are faced with an extremely important matter in this Parliament. I am talking about a decision to accept a motion yesterday and the ruling which you have perhaps made or are about to make. If I understood what you said, you said that if there is not a rule in the book that prohibits something, then it will be permitted, which is, to understate it considerably, quite dubious. Second, you cited the one case to support your ruling-[DOT]


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. It is quite true that I did mention the fact that sometimes if there is nothing to prohibit something, we might consider that it is permitted. It is permitted through the practice of this House. We have had these kinds of motions before in circumstances that were quite similar. I have quoted a precedent which goes back to 1970, a time when a motion was moved by one of the Hon. Member's colleagues who is very conversant with the procedures of
Point of Order-Mr. Deans
Parliament. 1 am really sorry but I will not accept any further commentary on the ruling.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I must say I do regret the ruling. I wonder if I might ask a question.


Madam Speaker:: Order. If the Hon. Member regrets the ruling, he knows what he can do. There are procedures whereby a Member can express regret about a ruling by the Chair. There is no way that this Parliament will work if we proceed by insinuations about the validity of the Speaker's ruling. I do ask Hon. Members to be careful about this particular point. It has nothing to do with me personally, but it does have to do with the office and the function that I have in this House.



MR. DEANS-OUTCOME OF VOTE TO BE DETERMINED BY MEMBERS

['Order. I have to remind the Hon. Member that, as during proceedings for a vote and during Routine Proceedings, it is not considered proper to interrupt the Speaker in the fashion the Hon. Member is now doing.']
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I want to raise a separate point of order. Last evening at six o'clock the Speaker determined, I assume as a result of consultation although 1 must confess I was not party to it, to adjourn the House. This is the second occasion on which this has occurred, having occurred last week during a motion to adjourn. The bells were ringing and the Speaker determined at six o'clock that the motion to adjourn was in fact enforced by the Standing Order which requires the House to adjourn at six o'clock.
Last evening the motion before the House was quite different. It was not a motion to adjourn but a motion to adjourn, the outcome of which required a vote of the House of Commons to determine.
I submit it is inappropriate for the speaker to adjourn the House while the bells are ringing on a matter other than a motion to adjourn. The Speaker has considerable latitude in suspending the sitting, if it is the desire of the occupant of the Chair to do so, until such time as she is satisfied the House is ready to vote, as whoever the Speaker may be is entitled to do.
I suggest with all the respect that I can muster that the Chair does not have the authority to determine the outcome of a vote that has nothing to do with adjournment itself. The only people who can determine the outcome of a vote are the Members of the House of Commons. The Chair does not have that authority. It may well be that by some extension of logic, and I must confess this afternoon leaves me with some question as to logic in this place, the Chair may decide that by allowing the vote to take place it would simply take time and nothing much else could occur. That, however, is not for the Chair to decide. That is not the Chair's prerogative. The Chair's prerogative is only to ensure that a vote once called for takes place. The Members of the House of Commons who determine that a recorded division should occur should be given the opportunity to have that recorded division occur.
I suggest, without asking for any particular ruling at the moment, that the Chair consider the implications of such an act. The implications of such an act are that the Chair will now be put in a position of deciding the import of every motion

May 25, 1983
Point of Order-Mr. Deans
that is up for a vote. The Chair will have to determine on every occasion at six o'clock whether or not the motion is of sufficient importance, not to the Members but to the Chair, to justify waiting until the Members are prepared to vote.
1 do not believe that it is the prerogative of the Chair to make that kind of judgment. I do not believe that it is the prerogative of the Chair to evaluate the worth of a motion before the House of Commons. I considered yesterday's motion to be out of order and the bells ought not to have been ringing at six o'clock anyway, and 1 still feel that way. However, regardless of what the Chair may feel is the value of a motion, if a motion is duly moved, the only ones who can dispose of that motion, unless there is a specific Standing Order that intervenes, are the Members of the House of Commons by recorded division.
1 ask. Madam Speaker, in the interests of the House operating with any degree of fairness and common sense, that the Chair please not put herself in the position of having to make judgments about the relative values of motions that are standing before the House awaiting disposition by Members of the House of Commons.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, 1 think that this is a very simple matter. The Hon. Member wrongly stated that you, Madam Speaker, cannot stop the bells the way you did last night at six o'clock because there is no Standing Order authorizing you to do so. I respectfully submit that that is very wrong. Standing Order No. 1 is very clear. It states:
1.	In all cases not provided for hereafter or by sessional or other orders, the usages and customs of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as in force at the time shall be followed so far as they may be applicable to this House.
There is no Standing Order in our book, Madam Speaker, that states that you have the right to stop the bells at six o'clock. Just because there is no Standing Order does not mean that you have no authority to do so, because Standing Order 1 refers to practice followed in the United Kingdom. The other day you referred quite rightly to May's Nineteenth Edition at page 295 where it reads:
Dilatory motions, i.e. motions for the adjournment of the House or of the debate, or that the chairman do report progress, or do leave the chair, pending at the moment of interruption, lapse without question put.
Since our Standing Orders are silent on this subject, the passage I just read is applicable because Standing Order 1 refers to practice in the United Kingdom and the case referred to happened in the United Kingdom.
It now becomes important to know what a dilatory motion is, and that is why I say that the matter is simple. If the motion I moved yesterday is a dilatory motion in the sense understood by May, then that solves the matter.
Let me quote from Bourinot's Fourth Edition, page 322:
There is a class of motions, common to all parliamentary assemblies, intended to have the effect of superseding or delaying the consideration of a question. For
instance, motions for the adjournment of the house or debate, for reading the orders of the day, and for the previous question, are all in this direction.
Therefore, Madam Speaker, it is obvious that the motion to go to Orders of the Day is, in a sense, a dilatory motion as understood by the authors May and Bourinot. It was a dilatory motion to move to something else, something which was the main subject of discussion and is so important, something which we want to debate and which the NDP does not want to debate.
What I am saying is that the motion moved yesterday was a dilatory motion in that sense. It is covered by the precedent in the United Kingdom that you have referred to, Madam Speaker, and which is quoted in May's Nineteenth Edition at page 295. It seems obvious to me that logic is important but understanding and knowledge of the rules and practice of the House is also most important before judgment is passed on any situation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I have two points to make. I followed the argument of the Member for Hamilton Mountain on the question of vote with interest. Referring to page 25686 of Hansard, you make the statement, Madam Speaker:
That motion, of course, is in order, pursuant to Standing Order 50. All those in favour of the motion please say yea.
I submit, Madam Speaker, that at that point we have gone beyond a debate and are now into the putting of the motion which, under Standing Order 12, gives Members an opportunity to be recorded as to where they stand on whether or not they should move to Orders of the Day.
It was perhaps missed in the discussion last week, but the motion last week that the House do now adjourn was in fact won by the Opposition on the verbal division and was so declared by the Chair. We are sure that the Government felt it was very important that it have an opportunity to have a recorded division on that vote. It did not have that opportunity, but that is a question that I believe should be addressed, the question of whether or not, once the question is called for on the yeas and nays, the House does not move out of debate and into the question under Standing Order 12 of a vote. That is one point.
The other point 1 would make, Madam Speaker, is this, the Government House Leader has referred to Standing Order 1 which provides that under the rules, if the House finds that something is not covered by our Standing Orders, it can refer to the Standing Orders of the United Kingdom. Standing Order 1 and Standing Order 27 of the United Kingdom make reference to what can be debated and what cannot be debated.
I am by no means an expert, and I do not know who in this House is an expert, on what the Standing Orders of the United Kingdom say with respect to debate on this type of motion, but it would appear that under the Standing Orders of the United Kingdom the House can debate the question whether the
May 25, 1983

House shall now adjourn. In fact, under Standing Order 27 of the United Kingdom, it suggests that the debate shall be confined to the matter of such a motion.
I suggest, Madam Speaker, that that would indicate that there is a difference in how a motion that the House do now adjourn should be treated between Canada and the United Kingdom. I would draw that to the attention of the Chair.
If the Government House Leader wants to use part of the Standing Orders of the United Kingdom, I suggest that the Chair, in ruling on the matter, must refer to the Standing Orders as a whole, and I know that the Chair would not want to pick and choose between different parts of the Standing Orders of the United Kingdom in order to support the Government House Leader.


Madam Speaker:: I thank Hon. Members for their contributions. I want to say to the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) that I will look into these matters, but the other day when I acted upon those motions at six o'clock, I did not fall back on Standing Order 1 which says that when the Standing Orders do not provide for something, one can use the Standing Order of Great Britain. I think that must be done very carefully because those Standing Orders could in some ways be contradictory to our own Standing Orders and should only be used when there is no other way of interpreting a particular situation.
I relied on Standing Order 8(1) when I adjourned the House the other day and explained that after six o'clock, when the House was indeed supposed to adjourn, a motion to adjourn had lapsed and had become a nullity. A motion to adjourn made no sense any more because the House is supposed to adjourn at that time.
Now, if that logic is accepted, and I know that the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) has accepted that logic, the same logic must be accepted pertaining to a motion to proceed to the Orders of the Day. After six o'clock there is no way to proceed to the Orders of the Day, so the motion again lapses; it becomes a nullity and has no meaning. It cannot be applied and it cannot be acted upon because it is past the time at which the House can consider the Order of the Day.
The Hon. Member very briefly mentioned that he was not part of the consultations which took place before I acted upon the situation which occurred in the House yesterday. 1 want to remind the Hon. Member that on the floor of this very House I did discuss with him, and asked him if the Members of the New Democratic Party were intending to come to vote; and I did say that something will happen at six o'clock, in the way of a warning. The Hon. Member had his comments at that time and I had my own comments. However, we did discuss briefly on the floor of this very House, right in front of these steps.
There were no consultations, I want to tell the Hon. Member, with other Parties except for a phone call which I made, as I have on other occasions, to the Whip of the Conservative
Point of Order-Mr. Deans
Party, who I could not reach, to the Deputy Whip, who 1 could not reach, and then I spoke to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Nielsen), who I reached immediately, and asked the simple question; "Are the Members of your Party prepared to come and vote?" Very simply, there were no consultations. Of course, the Speaker does not consult before making a ruling except if she needs some clarification.
The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain is quite right. The Speaker may not evaluate a motion. I believe I can comply with that plea entirely. I did not evaluate a motion in another case. The Hon. Member will remember that on a certain day when Hon. Members were not coming in to vote on a motion to introduce a Bill, I did not adjourn the House but simply suspended the sitting, precisely because the House has to resolve these matters. The motion to adjourn, or a motion to proceed to Standing Orders, was not disposed by the Chair. It was disposed by our Standing Orders, and I refer to Standing Order 8(1). That is quite different. The Speaker should interpret the Standing Orders and should inject certain logic into the proceedings of the House, referring herself to the Standing Orders; and that is what I did on those two occasions. However, when there was a matter of evaluating a motion, the Chair did not do that but simply suspended the sitting.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, I rise on another point of order. The Chair, and the Chair's predecessors, have ruled frequently in the presentation of petitions that there shall be no debate. May I ask the Chair, on a point of order, if the moving of a motion during the presentation of petitions constitutes debate, either the entering into or the starting of a debate? And if it does constitute a debate, Madam Speaker, I would like to have your advice on this matter.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member is discussing the ruling which I made nearly an hour ago.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: No, I am not.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member may not do that. I believe he knows the rules.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I did not do that.


Madam Speaker:: 1 even disposed of his argument, which he is now repeating, before I ruled. In answer to the Hon. Member, I did not rule, and I did not have to rule, on whether or not debate was permissible in the course of presenting a petition. The Standing Orders are quite clear. No debate is allowed in the course of presenting a petition. Simply, the reading out of the title or the substance of that petition is allowed. I have often reminded Hon. Members that they were taking too long in presenting their petitions, and some of them were in fact debating them. I only reminded Hon. Members that they could not debate their petitions. Therefore, the Hon. Member is referring to something which is quite outside of this particular question. I did dispose of that argument and I will not allow him to come back to it.

May 25, 1983
Privilege-Mr. Anguish


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to seek some clarification. 1 do not in any way challenge the earlier ruling of the Chair, but 1 wish to seek clarification with respect to a reference to a precedent from 1970 involving the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). The Chair did, 1 believe, indicate that that particular incident occurred following consultation and agreement involving all House Leaders. Perhaps the Speaker might indicate whether that is the case, because if that is the case-


Madam Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member did not hear me correctly. I am not going to start giving clarifications about my ruling, but the Hon. Member is a bit confused. I did say that this precedent occurred in 1970. That was prior to the time at which my predecessor, Mr. Speaker Jerome, in consultation with all the Leaders of the Parties, determined that during Question Period no other proceedings could occur. It was meant to preserve the Question Period as a bloc which would not be interrupted by any other proceedings. That, in a sense, is a bit illogical because, for example, we have the right of an Hon. Member of Parliament to raise a question of privilege. A question of privilege supersedes everything; the House is not supposed to be able to function if there is a real question of privilege to be discussed. However, even a question of privilege, it was determined, would be delayed until after the Question Period. That is all I said.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, I fully accept your ruling and I am not questioning it or debating it, not in this Chamber. I would like to ask. Madam Speaker, if the moving of a motion constitutes debate in any way, shape or form under the rules. Just the action of moving a motion, does that constitute debate?


Madam Speaker:: Is the Hon. Member saying the moving of a motion or of a petition?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The moving of a motion. Does that constitute debate?


Madam Speaker:: The Speaker is not here to answer questions from Hon. Members. If they want a course on procedure, I can indicate many places where they can receive a course on procedure. 1 am not here to answer questions on procedure.



Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. If you find it in order, I would like it referred to the appropriate committee, the Committee on Privileges and Elections, because I feel there has been an infringement on Hon. Members' rights within this House. I refer to Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 275(1), and I quote:
It is a fundamental rule that, with the exception of certain matters dealt with under Routine Proceedings, no question can be considered by the House unless it has been previously appointed either by a notice or a regular Order of the House. The paper known as Order Paper and notices is the official agenda printed on the responsibility of the Clerk of the House, containing all the proposed questions set out in accordance with the Standing Orders. All the proposed proceedings of the House are recorded in abbreviated form in that paper. To add to, or suppress from it, any proposal which the House has ordered would constitute a serious infringement on the privileges of the House of Commons. If any serious errors are made they may be corrected by the House only in open sitting with the Speaker in the Chair.
End of quote.


Madam Speaker:: Order. Order, please. I have this particular reference in Beauchesne. It is quite long. I do not believe the Hon. Member needs to read it out to me. I would just like to know what his question of privilege is.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Madam Speaker, if you would allow me, I said 1 had come to the end of the quote, or that section which I-


Madam Speaker:: Order. I would like to know, so I will understand the reasons for the Hon. Member quoting this particular article, what the question of privilege is. Because the Speaker has to rule immediately after the question is posed, the Hon. Member should give the Speaker a chance to know what it is all about. If I lose two or three minutes listening to quotes, that is time in which I cannot reflect on the Hon. Member's particular problem. Therefore, if Hon. Members would like to accommodate the Chair by telling the Chair immediately what their problem is, then I can reflect upon it.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Coming directly to the point, Madam Speaker, many of my constituents in Saskatchewan had submitted to me a number of petitions which I had every right to expect I would be able to present in this House of Commons. I have reason to expect that because of the ancient and historical right of presenting petitions-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Order, please. There will be occasion to do that in the course of Routine Proceedings. Alternatively, under Article 71(1), I believe, if for some reason or other the House does not reach that particular time in the Routine Proceedings, an Hon. Member may file the petition with the Clerk. I suppose that answers the Hon. Member's question.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Madam Speaker, please allow me to finish my question of privilege.


Mr. Cousineau:: Sit down!


Douglas Keith Anguish: Madam Speaker, my question of privilege is that up until yesterday I had every reason to presume that I could present these petitions on behalf of the petitioners yesterday in this House. Some of these petitioners were told that their petition would be presented in this House yesterday.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
May 25, 1983


Douglas Keith Anguish: 1 have every right to expect to be able to tell them-


Madam Speaker:: Order. If the Hon. Member felt that it was an absolute necessity to present those petitions yesterday, he could have filed them with the Clerk of the House of Commons. I understand the Hon. Member's predicament. He would prefer to read them out to the House because it does give some publicity to the problems his constituents want to address. But there are two ways of doing it and the Hon. Member could have resorted to that other means yesterday. On other days the Hon. Member will have a chance to present those petitions. That right has not been affected.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Madam Speaker, unless I am in error there was debate entered into during that period and there was no opportunity to do that yesterday in this House after I had told my constituents these petitions would be presented in the House.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. There was no opportunity because the proceedings of the House turned out differently from what the Hon. Member expected.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: That is right.


Madam Speaker:: Well, yes, but that is a predicament we all have to face at certain times in the House. The Speaker has no opinion on these particular circumstances, but the Speaker does have an opinion on that particular point which the Hon. Member is raising. He may have presented those petitions yesterday by filing them. If he still wants to read those petitions in the House, he will have further opportunity at another time.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: A point of order, Madam Speaker. Since Rule 71 says there shall be no debate, Madam Speaker, my colleagues were unable to present petitions yesterday-


David Kilgour: The same point.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: -because there was debate entered into.


Madam Speaker:: Presenting reports from Standing and Special Committees.


Douglas Keith Anguish: You are a corrupt bunch.


Madam Speaker:: Tabling of documents.


René Cousineau: Repeat that.


Douglas Keith Anguish: You want your petitions-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Douglas Keith Anguish: There is the greatest lack of democracy we have ever seen in this place, and I repeat that in this House.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.
Committee Reports


Douglas Keith Anguish: You are a shame to the whole system and to the country of Canada. All of you, including from that half over.


Madam Speaker:: Order.


Douglas Keith Anguish: When your back is against the wall, you change the rules so you can never lose.


Madam Speaker:: Order. I have to remind the Hon. Member that, as during proceedings for a vote and during Routine Proceedings, it is not considered proper to interrupt the Speaker in the fashion the Hon. Member is now doing.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-158, an Act respecting the Canada Development Corporation, Canada Development Investment Corporation and certain other corporations.


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

Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-159, an Act respecting the Tax Court of Canada and to amend the Federal Court Act, the Judges' Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971.


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

[ Translation]

Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier) moved: that the Twelfth Report of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous

May 25, 1983
Order Paper Questions
Private Bills and Standing Orders, tabled in the House on Friday, May 13th, 1983, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4,404, 4,415, 4,774 and 4,850.


Mr. Mitges: 1.	Did the Cabinet give directives to all Departments to implement any or all parts of the Emergency Planning Order, passed as Order in Council P.C. 19811305, and, if so, to what extent has (a) the Department of (i) the Solicitor General (ii) Agriculture (iii) National Defence (iv) Employment and Immigration (v) Communications (vi) Energy, Mines and Resources (vii) Industry, Trade and Commerce (viii) Transport (b) the Prime Minister's Office implemented the provisions of the Order?
2.	Does the Government plan to introduce legislation to enact the Order and, if so, on what date?
3.	Did the Government receive any legal opinion from Department of Justice lawyers or from lawyers outside the Government that implementing the Order without first having passed appropriate enacting legislation through Parliament may be "extra legal" or illegal?
4.	Has the Government sought legal advice as to whether or not the Order conflicts with the newly proclaimed Charter of Rights and Freedoms and, if so, what was such advice?


Yvon Pinard: I am
informed by Emergency Planning Canada and by the Departments named below, respectively, as follows:
1.	Order in Council P.C. 1981-1305 directs Ministers to prepare emergency plans to respond to those peacetime or wartime emergencies that are within or directly related to their areas of responsibility. The Order is an administrative tool only which assigns responsibility for the preparation of plans. It does not authorize the implementation of action pursuant to those plans.
(a) (i) The Ministry of the Solicitor General has reviewed all its existing contingency plans, formed an intraministry steering committee and a working group, whose tasks are, in consultation with other concerned departments and agencies, to modify, update or develop where necessary contingency plans for all possible types of emergencies within or directly related to the Ministry's area of responsibility.
(ii)	In the Department of Agriculture, the limited currently available staff participates in international and national planning related to the new responsibilities.
(iii)	In the Department of National Defence, a draft has been completed for review by senior management of updated resource allocation guidelines to permit expeditious and proper allocation of funds during periods of emergency or increasing international tension.
The Department has assisted a number of other federal Government departments in preparing their respective planning documents which could, in an emergency, lead to the establishment of National Emergency Agencies.
In addition, DND continues to: participate in exercises testing, inter alia, the adequacy of its defence plans in the event of an emergency; maintain emergency Government accommodation and facilities for which it is responsible; support the civilian Radiological Defence (RADEF) System; and operate and maintain the Canadian Forces Warning and Reporting System, including support for that portion of the CFWRS (i.e., sirens) which warns the public in the event of an attack until such time as the Department of Communications develops an alternative public warning system.
(iv)	In the Department of Employment and Immigration Canada (EIC), updated Emergency Planning guidelines have been prepared and were distributed throughout EIC during November, 1982. They provide advice and guidance on planning for emergencies at the local, community level.
(v)	The Department of Communications has a number of emergency response programs in existence related to their area of responsibility. They were largely developed as a reaction to P.C. 1965-1041 but fit the requirements of P.C. 1981-1305. They range in completion levels from 10 per cent to 80 per cent.
Documentation expanding on Part I of the Emergency Planning Order specifying the role, functions and structure of the National Emergency Agency for Telecommunications has been completed to final draft form. The release of this document in the near future will initiate expanded department emergency planning and co-ordinating activities.
Some policies, procedures and regulations applicable under the National Emergency Agency for Telecommunications are completed in draft form and others are under development.
The Department has completed studies and made recommendations for a National Warning System which has been approved by the Interdepartmental Committee on Emergency Planning.
The preparation of plans for telecommunications censorship await development of over-all censorship policies.
(vi)	The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources has prepared and approved a three-year program to develop plans for the establishment and operation of a National Emergency Agency for Energy. This agency would be activated only in the event of a declared emergency. In addition, this planning includes making necessary arrangements so that the NEAE will be able to operate effectively within 30-days notice. The program is progressing on schedule.
(vii)	In the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce/Regional Economic Expansion, one Emergency Planning officer has been hired to meet the Minister's national and international planning responsibilities to the extent possible.
May 25, 1983

(viii)	In the Ministry of Transport, the Order in Council is considered to be a re-emphasis of Government interest in emergency preparedness. Emergency planning activity is therefore continuing much as it has in previous years.
(b) The Prime Minister's Office is not responsible for undertaking any of the planning indicated in the Order.
2.	No; see 1. above and 3. below.
3.	Legislative authority is not required in order to assign the planning responsibilities set out in the Order. Any authority to implement planned emergency response measures during an actual emergency, where not already provided for by law, would be sought from Parliament.
4.	See Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Fourth Edition, Citation 171 (gg).


Mr. Gilchrist: 1.	What is the state of development of the internment camps approved for construction by the May, 1981 Order in Council?
2.	Have any camps been created and (a) if so, how many (b) if not, how many sites have been chosen and at what locations?
3.	How many and which prisons have been selected and assigned for replacement of criminals by political detainees?
4.	Will the military or police forces be the designated guards?
5.	Have manuals of procedure and instruction been draughted and published for the procedures of detention of prisoners?
6.	What provision under the law has been made to define the rights of citizens who have been chosen for detention and to what courts or judicial bodies will a detainee be permitted to appeal for release?
7.	Has a manual (a) of censorship control and procedure (b) of fuel rationing (c) of farm production (d) of food rationing (e) outlining the registration, movement and allocation of civilian manpower (d) for the management and control of national information services (propaganda and censorship) been developed?
8.	Are any of the above-mentioned manuals available for inspection and, if not, when will such outlines of procedures be ready and available?


Yvon Pinard: I am
informed by Emergency Planning Canada and by the Department of the Solicitor General as follows:
1.	Emergency Planning Order P.C. 1981-1305 dated May 21, 1981, assigns only planning responsibilities to federal Ministers in areas of either peacetime or wartime emergencies. The Order does not approve the construction of any internment camps and this part of the question is, therefore, not applicable.
2.	Not applicable: See 1. above.
3.	None: See 1. above.
4.	Not applicable: See 1. above.
5.	No.
6.	As the Order clearly indicates, planning responsibilities for civilian internment camps relate only to their use in the case of war. In the event that Canada does become involved in a war and civilian internment camps are established in accordance with the provisions of the War Measures Act, anyone
Order Paper Questions
detained in such facilities would have the legal right to have the validity of the detention determined under Section 10 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
7.	The schedule to the Emergency Planning Order assigns to 19 federal Ministers responsibilities to plan certain emergency response functions for use in periods of national emergency. With regard to the development of manuals on the response functions identified in the question, I am informed that the situation is as follows:
(a) Censorship control and procedure: No manuals have been developed, (b) Fuel rationing: The regulations provided for fuel rationing were published in November, 1980. (c) Farm production: No manuals have been developed, (d) Food rationing: No manuals have been developed, (e) Outlining the registration, movement and allocation of civil manpower: No manuals have been developed, (f) Management and control of the national information services: No manuals have been developed.
8.	(a) Censorship controls: See 7 (a) above. No forecast can now be made as to the completion date of such a manual, (b) Fuel rationing: See Canada Gazette, Part I, November 8, 1980. (c) Farm production: See (d) below, (d) Food rationing: See 7 (d) above. No date can be forecast by which outlines of procedures will be ready and available, (e) Civilian manpower: See 7 (c) above. No forecast can be made concerning the time of availability of such a publication, (f) National information services: See 7 (f) above. No forecast can be made as to the completion date of such a manual.


Mr. Howie: In the fiscal year (a) 1980-81 (b) 1981-82 (c) 1982-83, was consideration given by the Department of Veterans Affairs to acquiring more beds to supplement the beds available at the Victoria Health Centre in Fredericton, New Brunswick?


Hon. W. Bennett Campbell (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: (a) 1980-1981, yes, (b) 1981-1982, yes, (c) 1982-1983, yes. Waiting lists for admission are monitored on an ongoing basis and, as veterans' needs are now frequently age-related, efforts are being concentrated on providing beds closer to centres of veteran population where none have existed previously.


Mr. Howie: For the fiscal year (a) 1980-81 (b) 1981-82 (c) 1982-83, what amount was paid to New Brunswick to assist in the teaching of a second language?


Hon. Serge Joyal (Secretary of State):: Under the federal-provincial agreements pertaining to the official languages in education, contributions to the Province of New Brunswick in fiscal years 1980-1981, 1981-1982 and 1982-1983 for the teaching of French as a second language were:

May 25, 1983
Private Bills
Fiscal year	Amount
1980-	1981	$1,317,6051981-	1982	$1,261,0661982-	1983	$1,541,979
Note: Figures reported include payments totalling $225,750 in 1980-1981, $227,552 in 1981-1982, and $228,000 in 19821983 respectively which apply to both minority official language education and second official language instruction. No further breakdown is available.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Madam Speaker:: Shall all Notices of Motions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park) moved: that Bill S-35, an Act to incorporate the Eparch of the Eparchy of Saints Cyril and Methodius of Slovaks of the Byzantine Rite in Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders.
He said: Mr. Speaker, with the agreement of the Official Opposition, the New Democratic Party and the independent Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko), and since this Bill has been considered in the Senate and in the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Hamilton West (Mr. Hudecki), the Hon. Member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski) and the Hon. Member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle):
That the House adopt all stages of Bil S-35 this afternoon without debate.
With the co-operation of the three Parties, I believe there is unanimous consent for adopting all stages of this Bill at this time.


Hon. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton North):: Mr. Speaker, we do not intend to debate this Bill. It has been long coming to the House and we hope it will get quick passage.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Shall all orders listed under Private Members' Public Bills preceding order No. 396 be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member for Terrebonne (Mr. Comtois) had arranged to be here for a little over the first hour but due to the procedural debate which occurred he had to leave to attend the founding meeting of the new Committee on Senate Reform. He asked me to request that his Bill be stood and his position on the Order Paper protected.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The House has heard the proposal of the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary. Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Shall all items preceding No. 482 under Private Members' Public Bills be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



CRIMINAL CODE


David Kilgour: that Bill C-682, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (victims of crime),
May 25, 1983

be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on this Bill which, 1 am told by the National Association for the Victims of Crime, is the first measure ever introduced into the House to do something for the deplorable condition of the victims of crime across Canada. It is a measure whose time has long since come for many reasons.
First, most of the provisions in the Criminal Code come from the pre-1960 era when crime was a much smaller problem in Canada than it is today. Victims were mere witnesses in the whole procedure. They had no institutional status whatsoever nor even any effective institutional position in our criminal justice system. They are now the forgotten people as any judge, crown attorney, defence attorney, probation officer, or anyone who has ever been in a criminal court would surely agree.
Second, there are unfortunately a great many victims of crime in the country today. Statistics Canada indicates that in 1980, the most recent year for which statistics on reported crimes are available, more than 160,000 Canadians were victims of Criminal Code offences. There were 632 homicides; 836 attempted murders; 124,000 non-sexual assaults; 25,000 robberies; and 12,787 sexual assaults. At this yearly rate we obviously have more than 1.6 million Canadian victims of crime every decade. Unfortunately, the rate is increasing. A lot of crimes are never reported, and 1 am thinking particularly of sexual assaults. I believe part of the reason for that is that the victims know they will get very harsh treatment in our criminal justice system as it is at present. In January, 1982 the Gallup pool reported that one in four adult Canadians were victims of a Criminal Code offence during the previous 12 months. If that is correct, there were obviously more than 160,000 victims in 1980 or in the current year.
Third, the raw statistics are often not very helpful. Let me give a couple of examples in more real terms. A rape victim is normally obliged to sit in the witness room with friends of the accused attacker. 1 am told that six in ten fathers of murdered children turn to alcohol; whether or not they become alcoholics, they certainly turn to drink. About six in ten families in which one of the parties has been sexually assaulted break up.
A mother in a northern Alberta town, listening to the untruths spoken by an accused man in court charged with murdering and raping her daughter said, "There was no one even to give me a kleenex. Everything is for the criminal. They are allowed to get on the stand and lie-absolutely lie all they want. You are listening while they are trying to make your daughter out to be a slut and you can't say a thing. I was sick and disgusted. I have no faith in the justice system any more because of what happened at that trial. The justice system doesn't give a damn about the victim."
Don Sullivan, President of the National Association for the Victims of Violence, had a similar experience in the trial of the man who was charged with raping and murdering his daughter. He said, "When the trial is over and the jury hands down the decision, you suddenly realize you sat through 14 months of court and you have heard the murderer talk, the lawyers
Criminal Code
talk, everybody talk, and you haven't had a chance to say one word."
As someone who has acted in the criminal courts for more than a decade as defence counsel and Crown attorney, 1 believe the problems of the victims can be reduced to three major ones.
First, they should be given a say in sentencing. This is not illegal at the moment but in practice it is almost unheard of in most criminal courts in Canada. It seems to me the victim or survivor of a deceased victim should at least have a chance to say something in the sentencing process.
Next, I think we should give them a better break in terms of protection from intimidation by accused persons. They should at least have a separate room to sit in while waiting to give testimony.
Third, I believe that we should give victims of crime a chance to apply for mental and physical damages resulting from a crime.
Basically, the Bill establishes a procedure through which a judge could award personal or mental damages to a victim of a crime when someone is found guilty of a crime. The judge could perhaps adjourn the matter of damages but he could hear the evidence, perhaps from a doctor, and award those damages. Some may say that this will delay the courts. The answer is quite clear that the courts should sit longer than six hours a day, which most do at present. If the matter must be adjourned to another day or perhpas even for a hearing by a master in chambers, this could be done as well.
The point is that this system of awarding damages works. I am told that it works very well in Switzerland. For example, it saves the victim of an assault the necessity of hiring a lawyer and waiting for two years while a civil action goes through the courts.
I do not think that there is any question that the last thing on earth that an assailant worries about is being sued by his victim. If this Bill is passed, it would allow the damages question to be settled in the criminal court at the same time as the evidence for a criminal case is heard. I suggest that it would significantly cut down on the time because the same evidence would not have to be heard twice.
I hasten to point out that this Bill is based in large measure on a Bill that was passed in the United States Congress approximately two years ago. That Bill is called The Victim-Witness Protection Act. My Bill simply refers all of these questions to the Attorney General of Canada and the Solicitor General and their provincial counterparts so they can study these problems and come up with a comprehensive plan to help victims within 270 days.
I believe that by working together these law enforcement officials from the federal Government and the Provinces would come up with a very good and comprehensive plan to improve the position of victims.
25714

May 25, 1983
Criminal Code
The Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) has been kind enough to write me a letter which I received a short while ago today. Allow me to anticipate what may be said on the other side, although I do not see anyone there who intends to speak. One of the provisions to which the Minister objects in my Bill is the one which would give our criminal courts an opportunity to make awards for pain and suffering. It is'his belief that this is beyond the Criminal Code power within the Constitution. I would argue that this could be done as an ancillary matter to the criminal law power which this Parliament has.
The second point he makes is that there is already a task force of federal and provincial officials currently looking at these questions. It is to report in June. I am concerned that if this task force follows the practice of other such bodies, it may well not report in June. I would like to see a legislated time period stating that this group must report within nine months. While I hope the Minister is right that the task force will report within a few weeks, I fear that it may not.
I look forward to hearing what other Members have to say about the matter and 1 hope that the Members present today will see fit to refer this much needed Bill, in my opinion, to the Justice Committee so that it may be examined in detail.


Mr. Denis Ethier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to emphasize the fact that the issue raised by the Bill presented by the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) is a very complex one. I am very interested in the subject of recognizing victims' rights not only formally but also factually, and it is one of my major concerns. Unfortunately, it is also a matter that does not lend itself to quick and easy solutions. In fact, it has given rise to considerable debate and various institutional reforms in many parts of the western world in the last twenty years.
There are a number of factors that explain this newly awakened concern for victims of criminal acts. The suffering of victims appeals directly to our humanitarian feelings, and people are often very surprised when they realize that our judicial system has traditionally acknowledged only very indirect responsibility for providing assistance to victims.
Many people claim that the State has a moral obligation to the victim because our judicial institutions have failed to protect these individuals against crime.
Finally, from the strictly utilitarian point of view, it must be recognized that our judicial system itself, if it is to function properly, depends on the close co-operation of the victim and potential victims. Even if that is not always our main reason for being concerned about what happens to victims of criminal acts, we cannot ignore the findings of various studies on the subject. These studies clearly indicate that victims of criminal acts are becoming more and more reluctant to report such acts to the police and co-operate with police authorities so that the criminal can be apprehended, convicted and punished.
This refusal to co-operate on the part of victims is often related to a previous experience or previous contacts with the judicial system. Very often, such experience only adds to the suffering already caused by being a victim of a criminal act. Confronted with a system that was basically designed to preclude any participation by the victim, the latter cannot but feel profoundly alienated. Furthermore, the victim receives little or no information regarding his rights and duties before the law. Decisions in the case concerning the victim are usually made without consulting him and are very seldom communicated to the victim.
In cases where the judicial system has operated effectively, and the offender has been apprehended and convicted, the sentence seldom takes into account the concerns of the victim and his perfectly legitimate desire to receive some kind of compensation for the harm inflicted on him.
Should we be surprised that an increasingly large group of victims are refusing to report such occurrences to the police?
Fortunately, this loss of confidence in the judicial system is not yet widespread, and there is still time to do something about it. However, it is a very serious and urgent problem, because in the final instance, it may affect the ability of our institutions to maintain order and peace in our society. This loss of confidence may take several forms. When citizens no longer trust the judicial system, they are very tempted to take the law into their own hands. It is not a coincidence that today, we are seeing an increasing number of vigilante groups and private security services.
When a society fails to protect efficiently its members against criminal activities, not only does chaos result but also suffering. It is obvious of course that we cannot remain indifferent to either of those social consequences of crime.
In the past two years the Department of Justice has stepped up its research activities in the field of assistance to victims of criminal acts. However obvious it may be that the best way to assist the victims of criminalaction is still crime prevention-in other words, doing everything possible to prevent victimization-it is still necessary to meet the needs expressed by individuals whose victimization could not be anticipated.
To gain better insight into the needs personally expressed by the victim, we have been listening to the victims and their concerns. Interviews with the victims have enabled us to single out three major types of needs expressed by the victims themselves.
First, the need to be better informed. Too often the victims of criminal acts feel alienated from the criminal justice process. They do not know what their legal rights and obligations are. Oftentimes they are not aware of the legal recourse open to them. Quite often they complain that they are given
May 25, 1983

little or sketchy information about the decisions which are taken and which concern them.
Second, the need for assistance and support. The victims often ask for concrete assistance and support which existing services are not always in a position to give them. When such services already exist, the necessary mechanisms to make them available and readily accessible are not always adequate. The victims, particularly when they are still under the shock of criminal action, cannot always obtain the services they seek.
Third, ever more victims are asking for the right to participate in the criminal process and to be consulted when decisions which affect them are taken by those who are in charge of the system. They do not understand why they should be excluded from the legal process, and why their claims should not be taken into account.
Many consultations were proposed to meet the needs of victims of crimes. Several people have suggested that new resources should be allocated for the establishment of adequate services for such victim? Others suggest that the people involved in the administration of justice deliberately should accept to review their own practices and attitudes towards the victims. Others want a formal recognition of the rights of victims. Many of those proposals are interesting, but how are the trade-offs to be made? How are we to ensure that the efforts and resources invested in that area will bear fruit and give victims the maximum support? In such a complex matter, we would be remiss if we were to be led haphazardly by proposals and pressures that go against the penal system. Provincial programs for the compensation of victims of crime have been in place for a number of years and the Canadian government has been financially involved.
Besides, and on the initiative especially of women's groups, specialized services have been developed to assist victims of violence in the home and of sexual aggression. Also, with our growing awareness of the extent and significance of the problem of battered children, assistance programs have been developed in that area. More recently, a number of pilot projects have been launched to meet the needs of other groups of victims, on top of the more general types of services that social assistance networks already were in a position to offer, both to the victims and to the citizens at large. However, a review of the services currently available to victims of crime clearly points to the lack of consultation between those services themselves on the one hand and with the criminal justice system on the other. Many of those services have been developed haphazardly, without consultation and especially without an overall and concrete management policy in that area. The lack of such an overall policy has important implications, both for the victims and the criminal justice system. Too many efforts and resources have been squandered in vain by well-intentioned people, for lack of effective co-ordination between the various initiatives. The services whose value and necessity have been acknowledged are in such a bad financial situation that they have been brought to a standstill. The development of a comprehensive policy in that field is therefore a priority. It
Criminal Code
is a fact which has been recognized by all Canadians ministers in charge of Justice. They have reconvened a federal-provincial task force to consider the whole question. Now that task force should table its report early this summer. It is apparently quite important to try and take advantage of the information gathered and of the recommendations proceeding therefrom. We therefore suggest that we should wait for that report before proceeding with the consideration of this Bill.


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support Bill C-682.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lynn McDonald: I think it is very important to have this question discussed. There are certain points that could be approved but the general thrust of the legislation is good. Victims are indeed the ignored people in our criminal justice system. This has been pointed out year after year by citizens and by all kinds of groups. The frustration of victims has been pointed out in dealing with the criminal justice system. We have survey information which shows that victims are not well treated. They are confused and they feel that their needs, with good reason, are not being met. It is, therefore, important to address this question.
There are a few points about which I want to raise some questions. First, let me talk about the question of compensation. Clearly there will be difficulties if the offender is in prison. In no way can the prisoner, from the pittance that he is able to earn while incarcerated, pay any compensation ordered. There will also be problems for an offender who is not able to pay, in the loss of a house, for example. If a judgment is entered against an offender, it could be that the wife and children will suffer. Clearly justice will not be advanced in such a case if the wife and children are innocent and have had nothing to do with the offender's action, as is most likely. Indeed, they themselves may be victims of other crimes. It will be entirely inappropriate to make innocent people suffer. This then is a matter that we must ensure is dealt with with a great deal of care.
The question about interfering in the sentencing process generally is a very complex one. 1 would like to remind the House that very frequently good intentions lead to unexpected results and to results at variance with what was intended. I raise the specific example of diversion projects. We have had all kinds of diversion projects in many Provinces that are intended to see that our overcrowded jails do not become more overcrowded but divert people out of the criminal justice system, especially out of our institutions, and into other forms of community treatment through community service orders. In other words, we seek alternative sentences that would attempt in a very fundamental way to redress the wrong that is done in a way that is satisfactory to victims. These are important considerations, very valid ones and ones certainly similar to the general thrust of the Bill before us. However, what happens

May 25, 1983
Criminal Code
very often with these attempts at diversion is that a new layer of persons becomes integrated into the criminal justice system. We have the same number of people going to jail and, indeed, in some places a greater number of people going to jail. Yet we have this new layer of offenders who are added to the system and who are dealt with in the community. The diversion does not keep people out of the criminal justice system but simply adds a new layer of less important offenders who get a level of treatment not as bad as incarceration but nevertheless have their lives interfered with in a serious way.
It is important that these considerations be addressed to ensure that we do not add a new layer of offenders. We should have better methods of dealing with offenders and of reintegrating people. We should ensure that the needs of victims are respected and are met as far as possible.
Now 1 would like to turn to the issue of jurisdiction. Of course, the Criminal Code is a federal matter, and civil matters come under the jurisdiction of the Provinces. Victims have to seek restitution civilly; they are required to go to the civil courts on such matters. This is clearly inconvenient for them. I am sure one of the purposes of the Bill is to ensure that they do not have to go to two courts but only to one court to have both matters dealt with at the same time. This would be a great convenience, but there are problems because civil matters come under provincial jurisdiction. It is important that we do not have the strong arm of the federal Government moving into a provincial area. This is something which must be carefully considered, with the participation of provincial attorneys general. Some kind of arrangement should be made that would be acceptable to all of them. Certainly the matter should be explored, but it should not be proceeded with in a heavy-handed way by simply taking over another area of jurisdiction.
Subclauses 3(d) and (e) provide for consultation with victims at various stages. Certainly I support the principle that victims ought to be consulted and heard in the process of the matter going to court and in the process of sentencing. I do not want to indicate precisely how they could be heard. Perhaps they could be seen by probation officers or have input at the time of pre-sentence reports, for example. However, the provisions in the current Bill are cumbersome. I think they would be extremely expensive and there would be an enormous amount of administrative work involved in sending out forms to numerous people at the various stages of the procedure. I think the provisions are excessive, although I support the principle of consultation. We want to work out precisely how this should be done. It should be simplified and we should not add an enormous bureaucracy to deal with the victims of crime. Bureaucracies create their own problems. I want to simplify matters rather than to introduce an expensive and cumbersome new procedure.
I speak in favour of the Bill. I think it should be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. Its general thrust is good, but there are matters to be worked out.
The Committee needs to be directing its attention to this very important question. It should hear from witnesses who could provide some expert advice on how to refine it.
The second choice, which one could expect the Government to argue, is that this matter should be considered in conjunction with the general sentencing project which, we could say optimistically, will be coming up next Fall, at the earliest. I would rather see us proceed with this in the near future than postpone it. The merits of the Bill are sufficient that we should not leave it to the general sentencing review. We should begin to address the entire complex area of giving due regard to victims of crime without further delay.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, this Bill concerns a matter which is very close to my heart. I have worked on it for approximately three years. Its subject matter came to my attention through a constituent of mine, Mr. Don Sullivan, whose daughter was murdered, to whom the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) referred. He faced a real tragedy when his daughter was murdered by a man on mandatory supervision. After his frustration with the legal forces in the region, he got in touch with me. The message 1 gave him, which he carried forward, was: "Don, keep your cool; don't be antagonistic because you really have an important message". He has done that extremely well. He has handled himself beautifully across the country.
I have asked questions in the House of the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) and of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Bussieres). I really wanted the Minister of National Revenue to give a charitable donation number to the victims of violence organization. Personally I do not believe in grants-and I discovered that grants were coming from the Minister of Justice-but I believe in helping people to help themselves. The request was turned down on the basis that the organization must change its position in order to obtain a proper number. The organization is prepared to co-operate as long as the Minister discusses the matter with me.
The Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona and the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) have been of great support in this cause. Through the contact of Don Sullivan with other people across the country, chapters have been set up in Vancouver, Edmonton and other parts of Canada. Victims of Violence has taken a very positive position. It has been set up to provide a listening board for families who are in a state of shock, some for at least two years.
Another gentleman in my riding was brutally killed. His wife called me a number of times. I told her that she should talk to Don Sullivan who could relate what he has been through and help her. This woman was really distraught. It was a terrible experience for her and her family. Finally she was in touch with Victims of Violence and discovered that she had a forum in which to express her concerns and her feelings, which were similar to those of other victims of crime. These feelings start out as anger against society. These people feel an inner frustration because they cannot do anything. They cannot spill out their feelings or get anyone to listen.
May 25, 1983

To establish a government agency for this purpose will not solve the problem because a social worker, psychiatrist, sociologist, or whoever, has never lived the experience of having a loved one killed. The Bill adapts itself to the problem. Even though we have the Constitution, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the law, there is little to look after the poor guy who is really hurt. The criminal is fully protected and receives his just dues under the law, but the Bill addresses those people who suffer because of the crime.
The Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona, the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta and 1 have received various letters which refer to the advantages of listening to Don Sullivan on the radio and talking to the people in his group. One letter referred to the fact that it would be beneficial for the average citizen to listen to the comments of Mr. Sullivan. The last sentence of one letter read, "Keep up the great work, Scott; we are all behind you 100 per cent". This makes it worth-while.
As 1 indicated earlier, I really wanted to speak on this Bill because I feel for these people. I have two daughters, three sons and a wife. I am lucky that nothing has happened to them. 1 know how I would feel, and 1 can relate to how these other people must feel.
Just after the court proceedings, Don Sullivan wrote a letter to me in which he said this;
I went to these proceedings with the thought of vengeance for my daughter and my family and was looking for the courts to give it to me. But, as the trial unfolded my thoughts started to change to wanting justice to be done, which is a big difference. Then, to my grief and dismay, I started to hear that my daughter died needlessly, in fact, she died because of our system.
This is really what it is all about. It is difficult to understand until one is exposed to the suffering of these victims.
Since I have been a Member of the House of Commons there have been four such cases in my riding. 1 am in a very peaceful, safe community where these kinds of things do not happen. 1 am not in the centre of the City of Toronto. 1 am on the outskirts of a city, in a farming community, a dormitory community. It is the trauma that these people go through. I have seen all of them.
The first one was a great shock to me. During the second election, a man ran up to me on the street and asked me directly "Mr. Fennell, are you for or against capital punishment?" We discussed it. The next thing I knew, I was at his funeral. 1 saw his wife and children there. It was hard to realize that they were left alone with nobody to talk to other than family. They had nobody who had the same experience.
It is for this reason that I think this Bill should go to committee. The Bill is not perfect, as I do not think any Bill brought forward by this Government is perfect. However, it should be allowed to go to committee. 1 plead with the other side to permit this to happen. This is a very important start. We are not in any rush for this Bill to be brought forward, but we want something done for those who suffer so dramatically by the loss of a loved one.
Criminal Code
There is another point I would like to deal with. The Minister of Justice has written to us and stated his tremendous personal interest. His problem is that he wants to set up a task force. Unfortunately, the victims of violence will be excluded from all the hearings on the Bill in the Senate at the present time. How do we know that those people will be heard? Will it only be the bureaucrats, the police and the lawyers who can contribute to this?
Unfortunately, I do not have faith. I want to know that these people can be heard. The only way I can be sure is if this matter is allowed to go to committee to be thoroughly reviewed and discussed. When witnesses are brought in, Members of Parliament will get the feeling of what these people go through.
1 appreciate the support we have from our friends in the NDP, in particular the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). There have been only a few people who supported the Bill. 1 appreciate the support, as does Don Sullivan. I am sure that every Member wants to stand up and express the feeling that we have expressed in the House.
I plead with the Opposition-I mean the Government. 1 feel it is the Opposition in this case. I appeal to the opposition, who happens to be the Government today, not to talk this Bill out, but, instead, move it to committee because this is a worthwhile subject. It takes care of many people who are hurting. Since 1978, the number of these people has multiplied 300 per cent.
I appreciate the opportunity to talk on this Bill. I feel it is very important for the citizens of this country. It is important to every family in this country because it could happen to anybody. Once again I plead with the Government for this Bill to go to committee.


Mr. Garnet M. Bloomfield (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the Bill introduced by the Hon. Member for Edmonton Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour), Bill C-682, proposes to amend the Criminal Code to provide assistance to victims of crime. I note with interest that several of the provisions are almost identical to those in the United States Victim-Witness Protection Act, 1982.
I know that the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) shares the Hon. Member's interest in providing assistance to victims of crime. In fact, the Minister indicated his concern to the Hon. Member for Edmonton Strathcona on April 26 when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Many suggest that the victim has been a forgotten person in the criminal justice process. The system places many demands on the victim, especially when appearing as a witness in a trial. However, it seems that at the same time the emotional, physical and financial needs of the victim-witness are not adequately dealt with by the system. He may suffer loss of wages, transportation difficulties, lack of information about the investigation or the prosecution, or about the services which are available to him. Is it any wonder then that the

May 25, 1983
Criminal Code
victim perceives that the criminal justice system is overly concerned with punishing the offender and insufficiently concerned with the needs of the innocent victim?
I am sure that every Member in this House would agree that we must overcome this neglect of the victim. In fact, in July, 1981 the Ministry of the Solicitor General and the Department of Justice undertook a comprehensive review to assess the victims' needs and the gaps in delivery of services to victims, to promote improved services for victims of crime and to develop ways of disseminating informatiom to victims. In addition, to complement this work, in December of that year a federal-provincial task force was created to promote cross-jurisdiction co-ordination in the area of assistance to victims in light of the primary provincial responsibility in administration of justice to provide services to victims. I understand that the task force will submit its report to the Ministers responsible for Justice in a few weeks' time.
1 understand that many of the provisions in Bill C-682 are in fact being considered by that task force. It is examining the needs of victims and their experiences in the criminal justice system. It is exploring appropriate legislative opinions to give greater recognition to victims of crime. The task force is also exploring funding implications, both to the federal and provincial Governments, of better and more effective services to victims.
What is perhaps most important from the federal Government's point of view is that the task force is examining the division of responsibility between the federal and provincial Governments and will take this division of responsibility into account when it drafts its recommendations.
This task force seems to meet the need in Clause 2 of the Hon. Member's Bill that the Ministers responsible for Justice "consult with the provincial counterpart". In fact, given their wide mandate and the protracted period of time that the task force has been studying this whole area, it would be less than wise to put forward any kind of Bill which does not take their recommendations into account.
Let me assure the Hon. Member and this House that it is my understanding that the Minister of Justice intends to do just that. The recommendations of the task force will be studied in detail by the Minister, and the options for implementing appropriate recommendations will be assessed in the light of the extensive research that has been done by the Department of Justice for more than 18 months.
Even though the Hon. Member's Bill is to be applauded, it does not in fact address many of the issues that the Department of Justice and the task force are considering. The Minister of Justice, in collaboration with his colleague the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) and their provincial counterparts, intends to address the subject of assistance to victims in a comprehensive manner when they meet in early July to consider the task force report.
Let me now examine the content of Bill C-682. The first Clause deals with compensation to victims of crime. It proposes to add Section 655.1 to the Criminal Code which will allow a court that has convicted a person of an offence, before imposing sentence, to order the accused to pay compensation
to anyone who has suffered physical or mental injury as a result of the offence. The current provision, Section 653, allows a court which has convicted a person of an indictable offence at the time of sentencing to order compensation for damage to or loss of property.
The proposed amendment will broaden the scope of the Section to include summary conviction offences, and would allow an order to be made before, and not as part of, the sentence handed down. Furthermore, it seeks to extend awards of compensation for physical or mental injury or, in other words, for pain and suffering. This would most likely be held by the courts to be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court of Canada held that Section 653 of the Code was intra vires of the federal Parliament because it was part of the sentencing process, a process which comes under the criminal law power as set out in the Constitution. The Court indicated furthermore that the provision for compensation was valid only for readily ascertainable loss or damage to property. This is partly because the criminal courts have no experience in determining the quantum of damages, and partly because the introduction of medical evidence at a criminal trial would confuse the civil rules of evidence with the criminal rules.
The second part of Clause 1 allows for the filing and execution of an order for compensation as a civil judgment. This is the same procedure that is already allowed under Section 653 of the Code. In fact, the enforcement of civil orders for damages, and particularly criminal orders filed as civil judgments, are frustrating for the victim and of no particular use at all when the offender has no money or is serving a term in jail.
I have already mentioned Clause 2 of the Bill which calls upon the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General to consult with their provincial counterparts to develop and implement guidelines for victim assistance. In fact, as I have stated, this is well under way.
Clause 3 lists the objectives to be considered in developing the guidelines. Both Clauses appear to be based on the American legislation which called upon the U.S. Attorney General to develop guidelines for the fair treatment of victims of crime.
As 1 have indicated, the federal-provincial task force has accomplished much of what Clauses 2 and 3 propose. Many of the matters specified in the Hon. Member's Bill are clearly not appropriate for inclusion in the Criminal Code. Rather, these matters should be the subject of uniform guidelines or policy directives which the provincial Attorneys General may give to police officers and court officials, including Crown counsel, in their respective Provinces.
The proposals set out in Clause 3 reinforce even further the need for federal-provincial co-operation in this area. Let me explain. Paragraph (a) deals with services to victims of crime which should be provided by law enforcement officers. It stipulates that law enforcement personnel are to ensure that victims routinely receive emergency social and medical services
May 25, 1983

and information on specified topics. This guideline would apply to the police who could only comply if the necessary services existed within the particular community. Such a guideline would have to be considered by the provincial Attorneys General.
Paragraph (b) calls for notifying a victim or witness of measures that the police can take to protect them from intimidation by the offender. Although this is a problem in the United States, we have little evidence of its magnitude in Canada. A victim only needs to be told to report any threat or act of intimidation to the police. This guideline would also require the consideration of the provincial Attorneys General.
The next two paragraphs call for notifying the victim and witnesses of changes in the dates of their appearances in court and of the dates of various stages of the criminal process from arrest to the date of sentence. These matters are part of the administration of justice and are the domain of the Provinces. Thus, the provincial Attorneys General will have to consider them.
Paragraph (e) concerns consultations between the victim and the federal Crown prosecutor. I assume that the Hon. Member intended to say prosecutor since Criminal Code offences are prosecuted by provincial Attorneys General. This guideline requires the prosecutor to obtain the views of the victim or his family on the disposition of the case, dismissal of charges, bail if granted, plea bargaining, etc. We understand that in serious cases, Crown attorneys do consult with the victim on certain of these matters. Of course this should be encouraged.
1 would think, Mr. Speaker, that a more effective way of finding out how the victim feels is to include a victim impact statement as part of the pre-sentence report presented to the sentencing judge. This statement would be one of the many factors considered by the judge in imposing sentence on the convicted offender. It would give the victim a chance to tell the judge the extent of the injury, damage or loss which he has suffered by the actions of the accused. The victim could also express his own views on what he thinks the appropriate sentence should be. This would increase the feeling on the part of the victim of having an active role in the process, a role that, until now, seems to have virtually been ignored.
Other proposals for separate waiting areas for victims and Crown witnesses, for the training of police in victim assistance and for the provision of certain services, are again the responsibility of the provincial Attorneys General as part of the administration of justice in the Provinces.
Finally, notifying employers and creditors of the problem that the victim or witness may face has not been seen in Canada to be a concern of victims. Guidelines which propose the prompt return of property are being examined by the Minister of Justice as part of the package he intends to present to the House after he reviews the recommendations of the task force.
The final Clause of the Hon. Member's Bill disallows a cause of action against the Crown as a result of a breach of the provisions of the Bill. This is another clause that is borrowed
Criminal Code
from American law, but it is not applicable in Canada since the proposed guidelines do not fall within the scope of the federal criminal law power.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the subject of assistance to victims is a matter of high priority for the Minister of Justice, and I am sure that he would agree with me that it should also be dealt with on a non-partisan basis. I applaud and support the Hon. Member in this initiative.
The sentencing reform package, which will be presented to Parliament by the Minister of Justice this Fall, will include specific amendments to the Criminal Code designed to provide for greater use of restitution and compensation to assist the victims of crime. It is only by dealing with the matter in a comprehensive way that our efforts will be effective in providing the kind of help that victims need.
I wish to thank the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) for bringing to our attention the very real problem that victims face. For too long we as a society have shown an over-abundance of concern for the criminal but, in a large part, have ignored the innocent victim. Mr. Speaker, we should wait for the task force report and the proposals of the Minister of Justice.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join in the debate on the Bill introduced by the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour), Bill C-682, and support not only the provisions which have been incorporated in the Bill, but the spirit of those provisions. We in Canada have suffered under the duality of a criminal justice system that allows the Parliament of Canada to enact the laws applicable to crime in Canada and require the provincial authorities to administer those laws. As a result, there is very little unity in the criminal justice system in Canada, which results particularly in situations that this Bill seeks to remedy, namely, the situation in which the victims of crime find themselves in Canada.
We have just seen evidence in the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Bloomfield) of the fact that this duality prevents the necessary action from being taken by either one of the jurisdictions. I believe the Bill introduced by the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona goes right to the heart of that problem. It does very important things, Mr. Speaker. It contains specific provisions whereby the victim of a specific crime brought before a court for which a person is convicted anc receive, by an order of that court, every specific compensation. I find it hard to believe that any Member of the House of Commons would quarrel with that kind of a provision.
Even more important, the Bill would force federal administrators and provincial administrators to get together and find a method and a system for assisting victims of crime through the labyrinth of the criminal process. The best kind of crime prevention, Mr. Speaker, is a system which ensures that criminals are apprehended and prosecuted before the courts and dealt with in accordance with the applicable laws. In other

May 25, 1983
Criminal Code
words, criminal offenders cannot go undetected and unpunished.
A large element in this system of criminal detection and prevention is the innocent victims who are involved in the crimes. How many times, Mr. Speaker, has a person had his house burgled as property damaged and simply refused to get involved in the criminal process, knowing it could take time and effort on his part, and knowing it would expose him to embarrassment and even the wrath of the offender? This bill in its substance attacks that problem in a very understanding way, and I commend the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strath-cona for his insight into the situation. This ensures that Canadians who are victimized in this way will be helped immediately by the police authorities and will be given immediate relief and assistance as they enter into that criminal procedure process which so many Canadians find distasteful.
I cannot help but be reminded, Mr. Speaker, of an incident which occurred to me very recently in my home city of Halifax. My car was badly damaged by a vandal. I contacted the police because 1 was willing to involve myself in the criminal process and to appear in court, if that were necessary, to give evidence. I was willing to utilize my time to ensure that such a vicious crime, even at that minor level, would not go unpunished. After reporting the incident to a constable on the Halifax city police force, 1 was given this bit of advice; that I should call my insurance company and forget about it because they would pay me compensation, and that would be the end of the matter. That should not be the end of the matter, Mr. Speaker, because the only way that Canadians are going to protect themselves from that kind of unlawful act is to see that the offender is apprehended and prosecuted. If we do not provide a criminal justice system and criminal law enforcement agencies that realize and recognize those needs and react and act in response to those needs, then we will not have any hope for improvement of our current system.
I am happy that we will have an opportunity to vote on this Bill so that it will go to the Committee on Justice and Legal
Affairs and be considered there. May I again endorse the position taken by the Hon. Member, represented by the provisions of this Bill, first, to provide specific compensation to victims of crime and, second, to ensure that the whole matter is reviewed and dealt with by the federal and provincial authorities so that we can have some real and meaningful improvement in our system which will benefit all Canadians, because it will ensure that criminal offenders are apprehended and prosecuted and brought to justice.


Mr. Al MacBain (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to thank the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) for his work on this private Member's Bill, which is on a subject of current interest. As all Hon. Members of this House know, the matter is in the hands of the federal task force which will be reporting very soon and will give an opportunity for the provincial Attorneys General and their officials to consider the matter. As we know, the administration of justice is a matter of concern specifically to the Attorneys General of the Provinces.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. Pursuant to Standing Order 24(2), it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings.
[ Translation]
There being no other items on the order of business for today, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5.35 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, May 26, 1983