1983-11-02

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO STANDING ORDER 21


Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, it is with mixed emotions of sadness, pride, and concern that I address Members of the House today. Sadness stems from the most unfortunate accident involving Steven Gerald Bednas, an Ottawa youth whose legs had to be amputated as a result of a tragic accident last Friday when he was caught in a box shredder. The pride, stems from the effort by doctors, ambulance attendants, firefighters and policemen, whose joint efficient efforts saved the life of this young man.
With such a gallant team effort one is reluctant to impart special recognition to a select few individuals. Unfortunately, the names of all those involved are not yet available. Nevertheless, the heroic humanitarianism and professionalism displayed by Drs. Barry Armstrong and Charles Buckley, of the Canadian Armed Forces, and by Dr. Justin Maloney of the Ottawa General Hospital, deserve recognition for their efforts in saving Steven Bednas' life. Also deserving a great deal of credit is Dr. Armstrong's wife who, upon witnessing the accident, ran to inform her husband and called Dr. Buckley to assist him. What is especially remarkable about the contribution by these doctors is that they were not on duty at the time. They were preparing for a special function that evening. Yet they committed themselves to saving that young man's life without concern for time or legalities.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I rise with concern, because evidently some equipment necessary to deal with the crisis was not on hand. Some of the equipment needed had to be brought in from the Ottawa General because it is not carried by ambulances. Dr. Armstrong indicated that if a paramedical system had been in existence the equipment would have been available from the start. Equipment and special training are essential. The example of the need for both in this case was revealed in the training that Dr. Armstrong received at the National Defence Medical Centre, known as the Advanced Trauma Life Saving System.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but his allotted time has expired.

[ Translation]


INDUSTRY
Mr. Louis Duclos (Montmorency-Orleans):: Mr. Speaker, the situation today is very difficult for Canadian distilleries and their employees. The industry is operating at 40 per cent of its production capacity, and the number of jobs has reached its lowest level since 1965. In my own riding, several dozen workers have been laid off in recent months. In the circumstances, the 13.3 per cent increase in the excise tax on liquor which has been in effect since September 1 of this year has increased the hardship for the industry and its employees.
I know this automatic increase merely maintains the ratio between federal excise taxes and the final sale price. I am also aware that the federal Government receives only 31 per cent of the revenue collected by all governments on sales of alcoholic beverages, while 10 years ago, its share was 40 per cent. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, in view of the extent of the problems with which the Canadian distillery industry is faced, I suggest the excise tax increase should be cancelled, pending recommendations by the task force responsible for looking into this matter, which was announced last summer by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde).
Finally, I would like to remind the Government that substantial increases in the tax on liquor may bring about an equally substantial drop in sales, thus reducing the total amount of tax revenue.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, this is an especially opportune week for all of us to recognize the progress Canadian women have made toward full equality. But it is also important at this time to recognize that there are victories still to come.
Yesterday a Manitoba lawyer named Isabel Ross Hunt was presented by the Governor General with the Persons Award.

November 2, 1983
The award was established on the fiftieth anniversary of the recognition in Canadian law that women were persons and, therefore, could become Senators. Since that landmark ruling, women have fought diligently for legal and economic equality. But the battle is not over. For our part, as parliamentarians, we can support the recognition of homemakers in the Canada Pension Plan. We can actively encourage an increase in the role of women in the political process, and we can seek greater representation of women in the Senate.
For her part, Isabel Ross Flunt, who is an authority on family law, has made important inroads with regard to property rights. But the battle for full equality ought not to be fought by women alone. Indeed, those who seek full recognition of women's rights do so knowing that to achieve the goal is to achieve a better Canada.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Gaston Gourde (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, passing Bill C-155 will mean that capital expenditures of $16.5 billion will be made by the railways, and 375,000 person-years of employment will be created. Canadian National plans to spend over $10 billion and Canadian Pacific will be spending $6.5 billion over the next eight years. Most of the money will be used to renew, upgrade and extend railway networks in the West. Thus, the industrial impact will be felt across the country, not only in Western Canada where much of the construction will be done but also in the East, where the steel and equipment is manufactured. The bulk of these expenditures will depend on whether the Bill is passed and on changes in the Crow rate. The railroads have already started their projects, in anticipation of passage of the Bill. Mr. Speaker, in Quebec we intend to spend $308 million over the next four years on upgrading equipment and facilities. CN and CP are expected to spend about $1.4 billion on railway supplies and equipment in the next decade, in the Province of Quebec alone. The Government intends to order 3,840 new hopper cars, most of which will be built in Quebec. Mr. Speaker, this is another good reason why Flon. Members opposite should stop their delaying tactics.
V V *


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, today a referendum is taking place in South Africa to see how South
Africans will react to a new constitution which will permit three Parliaments in that country. One Parliament will represent the whites, of which there are about 4,300,000; one Parliament will represent the coloured, of which there are about 2,400,000; one Parliament will represent the Indians, of which there are about 750,000; and the blacks, who represent about 18,600,000, will not have a Parliament at all. The referendum is not binding. Nevertheless, it is being voted on only by whites. The executive authority of the constitution still permits the President and the executive to be appointed by a panel comprised of a majority of whites. In general, it is a mockery of democratic life. The blacks, who still provide the labour force, are banished to the homelands. In actual fact they are disposable labour. It is a trick to improve the image of South Africa to the rest of the world.
On top of all this, Reverend Smangaliso Mkhatshwa, a Roman Catholic priest and Secretary General of the Catholic Bishops of South Africa, has been interned. I would like the House of Commons to support this man who is known for his stand on human rights and equality for blacks. We should protest his internment, along with South African Catholic Bishops, and demand that he be removed from detention immediately.


REMEMBRANCE DAY
Mr. Jack Burghardt (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, on November 11, 1983, Canadians across the land will share in Remembrance Day ceremonies. It is of concern to me that November 11 not only continue to be a day of commemoration, and of pride in those who served their country, but a day to reflect upon the present and future course of our great country.
The events of the last few months have escalated global tensions. Not since the 1962 Cuban missile crisis have we been so acutely aware of a possible movement toward war. On Remembrance Day we will honour those who gave their lives in past wars. Perhaps the greatest tribute we could pay to these courageous men and women is to work as parliamentarians toward preventing future wars and the loss of life and property that would result. It is my hope that we will do everything in our power to promote and ensure world peace.
Furthermore, I urge my hon. colleagues to lend their support to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) as he embarks next week on a round of talks with world leaders in an effort to reduce global tensions.
November 2, 1983

[ Translation]


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, today, the Parliament of Canada has 64 Liberal Members for Quebec. For nearly 18 years the Liberal Party has been in power, but year after year, Quebecers have been saddled with a high unemployment rate. In my view, neither youth nor the workers of this country or this Province but the Liberal Members of the House are to blame. Their policies on energy, agriculture, industry and tourism have caused a great deal of harm.
Canadian citizens need a federal election, a new, Conservative Government that understands that specific policies are necessary for each region and each Province.
Mr. Speaker, the responsibility lies with the Liberal Members and their failure to speak up and take the intitiative with respect to these problems. Voters want and need to make a new choice. After four years it is time for a federal election.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, throughout the years Canada has permitted its influence and presence in the affairs of the Caribbean and Latin America to recede by failing to join the Organization of American States.
On July 9, 1982, I moved a motion in the House asking for Canadian membership in the Organization of American States, but did not receive unanimous consent. Subsequently the Chairman, the Hon. Member for Labelle (Mr. Dupras), of the Subcommittee on Canada's relations with Latin America, publicly recommended that Canada join the OAS. Indeed, even the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) indicated to the news media his disposition for full Canadian membership in the OAS.
The United States of America is a member of the OAS but is not a member of the OECS, the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States. In my view Canada's possible influence in the Grenada events was severely limited by its stubborn refusal to join, and lack of membership in, the Organization of American States. I therefore call upon the Government to review again its foreign policy with regard to Latin American nations and the Caribbean nations, and undertake to become a full member of the Organization of American States at the earliest opportunity.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Henry (Bill) Domm: -I would like to take this opportunity to address my question to the representative of the tiny group of fanatics or the dinosaurs, namely, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who is not present. In her absence I would direct my question to the Prime Minister. In light of the recent judgment in Toronto that both imperial and metric measurement are legal in Canada today, is it the intention of the Prime Minister to proceed as it is the intention of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who, at 1.30 today, said that the judgment will not stop the Government "from proceeding with its position on mandatory metric"? What is the position of the Government of Canada in light of the decision of the judge in the court in Toronto?


Mr. David Berger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Berger: I thank the Hon. Member for his question. The Minister has had the opportunity to comment upon it and will obviously be saying more, now that she has arrived in the Chamber. However, I would remind the Hon. Member of the purpose behind the Government's position, that to allow both systems could lead to confusion and put the consumer in a weaker position when it comes to verifying price increases, which I understand is a concern of the Hon. Member and his Party. Further, the law and regulations were designed to ensure equity in the marketplace for the consumer and between retailers. I am sure that the Hon. Member supports these objectives.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: I cannot say that I appreciate the answer representing the tiny group of fanatics in the Government who think that mandatory metric is the only route to go.


INQUIRY WHETHER APPEAL WILL BE LAUNCHED
William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, I will address my supplementary question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, or whomever. Given the fact that Judge William Ross described the methods of your inspectors as draconian, and your actions in enforcing poorly drafted regulations as devoid of any semblance of decency, fairness and natural justice, is it the intention of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to agree with the judge, or to ignore the judge and go through the process of appeal?
28620

November 2, 1983
Oral Questions
Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Of course, Mr. Speaker, we will follow the law. We have not yet received a written decision. When we do, we will base our appeal on that decision. At the moment, of course, the law prevails and we will not be able to enforce any of those regulations in the Province of Ontario.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


APPLICATION OF LAW
William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all the citizens of Canada 1 ask this question of the Prime Minister. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who represents a tiny group of fanatics, the dinosaurs of this nation, says that in Ontario we are free to use imperial and metric. What does the Prime Minister say is the case as it applies to all of Canada?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, 1 cannot comment on fanatics, but 1 do know that the dinosaurs are those who refuse to see metric is world-wide in its scope and that Canada has to live in the world if it wants to trade in the world. I also know that the Hon. Member's Party voted in support of the metric system. The metric system was first brought in by Tory Prime Minister John A. Macdonald. So much for the dinosaurs.
I understand that the judgment just came out.


Some Hon. Members:: It is just a judgment. It is just a judge.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, it is just a judgment until all appeals have been exhausted, or until a decision has been made not to go to appeal.


An Hon. Member:: Walk on water, Pierre.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I appeal to the Leader of the Opposition and remind him once again that he has talked repeatedly about civility in the House of Commons. 1 wish he would talk to his own caucus rather than talking to the press.


ENFORCEMENT OF REGULATIONS-APPLICATION OF CHARTER OF RIGHTS
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister a very important question with respect to the Charter of Rights and Judge Ross's very blistering attack on government activities in terms of regulations which infringe on the rights of individual citizens of this country. Will the Prime Minister do the just thing in the spirit of the Charter of Rights, and give direction that, until this matter is resolved, regulations which allow the metric enforcement squad to go in and shut down the livelihood and operations of service station operators in Canada are not to be enforced?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should remember that the Charter of Rights, which is binding upon all Canadians, is the work of this Government. His Party fought the Charter of Rights for a year, saying that it should only be done after patriation of the Constitution, which really meant it never would have been done because we know the difficulty there was, even before patriation, to get agreement from the Provinces.
Mr. Speaker, there is a Charter of Rights to protect the citizens. The courts are there to enforce the Charter of Rights. As the Minister said, we want to live with the laws and the Charter as they are willed by this Parliament. Let the process go through the courts; then the Government will decide if the law is an infringement of the Charter or not. If the courts decide that the regulations are an infringement of the Charter they will be changed, obviously.


GOVERNMENT POLICY INQUIRY
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Judge Ross stated in his judgment that this Government regards the Charter of Rights only as a mere declaration. If the Prime Minister has any interest, aside from words and proclamations and declarations, will he take some active steps in terms of policy to prevent the Gestapo-like tactics such as those going on with respect to the metric enforcers and in the Department of National Revenue, to ensure that the spirit of the Charter of Rights, with respect to the rights of individuals vis-a-vis the Government, will be observed?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I suspect the Hon. Member is not quoting the judge correctly. If the judge said that this Government is considering the Charter only a declaration, then the judge does not know what he is talking about. I suspect that he is being misquoted.


Mr. Crosbie:: Have you read the judgment?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I suspect he has been misquoted by the Hon. Member.


FISHERIES
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. At the meeting with gillnet fishermen at Steveston on Monday, Mr. Parkinson, head of the Small Craft Harbours Branch, made only two minuscule cuts in the exorbitant charges being levied on gillnetters, charges which will ruin the majority of them. Will the Minister authorize the branch to hold up the proposed rates for at least a year while consultations take place? Will he, or his deputy, attend the meeting of gillnetters to be held in New Westminster this Friday, and hear the concerns of the gillnet fishermen directly from them?
November 2, 1983


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr, Speaker, the commitment I can give to the Hon. Member is that 1 will personally review the whole case and, within a few days, make a final decision.
1 should like to give a general outline of the matter so that Hon. Members will understand it. The fees that are charged by the Department for use of the facilities-and we have over 2,400 wharves and berthing facilities in Canada-are about 50 per cent of what the private sector charges for berthing facilities. The fees that fishermen pay for storing equipment with the Department are barely 20 per cent of what the private sector charges for similar facilities.
Our major investment in B.C. means that starting now, and in the years ahead, we will have to increase our expenditures substantially. I will review the case personally but 1 ask Hon. Members to think about this. If our fees are so high, why is the waiting list of fishermen who want to use the facilities of the Department, so long?


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Government has, in effect, condemned the landing of Caribbean and American forces on Grenada. My talks with dozens of randomly selected Grenadians last Sunday indicated that, without exception, they welcomed this as the liberation of their island. "We are free", was the most common comment. Will the Minister indicate whether popular support for the landing on that island would change the Government's position to any degree?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear that the Hon. Member had a successful visit, and I appreciate the comments he has made. In reply to his specific question about whether new factors have caused the Government to change its position on this particular matter, I have read very carefully the comments made by the Prime Minister and the Minister of State for International Trade and I have seen no developments, even in those comments made by the Hon. Member, that would cause the Government to change the opinion it has already expressed.


REPORTED MASSACRE BY SOLDIERS OF FORMER REGIME
David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, on October 21 the Minister of State for External Relations said in the House that after a "decent period of time" the Government would be recognizing Messrs. Austin, Coard and company as the new Government of Grenada. Is the Government aware that, on October 19, coup soldiers massacred
Oral Questions
between 100 and 200 men, women and children, according to my advice from eyewitnesses of that incident at Fort Rupert? If so, why were the Liberals conditioning Canadian public opinion to accept such a brutal regime so quickly?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member refers to the loss of life at Fort Rupert. I know there has been a loss of life. His estimate of 100 to 200 is much greater than any estimate we have. We have no evidence that the number is greater than 20 or so, but the Hon. Member may have information not available to us. I assure the Hon. Member that he is rather unfair in suggesting that we were attempting to condition public opinion to the acceptance of this kind of activity.

PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MEMBERS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF ITALY, PROFESSOR FUGLIELMO ROEHRSSEN; DR. FRANCESCO SAJA, AND DR. MAURICIO NEVOLA, DIRECTOR OF PROTOCOL


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I call to the attention of the House the presence in our gallery of members of the Constitutional Court of Italy, Professor Fuglielmo Roehrssen; Dr. Francesco Saja, and Dr. Mauricio Nevola, Director of Protocol.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FISHERIES
Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Could the Minister inform the House whether his offer to restructure the fisheries industry in Quebec still holds, considering the unwillingness expressed by a number of ship's captains in Newport who want to have their own factory, and could the Minister inform the House whether negotiations are continuing with fishermen in the Gaspe?


An Hon. Member:: Good question!


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to inform the House that the federal Government's offer still stands, and I was very pleased to receive the support of the majority of Newport fishermen. However, should a majority of the Newport fishermen change their minds, I would then have to reconsider the federal

November 2, 1983
Oral Questions
Government's offer. If our offer cannot be maintained, all the efforts of the federal Government to prevent Pecheurs-Unis from going bankrupt will have been for nothing, and not the creditors will lose money but the fishermen themselves who, with the factory workers, have invested over $1,200,000 of their own money in this co-operative, and the Government of Quebec and the Government of Canada who represent Canadian taxpayers as well. That is why we made an offer under which fishermen will not have to invest again, and we shall set up a large company in which fishermen, factory workers, unions, creditors and both Governments will be asked to work together. However, I repeat that if Newport changes its mind, 1 think we will have to reconsider our position, because-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the Hon. Minister, but his answer is getting longer and longer. Could he perhaps finish his answer?


Pierre De Bané: Very briefly then Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Government's offer is a comprehensive offer to the entire Pecheurs-Unis movement, and if the Government of Quebec wants to take care of Newport, it is welcome to do so, provided it does the same for all other factories.


UNITED NATIONS
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that a Nicaraguan resolution is up for debate in the UN General Assembly today, with a vote anticipated tomorrow, would the Minister indicate to the House the position the Government of Canada intends to take respecting this resolution? In particular, will the Government be voting in support of the resolution and continue its condemnation of the Caribbean countries' and American intervention in Grenada?


Mr. Broadbent:: Where do you stand?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, instructions have not yet been delivered to the Canadian delegation on what position they ought to take on this resolution. The situation is changing rather quickly at the General Assembly. There may be amendments, there may be further resolutions, and until the situation is fully clarified it is not the intention of the Government to give specific instructions. But such instructions will be given, and the Canadian delegation will be asked to take a stand on this particular resolution.

*
*


VIA RAIL
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. As he is probably aware, there has been a lot of concern in northern Manitoba about the lack of service or co-operation by VIA Rail with the tourist industry. Churchill Wilderness Encounters cancelled five tours this year. Toronto based Horizon Holiday Tours have expressed absolute frustration in dealing with VIA. Travel Network of California has stopped bringing people to Churchill. Great West Tours of San Francisco have also stopped bringing people in.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member please ask his question?


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, it is not my fault that there are so many problems at VIA. Will the Minister investigate and see what he can do to improve the marketing practices of VIA, especially from Winnipeg to northern Manitoba?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, we are presently doing that.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Chairman of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence has not been seen in the House for questions since last Friday when I asked him if he would arrange through the steering committee-


Mr. Mulroney:: There he is.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Good. Mr. Speaker, would the chairman of that committee indicate to the House if he has now made arrangements for an immediate reference to be heard in that committee with respect to the Grenadian affair so that there can be an open discussion in a committee of this House about all facts and activities on Canada's role leading up to and during the intervention in Grenada?


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised that the Hon. Member should have noticed my absence since last Friday, for I was in the House yesterday, the day before yesterday, and I am here now. I did say quite clearly that I would consider the advisability of convening the steering committee. I might point out to the Hon. Member that I followed the debate earlier today, even though I had other consultations to make, as I had promised, behind the curtains and in private, that I would. I am still
November 2, 1983

making them, but the Hon. Member will appreciate that he is not the only one 1 must consult. 1 paid close attention to the Oral Question Period today, although 1 was expecting another phone call during my consultations, and I wondered which of the two Members was the Official Opposition critic-the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona or the Hon. Member who has just taken the floor. 1 have to decide as well with whom I should negotiate. At 4.25 p.m. yesterday, I did receive a letter from the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona and, because the mail delivery service is sometimes slow, I got in touch with the Hon. Member's office first thing this morning to tell him 1 had received his letter. 1 have it here, in fact. 1 carry all my documents with me. I will continue my consultations, but 1 am not in a position to tell him whether-


PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board who will know that the Auditor General has issued a qualified opinion on the 1982-83 Public Accounts. He stated in his opinion that he has four serious reservations about the fairness of the financial statements. In effect he is saying that they are misleading, and 1 suggest to the President of the Treasury Board that this is a serious matter for the taxpayers-sharehold-ers of Canada. What steps is the Minister taking to encourage his officials to eliminate those reservations?


Hon. Herb Gray (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, there is a difference of opinion between the Auditor General and our accounting advisers on the approach to the statements. The approach we are following is based on policies set out in a note to the statements, that we are primarily responsible to Parliament and our statements, therefore, have to respond to the legislation passed by Parliament. That is the basis on which the statements are being prepared. But the Comptroller General is already carrying out a study in depth into what the appropriate definition should be of the accounting entity in a way which is intended to address the concerns of the Auditor General. In doing this he is responding to a request of the Public Accounts Committee made last year.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: The Auditor General makes the point that it is not just a question of compliance, it is a question of not misleading the Canadian public.


CANADAIR AND DE HAVILLAND LOSSES
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a further question to direct to the same Minister. One of those reservations involves the accumulated losses of Canadair and de Havilland. In Volume III these losses are written off and
Ora! Questions
shown as deficits. In Volume I they are treated as explicit guarantees. Can the Minister tell us how we can go from a loss in one set of financial statements to a guarantee in another, and not mislead the Canadian public?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat that there is no intention to mislead the Canadian public. The statements are developed and reported on the basis of the legislative requirements of Parliament. The statements respond to the necessity of reporting to Parliament. I will be happy to provide further information to my hon. friend on the specific point he has raised. However, I simply want to say that the Comptroller General, at the present time, is carrying out a study designed to address the concerns of the Auditor General. In the meantime, our view is that we have no alternative but to follow the direction of Parliament and report on how the Government is operating on the basis of the laws passed by this Chamber.


ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY FREEZE ON TOLLS IN 1984
Mr. Jack Masters (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Transport. As the Minister knows, many western grain producers have indicated their concern at the possibility of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority raising its tolls for the 1984 season. As this comes under the responsibility of the Minister, would he inform the House of his intentions on this matter which is very important to the farmers and to many others who use our great St. Lawrence Seaway?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the Government has been very concerned about trying to limit the various factors of cost which relate to the movement of agricultural goods.


An Hon. Member:: How about the Crow?


Lloyd Axworthy: I would be pleased to inform the House, if Hon. Members opposite would like to listen, that after consultation with the U.S. Secretary for Transportation, Mrs. Elizabeth Dole, we have come to the conclusion that there will be a total freeze on Seaway tolls for 1984.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. As the Minister knows, his immigration guidelines empower him to use his discretion to relieve unusual hardship for a last

November 2, 1983
Oral Questions
remaining relative in the old country who may not be in the immediate family class for immigration, but who, by long association, is dependent on a Canadian family for physical or mental well-being. Since the Minister has announced that he is cutting back on immigration next year by about 15,000 in spite of the clear signs of recovery in unemployment, will the Minister assure this House that he will continue to exercise his discretion on compassionate grounds on behalf of such remaining family members?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I believe I should say, first of all, that the Hon. Member is not technically correct when he says that I will be cutting down. The figures which we have announced are not the targets which will be inevitably reached, but are the estimated entry levels which we expect will take place. We believe that the entry next year will turn out to be about the same as it will prove to be this year, because I expect entry this year will be below what we had originally anticipated.
Of course there is no intention, Mr. Speaker, of changing the practice or the power which does exist to exercise consideration on humanitarian grounds. I am always prepared to examine individual cases which are presented to me by Hon. Members, to see if they are worthy of the exercise of that discretion.


PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. The Minister will know that the Minister of Finance has presented the Public Accounts of Canada to the Governor General about which the Auditor General has expressed serious reservations. Essentially what the Auditor General has said-and the Minister will appreciate this-is that there has been a netting out of expenses and receipts so that the expenses and receipts of the Government are grossly understated. Will the Minister change the system of reporting in future so that we will have what the Auditor General says is a reasonable, clean statement? We will then not have reservations by Parliament's auditor as to the way the accounts of Canada are presented.


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, each year the Auditor General gives his comments on the Public Accounts to which the Hon. Member opposite has referred. As in previous years, we shall take full account of his proposals with respect to the way in which the Accounts are presented. The fact remains, however, that the presentation of the Public Accounts conformed with past practices and, if there are improvements to be made, as suggested by the Auditor General, we shall take those into account.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF HON. THOMAS WELLS, ONTARIO MINISTER OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 would like to call to the attention of the House the presence in our gallery of the Hon. Thomas Wells, Ontario Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INDUSTRY
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. The Minister is now the proud owner of two slightly used train sets which were repurchased by the Government for some $9 million after Amtrak Corporation in the United States refused to buy the trains from Bombardier MLW under the terms of a lease-purchase agreement. When the Government entered into this contract with the Bombardier Company, to whom did the Government intend to resell the trains if it was called on to buy them? Or was the Government simply rolling the dice, hoping it would never have to perform on the contract?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I thought the Hon. Member was going to rise and ask me some questions with respect to Pratt & Whitney, so that 1 would have a chance to answer him directly in the House instead of doing this all by himself. With respect-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Would the Minister answer the question please?


Edward C. Lumley: With respect to the question concerning the LRC matter, I wasn't around when those decisions were made. I believe I would make the same arrangement tomorrow as whomever made the decision at that time. The fact of the matter is that there was a potential of hundreds of millions of dollars of export business for Canada, as well as thousands of high technology jobs with a future by entering into that contract. It did not work out, Mr. Speaker. However, I concur in the decision to take the risk.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: This proves again that there is no foresight, no planning, and no understanding of how the taxpayers' funds are to be looked after. It is another example of government waste.


NON-USE OF TRAINS
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, 1 will ask the Minister directly if he will explain why he has allowed these trains to sit in the yard by Bombardier's plant since the spring of 1982 when, at the same time the repurchase
November 2, 1983

Oral Questions
occurred, VIA Rail was placing a $100 million order for ten trains at double the price at which the Government has been asked to take these trains back? Why have they been sitting around there rusting and totally unused?


Edward C. Lumley: Mr. Speaker, first of all, we tried to sell those trains to other railroads around the world. We tried to sell those trains to other rail lines in North America. We have had discussions with VIA Rail and those negotiations are still ongoing. However, with respect to the information from the Hon. Member, I just want to remind him, while I have the chance, about Pratt & Whitney-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Edward C. Lumley: -the cost per job is $2,500, not $100,000. He should get his information straight.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. The Minister's Department has been cut in half, reduced to a head without a body. The Minister has stated that this change is for the better, because the head will have direct access to Cabinet. That remains to be seen. As the Minister knows, Cabinet proceedings are secret. Therefore, can he assure this House that the shake-up at MOSST is not just the way to put government policy on science and technology behind closed doors, in secret, and away from the scrutiny of an informed public?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Minister of State for Economic Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, there is no shake-up at MOSST. MOSST was restructured to make it more effective in its new role as chief science adviser to the Government, with direct access to Cabinet Ministers, to Cabinet Committees, and to the Prime Minister's Office. This is very much in keeping, I would think, with what we have seen happen in the United States. The role has been made clear. The lines of responsibility, I believe, are now well established. Dr. Berlinguet has assumed his post. I would judge, contrary to what the Hon. Member feels, that this is indeed a major improvement in terms of moving forward with the science and technology policy which I announced in the House last May.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications. It concerns the subject of CBC radio which has long been awaited by Canadians living in northern New Brunswick, with respect to facilities that are in place to bring the new signal of CBC English programming to that part of Canada. Could the Minister indicate when the people living in that part of Canada will be able to enjoy this broadcasting on a daily basis?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to answer the Hon. Member. This is a question that has been on his mind for some time now. I know that he has brought pressure to bear on CBC to encourage development of this additional coverage.
I am delighted to say that today I have been informed by the Executive Vice-President of the CBC that the CBC English AM service will, as of today, be available on a daily basis on the FM network to the citizens in northern New Brunswick he has mentioned.
1 would also like to add, for the Hon. Member's information, that as far as French language television is concerned in that area, CBC coverage in the French language is going out on a test pattern basis at the moment. If those text patterns can indeed be received, as we expect they will be, the French language television service of the CBC will be available on an official basis as soon as these tests have been completed.


METRIC CONVERSION
Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and it is supplementary to the questions raised earlier by the Member for Peterborough on the metric decision handed down yesterday by an Ontario court, and the Prime Minister's reference to the Charter of Rights.
Implicit in the answer given in the House today by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs was that, until the Government decides what to do, the enforcement of the regulations is now going to be stopped, but only in Ontario. Surely a basic tenet of any decision on any citizen's right, whether it is included in the Charter or not, is that all Canadians from coast to coast should be treated exactly the same under federal law. The answer of the Minister is clearly discriminatory. Will the Prime Minister now indicate if metric enforcement will cease right across the country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Hon. Member is making a representation

November 2, 1983
Oral Questions
and a point. I indicated earlier that 1 had not read the judgment. I have not conferred with the Minister.
I do not know if any decision has been made to appeal the judgment. Until that is decided it is premature to say that the judgment is the law of the land. It becomes the law of the land when all appeals have been exhausted, or when an appeal has not been lodged.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: A short supplementary.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, in view of the Government's growing trend to deal in a discriminatory way because of court decisions, I would also ask the Prime Minister to look at the decision of the Solicitor General to continue the use of writs of assistance only in those Provinces where the courts have not declared it invalid?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, in that matter we are following a very clear, established policy of this Government, and which was followed by prior Governments as well. When there are conflicting court decisions across the country, or when decisions of lower courts are made in parts of the country, the Government respects that decision for the jurisdiction in which it is decided. But when the matter is resolved at a higher level, that settles it for the country as a whole. 1 do not see how a process could work on any other basis.


CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. It stems from the harassment by the Minister's officials of individuals, artists, and now voluntary agencies across Canada. The Minister may know that on June 22 the British Columbia Division of the Canadian Mental Health Association was advised by his departmental officials to alter proposed amendments to its constitution if that Association wished to retain its charitable status. The objectionable section in the statement of purpose states, "to advocate and lobby for improvement and integration of treatment and rehabilitation services for persons who become handicapped or disabled by emotional disorders." I would simply ask the Minister if he authorized that harassment of the Canadian Mental Health Association.
[Translation}


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to indicate to the Hon. Member that the
responsibility of Revenue Canada officials is to make sure that the legislation voted by Parliament and the laws as interpreted by our courts are enforced. I urge him to examine the provisions of the Income Tax Act dealing with charitable organizations, as well as the decisions made by the courts. Since the Members of his party have been finding so much significance in court decisions during Question Period today, he should indeed delve into the legal precedents related to charitable organizations and he will realize that the action taken by the Department to ensure compliance with the Income Tax Act is very much in keeping with the legal precedents of the past few years with respect to charitable organizations.


INDUSTRY
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. He will know that the mill at Corner Brook, Newfoundland, now owned and operated by Bowater, is to be closed by them by next year if they do not find a prospective purchaser, putting the jobs of a thousand people in jeopardy, and all the allied jobs. Is the Government working on any plan that might see the continuation of the operations of that mill, or any plan to see that the mill's machinery is modernized? Is the Minister working with the Government of Newfoundland on this situation?


Edward C. Lumley: As the
Hon. Member knows, as I believe I responded in the House two weeks ago, Bowater have not been in touch with my office directly. They have been negotiating with the Premier of Newfoundland and the Newfoundland Government for the last three or four months. We were advised by the Government of Newfoundland about three or four weeks ago of the possibility of the mill closing.
As the Hon. Member knows, under a pulp and paper modernization agreement, the Government of Canada committed about $17 million, with the Province of Newfoundland, toward the modernization of that mill a few years ago. The company decided not to proceed with the modernization. That money is still available for any prospective new buyer.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Oshawa.


John Carnell Crosbie: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Speaker has recognized the Hon. Member for Oshawa. There has been a problem up to this point in recognizing that Hon. Member.
November 2, 1983


BANK OF CANADA
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Finance has arrived in the House, perhaps we could proceed. In the first six months of this year there were signs that economic recovery was under way. That was largely, but not entirely, due to good export sales. There are opposite signs now that the recovery seems to be stalled and the principal reason for this, according to the Conference Board, the C.D. Howe Institute, and Statistics Canada, is the real level of interest rates, which have increased by 300 per cent during the course of this year. Will the Minister exercise the power that he has, and instruct the Governor of the Bank of Canada to bring down the bank rate?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I apologize if I was somewhat delayed from being in the House this afternoon. I just could not make it earlier.
With respect to the question raised by the Hon. Member, he has a rather simplistic solution to what is a real problem. He knows that the real interest rates in Canada are now lower, indeed, significantly lower than in the United States, when one compares the inflation rates in the United States and in Canada with the level of interest rates.
Since August, 1981, we have succeeded in reducing the spread between the rates in Canada and the United States by 4.7 per cent, which is quite significant in terms of interest rates. We have real interest rates in Canada now that are lower than in the United States.
If there were any way we could achieve even lower interest rates in this country I would certainly not hesitate for one moment to take whatever steps would be required to achieve this purpose, if it were responsibly feasible without creating even more serious problems than the one the Hon. Member is trying to resolve. I must advise him, however, that we have met with considerable success during the course of the last year in reducing interest rates in Canada. Our policy is to achieve a continuation of the reduction of interest rates. I hope that the reduction of inflation rates in Canada, along with steps taken in the United States, will enable us to bring about a gradual reduction in the interest rates in Canada.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER TAKE ACTION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I know that the Minister likes to convey with accuracy statistical reality. In that context, I am sure he will acknowledge that interest rates in Canada are higher than in the U.S., the bank rate is higher than in the U.S., and the real rate of interest is about the same as that in the U.S. In light of the fact that a lower interest rate in Canada would help our exports of lumber products, and it would help the sale of all kinds of export goods in other sectors abroad, as well as stimulate consumer spending, all of which would produce more jobs for Canadians, I repeat, will the Minister exercise the power that he has as
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen
Minister of Finance, take the responsible economic action, and bring down the interest rate level charged by the Bank of Canada?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the latest information I have is that the prime rate in Canada at the present time is 11 per cent. It is the same as in the United States. Second, rates for short-term paper, up to seven years, in Canada and the United States, are about equal at the present time, while over the last couple of years they were significantly higher in Canada than in the United States.
Third, the rate of inflation in Canada is still higher, unfortunately, than it is in the United States and, therefore, the real interest rates in Canada would be lower than in the United States.
Again, to come back to the point raised by the Hon. Member, if 1 thought the simple issuance of a directive to the Governor of the Bank of Canada would be beneficial to the Canadian economy, I would not hesitate to have recourse to such a step. However, I am convinced that the step recommended by the Hon. Member would indeed be very counterproductive. It would be a completely artificial decision that would not represent the real state of the economy and would lead to more serious problems than the ones we are facing. I think the economic recovery in Canada has been proceeding extremely well this year, and I am confident that we will continue to note a high rate of growth this year and next year.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Presenting Reports from Standing and Special Committees.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has tried to be fair with Hon. Members. Bearing in mind the limitations of time and that it is now beyond three o'clock, with due respect to the Hon. Member for Oshawa, the Chair has tried to accommodate him. At this stage the Minister of State for International Trade has a statement he wants to make to the House, I believe.


POINT OF ORDER
Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of State (International Trade)):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in relation to the Friday, October 28 deliberations in the House and a point of order that was made at that time by the Opposition concerning the tabling of a telex which had been in my possession from the High Commissioner of Barbados to the Department of External Affairs. At that time Madam Speaker, in commenting on the point of order, after hearing both sides, said the following:
I can look at the "blues" after giving the House at this time my preliminary impression about what has just taken place in the House. That would allow the Minister time to reflect upon the nature of that document and tell the House

November 2, 1983
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen
whether or not he feels that it can be published without any injury to any matters of public interest.
On Monday, October 31,1 wrote to the Speaker asking that the ruling on this question be delayed because of my involvement with the federal-provincial trade Ministers meeting on that day and of my inability to be in the House. At that time, in a letter, a copy of which I had sent to the office of the Leader of the Opposition, I also explained, upon perusing Hansard, that it had become obvious to me there was confusion in the House between two telexes, both of which had referred to conversations between our High Commissioner in Barbados and the Prime Minister of Barbados.
1 think, so that the matter can be properly examined by the Chair, it was important and is important that that distinction be made. There were a number of questions in the House in relation to the discussions that had taken place on the Friday prior to the invasion between High Commissioner Noble Power and Prime Minister Adams, and whether what had been said constituted in effect any warning to Canada of the possibility of an invasion. 1 was concerned with rebutting that suggestion, and as a consequence I had in the House, though 1 did not read from it, a subsequent telex that had been sent by Noble Power after the invasion when, at my instructions, he had gone to see Prime Minister Tom Adams to ask for an explanation of why Canada had not been informed. The other telex was not in the House nor in my possession.
The words that need to be examined to determine whether anything was said or done by me that would warrant an order for the telex to be tabled would refer-


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: 1 rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Gerald Augustine Regan: I am on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is a point of order before the House raised by the Hon. Member for the Yukon. The Chair would like to hear the rest of the Minister's statement and will be pleased to hear the Member for the Yukon as soon as he sits down, if that would be in order, before passing judgment on the matter.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I would-


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deans:: Throw him out!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect the Hon. Member for the Yukon, would he please sit down?
The Chair would like to establish the practice, when a point of order is raised, of hearing the statement of the initial person or the initial response, as in this case, and after a period of time in which to investigate the facts, turning in an orderly way to other Hon. Members who obviously are concerned about the matter. With the permission of the Hon. Member for Yukon, the Chair would like to do that in this case.


Mr. Pinard:: He is on a point of order.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, 1 will rise on a question of privilege, if necessary.


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has recognized the Minister, and the Chair will certainly recognize the Hon. Member for Yukon as soon as the Minister has completed what the Chair hopes will be a short statement.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


Yvon Pinard: The Minister is on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair will certainly recognize the Hon. Member for Yukon as soon as the Chair has had an opportunity to analyse, to listen, to what the Minister has had to say. The Hon. Member for Yukon's rights will be scrupulously observed. But the Chair would like to hear the rest of the Minister's statement.


Erik Nielsen: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Go ahead, you have the floor, Gerry.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Continue.


Erik Nielsen: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I understand it is the practice of the House to hear a matter of privilege at any time, bearing in mind that a point of order is under discussion. The Hon. Member for Yukon is rising on a matter of privilege. The Chair will hear him on a matter of privilege.


Erik Nielsen: 1 will be very, very brief, Mr. Speaker.


An Hon. Member:: You can't be brief.


Erik Nielsen: Yes, I can be very brief if interventions will cease and if I might-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Yukon has been recognized and the Chair is listening attentively. Will the Hon. Member make his point of privilege, please?


An Hon. Member:: Turn on the microphone for him.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I would love to make my point of privilege if the jackals over there would just be calm for a moment. My question of privilege is that the privileges of all Members of the House are affected when, under the guise of a point of order, a Member, or worse, a Minister of the Crown, reflects on a ruling of the Chair. Madam Speaker made a ruling with respect to the production of the document, which is now being reflected-[DOT]


An Hon. Member:: That is not a question of privilege.
November 2, 1983


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has heard the Member for Yukon. In the judgment of the Chair, a preliminary ruling was made by the Speaker and the Chair has examined it very carefully. The Speaker very carefully said that she wanted the Minister to examine the matter further and see if it would be possible to table a document "without any injury to any matters of public interest." That is a direct quote from Madam Speaker. The Chair at this point would like to hear what the Minister has to say relating to matters of public interest.


Erik Nielsen: Don't let him reflect on that ruling.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, the question which was asked by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) was where a reference was made to the telex. 1 will not read those references.


Erik Nielsen: You can't.


Gerald Augustine Regan: I did not quote from the telex, but if you were to read my two answers to the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain, it would indicate the words used in the House that could in any way conceivably relate to the only telex 1 had in the House.


Erik Nielsen: He is being allowed to reargue his case.


Gerald Augustine Regan: If the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) would just be quiet, I might be able to be briefer.


Erik Nielsen: You are rearguing your case which has been ruled upon.


Gerald Augustine Regan: I am not doing any such thing.


Erik Nielsen: You certainly are.


Gerald Augustine Regan: The Hon. Member is a little rusty.


Erik Nielsen: At least I am not dense.


Gerald Augustine Regan: I want to say beyond that that the conversations which took place between High Commissioner Power and Prime Minister Adams in any event were held in confidence. To reveal these telegrams to the House would break the confidence of the conversation, not only with Prime Minister Adams but with other Prime Ministers whose conversations are reported in the same telegram. Such a course would be contrary to the basic conventions of international communication and could adversely affect our ability to have such conversations.
The tabling of the telegram would further involve some risk to the security of the Canadian diplomatic communications service. It would not be possible to table the telex or telegram without harm being done to the public interest. Therefore, I would have to lay that before the Speaker for consideration.


Erik Nielsen: I submit, Mr. Speaker, without any reflection upon the Chair, that the Minister, if you will examine what he
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen
said today in the "blues", has been allowed to reargue a case which was put to the Speaker last Friday and upon which she made a ruling.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, like my colleague who can interrupt other Members who have the floor on a point of order, 1 thank you for recognizing me on a question of privilege. You have stated clearly yourself that this was not a ruling by the Chair, but that there had been a tentative or preliminary ruling leaving the door open for additional arguments which might enable the Chair to make a final decision.
Under these circumstances, the Minister cannot be faulted for having discussed or questioned a ruling which has not been rendered by the Speaker. That is why I suggest that the only thing the Hon. Member is trying to do once again is to waste the time of the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair finds itself in the same position as before. The Chair would like to hear the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and to hear the balance of his statement at this point.


Erik Nielsen: I am surprised that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard), who should know better, was allowed to smuggle in under the guise of a question of privilege further argument on a point of order when I was prevented from doing so myself.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker made a ruling and that ruling must not be reviewed. Unlike the President of the Privy Council, she left no doors open with respect to the production of that document. She ruled that it was one of those documents which should be produced.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Which one?


Erik Nielsen: The Minister was only waving one at the time.


Yvon Pinard: Which one?


Erik Nielsen: What a cop-out! They are now playing the old shell game with documents that should be produced in the public interest. They are saying, "Which one?" We saw him wave one. We saw him quote from it. We must accept his word when he says, "we didn't read from it", but by his own admission he quoted four or five words from that document. That area must not be reviewed, but the Minister was allowed to do it, and that is the only reason I am covering the same ground. He realized his mistake a little further on in the submission and got to the real crux of the matter, which was the only door left open by Madam Speaker at the time she made her ruling. That was, that if the Minister, upon reflecting upon that document, made the decision that it was against the interests of national security-1 think the words she used

November 2, 1983
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen
were, "public interest"-then he could take refuge, which he is doing, in the fact that it would not be in the public interest to release the document. He can take that refuge, but what a cop-out. If that document were to have been produced, it would have proven beyond any rational doubt that what he was doing was playing with smoke and mirrors when he was answering the questions from this side.
We cannot do anything about Ministers who lack courage or about a Government which is so obsessed with the doctrine of secrecy that it takes refuge in the doctrine of its being against the public interest or against the national security to release documents.
1 suggest that the defence and the position of the Minister and the Government are absolute hogwash. They do not have the courage to produce the facts, to which Canadians are entitled, to show how inept and bungling they have been through the whole Grenada affair in ensuring that the safety of Canadians caught in that situation down there had not been cared for far sooner than it was. They have bungled. They have been incompetent.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: That telex would prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that that is the case. 1 am sure that is the way it is viewed by the vast majority of Canadians throughout the country.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that this matter arose as a result of the Minister's answering a question from me. I am not exactly clear at the moment why the Minister is refusing to table the document. Perhaps Mr. Speaker can help me in this regard. Is the Minister refusing to table the document because he now claims that he did not quote from it, or is the Minister refusing to table the document because he believes that it would, in one way or another, violate the public interest? If the Minister is claiming that he did not quote from the document-and I heard him say that at one point during his statement today- then the way to solve that question might well be for the Minister to show the document to the Speaker in confidence, since the Speaker is quite clearly sworn to secrecy. He could show the Speaker the document to satisfy the Speaker that in fact there is no quote in Hansard which was taken directly from one or the other of those two documents.
On the second question, I doubt very much anything can be done if the Minister determines that somehow or other it would be detrimental to the public interest to table the document. I happen to believe, as the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) stated, that the public interest would be better served in coming to reasonable conclusions about what took place in the days immediately preceding the invasion of Grenada if the documents that transmitted the information from our High Commissioner in Barbados could be made public.
However, in order to satisfy what 1 consider to be a requirement of the House as placed upon the Minister by the Speaker, I ask that the Minister of State for International Trade
(Mr. Regan) provide for the Speaker the documents in question so that the Speaker can satisfy himself that those documents were not quoted from, and I would be prepared to accept the Speaker's ruling in that regard, whatever it turned out to be.


Yvon Pinard: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I simply want to draw your attention to two citations in Beau-chesne's Fifth Edition, namely citation 327 and particularly paragraphs (2) and (3), even though the entire citation makes for interesting reading. The explanations given by the Minister today and on an earlier occasion did answer fully the two questions raised by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). First, the Minister denies having quoted from any telex whatsoever, since the three or four words to which he referred were in his personal notes. As he has already had an opportunity to explain and, secondly, even if we do not admit that he was quoting from that document, even if it were true, Beauchesne indicates that since it cannot be done without injury to the public interest, as the Minister stated, that is sufficient justification for you to prevent him from tabling the document.
As to the new practice suggested by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain, it is an insult to the honour of parliamentarians because we do have a well established principle in this House to the effect that, when a Member-particularly a Minister responsible-makes a statement and gives his word that such is the situation with respect to security or public interest, that is sufficient and ought not to be questioned. Therefore, it is not necessary to add to that practice the requirement that the word of a Minister be checked by the Speaker of the House, notwistanding all our respect for the Chair. Citation 327 (2) reads simply, and 1 quote:
It has been admitted that a document which has been cited ought to be laid upon the Table of the House, if it can be done without injury to the public interest.
Those are the key words. We do not admit that this document has been quoted by the Minister who, on the contrary, said that the three or four words that he used were from his personal notes. I quote Citation 327(3):
A public document referred to but not cited or quoted by a Minister need not be tabled.
Those two citations should be sufficient for the Chair to prevent the Minister from tabling the telex he talked about. Further, may I draw your attention to the argument made by my colleague, the Minister, who made a clear distinction between the two telexes. This should also be taken into consideration before you make your ruling.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I submit that a ruling is not necessary. Madam Speaker made the ruling that the document was one of those which should be tabled. The Minister shakes
November 2, 1983

his head in the negative, but that is what happened. She went on to say that if the Minister, on reflection, thought that the production of the document would not be in the national interest or the public interest, then that was his way out. We are satisfied with Madam Speaker's ruling. We are satisfied that now that the Minister has stood in his place and said that it would not be in the national interest or public interest to table a document, it need not be tabled, even though we feel it is a cop-out.
In my submission, the Chair is not in a position now where it needs to make a ruling because Madam Speaker has done that. She made the ruling, left the way out, the way out has been taken by the Minister. That is the end of it. There is certainly no point in making another ruling on top of the one that has already been made. Obviously the document, on the declaration of the Minister himself, is not one of those which need be tabled because he has said to the House that it would not serve the national interest or the public interest to do so. That is the end of it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Chair has reviewed the remarks of the Speaker. The Chair is satisfied that the Minister has stated that it is against the public interest to reveal the document. That is the end of the matter.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Irenee Pelletier (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition.
It is addressed to the Honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your Honourable House will therefore provide a remedy. This petition containing 1,400 names was organized by the Conseil estrien pour la paix and the Carrefour de solidarity internationale de l'Estrie. Briefly, expresses the wish that Canada would refuse to test the Cruise missile and humbly showeth:
That the Cruise missile is a military weapon and not a peace weapon.
That its greater prevision and ability to fly without being detected by existing radar systems makes it a front line offensive weapon.
Wherefore, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon your Honourable House not to authorize the
Petitions
testing of the Cruise missiles on its territory, to support the initiatives for a multilateral disarmament at the special session of the United Nations, to assert its will not to escalate the arms race and to refuse unreservedly the presence of the Cruise missiles in Canada.
And as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray. [English]


Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition to the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled, signed by residents of Lindsay, Ontario, who now exercise their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefore provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that whereas a portion of Oak Street and Birch Court are already receiving full mail service, we the undersigned, do hereby petition for full mail service to the remainder of Oak Street and Birch Court in Lindsay. And as in duty bound our petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton South):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a petition on behalf of Amnesty International signed by 249 Albertans, primarily in the city of Edmonton. The petitioners claim that it is an affront to humanity for thousands of men and women to be imprisoned throughout the world solely because of their political beliefs, colour or ethnic origin. They also claim that there is an indissoluble link between human rights and world peace. Therefore, they petition Parliament to call for an amnesty backed by the United Nations and declared by all governments for all such prisoners of conscience, which would give effect to the moral and legal principles of the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Mcadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I have a few petitions I would like to present this afternoon. They have been sent to me by Canadian citizens. The petition of the undersigned of the Province of Saskatchewan, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefore provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that the undersigned have carefully considered the alternative plan presented by the New Democratic Party, that they feel the Crow rate must be maintained and that the railways of all of Canada must be upgraded and developed into a modern and efficient transportation system.

November 2, 1983
Petitions
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to adopt the provisions of the New Democratic Party alternative plan which will not change the Crowsnest Pass freight rate. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, I should like to present a petition this afternoon signed by the residents of the Province of Quebec who believe that the testing of the Cruise missile in Canada escalates the nuclear arms race and is therefore a threat to world peace. The petitioners ask Parliament to recognize that history proves that as military strength increases, so too does the temptation to use that military strength and, therefore, multilateral nuclear disarmament must occur in order to secure peace in the world. The petitioners call upon Parliament to debate and pass Bill C-678, an Act to Declare Canada a Nuclear Weapons Free Zone so that Canada, along with other countries that wish to participate can, as a traditionally peaceful nation or collection of nations, play a crucial role in mediating the world-wide process of disarmament.


Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: How many names?


Douglas Keith Anguish: There are a number of people here. One Member is calling for their names. There are several names. The Member who is asking can inspect the petition once it is laid upon the Table. Most of the residents are from Montreal.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member will confine himself to his petition.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, the petition, signed by the residents of Canada who now exercise their right to present a grievance, humbly sheweth that the salary budget for staff of Members of Parliament is frozen until August 3, 1984, under the six and five program, and that Members of Parliament were not informed of the freeze into the first year of the program, and as a result most MPs' staff will not receive any salary increases during 1983 and most of 1984.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to increase the salaries of MPs' staffs so that these employees are able to meet financial arrangements they entered into based on salary increases Members of Parliament and staff were led to expect. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, the next petition I have is signed by residents of the Province of Saskatchewan. The petition of the undersigned
residents of Canada, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefore provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that the undersigned have carefully considered the alternative plan presented by the New Democratic Party and that the Crow rate must be maintained and that the railways of all of Canada must be upgraded and developed into a modern and efficient transportation system.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to adopt the provisions of the New Democratic Party's alternative plan which will not change the Crowsnest Pass Agreement and rate. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, the next petition is signed by the residents of the Province of Manitoba who support the passage of a Private Members' Bill standing in my name, Bill C-678, an Act to declare Canada a nuclear weapons-free zone. The petitioners believe that the testing of the Cruise missile in Canada escalates the nuclear arms race and is therefore a serious threat to world peace. The petitioners stress that Canada, as a traditionally peaceful nation, can and must play a crucial role in achieving multilateral disarmament. They believe that the passage of Bill C-678 will allow Canada to act as a mediator, along with other countries who wish to participate, in the world-wide nuclear disarmament process.
And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, I do have several petitions here this afternoon and I will not go on to present all of them. I will take advantage of other days to do that. I will present one last petition and then I will take my seat.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by the residents of the Province of Saskatchewan to the honourable the House of Commons in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents from the Province of Saskatchewan who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefore provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that the undersigned have carefully considered the alternative plan presented by the New Democratic Party and that the Crow rate must be maintained and the railways of all Canada must be upgraded and developed into a modern and efficient transportation system.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to adopt the provisions of the New Democratic Party's alternative plan which will not change the Crowsnest Pass freight rate. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
November 2, 1983



CONSTITUTION ACT


Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-694, an Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 to 1982 (duration of House of Commons).


Some Hon. Members:: Explain.


J. Robert Howie: Mr. Speaker, my Bill seeks to authorize general elections at statutory intervals under certain conditions and provisions set out therein.


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


William J. Yurko: for leave to introduce Bill C-695, an Act to proclaim the first Monday in August "Heritage Day".


Some Hon. Members:: Explain.


William J. Yurko: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to designate the first Monday of August "Heritage Day" and to offer to all Canadians an occasion to express their appreciation and their pride in being part of a multicultural nation. I cite the work of Michael Beaupre and Dianne Davidson of the Law Branch and David Pratt of my office in drafting this Bill. A Member would have to be politically naive not to vote for this Bill.


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


Hon. Bud Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-696, an Act to amend the Blue Water Bridge Authority Act.


Some Hon. Members:: Explain.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, when the Blue Water Bridge Authority was established it was assumed that there would be Americans and Canadians serving on the authority. As it turns out, Michigan has decided to put the Blue Water Bridge totally within its highway system. As a result of that, rather than having eight members doing this work we now have four. I am suggesting that the number be increased from four to five so that we can handle the Canadian side.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Order Paper Questions
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Motions.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, we are prepared again today to forgo the usual practice of reading the riding of each Member presenting a motion for concurrence, the exception being for today only.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Agreed. I will dispense with reading the rather lengthy list.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4,243, 4,790, 5,017, 5,023 and 5,260.
[ Text)


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Is the Government contemplating introducing changes to the legislative provisions dealing with benefits for reasons of maternity and, if so, would such changes include the right of a claimant to choose the length of time before and after delivery?
2.	Were any such changes submitted to Cabinet for approval and, if so, what is the anticipated time that an enabling bill would be submitted to the House?


John (Moody) Roberts: 1. The provisions of the Unemployment Insurance legislation dealing with maternity benefits were examined by the Task Force on Unemployment Insurance and their report was tabled in Parliament in July, 1981.
The proposals for revamping the maternity benefit provisions would extend maternity benefits to adoptive parents, and eliminate the "magic 10" rule, Section 46, and the provision which limits payment to the first 15 weeks of benefits.
Under present legislation, a maximum of 15 weeks of maternity benefits is payable commencing eight weeks before the expected date of confinement and ending 17 weeks after the actual date of confinement. Personal flexibility is available within these parameters and the Task Force did not propose any modifications to this particular provision.
2.	Following extensive consultation across Canada, recommendations on various provisions of the UI legislation, including several dealing with maternity benefits, have been formulated. An enabling bill will be prepared and placed before the House based on the final decisions of the Cabinet; these have not yet been finalized.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	How many supernumeraries or vulnerable employees are presently retained on salary in the Department of Employment and Immigration?

November 2, 1983
Order Paper Questions
2.	What was the total following the reorganization of the Department?
3.	What is the budgeted cost of the reassignment program in the fiscal year 1983-84?


John (Moody) Roberts: 1. There are a total of 187 vulnerable employees on strength in the Department of Employment and Immigration and the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission. Of this number, 41 are employees whose positions were transferred from the National Capital Region to Bathurst, N.B., as a result of the Government's decision to relocate the Central Index, Annuities and Employer Registration Divisions. The balance are employees displaced as a result of the integration of the former Department of Manpower and Immigration and the Unemployment Insurance Commission. In addition, there are also 112 employees who, as a result of the integration process, have had their positions downgraded in classification level and have been accorded "Present Incumbent Only" status.
2.	The integration of positions and employees was a gradual process that took place over several years following the approval in 1977 of the Bill authorizing the creation of the Department of Employment and Immigration and the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission. In view of this fact, an answer to Part 2 is not possible.
3.	One officer (PE-2-$24,260 to $34,880) at National Headquarters is currently involved in full-time efforts to find new assignments for vulnerable employees and employees with "Present Incumbent Only" status.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): 1.	(a) Which agency or agencies or person or persons, and working in what city or cities, conceived and designed the logo and corporate signature of Via Rail Canada Inc. (b) what amount and on what date was each agency paid for these and any related services?
2.	What means were employed by Via Rail to protect its logo and corporate signature from use by others either within, or external to, Canada?
3.	Is Via Rail represented by any subsidiaries, agents or offices in other countries and, if so, in which other countries and by what other subsidiaries, agents or offices?


Lloyd Axworthy: The management of VIA Rail Canada Inc. advises as follows:
1.	(a) The VIA logo and corporate signature was designed by ARC Corporation of Montreal, Quebec in 1976.
(b) A sum totalling $15,000 was paid for the design to ARC in January, February and March, 1976.
2.	VIA Rail has obtained trademark registration of the logo and corporate signature design in Canada and is currently seeking similar registration in the United States, Europe and the Far East.
3.	VIA is represented by general agents in the following countries:
Thomas Cook Ltd.
P. O. Box 36
Peterborough, England PE36SB
Thistle Air Brokers Ltd.
12 Nineyard Street Saltcoast
Ayrshire, Scotland KA2 15HS CN France 1, rue Scribe Paris 75009 France
NRV Holiday B.V.
Zeestraat 100-104 2518AD The Hague Holland, Netherlands Zeppelin-Tours Karistrasse 57 D-7990 Friedrichshafen West Germany Canada Reise Dienst Grossestrasse 2 D2070 Ahrenburg West Germany Touring Club Suisse Rue Pierre-Fatio 9 1211 Geneva 3 Switzerland
Hans H. Kristensen A/S 56 Aaboulevard, DK-2200 Copenhagen N.
Denmark


Mr. Stewart: 1.	Is it the intention of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources to translate all place names on government maps, in accordance with provisions in the Official Languages Act, and, if so, to reprint all government maps in both official languages?
2.	What is the Department's best estimate of (a) the number of person-years required to translate place names on government maps (b) the cost to reprint government maps with place names in both official languages?


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows:
1. EM&R does not intend to translate all place names on government maps. All maps produced by the Department are now available either in a bilingual format or in separate

*m
November 2, 1983

English and French language publications in accordance with the spirit and intent of the Official Languages Act.
It is the practice of the Department to portray on maps only the official form of the name provided by the Canadian Permanent Committee on Geographical Names and as approved by the Provinces or Territories. An exception to this practice is that certain features of national significance are shown with names in both French and English language forms (e.g. Fleuve St. Laurent/St. Lawrence River).
2. Not applicable. See answer to part 1 above.


Mr. Skelly: 1.	Is the Station Manager of the Victoria Coast Guard Radio station retiring in December of 1983?
2.	Will the Department fill this position with a full-time manager through the normal competition procedure and, if not, does the Department intend to fill the position with an acting or temporary manager?
3.	If the Department intends to appoint an acting or temporary manager, is the Department beginning to implement a program which would see the closure of Coast Guard radio stations at Victoria, Comox, Alert Bay and Bull Harbour?
4.	Is there a committee of the Department of Transport examining the closure of Coast Guard radio stations in B.C. and, if so (a) what are its terms of reference (b) who sits on the committee?


Lloyd Axworthy: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	There is no committee of the Department formed for the express purpose of examining the closure of Coast Guard Radio Stations in British Columbia.
(a)	There is, however, a committee with Terms of Reference to: "Prepare an area master plan for the updating of the present Maritime Mobile Radio Communications Services provided by the Coast Guard Radio Stations on the West Coast of Canada."
The master plan is being developed by a team of regional and headquarters officials from the Canadian Coast Guard's Telecommunications and Electronics function.
(b)	The team submits periodic reports to a Steering Committee consisting of:
Chairperson:	Regional Director General, Western Coast
Guard Region
Members:	Director, Telecommunications and Electronics, Coast Guard, Ottawa
Director General, Aids and Waterways, Coast Guard, Ottawa
Director General, Ship Safety, Coast Guard, Ottawa
Ex officio:	Regional Manager, Telecommunications
and Electronics, Western Coast Guard Region
Motions for Papers


John Leslie Evans: If Question No. 4,387 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 4,387 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. McKenzie: 1. For (a) 1979 (b) 1980 (c) 1981 (d) the first six months of 1982, how many unilingual (i) Francophones (ii) Anglophones were hired and/or promoted by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in each Province and Territory?
2.	For (a) 1979 (b) 1980 (c) 1981 (d) the first six months of 1982, how may bilingual (i) Francophones (ii) Anglophones were hired and/or promoted in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in each Province and Territory?
3.	For (a) 1979 (6) 1980 (c) 1981 (d) the first six months of 1982, how many unilingual (i) Francophones (ii) Anglophones were rejected in the hiring and promotion process of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in each Province and Territory?
4. For (a) 1979 (b) 1980 (c) 1981 (d) the first six months of 1982, how many bilingual (i) Francophones (ii) Anglophones were rejected in the hiring and promotion process of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in each Province and Territory?
5.	For (a) 1979 (b) 1980 (c) 1981 {d) the first six months of 1982, how many unilingual (i) Francophones (ii) Anglophones applied for employment in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in each Province and Territory?
6.	For (a) 1979 (6) 1980 (c) 1981 (d) the first six months of 1982, how many bilingual (i) Francophones (ii) Anglophones applied for employment in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in each Province and Territory?
Return tabled.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the notices of motions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

November 2, 1983
Garrison Diversion


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, February 9, 1981, the motion of Mr. Sargeant:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of taking those measures necessary to ensure that there is no damage caused to the Manitoba environment by the completion of the Garrison Diversion Unit in the State of North Dakota and, that such measures to be considered could include:
1.	The convening of a joint meeting between provincial, state and federal
authorities affected by the Garrison project;
2.	The offer of legal and technical assistance to those citizen's groups in
Canada now attempting to halt the progress of the Garrison Diversion; and
3.	The bringing to trial in the World Court, the government of the United
States, should Canada be unsuccessful in its efforts to receive satisfactory
assurances regarding the future safety of her environment.
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Mr. Speaker, this motion refers to the Garrison Diversion project and addresses suggested measures to protect the environment of Manitoba. The first measure set out in the motion is as follows:
1.	The convening of a joint meeting between provincial, state and federal authorities affected by the Garrison project;
It is too late for that, Mr. Speaker; it has been done many times over the past few years.
The second measure set out in the motion is as follows:
2.	The offer of legal and technical assistance to those citizen's groups in Canada now attempting to halt the progress of the Garrison Diversion;
We are far too late for that, Mr. Speaker. It has all been done years ago.
The third proposal set out in the motion is:
3.	The bringing to trial in the World Court-
We do not have time for that either. The United States has made it perfectly clear that it is going to complete the Garrison Diversion project, and it has started work on the Lone Tree section of the project without consultation with Canada.
I have called on the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to contact the President of the United States personally to discuss the Garrison Diversion project and get assurances that it will not continue without further consultation.
I will go into details in a moment of where the United States, especially North Dakota, has made it perfectly clear that it is going to complete the diversion plan. We have been told that a fish screen is to be installed to act as a barrier. The report of the International Joint Commission indicated the commissioners simply did not believe that a workable and reliable fish screen could be developed. It wrote:
It is doubtful that the McClusky Canal Fish screen even with modifications would be a reliable and effective barrier to the transfer of foreign biota from the Missouri River to the Hudson Bay drainage basin.
A lot of studies have been done on this fish screen. We do not know who is right and who is wrong, but they are proceeding with it regardless.
I want to make some comments about the Republican Senator, Mark Andrews, of North Dakota. He has described Canadian objection to the controversial Garrison water diversion project as a bogeyman and red herring. He stated that the decision to build this project was not going to be made in Canada and that it would not be made in Washington but in North Dakota. He said that if people there can get their act together, they will have it. There could be no statement plainer than that, Mr. Speaker, to indicate that Senator Mark Andrews will do everything in his power to see that the Garrison Diversion is completed.
I have debated this subject in the past with Senator Andrews who is known to his colleagues as "the king of pork". He persuaded a House-Senate conference committee to reinstate a water diversion project after it had been overwhelmingly defeated in the House of Representatives.
Congressman Silvio Conte stated publicly in Washington that the Senators knew that they must vote in favour of these moneys for Garrison or risk having Senator Andrews put a halt to their own projects. He is determined to have the diversion project completed, Mr. Speaker, regardless of whether we go to the World Court or whatever.
I debated this subject with Senator Andrews at a Canada-U.S. parliamentary meeting in Calgary in 1979. At that time he made a number of statements which I subsequently had Environment Canada check. In a letter to me on September 27, 1979, an officer of the Department stated:
In reply to your question I think Congressman Andrews has either completely missed the point of our objections or is trying to sidestep them. The main thrust of our concerns, and this is a problem that was identified by the International Joint Commission, is that the Garrison Diversion Project would introduce into the Red River drainage biota not naturally found there.
I was given a detailed answer of places where Senator Andrews had misled the discussions at the Canada-U.S. parliamentary meeting.
The Attorney General for North Dakota has said that construction of the Garrison Diversion project will not be stopped by the Canadian Government or by the IJC if the United States determines that the project is in the United States' best interests. He said that the bottom line is that the project will be built if the United States Government decides it is in its best interests. That is what the Attorney General of North Dakota, Walter Wefald told a University of North Dakota law class in 1982. You can see the determination to complete the project and why the motion that we are debating today has come too late.
When the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Sargeant) introduced his motion on February 9, 1981, he said:
We in Manitoba have not been reassured in the past with regard to the government's concern about the Garrison diversion project.
NDP provincial Governments in the past have not shown a proper regard for this, Mr. Speaker. They have sat back while the project went full speed ahead.
November 2, 1983

Following a tour of diversion sites and meetings with American officials, the Manitoba Conservative caucus concluded that key data on the Manitoba situation is missing from American studies and that Manitoba apparently is relying exclusively on these studies for its protection. As a result, the Conservatives called on the NDP provincial Government to do a complete environment impact study, itself. The NDP claimed that no such independent study was necessary because both countries were working amicably on the full range of environmental impact reviews. In addition, Manitoba has a pledge from the U.S. State Department that the Americans will abide by their treaty obligation and do nothing to pollute Canadian waters.
1 have just pointed out what the Attorney General of North Dakota stated and what Senator Mark Andrews stated-they are going to complete the project.
The Leader of the Manitoba Conservative Party stated that the Government's reliance on another jurisdiction to protect Manitoba's interest is a gross dereliction of duty. He was referring to the NDP Government of the day. It sat back while North Dakota was proceeding full speed ahead with the diversion project.
The North Dakota Senate commended a former NDP premier of Manitoba for not attempting to stop the Garrison Diversion project. How naive can we be, Mr. Speaker.
A Member of the United States National Audubon Society, Richard Madson, said in an interview that the former NDP Premier of Manitoba received a letter, approved by both the United States Senate and the legislature of North Dakota, which thanked him for not backing a proposal to finance court action against the project. The former NDP Premier of Manitoba had taken this action although the State of Minnesota had come to the conclusion that litigation was the only way to stop the project in time. This former premier now lives across the street from the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker.
It was reported in the Winnipeg Free Press that at a time when Minnesota was wisely implementing legal action to protect the rights of its citizens to a clean and healthy environment, the former Manitoba NDP Premier not only blocked such action on the part of Manitobans but received a commendation from the very individuals promoting the development which will degrade the quality of Manitoba's environment. The resolution of commendation from the Garrison promoters is an incredibly clear indication of just how completely the former Manitoba NDP Premier and his caucus had failed in their elected responsibilities to protect the interests of Manitobans.
In October of 1982, the Winnipeg Free Press reported that the Manitoba NDP Government spent more than $86,000 that year on its fight against the giant North Dakota Garrison irrigation project without reaping any tangible evidence of success. That includes more than $20,000 in legal bills from a Washington law firm and expenses for a Crown attorney to lobby Congressmen on Capital Hill. The NDP Government
Garrison Diversion
has hired more people, spent more money and published more pamphlets, yet has not been effective in halting the Garrison Diversion project, and by the time we go to the World Court to debate the Garrison Diversion project, it will be completed.
If Garrison proceeds, a multimillion dollar Canadian industry will be destroyed simply by changing the direction in which that river water flows. North Dakota is bisected by a height of land or divide. North of the divide, water runs north to Hudson's Bay through the Hudson's Bay drainage basin. Land south of the divide is in the Missouri River drainage basin. The two drainage basins have been separated since the last ice age. Each has developed its own kinds of fish. For the first time, because of the Garrison project, the Missouri River water flow north across the divide. With the water would come fish and fish eggs, as well as parasites and diseases which do not now exist in the Hudson's Bay drainage basin.
Use of this water to irrigate land in this basin would enable Missouri fish to move north into Canada. The International Joint Commission investigated the Garrison Diversion project. The Commission warned that the introduction of foreign species of fish into Lake Winnipeg would result in major reductions in the more highly valued species. Whitefish, walleye and sauger populations could decrease 50 per cent to 75 per cent. This would wipe out the commercial fishery. The IJC further stated that while most of the impacts can be mitigated, those from the possible Biota transfers are so threatening that the only acceptable policy at present is to delay construction of those features of the Garrison unit which might result in such transfers. Furthermore, if this project proceeds, it will violate the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty, which reads:
-waters herein defined as boundary waters and waters flowing across the boundary shall not be polluted on either side to the injury or health or property on the other.
I suggest again, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister of Canada contact the President of the United States and launch an official protest. I understand a report came out of Minneapolis last week that a note was sent recently to Mr. Schultz in the United States. We have been sending notes, having little meetings and writing letters for about seven or eight years, but the project is still being continued. As I pointed out earlier, Senator Andrews and the Attorney General have made their positions perfectly clear. They are going to complete the Garrison Diversion project regardless of what is going to happen to Canadian waters.
I reiterate, Mr. Speaker, we have gone beyond the point of funding little groups to study the matter, and going to the World Court. The Prime Minister will have to take a position on this immediately and contact the President to ask him if he will investigate and report back to the Prime Minister on whether he will be able to stop this project and make sure that Canadian waters are protected.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to participate in the debate today on Motion No. 28, a motion which was put forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Sargeant), and seconded by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre

November 2, 1983
Garrison Diversion
(Mr. Knowles). This is a motion, as we know, which has to do with the Government's responsibilities as they relate to Canada's intervention in the North Dakota Garrison Diversion unit.
Perhaps I should first make some reply to the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie). Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could have a little order over there.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please! The Chair has also noticed that the noise level is perhaps somewhat higher than usual in the House. It is probably due to the excellent attendance on the part of Hon. Members. However, I believe that we should listen closely to the speech of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie).


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: We are not used to having so many Liberals in the Chamber all at one time, Mr. Speaker, except for votes, and those Hon. Members are not used to it.
I would like to reply, Mr. Speaker, to the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine, who has responded with his usual generosity of spirit and lack of respect for the facts. He has taken it upon himself to violate one of the most important features of the struggle against the Garrison Diversion unit, that is, the non-partisan nature, the unanimity with which Manitobans have tried to prevent this environmental disaster from ever becoming reality. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine has disregarded the power of that unanimity and sought to score cheap political points, mainly by referring to supposed or alleged inaction on the part of the former New Democratic Government which was in power prior to 1977 and was defeated in October of 1977. What the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine failed to point out was that until late 1977 all Manitobans were waiting for the report of the International Joint Commission on the Garrison Diversion project. At that point in time there was still reason to believe that whatever judgment that body made would be respected by the Americans.
We learned later, in 1978, that that was not the case. For the next four years, after we had the report of the International Joint Commission, we had a Progressive Conservative Government in Manitoba which did virtually nothing, it put all its faith in diplomatic relations with the United States. That Government said that because of our good neighbour to the south we had nothing to worry about. It displayed that usual uncritical attitude toward the United States, which did not serve it in good stead, Mr. Speaker. However, I am glad to see that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine is finally on board, that he finally has a mature attitude toward the way in which the United States of America acts when its own selfinterests are involved. Finally we hear from a Conservative Hon. Member talking about a Republican in North Dakota and saying, that when it comes down to it, the United States acts in its own self-interests. That is the bottom line of American foreign policy. It is refreshing, indeed, Mr. Speaker, to hear that kind of mature analysis coming from a Progressive
Conservative Member of Parliament. That is something one can welcome hearing.
I hope I have now corrected the record for the benefit of those Manitobans who may be listening to this debate, who will actually know themselves that the present Government of Manitoba is doing more than the previous Progressive Conservative Government to stimulate public opinion, opposition and knowledge about the Garrison Diversion project. In the end, this is going to be one of the crucial ways in which we oppose this project, by making people aware of this concern and by doing everything we can to bring about an end to that project.
The motion currently before the House says that the federal Government:
-should consider the advisability of taking those measures necessary to ensure that there is no damage caused to the Manitoba environment by the completion of the Garrison diversion unit-
The important word here, Mr. Speaker, is "completion", because the completion of the Garrison Diversion Unit, as the Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine pointed out, means a melding of the Missouri River drainage basin with the Hudson's Bay drainage basin. This is of crucial concern. What is being proposed by the State of North Dakota and the United States Department of the Interior in respect of the Garrison project is indeed mind-boggling and a glaring tribute to the misplaced vanity of man. This Promethean project aims to irrigate about 250,000 acres of North Dakota soil by constructing reservoirs and dams, which will eventually, through human engineering, do something nature never intended, namely, link a southern flowing drainage basin and a northern flowing drainage basin. In effect, the Garrison project will do away with the great continental divide in North Dakota. No longer will all rivers to the north of the divide flow into Hudson's Bay and all rivers south of the divide flow into the Gulf of Mexico via the great Mississippi River. Instead, the two river systems will be linked and the waters of the systems will be mixed.
About ten years ago people in Manitoba who had looked at plans for Garrison started to wonder about the effects it might have on Canadian waters. The two river systems flowing north and south have very different characteristics. There are fish species in the southern drainage system which are completely foreign to Canada, and vice versa. What other kinds of aquatic life such as tiny bacteria or foreign chemicals might also be transferred into Canada by that mixing of the waters, people ask. As Manitobans started to ask more questions about the effects of Garrison, they started to get more worried about what they might be in for if the project went ahead. Manitoba politicians were soon on the phone and using the mails to contact their counterparts in Ottawa about making representations to the U.S. Government about Garrison. Talking to the State of North Dakota was one possible way for Manitobans to get their increasing concerns across, but it soon became obvious to those making the representations that Garrison was as much a U.S. federal concern as it was a state matter. So the Canadian federal Government got dragged in to help Manito-
November 2, 1983

ba through the intricacies of international diplomacy and negotiation.
Through the efforts of the Canadian Government, agreement was reached in 1975 that the International Joint Commission would do a comprehensive study of the trans-boundary transfers expected to occur as a result of Garrison, a study 1 already referred to, Mr. Speaker. The IJC was also given a mandate to assess the impact of these environmental transfers on the ecosystem of Manitoba. It was 1977 before the IJC completed its report and made it public. Most people who live in Manitoba did not need to know the minute details of the report to grasp one basic conclusion that the IJC put forward, namely, that Garrison, if it were constructed and completed as designed in 1975, would have a serious impact on the waters of Manitoba. Not only that, but the study said it was likely that various kinds of fish alien to Manitoba would eventually find their way into the Province's lakes and rivers. With them would come the threat of competition for limited food sources and the possible waning of indigenous fish populations to be replaced by the hardier variety of southern fish.
Since the IJC report, Mr. Speaker, and on the strength of that report, Manitobans have been waging war against Garrison. The current Government has established a Garrison focus office to answer citizens' inquiries and to keep on top of the issue. 1 know the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake and other Members of the House from other Parties have travelled to Washington, along with Manitoba Cabinet Ministers, to lobby American legislators. Indeed, I had an opportunity to do this myself in September of 1981 when I was in Washington with a Canadian parliamentary delegation. I met with American politicians from North Dakota and Minnesota, and tried to get a meeting with Senator Mark Andrews, but he displayed the same kind of closed-mindedness that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine referred to. In fact, he was not even prepared to meet with me. I phoned one hour before the meeting and confirmed that he would indeed be meeting with me, and when I got there he had suddenly been called away. I had hoped to look him straight in the eye and just tell him what this project meant to Manitoba and what the Americans were doing to their relationship with us by being willing to go ahead with this come-what-may, despite the effects on Canada. But there was no opportunity to do that because, let us put it bluntly, he avoided me as I am sure he has avoided others on this issue.
My colleagues and I in the NDP, Mr. Speaker, are kept up to date on matters relating to Garrison by the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake, who has concerned himself with Garrison. I have been informed by him recently of allegations which emanate from the U.S. and involve bogus scientific information as distributed by the Department of the Interior. The information has to do with Garrison, and I would therefore like to move an amendment No. 28 that:
The Canadian Government do everything in its power to investigate charges that falsified information has been used in preparing U.S. environmental assessments relating to wetlands and wildlife habitats in North Dakota and that, further, the Government do everything in its power to ensure that no falsified
Garrison Diversion
information has been used which might result in adverse environmental effects to Manitoba's waterways.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Chair would ask the Hon. Member if his amendment is in addition to the present text of the motion or does-


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: It is an addition and it will become item No. 4, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Chair finds the amendment to be in order.


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Speaker, could we have copies of that amendment? Secondly, I assume it will be possible to discuss both the amendment and the motion at the same time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Yes. Debate is now open on the full text of the motion as amended. Strictly speaking, the debate would be on the amendment but the amendment includes the full text of the motion, so if you debate one, you debate them all. Also, the Hon. Member will get copies of the amendment.


Mrs. Suzanne Beauchamp-Niquet (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, regarding the motion presented by the Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Sargeant):
That, ... the Government should consider the advisability of taking those measures necessary to ensure that there is no damage caused to the Manitoba environment by the completion of the Garrison Diversion Unit in the State of North Dakota and, that such measures to be considered could include-
And at this point, three suggestions are made. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased with this opportunity to rise in the House today and address a matter of serious concern to the Government.
The Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake is suggesting that the Government consider taking the measures necessary to ensure that no damage is caused to the Manitoba environment by the completion of the Garrison Diversion Unit in the State of North Dakota. The Government is very much aware of the risk of damage to the Manitoban ecosystem as a result of the present plans for the Garrison Diversion project, and consequently, it has taken steps to ensure that the United States does not renege on the assurances it has already given us that it will not undertake any work in connection with the Garrison project that might have a damaging effect on waters flowing into Canada. As the Hon. Member is aware, these assurances are based on the Boundary Waters Treaty concluded in 1909 between the United States and Canada, which provides, and I quote:
-waters flowing across the boundary shall not be polluted on either side to the injury of health or property on the other.
The assurances given Canada by the U.S. Government in connection with the Garrison Diversion project are also based

November 2, 1983
Garrison Diversion
on the recommendations of the 1977 report by the International Joint Commission. The Commission's main recommendation was that construction of those parts of the Garrison Diversion project that might affect waters flowing into Canada should be put on hold for the time being.
The Government has taken advantage of every opportunity to ensure that the concerns of Canadians and more specifically of Manitobans are fully understood and considered by the U.S. Congress and Administration, with respect to the design and construction of works under the Garrison Diversion project.
Recent developments, including an increase by Congress in appropriations for the so-called Phase I and the contract awarded for construction of the Lonetree dam and reservoir, have been followed very closely by the Governments of Canada and Manitoba, with a view to being ready to intervene at senior political levels in order to protect Canadian interests.
Very recently, after the Lonetree contract was awarded, the Government expressed its concern about the impact of the timing of the contract award on the current consultation process. We still consider consultation with the United States as the most effective way to respond to Canadian concern about aspects of the Garrison project that might have a disastrous effect on waters flowing into Canada.
Mr. Speaker, on October 3 of this year, the Canadian Government, in a memorandum to the State Department, specifically deplored the fact that the contract for construction of the Lonetree dam, the main work of the Garrison project's water distribution network, was awarded on August 24, 1983, before consultations scheduled by the International Joint Commission were finalized and agreement was reached by both Governments. This Government was particularly critical of the U.S. step because it was taken after a meeting of representatives of both Governments in Ottawa on July 20 of this year to discuss technical aspects of Canadian concerns about some of the project works, on the basis of plans and technical specifications that had been submitted to the Canadian side. At the meeting, a substantial amount of useful information was exchanged and resulted in a fruitful discussion that seemed to prepare the ground for a high level consultative meeting equally productive that both Governments intended to have in September. In the memorandum it sent to the State Department, this Government mentioned that realistically, the September consultations could not have given positive results if they had more or less coincided with the Administration's announcement that a contract had been awarded for construction on the main work of the Garrison project, the very part of the project that was still the subject of intense consultations.
The Government of Canada reminded the State Department that in principle, it saw no reason to object to projects aimed at promoting the economic development of certain regions of the United States, as the Garrison Diversion project was, and that it could understand and fully appreciate the
American Administration's standing commitment to the people of North Dakota to replace farmland used to build flood control works. Nevertheless, the Government also felt it should point out that certain parts of the plan as authorized by Congress were likely to have a disastrous effect on waters flowing into Canada, as had been the conclusion of the International Joint Commission in its 1977 report to both Governments.
Mr. Speaker, as long as the plan authorized by Congress is maintained, the Government of Canada can only assume it is still possible that the Garrison project will be funded by Congress up to completion, and this includes what is designated as Phase II. This situation will go on fueling the serious concerns which Canadians have with certain aspects of Phase 1 and the whole of Phase II. On the other hand, the Canadian Government did inform the United States that it appreciated the general assurances given on various occasions by the Administration, as well as the qualification tied to the last estimates approved to this date by Congress for the 1984 fiscal year that no monies earmarked under the current commitments of Congress shall be used for the completion of sections of the Garrison diversion project in North Dakota that could pollute, introduce foreign biota into or unduly increase or decrease the volume of water flowing into Canada. However, the Government fully recognizes that, in order to efficiently protect Canadian interests and prevent pollution of Manitoba waters by foreign biota originating from a diversion of waters from the Missouri River basin, it must make sure that the general guarantees given by the United States at the ministerial level will translate into technical assurances and guarantees included in the specifications for the Garrison project.
For this reason, the Government is currently attempting to co-operate with officials from the American State Department and Department of the Interior in order to monitor, clarify and resolve specific issues of a technical nature raised by the Canadian representatives after a scrutiny of the Garrison project specifications. In the course of that scrutiny, the Canadian officials' major concern has been to evaluate to what extent the specifications involved the hazard of transferring biota, larvae and fish from the Missouri River basin into the Hudson Bay basin. Other questions have been identified in connection with wildlife management plans, especially as far as migrating birds are concerned.
As I have already said, an important bilateral meeting of experts was held in Ottawa on July 20, 1983, which was attended by representatives of the Water Board and the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife of the state of North Dakota, the "Garrison Conservancy District", the Bureau of Reclamation in Bismark, Denver, Billings and Washington, and of the State Department on the American side, and on the Canadian side by representatives of the Department of Natural Resources of Manitoba, Environment Canada, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and also the Secretary of State
November 2, 1983

for External Affairs. The purpose of that meeting was to give the Administration an opportunity to provide technical data concerning the Garrison project and to allow Canadian representatives to raise other matters and concerns. A first list of technical problems drawn up by the Canadian representatives and submitted to the State Department by the Canadian Embassy in Washington before the meeting made it possible to delineate the issues involved and the discussions that followed.
Mr. Speaker, despite a very useful exchange of information, Canada has not yet received any answer to some of its major concerns about the impact of the project on the flow of water into the Hudson Bay's basin and Canada. Such was the conclusion reached by the officials who attended the federal-provincial meeting held early in September, when the Deputy Minister and officers from the Manitoba Department of Natural Resources met in Ottawa with representatives of Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans and External Affairs.
Consequently, the Canadian government has decided to officially submit to the State Department a final list of technical issues of concern for Canada in connection with the Garrison project. Through that list which accompanied the note delivered by the Canadian government during the first week of October, Canada is asking that technical alterations be made to the works provided under Phase I. By doing so, Canada is complying with the recommendations made in the 1977 report of the International Joint Commission which provides for consultations between Canada and the United States until an agreement is reached so that any piece of work the construction of which has been approved will not affect streams flowing into Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the House about the technical problems which Canada tries to solve through such consultations. I would like to mention more especially the McClusky fish screen, the drainage of municipal and industrial wastes at the Lonetree dam and reservoir and the plan to minimise the impact on wildlife.
Canada is concerned because the Bureau of Reclamation has mentioned in the final schedule to the statement on impacts filed with the Environmental Protection Agency in July 1983 that the construction of the McClusky fish screen is no longer considered. The construction of such a screen was provided in the 1979 statement on the environmental impact, but the final statement mentions that the area now to be developed does not affect any Canadian interests and suggests instead that the water running through the Garrison project be filtered at several locations downstream the Lonetree reservoir.
When a fish screen is built on the channel, the fish, their eggs the larvae and all other biota in the Missouri River could flow directly into the Lonetree reservoir situated in the Hudson Bay drainage basin a few metres away from the Cheyenne River. As the Hon. Members know, the Cheyenne river flows into the Red River which is part of the Hudson Bay drainage
Garrison Diversion
basin. The fish and other biota in the Missouri River would not only be found in Lonetree Reservoir but also in the entire system: head races, inner reservoirs, irrigation areas, and retaining channels, thus greatly increasing the danger of biota transfers from the Missouri River drainage basin to the Hudson Bay basin.
The International Joint Commission had based its assessment that the construction of the Lonetree Reservoir was acceptable not only on the establishment of a closed system, but also on the installation of a fish screen in the McClusky Canal. Canada strongly supported the recommendation of the International Joint Commission to the effect that fishing on the Lonetree Reservoir be prohibited. On the other hand, Canada does not believe that this position could be strictly enforced. It has therefore concluded that the fish screen in the McClusky Canal had to be set up during Phase I to act as a first barrier against fish and fish eggs and lessen the dangers of transfers between the basins. Canada has noted similar findings by the Environment Protection Agency in its detailed environmental impact study.
Mr. Speaker, while supporting the setting up of a fish screen, and in spite of recent improvements in the design and use of fish screens, Canada must agree with the International Joint Commission that the McClusky fish screen, just like any other mechanical device, could not entirely and for all times prevent transfer of foreign biota between the drainage basins. On the other hand, Canada would oppose any plan to stock the Lonetree Reservoir with fish to check the effectiveness of the fish screen, in order to minimize the dangers of biota transfer between the basins resulting from fishing activities.
Canada is concerned also with the possible use for municipal and industrial purposes of unfiltered water and the dangers of possible biota transfers from the Missouri River hydrographic basin into the Hudson Bay drainage basin. Canadian experts have indicated that the bolted obturator, which is being planned to close the down-stream end of the municipal and industrial overfall, could easily be opened. In times of drought, the temptation would certainly increase to open the overfall; so Canada has asked that the plans be modified to provide for a more permanent obturator such as a reinforced concrete sluice-gate.
Third, Canada has advised the United States that it would like to open consultations on the 1982 plan for lessening the impact on wildlife, as described in the final supplement to the environment impact study by the Bureau of Reclamation. Although this plan is supposedly based on the creation, preservation and restoration of wetlands and wildlife habitats, as well as related pastures and woodlands, it does not provide for the replacement "acre by acre" of the marshlands which the officials of the international dual commission had recommended. The representatives of the Canadian Wildlife Service who reviewed and evaluated the alleviation plan have pointed out that the modelization process of the habitat assessment

November 2, 1983
Garrison Diversion
procedure has not yet been tested in the field to determine the validity of the data used in this plan. Canada still believes that the United States must continue to fully respect the spirit of the migratory birds treaty they signed with Canada in 1916.
In addition to the three major concerns which I have just described, the Canadian Government has called the attention of the United States to other technical problems which we would like to have solved in the near future through the consultation process. These issues deal with the question of how to design and build the Lonetree Reservoir to prevent fish eggs, larvae and viruses to filter through the banks and the bottom of the reservoir and join the rivers flowing into Hudson Bay, the possibility that irrigating the lands along the McClusky Canal will result in the transfer of biotas between basins, the need to preserve the present sluice gates of the New Pockford Canal until the Lonetree Reservoir becomes completely operational, the design of the segments of the New Pockford Canal which cross tributaries of the Sheyenne River, the additional information required about the Warwick-McVille irrigation zone, and the fact that the Oakes Canal and the Taayer Reservoir are located very near the watershed of the Wild Rice River, which flows into the Red River.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude by saying that the Government is determined to ensure that in any work of what is commonly called Phase I of the Garrison Project all possible precautions will be taken to eliminate the possible transfer of human organisms from one basin to the other and its effects on Manitoba lakes and rivers. We hope that the problems-


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


Mr. Tousignant:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the House that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) at the beginning of his remarks made some allegations that the Government does not care. He is not even here to listen to the answer.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order please! That is not a point of order.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to share some thoughts with Members of the House this afternoon and in doing so express the concern of many Manitobans about the Garrison Diversion a project which has been in the works for many years. We are particularly concerned in the Province of Manitoba about the recently announced first phase.
As all Hon. Members of the House know, the Government of the United States recently announced plans to proceed with the $5.82 million Lonetree Reservoir. Unfortunately, that decision was made without sufficient safety precautions having
been taken. We in the Province of Manitoba are concerned about this development for a variety of reasons. First, we have been and continue to be concerned about the problem of the quality of water which comes into the Province of Manitoba, particularly in my constituency of Brandon-Souris, from the State of North Dakota within the Souris River system.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. 1 apologize to the Hon. Member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Clark), but according to the Standing Orders only one Member may be on his or her feet at the same time. 1 plead with Hon. Members to lower the tone of their conversations.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, your intervention indicates that you understand this is a very serious problem in the Province of Manitoba. We appreciate your concern. As 1 was saying, we have been concerned for a long time about the quality of the water. Also we are very concerned that sufficient safety measures were not taken into consideration, and about the possibility of seepage and fishermen using the water system in North Dakota and quite innocently transferring foreign species into the Canadian water system. As well we are concerned about the fact that when the first phase was announced, it seemed to come as a surprise to the Government of Canada. As was suggested recently in the Winnipeg Free Press, the Canadian Government might not have been surprised if it had taken every available opportunity to have observers on site.


A. Daniel McKenzie: The New Democratic Party was invited to send scientists and it declined to do so.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: I hear my hon. colleague. He is quite correct. Prior to entering the Chamber this afternoon, I heard the debate which was taking place. Differences of opinion were being expressed as to the roles of various Manitoba Governments in this case. It is important for all Hon. Members to understand that the concern about the Garrison is something which transcends Party differences. We may disagree on how best to implement the concerns, but it is very important to realize that this is a non-partisan matter about which all the people of Manitoba are very concerned. Therefore, we urge action by all concerned Governments. We believe that this is the time for energetic leadership by both Governments. They should take every available opportunity to ensure that they are as fully conversant with developments as they can possibly be.
Our concern is even greater as a result of recent revelations in the American press. It appears that falsified information was used by some Americans with respect to the environmental impact of the proposed development. Therefore I am very much in sympathy with the amendment introduced by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie). It is important that the House register its concern and do everything it possibly can to ensure that such falsified information has not been made available to Canada so that the sense of security of some Canadians is not based upon false premises.
November 2, 1983

We need some guarantee that the quality of water in the Souris and Red River will not be impaired by this development. Also we need some guarantee that foreign species will not be introduced into the river system, thereby endangering both our sports and commercial fishing, and that the Governments involved will regard this matter as a very high priority.
As I said in the House prior to the visit of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) to Halifax and his meetings there with his American counterpart, I had hoped that our officials would make this a very high priority. From reading newspaper accounts of those meetings, 1 suspect that the priority was not as high as 1 had wished. At that time I was hopeful that the change in personnel in the United States with direct responsibility for this-that is, the dismissal of Mr. Watt-would lead to a more favourable individual assuming his responsibilities. 1 regret that that does not seem to have occurred.
Therefore, 1 conclude my remarks by reiterating the belief of the people of Manitoba that this is an issue of paramount importance. We impress upon the Government-and we hope that the Government of Manitoba would be likewise concerned-to approach this question with the utmost urgency.


Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: Mr. Speaker, if I want to take a few minutes to discusss the subject now under consideration, namely the Garrison project, it is because, having been involved in the work of the subcommittee on acid rain, I have been in a position to realize the value of the discussions on environmental issues between Canada and the United States and because, for the past several years, the International Joint Commission has been reviewing the various issues which affect the Canadian and American environments, especially where water is concerned.
1 would like to come back to the third suggestion contained in the motion under consideration, namely the bringing to trial in the World Court of the Government of the United States, should Canada be unsuccessful in its efforts to receive satisfactory assurances regarding the future safety of her environment.
I believe that this would to much too great an extent involve a third party in the discussions between Canada and the United States, in view of the fact that in an area as important as the environment, these two countries have managed to come to an agreement these last few years. Involving a third party would show a lack of confidence in a field where close cooperation and consultation between our two countries already exist. It is true that we do not always agree, that our positions can differ, but in the end a kind of tacit understanding does exist as a result of which, until an agreement has been reached, neither country will take concrete steps on any issue relating to the environment. In addition, since the middle of the sixties, a lot of progress has been accomplished in the areas we are discussing, namely the protection of Manitoba waters.
Garrison Diversion
As an illustration, I would point out that, last year, the American Congress, by a very impressive vote of 252 against 152 as I recall, refused to authorize a $4 million allocation for the development of this project. It was the first time that such funds had been refused. It is true that later on they were granted by a joint senatorial and congressional committee, but the fact still remains that a majority of American Congressmen turned down the request for these expenditures which shows how deep is their concern for the environment, both in the United States and Canada. And that is so precisely because the joint committee responsible for looking into environment related issues between the two countries, particularly with respect to waters, has done its job, as it did in other cases such as the Great Lakes, with constant concern for the environment.
Of course, when it comes to an issue such as acid rains, we must admit that there are different opinions. But it is true as well that the Americans view those problems from an angle which differs from ours in Canada. We must keep in mind the fact that there are over 200 million Americans-almost 250 million-in a country somewhat smaller than ours. Obviously, they have commitments towards the population which we Canadians do not have. As Canadians, we have the right and the duty to protect our environment because it is our greatest wealth, and since there are only 24 million of us in the second largest country in the world, we do have wealth and plenty of resources which very few nations of the world enjoy. And I think that, in the name of mankind, we have an obligation to protect the resources of the country in which we live. But the Americans have to reconcile that aspect with the fact that they must provide their population with food, electricity and all kinds of other things. In my opinion, asking a third party to intervene in areas which have been the subject of constant discussions with them over the years would be dishonest first and, second, it might jeopardize what has always been wide open co-operation between the two countries. In other words, the important thing in the realm of ecology is that the two countries maintain a constant dialogue.
If the dialogue were broken, Mr. Speaker, I might consider the suggestion by the hon. member as useful, but certainly not of a nature as to reestablish the dialogue. Quite the contrary! On the other hand, if we did it now when there is constant dialogue between the countries and when there are mecanisms which have been developed by very wise politicians over the years, whatever their political affiliations, I suggest it would be ill-advised at this time to involve a third party which would be entirely unaware of past dealings which go back some 20 years in this case and even more in other cases.
Far from being based on facts, the accusations against the government are quite surprising, considering that the Canadian government is perceived as one of the world leaders in the area of environment protection, that it is probably the one

November 2, 1983
Income Tax Act
country which is most responsible for arousing environmental awareness in the United States, especially in the areas of air pollution due to acid rains, or Great Lakes pollution, or the protection of territorial waters, whether Canadian or otherwise. Indeed, if there is a government and politicians who are aware of the importance of sport fishing, or drinking water, it is the Government of Canada which is constantly involved in discussions with the provinces through its Environment and Forestry departments, and which . . . through this House has on two occasions taken upon itself to provide the Sub-committee on acid rains with orders of reference urging its members to take the necessary steps to meet throughout Canada with people on an international level and devise a valid and workable strategy to Fight against this curse of the 20th century.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 24(2) to interrupt the proceedings.
Shall all orders listed under Private Members' Notices of Motions preceding order No. 102 be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



INCOME TAX ACT


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Yellowhead) moved:: That a Special Committee be appointed to review all relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act relating to the taxation of visual and performing artists including, but not limited to, the criteria for establishing the professional status of visual and performing artists and the method for determining allowable business deductions for such artists and to recommend any changes that the Committee deems necessary and proper;
That such review include the hearing and consideration of the views of interested parties and organizations;
That the Committee consist of nine (9) members;
That it be an instruction to the said Committee that it meet forthwith;
That the Committee have the power to send for persons, papers and records and to examine witnesses and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the Committee; and
That the Committee submit its report not later than January 17, 1984.
He said: Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: -Hon. Members will know that since I last spoke in this House, I have changed my status and have become a statesman!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: It is in that spirit that I am raising an issue that has nothing to do with partisan differences and has everything to do with our work as Parliamentarians and, in my view, with our identity as Canadians.
The particular issue today is the tax status of visual and performing artists in Canada. That question was dramatized some weeks ago when the internationally successful Canadian artist, Toni Onley of Vancouver, concluded that he had only one way to avoid a tax treatment which almost all visual artists consider to be unfair, and that that way would be for Mr. Onley to burn a million dollars worth of Canadian works of art. Mr. Onley by that action forced us all to face the absurdity of a public policy which through the CBC, the Canada Council and other grants encourages artists to create and, on the other hand, through tax policy, leads them to destroy their works or to limit their imagination.

Members on both sides of the House have intervened personally to ask Mr. Onley not to destroy his work. We said we would not only look into his case but also the hundreds or perhaps thousands of other cases to which he has wanted to draw our attention by his dramatic threat. Today we are considering an instrument that would enable elected representatives, Members of Parliament, to deal with a matter that has been a serious problem for at least a decade and that can only be resolved if Hon. Members take a direct and active interest in this issue.
Perhaps I may review past events. For many years, the special status of artists was recognized by Canada's tax policy. In the 60s, although there was no legislation on a special status for artists, the practice was to allow them to be considered as employees for the purposes of unemployment insurance premiums and the Canada Pension Plan, while at the same time they were considered to be self-employed so that they could deduct expenses incurred in the performance of their art. These included purchase of supplies, instruments and costumes and the travel expenses incurred in order to perform on the stage, to paint or to write.

That dual status for artists was an unintended victim of the Government's decision in 1972 to consolidate and rationalize treatment of social security programs by Revenue Canada. That change brought an end to the practice of individual officers of Revenue Canada assessing artists on an individual case by case basis. Instead, the computer did the assessment. The only computer categories into which artists fit were, on the one hand, as hobbyists if they did not generate a profit from their art or, on the other hand, as a manufacturer if they did generate a profit from their art.
If you are an artist whom the computer calls a hobbyist, you cannot deduct legitimate business expenses related to the production of your work. If you are an artist whom the computer calls a manufacturer, you must sell or liquidate your inventory, which in this case is all of your artistic works, on a yearly basis if you wish to deduct all of the legitimate expenses for that year.
The implications of this are staggering. In the case of Mr. Onley, his means of liquidating his inventory so that he can
November 2, 1983

deduct legitimate expenses was to hold a big bonfire on Wreck Beach. In the case of artists whose reputation in their field is so well established that they are asked to teach and who can earn more from their teaching than from their art, they can become hobbyists to the computer in National Revenue. They probably cannot claim the cost of their paints, research or other preparations. Less established artists who are trying to get started and who are supporting themselves during the time when they are trying to get started in some other job are also hobbyists according to the computer. They cannot deduct their legitimate expenses. It is safe to say that nobody planned things this way. The Government simply wanted to bring order to its taxing operations back in 1972 and Canadian artists are quite literally the victims of computer error. That is what is happening.
An additional and related problem has been to categorize performing artists as employees of the group for whom they perform rather than as independent artists. That has been the case with members of the Toronto Symphony Orchestra. That is a matter which the Government now has under review. It has been a matter in the case of the Carousel Players of St. Catharines. It has been the case with the Mermaid Theatre in Wolfville, Nova Scotia. It has revenue implications for both the performing companies and for individual performers.
These problems are very real to individual artists. They create an atmosphere of stress and an atmosphere, unhappily, of anger that harms not only Canada's artistic reputation but also the interests of our artists in working in their art.
The House may want to know what some of these things mean in human terms. It means, for example, that a film maker from Montreal who is today premiering her latest film with the National Film Board here in Ottawa is classified as a maker of home movies because her films have not yet made a profit. Consequently she faces today a reassessment of literally thousands of dollars in taxes. It means that a professional sculptor from British Columbia whose works are cast in bronze by a Canadian fine arts foundry is told that he has to change his long and delicate process of creating a bronze sculpture because he is classed, not as a sculptor, not as an artist, but as a manufacturer. He has to fit the production, completion and the sale of a work of art into fixed yearly increments just like any manufacturer of widgets would if he wants to be able to deduct his heavy outlays in labour and materials from income earned.
To cite again the case of Carousel Players of St. Catharines where the Government has decided to treat performers as employees rather than as independent artists, Revenue Canada in this case is seeking to recover employee and employer contributions to unemployment insurance and CPP from both the company and the players. The company and the players have no money and they cannot pay. Revenue Canada has issued a third party demand on incoming grants from the Ontario Arts Council and the Canada Council and they have already seized funds in excess of $ 15,000.
Income Tax Act
That illustrates perfectly the crazy dilemma that we have to resolve. Parliament deliberately authorized the Canada Council to help artists. We did not deliberately authorize the computers of Revenue Canada to harass artists. No one in their right mind would find any logic in a system in which Revenue Canada is getting grants from the Canada Council, but that is what is happening in this case and it is inexcusable.
As Parliamentarians we have to ask ourselves why we have a policy by default. Nobody planned it this way. None of the Ministers opposite planned it this way. Indeed, some of them have been working to change it. We as Parliamentarians, dealing with a matter of very real importance to our country, have a policy by default. We have to ask ourselves why we have it and why we have it particularly on the issue of taxation of artists which bears so directly on their ability to create and to produce here in our country.
This is the Parliament that has been so preoccupied with creating a Canadian identity, with encouraging Canadian culture. Why not be consistent about it? Why allow a policy developed by default to undercut all of the excellent work we are doing through our work in the Canada Council, in the CBC, in the other instruments of Canadian expression and Canadian identity? I am not blaming the Government, I am blaming Parliament. We have to ask why we have left to the computer and to the tax collector decisions that should be taken here by us as the individual men and women sent by electors across the country to decide important public policy.
The answer to this question is all the more troublesome if we consider that, as long as 12 years ago, the Arts and Culture Branch, which was then new, of the Department of the Secretary of State, as it then was, recognized the pressing nature of the employment status of artists and the attendant problems faced by them. The Government engaged the accountant Russell Disney in 1976 to study all of these issues. He published a report in 1977, the major thrust of which was to call for a return to the dual status concept for artists.
Interdepartmental committees and subcommittees of every relevant Government department were put in place to advise the Government on the implementation of the Disney recommendations. the work of those interdepartmental committees continued for more than two years. In addition, the Government's only review of federal cultural policy, the Appelbaum-Hebert Committee, spoke forcefully for the resolution of these issues, characterizing them as a question not of special pleading by the artist but of simple equity. Simple equity is the language of the Appelbaum-Hebert Report.
Through all of this time individual artists and their professional organizations have had to become experts in the intricacies of Revenue Canada policy as they pursue their cases through the appeals process to Ministers and to the various regulatory boards involved. We will never know how many works of art have been lost in this country because artists who should have been creating art were instead trying to figure out how they were going to deal with policy that this Parliament never approved relating to Revenue Canada. We know that the

November 2, 1983
Income Tax Act
anguish and anger that has been caused in the artistic community is severe and it should be stopped.
To date the Government has not taken any steps to implement any of the Disney recommendations. I am not saying there was bad faith. Going back to Gerard Pelletier through all intervening Ministers, including David MacDonald, there has been a very real interest on the part of responsible Ministers in getting action. It is just that until today the issue has not been important enough to enough people to get priority. In this Parliament we can give priority to an issue that goes to the very heart of our determination to encourage a distinctive Canadian culture and a distinctive Canadian identity. It is in our power as Members of the House of Commons to do that.
Recent cases like the Toni Onley case and the Toronto Symphony Orchestra case have brought again public attention to the issue. They have brought public attention to the fact that the present Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) is working very hard to try to have the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Bus-sieres) address these issues.
It appears that within the process of Government the relative balance of demands for policy change in Revenue and Finance is weighted heavily against the small and financially strapped arts community, a community which has seen the average annual income of its self-employed artists fall from $4,835 in 1974 to $4,352 in 1980.
I would argue that it is wise for any society to encourage its creative and its daring, but it is absolutely imperative for Canada to do that because we are a country of such majesty and such complexity that we can be known only by our artists' imaginations. We in this House, whatever our Party, whatever our background, have all had the opportunity to travel very widely in this country. Yet 1 would wager that most of the important things that most of us feel about our country we have learned from the paintings, songs or literature of Canada.
It is no accident that the most respected of our Native people, the Indians, the Eskimos, people who were on this continent before the rest of us, are their elders. This is not just because they are old but because they transmit the story of what was to those who will carry the tribe forward into whatever the next frontier may be. Perhaps countries with more history need less imagination but this country is a nation whose history is ahead of us and our duty as lawmakers today is to encourage the creative imagination that will let us become a complex, diverse, exciting community.
It is clear on the basis of the last 12 years that nothing will be done unless we do it. That is why I am proposing that a special parliamentary committee be appointed immediately with a mandate to report back to this House no later than mid-January, 1984. I suggest such a committee is the only process which can give a more balanced weight to the issues involved in the taxation of artists. It will provide a public forum for all of the people involved to plead their case.
1 urge Members of the House to support this motion in order that we may finally remove from our tax regime some very serious obstacles, that none of us planned or approved to the growth and development of the arts in this country.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I want to support the motion moved by the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark). Members of this Party can agree with nearly everything he said.
For many years now Liberal and Conservative Governments have recognized, as have the Governments of most if not all modern industrialized countries, that artists, whether they be visual artists, musicians or artists of other types, need support if they are to create the works they want to create. Very few artists are in a position to support themselves through the sale of their work.
Over the years, regardless of which Party forms the Government, we have given support to artists and performers of various types through the Canada Council, through the CBC, through grants from the Department of the Secretary of State and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. But recently, Revenue Canada has come forward with an aggressive policy of zeroing in on artists, musicians and writers in an attempt to reclassify them and make them pay income tax on income three or four years back.
A month ago I put a question to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Bussieres) and requested him to put a stop to the present policy of the Department until the matter could be reassessed and re-examined as is suggested in the motion of the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead. At the same time, questions were put to the Minister by Members of the Official Opposition and a Liberal Member asked a question about the Toronto Symphony. All Members got a pretty negative or pretty hostile reply.
There are not many Tony Onleys in Canada who have $1 million worth of art to sell. Most artists in this country are poor. Most artists in this country are living in poverty. The Applebaum-Hebert Committee, for example, found that only one of every five Canadian artists earns a gross income of over $5,000, that 60 per cent of artists in a sample survey conducted in Ontario were living in desperate conditions, and that the most recent estimates show that 80 per cent of visual artists in Canada earn less than $7,250 in direct art sales every year.
Recently, Revenue Canada suddenly made a ruling that members of the Toronto Symphony Orchestra are to be classified as employees. That will mean that they will not be able to deduct their expenses as musicians for tax purposes. Members of the Toronto Symphony have a contract which says that they are guaranteed 48 weeks of work per year but only 19.5 hours per week. It is pretty obvious to anyone, except to officials of Revenue Canada, that musicians must have other employment as they cannot live on what they earn with the orchestra. It is important to them that they be able to deduct their expenses as musicians from income as musicians. Yet Revenue Canada has told them that they cannot do that.
November 2, 1983

Now Revenue Canada is going after writers. Very few writers in Canada can earn a living just by writing. Like many other artists, some of them try to teach, if not every year, perhaps one year in two or one in three or four. That way they can at least have an income they can count on for one year. Now Revenue Canada is starting to put the squeeze on them.
The Minister has been saying that Revenue Canada is only interpreting the law. I find it strange that in 1983 Revenue Canada is making interpretations it never made before. Not only is it being unreasonable about the current year or the last year, but it is going back three and four years and expecting artists, musicians and 1 suppose writers to account for everything they have done. That is really impossible.
Like the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead, I have had representations from artists and musicians from Vancouver to Halifax. Some of the cases are beyond belief. In Montreal a well known sculptor received a letter from Revenue Canada telling him that it had arbitrarily-and that is the Department's term-decided that his claim for art materials, supplies and expenses is not admissible and that he must pay $8,000 within the next three months. Apparently grants which he has received from the Canada Council to go toward his expenses were judged to represent the extent of his costs. Other costs were disallowed.
In Vancouver an artist was given 21 days to prove that his activities as an artist showed a reasonable expectation of profit. He wants to know how one can prove to Revenue Canada that a reasonable expectation of profit exists in the research, development production, promotion and sale of original works of art.
1 would ask Hon. Members to think about some of the most famous artists in the world-Picasso, Gaugin, Van Gogh or any other. When those artists produced their works they could barely give them away, but those works are now worth millions of dollars. Revenue Canada is asking our artists to classify themselves as manufacturers. How does an artist know that the work he produced in 1982 or 1983 will sell or for how much it will sell? The Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead blamed the computer. I blame the people who stopped using their heads and substituted the computer.
Another artist who was the recipient of an honour from the Governor General which made him a Royal Canadian artist is now subject to niggling scrutiny by Revenue Canada for every cent he spends on art supplies. He said that the action by Revenue Canada makes him feel that the honour he received is ludicrous.
All these cases bring us back to one glaring reality: the Government, as represented by Revenue Canada in its efforts to maximize revenue, has lost all perspective of the role of arts and culture in the life of this country. The attack on Canadian visual and performing artists has the potential of retarding the development of arts in this country.
If the present policy of Revenue Canada continues, artists will stop producing. They are already living in poverty and will not be able to afford to continue working. This attacks the
Income Tax Act
most vulnerable group in society. At the same time we have a tax department which permits people who make large amounts of money to pay little or no tax on huge incomes.
Jack McArthur, who regularly writes a business column in the Toronto Star pointed out some of the things which go on in this country. He pointed out that in 1980 there were 179 people in Canada with incomes of more than $200,000 who did not pay any income tax at all; that there were 651 Canadians who had incomes of between $100,000 and $200,000 who did not pay any income tax; that there were 4,020 who had incomes of between $50,000 and $100,000 who did not pay any income tax.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of National Revenue and his Department would be doing a much better job in thinking more realistically and more humanely about the burden of taxation which we all have to face if they would concentrate their efforts in trying to plug the loopholes which permit a relatively small number of very large income earners to pay no income tax at all. They should not be concentrating on artists, musicians and writers whose incomes are quite small and who need assistance, help and sympathy from the Canadian Government, rather than the kind of harassment they have received in the last few years.
I have raised this question during the question period and I have arranged, as well as other Hon. Members, I am sure, for meetings between the representatives of the artists and musicians and representatives of the Canadian Conference on the Arts, when I could not reach the Minister. They had a very good discussion and afterward both sides understood better what the other side was talking about. It was obvious that the Assistant Deputy Minister either could not or would not budge. I say, Mr. Speaker, that it is time for the Government to act. I believe the idea of a parliamentary committee to look at this question is a good one.
I wish that we could look more seriously and more quickly at the recommendations made in the Disney Report. I say to the Minister of National Revenue that until this committee meets, has an opportunity to hear representations and makes its report, and until the Government can act on the report, the Minister ought to say to his people in Revenue Canada: "Stop this harassment. Stop this drive to collect what will actually be very small amounts of money." Let us go back to the period of a year ago when the Department was looking at these things with a relatively humane attitude. Until then, Mr. Speaker, we certainly support the concept of establishing this committee.


Mr. Douglas Fisher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) for introducing this topic and bringing it forward for discussion today. 1 agree with the motion. I would like to offer some amendments which I believe would help us to operate more easily with the idea. Hopefully, it will expedite our treatment of the idea. I would like to come back to the amendments in a few minutes. However, let me

November 2, 1983
Income Tax Act
congratulate the Right Hon. Member for bringing this topic forward.
I come from a background in book publishing. For some 12 years before I was elected I had some experience as an editor and salesman in the book industry. Therefore, 1 feel I understand something about the problems facing writers in just generating income, let alone getting as far as paying their taxes. Many writers, as has been eloquently stated here, are really very underpaid. We do not in any way reflect in our financial rewards any gratitude at all for the heritage which they are leaving for our country's future, and the great enrichment of our country to which writers are contributing. I know the same is true for visual artists and for performing artists, as the Right Hon. Member noted earlier.
I would like as well to draw attention to the key document, the Applebaum-Hebert Report, the recent survey of the arts in Canada. This study has had a significant impact already and has been referred to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture. That Committee has been reviewing portions of the study. It has completed one significant part, I believe on broadcasting, and is now turning its attention to artists, writers and the performing arts. Therefore, this motion presented by the Right Hon. Member fits in in a very timely way with the study of the Committee on Communications and Culture.
Before I continue, 1 would like to draw to everyone's attention what I consider to be a refreshing move by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Bussieres). Earlier this week something happened in response to a query by the Hon. Member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson) and earlier from the Hon. Member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) and, 1 believe, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). Those Hon. Members have been inquiring about the audit by Revenue Canada of the Toronto Symphony Orchestra. The Minister, because he wanted to be fair, ordered a moratorium on the ruling. He has subsequently met with members of the orchestra. The meeting was very fruitful. I attended the meeting and I feel that the ruling will be reviewed carefully in light of the discussions at that meeting. Certainly, the musicians and their representatives are getting a full day in court from a very sensitive and practical Minister.
I referred a moment ago to the work of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture which is working with the Applebaum-Hebert Report. I will have some amendments to this motion to send to that Committee to tie it into the study of the Applebaum-Hebert Report. That Committee has the expertise to appreciate the story from the artists' perspective rather than from a financial perspective. Therefore, it is appropriate that a motion like this should go to such a group. The artistic community will get its best hearing from that Committee. Certainly, they would be talking to people who understand their working conditions, living standards and the tax problem these people face. The best audience for a motion like this is in the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.
I know that the Hon. Member for London West (Mr. Burghardt), who is a Parliamentary Secretary working on that Committee, would like to say a few things in a moment about the work of the Committee.
The Applebaum-Hebert Report made several comments on its insight into the nature of these tax problems. It listed several tax problems as follows, if I may quote from that report:
-matters such as the treatment of artists' costs (and whether or in what circumstances artists should be considered as employees or self-employed), the valuation of works donated by artists to public institutions, and the incomeaveraging tax provisions available... Although such proposals may appear to the department of Finance to require departures from standard practices, to the extent that they involve nothing more than simple equity they can scarcely be construed as special pleading-
That line of thought coincides quite closely with the presentation of the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead. The issue over the past few years really has been that artists have been treated as if they are business people or businesses per se. Of course, there is no need to do that. However, that parallel has come about because we have been trying to treat all taxpayers equally.
The question of tax equity has arisen. If we depart from that standard, we must do so carefully because potentially we will be favouring one group and at the same time creating an incentive for a lot of other people to call themselves members of that special group. Before we depart from that standard, we must ensure that we can define who is the artist and why they are getting special treatment. In general I invite the Committee to turn its mind to that particular problem.
Let me take a few examples and just ask for the Committee's advice. The Right Hon. Member raised the question of what is known as the accrual method of accounting. To state it simply, you cannot write off or deduct an expense until the item for which the expense was incurred has either been sold or declared unsaleable. That system applies for all businesses. According to the description of the Right Hon. Member, it is that system which caused Mr. Tony Onley so much trouble. Of course, an artist would like to use the cash system, as would a lot of small businesses. One can write off the expense in the same year it is incurred and you do not have to wait until the item is sold or declared unsaleable. We use the cash system with farmers. But in a debate about farmers we find in a very revealing way the problems you incur with the cash system for one group and the accrual system for another.
Many people would love to have access to the cash system. In my neighbourhood, for example, in Mississauga, there are not a lot of farmers. There is a lot of vacant land and a lot of people sitting on that land and they would love to be able to call themselves farmers and take advantage of the cash system. It would give them a better write-off and they would be able to mix in a lot of different things under this disguise of being a farmer. So I think when the Committee goes to work on this problem it should indeed take a look at potential abuses in the cash system. It looks so temptingly easy and yet farmers'
November 2, 1983

representatives, such as the Cattlemen's Association, said to me last spring they do not want to lose the cash system and they do not want to have the Government loosen up its regulations and invite abuses of the cash system. Equally, if artists want to have this marvellous advantage, let us hope the Committee will give us some definitions of what an artist is, as well as the areas of potential abuse. Artists can do that. They would have no problem telling us how to define themselves. So we invite artists to come in and then perhaps a committee can look at ways to turn their definitions into a workable taxable definitions.
In the same way let us take a look at another problem. The tax department says to businesses that they have to operate with a reasonable expectation of profit. You cannot set up a business just to write off your living expenses. I know some people like to do that. A lovely yacht, a trip here or there, and people would love to have those kinds of write-offs. It would be a terrific incentive. But the tax department will not let you do that. You cannot write off simple living expenses.
One way to define the difference between legitimate business expenses or personal expenses is to ask whether the person has a reasonable expectation of profit. That is how they do it with a business. That is a reasonable standard. But how do you do it with an artist? How do you do it with someone, for example, who has a brilliant ability but simply has not sold anything, such as a young artist just launching his or her career? Obviously such a person will not have a reasonable expectation of profit in the first few years of his or her career.
I must say there is a butcher near my house who claims that in his early years Danby offered him a print in return for some pork chops. Certainly the print appreciated in value a lot faster than those pork chops and it would have been a real expectation of profit for the butcher. I am not so sure it was for Mr. Danby. However, the problem is there. How do we handle the distinction between business expenses and personal expenses for an artist, especially when that artist is going to go for a long time without making any profit? So again, we invite the Committee to give us some guidelines on that.
There are parallels here again which help the Committee. The Committee might look at the problem of farm losses, how farmers set themselves up and how the tax department treats young farmers or new farm businesses incurring initial losses with the hope of getting a profit. Again we would ask the Committee to bring us the artists' perspective and we will try and turn that into some workable law.
The question of profit helps us with businesses to distinguish between genuine practitioners and phonies. There is a problem we run into with all fields of human endeavour. It is just as true in the arts as it is anywhere else. There are people who are hobbyists, there are people who would love to have the tax write-offs but have not really earned them. They are not really artists, they are hobbyists. The Committee should give us some indication of ways to distinguish between those who are practising a hobby and who want to go to Greece and paint a Grecian sunset. How do we know they are legitimate and should write off the airline tickets and hotel bills and whatever
Income Tax Act
else is incurred, as opposed to some struggling, genuine artists who may be just walking out into the country to paint sunsets there? How do we tell the difference between the two?
Finally, we have the controversy mentioned by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North, the question of employees versus the self-employed. This has real ramifications beyond the arts. We get into problems with engineers, with professionals in other areas, with people who just set up little companies in order to get tax dodges. Again the Committee should give us some indication of how we distinguish between genuine artists who are self-employed and those people who have put themselves in real employee circumstances. That is a tricky area, not one to be treated lightly at all. We should keep our eyes on the ramifications in other areas as well.
I think the motion has presented an important topic and I personally welcome it. I welcome the guidance the Right Hon. Member has given us in his comments and I hope my own comments pass along a few more guidelines for the Committee. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move:
(a)	by deleting line 1 and substituting the following therefor:
"That the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture review all"
That puts the material into the Committee. Further:
(b)	by deleting line 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"taxation of visual and performing artists and writers including, but not"
That includes writers in our consideration. The same happens with my third amendment:
(c)	by deleting line 5 and substituting the following therefor:
"of visual and performing artists and of writers and the method for determin-"
(d)	by adding immediately after line 8 the following:
"That such review be conducted as part of the Committee's study of the Applebaum-Hebert Report and its conclusions on this matter be reported to the House before the Committee continues to other topics within this Report;"
(e)	by deleting line 10 and substituting the following therefor:
"the views of interested parties and organizations."
(/) by deleting lines 11 to 19 inclusive.
Very briefly, those amendments put this motion into the Standing Committee that is equipped to handle it. The motion ensures that the Standing Committee will deal with the matter as a top priority, that it will report back to the House with its findings and that it will include writers as well as visual artists and performing artists.
Finally, there is a chance that the House will prorogue before all of this is done and we will ask our House Leaders to include this item in their negotiations and that the reference be continued on into the next session.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, the Chair should say that it has some reservations about the wording of paragraph (a) of the amendment which reads, "That the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture review all". I would like to draw the attention of the Hon. Members to Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, Citation 202, Paragraph (6) on page 169, which reads:

November 2, 1983
Income Tax Act
It is not an amendment to a motion to move that the question go to a committee.
Nevertheless, the Chair appreciates that the House seems to be disposed to refer this matter to the Committee, and since Beauchesne deals with procedure and not legality, the Chair is prepared to accept the text of the amendment as proposed unless there is a strong and violent objection from any quarter in the House.


Hon. David Crombie (Rosedale):: First, Mr. Speaker, let me pay tribute to the remarks made by the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark). This is his first intervention in the House in some time. It seemed to me that he not only chose an area which needs the kind of weight he can bring to a motion, but he did so so eloquently and in such detail that there is very little left for anyone else to say. 1 suggest that not only his eloquence but the wisdom of his remarks is already bearing fruit on the Government side because it has now offered an agreement to send this matter to a committee. I will respond to that agreement on behalf of our Party in a moment.
Since 1 do not want to talk out our own motion, I will underline only three points. First, there was much made of the proposition that this was somehow a new matter that has come upon us and which we must deal with quickly. While we must deal with it quickly, it is certainly not a new matter. This issue has been in existence since 1972, as the Right Hon. Member has said. Indeed, the Disney Report was published in 1978. That report is the basis upon which the Committee can answer many of the questions raised by the Hon. Member for Mississauga North (Mr. Fisher). Indeed, I suggest that if this report had been dealt with by the Government when it was first published five years ago, we would not have the kind of problem that exists now, where artists are finding it almost impossible to figure how to go about the business of creativity without either going to jail or going broke.
I simply say that the questions being raised were not raised for the first time today by the Hon. Member for Mississauga North. The Disney Report dealt with this problem five years ago. We would have saved people a lot of pain if the Government had dealt with it then.
The second point I want to underline is that we are talking about the importance of establishing a tax status for artists. Again, this is not something new. While it is new to the Government, it is not new, as noted in the Disney Report, to 14 other countries surrounding us. Countries in the western world have been doing this for a decade. Those countries which appreciate the importance of art to them have found a way to deal with the tax status of artists so they can continue to be artists. The important function of the Committee will be to recommend a tax status for artists which will allow them to be artists in this country.
The third point I want to emphasize is something which the right hon. gentleman mentioned earlier. This is not a small matter. Artists are small in number but they are fundamentally important not only to us but our children and our grandchildren. The only way that people in this country know who they are and where they are going is ultimately through performing
artists, writers, sculptors or musicians. We learn who we are and where we are going through art. Surely it is not beyond the competence of this House and the Committee to come up with a status which allows those people who define who we are to be able to do so.
With respect to the agreement offered by the Government, we agree with the motion and that is why I seconded it. We do so with the understanding that the Government has undertaken to raise the matter of prorogation with the House Leaders if, indeed, the matter will die as a consequence of the House being prorogued. Second, we also accept that it is clearly understood that the artists and those affected by the legislation will be heard by the Committee. Third, we accept the proposition that the Government will do its best to bring forward the resources at its command within National Revenue to make sure, at the end of all of this, that we are not simply talking once more but actually doing something for the artists of this country. That will make this day possible.


John O. (Jack) Burghardt: Mr. Speaker, I certainly welcome this opportunity to speak for a couple of moments about the Right Hon. Member's interest and concern in this question. While it does not fall within the mandate or directly affect the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox), it does affect directly the community for which the Minister of Communications is responsible. On that basis we certainly welcome the opportunity to speak to this matter which has come before the House.
As the Hon. Member knows, the question of the methods whereby the federal Government creates a climate in which the arts can flourish has been a matter of intense study by the Government over the past three years. The report of the federal cultural policy review committee has already been mentioned. The Standing Committee on Communications and Culture has, of course, looked at one phase of this, that dealing with broadcasting and film. Certainly it is the intent of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture to review the entire Applebaum-Hebert Report. As a matter of fact, just yesterday the Standing Committee voted to seek a renewal of that reference in any new session so that it might continue the work already begun. Certainly the question of the tax treatment of artists is a priority among the issues that will be examined in that context.
I agree with the Hon. Member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) when he suggests that we should be able to call witnesses to that Committee. Witnesses from all endeavours of the artistic community should be heard so that we can properly understand this very burning problem in which the artistic community is now engaged. We certainly want it rectified.
1 think that has already been proven on this side of the House by the work done by the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture. While I recognize the urgency of the Right Hon. Member's motion, 1 too would like to add my voice to the opinion that the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture is the proper forum to study this particular question.
November 2, 1983

It certainly would be irresponsible of me to assure Members that total solutions will be found. As Russell Disney prefaced the recommendations in his famous report, the problems he was dealing with were the residual hard core of issues where fundamental differences of opinion and principle exist between fiscal policy and cultural policy. However, 1 can assure the House that serious efforts are being made and will be made to come to terms with these problems and resolve them.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Fisher) agreed to.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Clark, Yellowhead), as amended, agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Shall all items listed under Private Members' Notices of Motions preceding Item No. 43 be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



NARCOTICS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, December 11, 1981, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gass:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should reconsider its plan announced in the Speech from the Throne to move cannabis offences to the Food and Drugs Act and to remove the possibility of imprisonment for simple possession and should consider the advisability of leaving cannabis offences as they are in the Criminal Code.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: When the House adjourned the previous debate, the Hon. Member for Lamb-ton-Middlesex (Mr. Ferguson) had the floor.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, in view of the lateness of the hour and the importance of the subject, 1 move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Malpeque (Mr. Gass):
That we call it six o'clock and that the remaining time on Motion No. 43 be either number one or number two on the next Private Members' day.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, the procedure proposed by the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) requires notice. We cannot agree to the moving of the motion. We would be willing to call it six o'clock, but in so far as the condition that the next
Narcotics
time we deal with the motion, either as number one or number two, that matter should be left for the House Leaders to negotiate in the meanwhile. If the Hon. Member is seeking unanimous consent that we call it six o'clock, we agree. I would be willing to consider the Hon. Member's second request. I am not saying 1 will agree to it, but I will consider it.


Mr. Forrestall:: Mr. Speaker, just before we agree to that let me say I understand the Government House Leader's concern. It does highlight the problem that continues under our present rules with respect to Members' private matters when we get into this position. It is a matter that has been brought to the attention of the House Leaders and the House generally which is still not resolved. We had hoped that the precedent of either extending the hours or extending the courtesy of a place at the next proper time for Private Members' business might have been followed. Having said that and having highlighted the necessity of resolving the problem in a formal way, we agree.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, let us make it clear. What we are saying is not that we resume debate on Motion No. 43 the next time. First, the reason we agree to calling it six o'clock and we are not able to proceed on this matter is that the Hon. Member for Malpeque (Mr. Gass) is not here. We are accommodating the Hon. Member by saying yes, we will call it six o'clock because the Hon. Member for Malpeque is not here.


An Hon. Member:: He is here.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, if he is here and he wants to proceed, fine.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. I should inform the President of the Privy Council that this is continuation of debate and the Hon. Member for Malpeque has already spoken.


An Hon. Member:: He is here.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member wants to go on with this debate, we will not object. If the Hon. Member for Malpeque prefers that we call it six o'clock, we are willing to agree to that. But we do not want any strings attached. In so far as House business is concerned for the week to come, whether it be the next Wednesday or the following Wednesday, I suggest that be discussed among House Leaders.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The motion proposed by the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) is unacceptable for the obvious reasons cited by the President of the Privy Council. However, I detect there may be unanimous consent to call it six o'clock. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, before addressing the substance of this motion, I would like to point out to Hon. Members that cannabis offences are not presently under the Criminal Code. They are covered under the Narcotic
28652

November 2, 1983
Narcotics
Control Act. The fact that the Hon. Member earlier made this mistake is not untypical of the confusion regarding the current laws on cannabis and the proposals contained in the Speech from the Throne for reform of these laws.
Since the announcement in the Speech from the Throne, the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) and his colleagues, the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), have received many letters and phone calls from individuals concerned that the Government intends to legalize cannabis or in fact reduce the status of the offence to that of a traffic violation. They are concerned that the Government is condoning the use of a potentially noxious substance. Let me state categorically that this is not and was never the intention of the Government, and surely it was no intention of mine as a Private Member. As was stated by the Minister of Justice in an appearance before the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee of the House of Commons on May 26, 1981, concerning cannabis, he said:
It is our intention to bring about changes which will serve to lessen the severity of the penalties for possession of this substance, without ''legalizing" or even "decriminalizing" marijuana. The Government believes that marijuana is a health hazard and intends to launch an active public education program among Canadians, especially the younger members of our society, to continue to discourage its use. Furthermore, we will continue to prosecute with vigor all those who traffic in this drug.
This statement is self-evident and is a direct quotation.
The Government does not condone the use of marijuana and other cannabis products by Canadians. That should be clearly understood by all Members of the House as well as the general public. We are concerned with the adverse health and safety effects of drug use and will be doing more to inform Canadians in this area.
As a high school teacher some years ago we found in many of the schools in our area cannabis was beginning to be a problem. I am happy to say from the information forthcoming in the last few years this problem has subsided somewhat. This is an encouraging sign for those still in education and for myself in public life who must deal with these problems on a weekly basis.
Why did the Government propose to change the cannabis laws? The pressure for change stems from the inadequacies and unfortunate consequences of the application of the present law. Under the current legislation, possession of cannabis, even in minimal quantity, exposes a person to the possibility of damaging criminal records entailing difficulties in terms of social stigma, employment and immigration. In the past ten years more than 200,000 Canadians have been found guilty of possession of cannabis, and in spite of considerable enforcement efforts, an increasing number of Canadians use cannabis, indicating an apparent lack of effectiveness of the law. The cost to society of using the full weight of the criminal process to discourage cannabis use has been very high, and I might add with very little return.
During the course of the next few minutes, I would like to indicate some of the background factors which influenced the
Government to initiate its study on the problems of cannabis use and cannabis laws per se. Cannabis is not an opiate narcotic in any pharmacological sense, yet the control of cannabis is now under the Narcotic Control Act along with such other substances as heroin and cocaine. This may be due to the fact that little was known about cannabis back in 1923 when it was first added to the schedule of prohibited narcotics under the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act of 1920.
It is unfortunate that cannabis has been grouped together with narcotics because in the public mind they are seen to be equally harmful substances with the same addictive properties, producing the same physiological damage. The Narcotic Control Act is reserved for more harmful drugs, the narcotics. Therefore, the law regulating the control of these substances is much more severe. This fact is worth nothing because 1 think the general public is unaware of the penalties listed in the law when they hear or read about courts giving discharges to offenders. The Food and Drugs Act is the statute reserved for the control of non-narcotic drugs that may be subject to abuse. Many argue that cannabis more properly belongs under that statute. I want to make clear at this point that this is not my view. I am not convinced as a Private Member that it should come under the Food and Drugs Act.
It may come as a surprise to Hon. Members to learn that the maximum penalty in law for possession of cannabis is seven years, if it is proceeded with as an indictable offence. Normally it is proceeded with as a summary conviction offence, in which case the maximum penalty is $1,000 and/or six months for a first offence and $2,000 and/or one year for a subsequent offence. The offences of trafficking and importing carry very severe penalties, up to life imprisonment. In the case of importing, it is further specified that the minimum sentence is to be seven years imprisonment, with a maximum of life imprisonment also. I state categorically that for those people trafficking in drugs and importing them, I believe the full force of the law should be applied.
Unauthorized or simple possession of cannabis is the offence which concerns us most. I believe it is what we are discussing today. It is the most frequent offence and the one that results in so many of our young people being perceived as criminals. Simple possession is a hybrid offence, that is to say, punishable either on summary conviction or by way of indictment. However, at the initial stage it is treated as an indictable offence, which means that the individual is usually fingerprinted and photographed and a centralized permanent police record is created. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians, many of whom would not have otherwise become involved in this stigmatizing process, have been fingerprinted and photographed for simple possession of cannabis; some have even been imprisoned. In addition, the majority of those charged are found guilty and now bear the burden of a damaging record.
The fact that many people are breaking the law and being convicted is not reason enough to change it. However the law should reflect the gravity of the conduct penalized. The current high maximums relating to simple possession of cannabis products bear no relationship to present sentencing practices
November 2, 1983

and can hardly be justified with respect to any offence of a basically non-violent nature where the main victim is the user. Here again I digress. If we were to take this statement as it is, there would be the implication that we would be condoning the use of cannabis. That is our last idea. Because it is so damaging to the people who use it-and it is my belief that the Le Dain Commission which brought down its report some years ago did not have the facts at its disposal which we now have-we must make decisions on behalf of Canadians.
The law should also reflect the attitudes of Canadians generally. In this regard it is worth noting that national surveys conducted in 1977 and 1978 indicated that about two-thirds of the population was in favour of either a regulatory scheme or minor penalties for possession of cannabis. Only one-third favoured the present law or something more severe. 1 count myself among that third. A survey conducted in 1980 confirmed that this support has remained about the same, with some increase in favour of the status quo.
A Gallup omnibus study on marijuana, jointly commissioned by the Department of Justice, the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Ministry of the Solicitor General in August and September, 1981, explored a different aspect of marijuana control-the severity of penalties imposed by the courts. In terms of the perceived appropriateness of the sentences imposed by the courts for possession of marijuana, 15 per cent of the respondents thought the penalties were too heavy, 26 per cent thought they were about right, and 36 per cent thought they were too light. The remainder, 23 per cent, had no opinion or thought that possession was legal. A clear majority of respondents believed that penalties imposed by the courts for trafficking and importing marijuana were too light. The point which has to be emphasized in the House of Commons is that when we are dealing with trafficking and importing, these are the people who must be stamped out; they must be caught and must be the ones who are most severely punished by society.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gilbert Parent: Also the survey indicated that over 80 per cent of respondents said that a change in the law would not affect their decisions concerning whether or not to use marijuana and, in the case of users, how often to use it. About one in six
Narcotics
respondents reported knowing of someone who had been caught by the police for possession of marijuana. In virtually all these cases, those apprehended were reported to have experienced problems, namely with their families and arising from having a criminal record.
The reform of cannabis legislation has been commented upon by a variety of interest groups. Some of these, such as NORML-the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws-have been organized specifically for this purpose. Most others, such as the Canadian Medical Association and the Canadian Bar Association, have commented upon it due to the interest of their members.
From the public pronouncements of these various groups there does emerge a consensus. Generally they agree that possession of cannabis should remain an offence, with which I agree; that it should be shifted to the Food and Drugs Act, about which I have reservations; that the consequences of conviction should be reduced. If they mean the consequences of conviction with regard to those people who are caught, I do not know that 1 would want to go that way. The consequences of conviction also imply that we are dealing with the families of people who are known or caught using this narcotic. Finally, they agreed unanimously that there should be increased efforts at public education, with which I believe everyone in the House would agree.
Reform of cannabis laws is not a recent issue. This matter was considered previously by the Government. As a result of the Le Dain Commission which was completed in 1973, there were several tentative steps toward reform. The House may recall that the Government introduced Bill S-19 in the Senate. The Senate passed that Bill but it died on the House of Commons Order Paper at the end of the 1974-75 session of the Thirtieth Parliament. The problems associated with the current law continue, so this most recent initiative to review the law was launched by the Government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please! It being six o'clock, the House stands adjourned until 11 a.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, November 3, 1983