1983-10-19

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Garnet M. Bloomfield (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, so often this House hears about the discouraged, underprivileged, the mistreated, and the very negative side of life. I would like to bring to the attention of the House a very positive occasion, that being a peaceful, non violent rally, as reported by the Canadian Press, of 40,000 Ontario Canadians on behalf of human life. The Metro Toronto Police have stated that this was the largest rally ever held in that city.
These women, men, and children came together to express their deep concern over the many thousands of human beings who have been lost in Canada through abortions every year for the last several years. This show of life support in Canada is in sharp contrast to that of the anti-life group which, notwithstanding the fact that it had been organizing many months for rallies to be held at the same time across the country, was only able to muster less than a thousand people in all of Canada. This lack of attendance at the anti-life rallies points out very dramatically the absence of support for their cause in Canada in 1983.
The anti-life individuals have also attempted to gloss over the fact that they are in support of ending the life of a human being, by stating that they are only for freedom of choice. But their freedom of choice costs a defenceless unborn human being his or her life. Some choice! We, as parliamentarians, would do well to ensure the protection of all Canadians, born and unborn.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mrs. Jennifer Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Madam Speaker, yesterday marked the anniversary of the landmark decision on October 18, 1929, which ruled upon the petition of the indomitable Emily Murphy that women were indeed persons under
the BNA Act and, as a consequence, could be appointed to the Senate.
In the 54 years since then women have made great strides toward full legal, social, and economic equality. The struggle to achieve that equality has not ended with the provision for women's rights contained in the Constitution and the Charter passed last year, however. Much yet remains to be done before women can be considered equal in fact as well as in theory.
Women, and their families' dependence upon many of them, remain at a disadvantage in terms of income, social and employment benefits, and pensions. Sexual harassment and violence against women remain commonplace, and women remain under-represented at all levels of government, not the least of which is in this Chamber.
It is to be hoped that in the coming years many more women will stand and be successful candidates in the House of Commons. In the meantime, however, many successful Canadian women from all walks of life continue to make important contributions to our society. On this noteworthy anniversary I urge the Government to give these persons strong consideration in future appointments to fill existing vacancies in the Senate. Emily Murphy would not have accepted that today, 54 years after her victory, only seven out of a possible 104 seats in the Senate are held by women. Nor should we.


THE JUDICIARY
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, the other day Mr. Otto Lang, a defeated Liberal Cabinet Minister and a judicial hopeful, reported on judges' salaries. He points out that the average Superior Court judge receives only $85,000 per year. The figure for Supreme Court justices is $98,000. With salaries like these, Otto Lang has displayed his social conscience. He says:
For some judges, particularly those in large urban areas and in areas with a high cost of living, cash flow is an increasing problem.
He therefore recommends that salaries should be significantly increased. He recommends increases ranging from a low of $22,000 to a high of $31,000 per year. These are increases of 26 per cent to 30 per cent. The proposed increases are not six and five; they are six times five. Mr. Lang is saying that judges should be above the law of six and five. That vicious legislation has been used to roll back signed collective agreements, to force office clerks back down below the poverty line, and to ensure that pensioners never even approach it.
28118

October 19, 1983
Mr. Lang uses quotes from the Conservative Prime Minister, R. B. Bennett, to support his case. That quote is, "If men enjoying large incomes have no ambition to go on the bench, then we have to fall back on the second line." Such an approach indicates that those who foreclose on people's mortgages, and those who work with the banks-


Madam Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member's time has expired.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Ray Chenier (Timmins-Chapleau):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to tell the House that Canada's economic recovery program is working. The annual rate of inflation dropped to 5 per cent last month, which is the lowest rate in more than ten years. Not since August, 1972, has inflation been so low. A period of stabilization has now been reached.
In July and August the inflation rate was recorded at 5.5 per cent, and in May and June the rates were 5.4 per cent and 5.6 per cent respectively. We have reached an important plateau in our fight against inflation, thanks to the Canadian Government's six and five restraint program and to the cooperative efforts of the Canadian people.
There have been further signs of a new economic vitality. Since last November about 325,000 new jobs have been created, and the unemployment rate of 11.8 per cent in July has now dropped to 11.3 per cent. This is the lowest rate of unemployment since 1982. Food prices in September have dropped by one per cent, and this is the largest monthly decline in food prices in over five years. The Liberal Government has also managed to reduce the cost of living to 5 per cent from 12.5 per cent a little over a year ago. I see the Conservatives are starting-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member's time has expired.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, having fallen victim to the many negative social, environmental, and ecological impacts usually associated with large resource type megaprojects, the people of the Carrier and Sekanie tribes are in the capital this week to seek recognition and redress for long outstanding injustices which have been perpetrated on them. Two major projects, Alcan Kemano I in 1952, and B.C. Hydro W. A. C. Bennett Dam, have
seriously disrupted the economic, social and cultural livelihood of the Sekanie, Inginika and FortWare bands, and the Carrier peoples, Gheslatta, and Ominika bands.
Whole communities have been flooded, trap lines destroyed, and in one instance they had to watch dead bodies float from a flooded cemetery. They live in the poorest conditions of any native communities in our country, often suffering from malnutrition and serious infectious disease. They are here soliciting funds and support to prepare themselves for yet another project of equal dimensions, Kemano II.
They know the world will not stand still for them, but they feel they can no longer be treated merely as part of the landscape. Attempts to meet with the appropriate Ministers have so far failed. Their only recourse will be action in the courts, which will neither serve their cause nor the cause of the proponents of the project. Let me remind the House of the problems associated with the James Bay Project when court action was taken.
I urge the Government and the Minister to listen and to act.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Madam Speaker, each year in mid-October Amnesty International members around the world observe Prisoners of Conscience Week on behalf of people in prison for the non-violent expression of their opinions, the peaceful practice of their chosen religion, or for their colour, sex ethnic origin, or language.
This year Prisoners of Conscience Week is being devoted to men and women who have been punished by their Governments for their work in promoting human rights. This past week in my own City of Saskatoon there has been a cage in front of City Hall in which citizens are placed and where they have to remain until friends come to let them out. But around the world there are many cases of people who cannot be let out so easily.
For instance, seven years in a labour camp, to be followed by five years' internal exile, is the price Ukrainian writer Mykola Rudenko is paying for his efforts to publicize human rights violations in the Soviet Union. His wife, arrested for possessing smuggled copies of her husband's poems, is serving a ten-year sentence. She is in another labour colony 700 kilometres away.
In South Africa, Johnny James Issel, a leading campaigner for black civil and political rights, has spent most of the past ten years under administrative banning orders, or in detention without charge or trial.
In Guatemala, labour lawyer America Yolanda Urizar has "disappeared". A former victim of death threats for her work with local trade unions, she was abducted in March this year
October 19, 1983

by heavily armed men and driven away in an army jeep. She has never been seen again.
Many thousands of other people suffer such treatment.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Rene Cousineau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Madam Speaker, Statistics Canada has just revealed that the annual rate of inflation in September was 5 per cent, the lowest in ten years.
In May 1982, when the Minister of Finance launched the voluntary 6 and 5 restraint program, he asked Canadians to help get the country out of the recession and into recovery. The program was not an end in itself but a beginning. It was a matter of self-confidence, of mutual trust among Canadians.
Today, with an annual inflation rate of 5 per cent, we can say that Canadians have responded to the appeal made by the Liberal Government and that we know the meaning of the word co-operation. We have made tangible progress. The threat of unemployment is receding, while we are making every effort to maintain our markets. Our costs have started to drop. Inflation is going down, and as it combines to do so, interest rates will follow suit.
Madam Speaker, all we have to do now is to have confidence in ourselves and try not to forget the common good of all Canadians. We can, individually, put our shoulder to the wheel and raise our voices in protest when others do not act in to their share.
Last October, the Prime Minister of Canada said that our future would be determined by how we achieved the objectives of the 6 and 5 policy. We have achieved part of that objective-


Madam Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member's time has expired.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Brian Mulroney (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, I understand there was some confusion about the
Oral Questions
Prime Minister's birth date when he first entered this House. I am glad to see that it has been clarified, and I am sure all Members of the House would join with me in wishing him a belated and very happy birthday.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: In spite of the cosmetic changes announced yesterday, the Canadair situation, because of the dollars involved and the importance of the technology, has indeed become a national issue and one that goes to the heart of the Government itself of government policy, and not to a given Minister. In view of the growing unease and concern about Canadair and the technology, would the Prime Minister agree to take the initiative as a national priority in establishing a select all-Party committee of the House of Commons so that we could begin immediately the task of working with management, the unions, and the Government, in regard to the future plans and operations of Canadair?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his good wishes and those of his Party. It seems to me that the mistake was not so much one of the date of my birthday; it was the fact that the Opposition did not know the times of the sitting yesterday. That is why the wishes are a day late.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Leader of the Opposition talked about cosmetic changes. I am afraid that is a misunderstanding of the situation. There are some quite considerable changes going on in Air Canada-


Some Hon. Members:: Canadair!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In Canadair.


Mr. McDermid:: A Freudian slip.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am concerned about the suggestion of having Crown corporations run jointly by committees of the House or associations of various Parties in the House. The whole theory behind Crown corporations is that on their day-to-day operations they not be run by the politicians of one side or the other of the House, and that their objectives have to be defined in the law and in policy statements. In so far as these are concerned, we are happy to have the Opposition, any time it wants, make its points and criticize our views, as it has in Question Period. I think it would be a complete departure from the very important traditions of Parliament if committees of Parliament attempt to run Crown corporations.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I think the Prime Minister knows quite well that I am not in any way suggesting that Members of the House involve themselves in the management of Canadair.

October 19, 1983
Oral Questions


IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGY AND JOBS
Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, there was a $1.4 billion write-off last year, which was larger than the amount the Government spent on job creation programs. There has also been a running loss of $107 million in the first six months of this year for Canadair. If we take a look at the past, the Auditor General recommended, contrary to Government, that he be instructed to conduct a comprehensive audit on the company with regard to its past, but I am talking about the future.
Given its importance, the importance of that technology and the number of jobs involved, would the Prime Minister not refert this very important matter to an all-Party Committee so that we could work together to see whether it is possible to save Canadair and that technology, in terms of the future of the nation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am happy to have the undertaking of the Leader of the Opposition that his Party wants to save Canadair. In view of the criticisms we have heard in the past year from members of that Party, we were concerned lest they wanted to repeat with Canadair the mistake they made 20 years ago with Avro. If they want to save Canadair, I think the best principle to apply once again is to let the management run it and, to have Parliament-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -to let Parliament take its responsibilities as it did in committee, in criticizing the financial statements.
In so far as objectives are concerned, I would welcome a statement from the Leader of the Opposition going beyond the one he just made in his question to the effect that Canadair must be saved, that the technology there is worth preserving in Canada, and that his Party supports that. If we can have clarification of these objectives from the other side, then I think we will have unanimity. In other words, if the Leader of the Opposition truly wants to save Canadair, the way to do that is not to put it in the political forum of this House; it is to run Crown corporations as they always have been run, independent of Parliament on a day-to-day basis, and responsibility for long-term objectives on the part of the Government, with reports to parliamentary committees as we have now.


REQUEST THAT SELECT COMMITTEE BE APPOINTED
Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister refers to a decision that was taken some 20 or 25 years ago. At that time, of course, he was an active supporter of the CCF-New Democratic Party and he may have taken a very different view. One thing that is unchanged is the requirement for parliamentary accountability-
We are talking about a company that has cost in excess of $1.5 billion and which appears to be running at a rate of a
$200 million loss for each of the next two years. We value the technology very strongly, recognize its importance, and are asking the Prime Minister quite simply, not in a partisan spirit, if he will indicate his acceptance of the notion of a select all-Party committee to sit down avec les intervenants to see if the future of Canadair can indeed, in the interest of the nation, be saved.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition refers to my activities 25 years ago. I refer him to the activities of his own caucus in the past year. There are two committees which are now looking at Canadair, the Public Accounts Committee and the Finance Committee.


Martin Brian Mulroney: That is for the past. This is the future.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: When we have recommendations from those committees and we see the Opposition showing real interest in the future, we will be able to comment on the recommendations of those committees. As I said, as of now all we have had has been negative criticism and a seeming will to destroy Canadair. I am very happy that the Leader of the Opposition now wants to join the Government in its effort to save this. If they want to continue in that spirit, we would very much welcome their participation in the committees that now exist.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I join the Government, Madam Speaker, because this Government needs every bit of help that it can get.


CORPORATION'S FUTURE PROSPECTS
Martin Brian Mulroney: The
people of Canada will quite possibly support future plans for Canadair if all of the facts and the dollars are known-this is what parliamentary accountability is all about-if it is not hidden in the cracks or passed off to some committee or to a junior Minister.
I am encouraged by the Prime Minister's initial response. I come back to the question. It may result in a somewhat unusual procedure, but the problem is unusual, and we are talking about $2 billion of taxpayers' money. Will the Prime Minister agree to the establishment of a select committee, duly empowered by this House of Commons, to examine future prospects and plans for Canadair, taking into account the responsibilities of management and labour throughout that enterprise? We would co-operate fully with that kind of initiative.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: For the third time, Madam Speaker, I am happy to take account of the co-operation which the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting.
I propose to him that we wait for the reports of the committees of Parliament which are now seized with the subject. I am informed by our House leader that one committee is going to report within a few days. The Minister responsible will appear
October 19, 1983

before that committee. He will set before that committee its long-term plans and objectives. He will set them there clearly for either criticism or approval of the Opposition. I hope it will be for constructive criticism if there is such, but, Madam Speaker, if it is, it will be the kind of co-operation the Hon. Leader of the Opposition is suggesting through the creation of yet a third committee of Parliament.
There are now two committees, Madam Speaker, and the long-term plans and objectives will be presented before the Finance Committee within a very short period of time. Let us hear then if the Opposition is united in its acceptance of Canadair, and if it is really sincere in its desire to co-operate with the management and with the Government in making this a long-term success.


CORPORATION'S BREAK EVEN POINT
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. With respect to Canadair, would the Prime Minister indicate to the House when he sees the present management getting Canadair to at least a break even point, bearing in mind that Joel Bell has indicated that the company is to lose another $400 million in 1983 and 1984?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, I suggest the Hon. Member look at all the statements that were made by the Chairman of the Canada Development Investment Corporation. He should also look at those that clearly indicate there has been a definite improvement in the market for the Challenger-type plane, and that drastic measures have been taken by the Corporation to provide for stricter management of Canadair. Bearing this in mind, the financial situation at Canadair can be expected to improve.


MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, my question is again directed to the Prime Minister. Through yesterday's announcement we were notified that vice-presidents of Canadair have been fired for mismanagement. Others among the executive have either been retired or, at least, demoted. Would the Prime Minister indicate which of the present or past Ministers is also responsible for this mismanagement? Specifically, will he tell us if the present President of the Treasury Board had a hand in this gross incompetency, and if the present Minister of Energy had a hand in the mismanagement? Where is their ministerial responsibility in this matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member talks about ministerial responsibil-
Oral Questions
ity in the past. I would point out to him that in the not so distant past the responsibility was with the private sector. It was the private sector that was losing money. It was losing so much money that it wanted to-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Canadair?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Madam Speaker. Canadair used to belong to the private sector. Let the Hon. Member catch up.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: They didn't lose a billion four.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, they were losing money and that is why they wanted to dump the company. The Hon. Member shakes his head. It is very recent history, Madam Speaker. The Government stepped in to prevent all this technology from flowing out of Canada. The private sector was unable or unwilling to do it. The Government stepped in to rescue Canadair and to try to make it-


Mr. Crosbie:: Who's going to rescue the Government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, now the Hon. Member for St. John's West is opening his loud mouth. He should have more respect-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for St. John's West did not have the floor. I would urge the Prime Minister to answer the Hon. Member for York-Peel.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is the not so distant past, Madam Speaker. It was the private sector that was not able to keep this operating. It is this Government, the Liberal Government, that stepped in and tried to make it a going concern. It was losing money; we continued losing money.
The Hon. Member asked about the intermediate period. I believe that at that time Canadair did fall under the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Commerce of which, for part of the time, the present President of the Treasury Board was Minister. He is in fact the Minister who alerted the Government to the mismanagement and to the mistakes in the company. He is the Minister, or one of his successors was, who presided over the transfer of government assets into a management operation, the CDIC. That is the solution we have brought to this. We do not want it to be run by departmental officials who, willing as they are, do not have the expertise to deal with all of the businesses in which the Government is involved. We do not want it to be dealt with by a parliamentary committee as is suggested by the Leader of the Opposition. We want it to be dealt with by this government-owned, this management company called the CDIC, which is taking the steps which now, I understand, are having the approval of both sides of the House-


Madam Speaker:: Order. Order, please. I am afraid I have to interrupt.

October 19, 1983
Oral Questions REQUEST FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, since the Minister responsible for Canadair is not in the House, I will direct my question to the Prime Minister as well. We have heard from a number of previous questioners that there are a number of questions that must be answered. There have been accusations in the media and elsewhere about the possibility of bribery and kickbacks. We have had Mr. Joel Bell brought in to clean up the situation and, really, all we find is a person who is covering up the situation.
As the Leader of the Official Opposition indicated, this ought to be dealt with in a non-partisan fashion. Since two parliamentary committees have looked at the matter and have been hamstrung in their operations, I should like to put my question to the Prime Minister. Would he consider taking this matter out of the political arena and calling for a full public inquiry under the Inquiries Act?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Madam Speaker.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I hope by that response this is not the kind of Crown corporation marketing practice that we will have to expect.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I have said several times in the House that there is no necessity to comment on the answers. Just the questions are important.


LEASING ARRANGEMENTS FOR JET AIRCRAFT
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I have a very simple question to put to the Prime Minister. When one of the salesmen for Canadair makes a deal with a company in the United States to buy a jet, and says that Canadair will lease back that jet until it is paid for, is that not a bribe or a kickback?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am informed that the Chairman of CDIC has stated quite explicitly that that kind of practice, though it existed in the private sector, is not one which he would intend to condone or repeat.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST GUIDELINES
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. He will recall that the other day he said that the conflict of interest guidelines apply to American subsidiaries of Crown-owned corporations. In view of the obvious breach of the conflict of interest guidelines by three officers of Canadair Inc. in the United States, leasing a plane from themselves for their use around the company- and I point out that it was a Cessna Citation, the opposition's plane at that-why are these people still working for Canadair Inc.? If they are, do the conflict of interest guidelines that the Prime Minister has put in place mean anything at all?
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, regarding the Hon. Member's actual question, I would like to remind him that the guidelines prepared by Treasury Board and applying to the Department do not directly apply to Crown Corporations, which draft their own guidelines covering relations between their employees and corporations other than their employer. In the specific case mentioned by the Hon. Member, the Canada Development Investment Corporation made a careful study of the contract and found that the contract had been authorized by Mr. Kearns at the time. Normally, according to the guidelines, the contract should have been approved by the Board of Directors of Canadair before it was approved by Mr. Kearns. That did not happen. Legally, however, the contract, which was signed and, if I am not mistaken, expires in December 1984, still stands. The Chairman of the Canada Development Investment Corporation examined this case thoroughly to make sure that no one connected with Canadair stood to benefit personally by the contract.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, if the Prime Minister will not get into these difficult situations I will carry on and put my supplementary question to the Minister of National Revenue.


VICE-PRESIDENT'S SALES COMMISSION EARNINGS
Donald Alex Blenkarn: The Minister of National Revenue will know that one David Hurley, VicePresident of Canadair Inc., has made over SI.5 million in sales commissions selling 100 Canadair Challenger jets over and over and over again. This is the same David Hurley who came to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance, trade and Economic Affairs and made misrepresentations about the optimistic sales forecasts; this is the same David Hurley-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member ask his question?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: My question is very simple, Madam Speaker. Why is the Government expecting the House of Commons and the people of Canada to have faith in Canadair when it continues to employ that type of person?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I would ask the Hon. Member to follow the example of his leader who told us not to worry about the past, and who realizes that the Canada Development Investment Corporation will put Canadair back on the right track. I would therefore ask the Hon. Member to do as his leader says; stop worrying about the past and look at the positive measures taken by the Canada Development Investment Corporation to help Canadair get back on its feet and move ahead.
October 19, 1983


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MR. ALIOUNE BOND1N BEYE, MINISTER OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS AND OF INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION, OF MALI
Madam Speaker:: 1 wish to draw the attention of the House to the presence in our Gallery of Mr. Alioune Bondin Beye, Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Co-operation of Mali.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Right Hon. Prime Minister and get back to the initial question about the Canadair case.
Although we are invited to look to the future instead of looking back, the Prime Minister must realize that the company's reputation, and we are not out to criticize the objectives of Canadair, has suffered a body blow. In the circumstances, in order to restore the credibility that is essential to any industry that wants to make progress, could the Prime Minister perhaps respond positively to invitation of the Leader of the Opposition to create a special committee, to restore Canadair's much-needed credibility, in the best interests of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I think that has already been done. The Corporation's credibility was restored today, when the Leader of the Opposition, in a departure from the policy practised by his Party for a year or more, when their objective seemed to be to destroy Canadair, with its jobs and technology, when the Leader of the Opposition, followed by the Member for Joliette, said they now want to co-operate and make Canadair into something constructive. I can only repeat to the Member for Joliette what I said to his leader, namely, that we shall consider the reports that will be made in a few days by committees of the House, in fact by the Joint Committees of the House that are examining Canadair's financial situation. Let them listen to the Minister responsible. Senator Austin, who, as soon as the Committee is ready, will make proposals for long-term objectives. Let the Opposition then decide in favour or against, but I hope it will be in favour, and in that case, the credibility that was destroyed by members of his own Party and, I am sorry to say, by a CBC program that was aired a few weeks ago . . . this credibility is being restored, and personally, I welcome the decision of the Opposition Parties to support our policy of continued assistance to Canadair.


Roch La Salle: I have a supplementary, Madam Speaker.
Oral Questions
Is the Prime Minister accusing the Progressive Conservative Party of discrediting this company? The Prime Minister knows perfectly well that the Progressive Conservative Party criticized the administrators appointed by this Government to manage the company, and if it is now evident that the company's administrators have failed in their task, I feel that a Special Committee would be useful in order to expose these administrators, get rid of them and restore the company's credibility. Madam Speaker, that is why I am repeating my question to the Prime Minister and asking him to withdraw his statement that this Party has discredited the company. Our Party has discredited poor managers, and the Prime Minister is certainly the first person to realize that today.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I appeal to the memory of the Members of this House, which I hope is better than that of the Member for Joliette. Hardly six months ago, when we wanted to bail out Canadair by making new capital advances, this met with the opposition of the Hon. Member's colleagues on the Progressive Conservative benches. They wanted Canadair to die, thus repeating, 20 years later, the destructive impact on aerospace technology when they killed the AVRO program.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. Acid rain is destroying our buildings, killing our lakes, and doing untold damage to the health of our citizens. The Minister himself on the weekend said it had become part of a global crisis. After five years of negotiation, all that the U.S. Secretary of State was able to deliver in his meetings last weekend with our Ministers was a commitment that maybe within a year another proposal will be discussed. Will the Minister tell the House what his response was to this American foot dragging?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of the Environment: Madam Speaker, I am glad the Leader of the New Democratic Party has discovered the issue of acid rain at last. I would like to add that his information is a bit mixed up and fuzzy, as quite often is the case. If he wants to know what the Canadian position was in Halifax, which was stated very clearly, I will tell him. We said to the American delegation, and to Mr. Ruckelshaus, that we have a plan in Canada, that we have already moved toward the reduction of acid rain emissions by 25 per cent, that we are anxious to move with the Americans because we know that the ultimate objective of 20 kilograms per hectare per year can only be achieved together, and that

October 19, 1983
Oral Questions
we are anxiously waiting for them to be ready with a plan so that we can start negotiations, get a treaty going, and reach our objectives together.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the Minister has referred to past actions of the Government of Canada which, I point out to him, his predecessor publicly admitted were inadequate.


GASOLINE EMISSIONS CONTROL
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, considering there are important things which the Canadian Government can do independent of what the United States does, why is it that in the United States there are three times as tough regulations or a level of control over gasoline emissions as we have here in Canada? Will the Minister at least match the U.S. level of gasoline emission control here in Canada? That is action he could take. Why does he not do it?


Hon. Chas L. Caccia (Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, I will not let the Leader of the New Democratic Party get away with a statement about a colleague of mine who has done such good work for all Canadians on the matter of acid rain.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles L. Caccia: The present Minister of Employment and Immigration, if he deserves anything, it is respect, recognition, and praise. Having said that, Madam Speaker, I would like to draw to the attention of the Hon. Member that the question of gasoline emissions is an important one and is an issue to which my predecessor has addressed himself in recent months. I am now discussing the matter with the Minister of Transport and I hope to be able to make an announcement in a few weeks.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, we hope to have that announcement, and we hope it is a positive one.


SITUATION IN ONTARIO
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, with specific reference to Canada's largest producer of acid rain, namely, the Province of Ontario, and considering that in the Province of Ontario 1,400 lakes have already been killed because of acid rain and, I understand, another 48,000 lakes are seriously threatened, could the Minister tell us if he has approached the Government of Ontario and asked it to establish specific targets for getting rid of this blight in this our largest Province? If he has not done that, why not?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of the Environment: Madam Speaker, it is pathetic to see the Leader of the New Democratic Party-


An Hon. Member:: Answer the question.


Charles L. Caccia: -being forced to raise this issue because he has so little confidence in the Leader of the New Democratic Party at Queen's Park. Let me say to the Leader of the NDP that, as
far as Ontario is concerned, if he has given up on his counterpart at Queen's Park, he should know that Ontario has set objectives of 43 per cent for Ontario Hydro and reduced standards of emissions for INCO which should reach a level of 1,770 tonnes daily in a matter of time.
An. Hon. Member: What time?


Charles L. Caccia: An emission reduction of 40 per cent has been set in Quebec for Noranda. At the same time the Province of Ontario, I am told, is intending to buy 20 per cent of its coal requirements in the form of low sulphur content coal. I am making representations, and have made representations to my counterpart at Queen's Park, and I intend to continue to do so.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Hon. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Labour. At the present time there is a wildcat strike taking place among CN employees in the Village of Rainy River. It is likely to begin to spread because it deals with technological changes being introduced by the railway over its system. Would the Minister tell us what he can do to ensure that the technological changes, which have been the cause of wilds cat strikes, can be negotiated between the unions and the management, instead of being imposed unilaterally by management as is now the case?
[ Translation]


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Labour):: Madam Speaker, like the Hon. Member, I am disappointed to see this illegal strike. Of course my officials are available, should both parties want assistance to quickly settle the issue.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In his previous response to the Leader of the Opposition he stated he was happy to leave the operations of Canadair to the management of Canadair. In view of the considerable comment made by Senator Austin in reports linking the problems to the directors of Canadair, could the Prime Minister explain why the board was reappointed this summer, with no changes apart from the president?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Madam Speaker, but Senator Austin can be asked that question. He has appeared before the parliamentary committee, and he will
October 19, 1983

appear again very shortly, as I indicated. I am sure he would be very happy to deal with that question.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: These appointments are the responsibility of the Prime Minister. Surely the Prime Minister can ask the questions. Why did this $1.5 billion loss to the Canadian taxpayers happen? What was the role of the directors, and what was their responsibility for this?


DIRECTORS' RESPONSIBILITY
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, does the Prime Minister attach any responsibility to that board of directors for the loss of $1.5 billion of taxpayers' money?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am not in a position to say if they are responsible or not.


An Hon. Member:: Who is?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Madam Speaker, let the Opposition get its act together. In his first question the Hon. Member asked why did Senator Austin recommend or ensure the reappointment of the same people. 1 am saying that that Senator, as the Minister responsible, will appear before the committee. He will be happy to answer this question.


TASK FORCE REPORT-DIRECTORS CRITICIZED
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question on the issue of whether the board is responsible. Is the Prime Minister aware that in 1982 a task force report, which was attached to the Treasury Board submission which approved the authorization of $1.3 billion in loan guarantees to this Company, clearly indicated that the board of directors was responsible for at least $150 million of the loss directly? Of course, legally it is responsible for the whole mess. In view of that, can the Prime Minister pleae explain to this House why it was that this June, in a semisecret fashion, that entire board should be reappointed, in view of the fact that the Government's own internal task force indicated the board was not fulfilling its responsibilities?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, that is a repetition of the very same question which was asked of me by the previous questioner. I told him I did not have the answer, that I refer the question to the Minister who will be appearing before the parliamentary committee very shortly.


REQUEST THAT AUDITOR GENERAL UNDERTAKE COMPREHENSIVE AUDIT
Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister has indicated he approved that $1.5 billion, approximately, without the benefit of the information which the task force attached to that approval.
Oral Questions
The Prime Minister earlier indicated his theory of parliamentary democracy, that Parliament should not be concerned about day-to-day operations of Crown corporations. Apparently he does not feel that Ministers should be held responsible either, because he has not called any to account for this $2 billion they have lost. Will he at least give some comfort to this House and to the people of Canada who are paying these funds, and show that he cares, by appointing the Auditor General to undertake a comprehensive audit and be there from now on, so that we might know there will not be any more hundreds of millions of dollars wasted?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am afraid the more recent questions are undoing all the good the Leader of the Opposition and the Hon. Member for Joliette had established earlier. They are rehashing the questions I heard in this House last Spring at a time when that Opposition was trying to destroy Canadair by preventing the Government from forwarding funds to keep it alive.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: That is wrong, and you know it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Once again they should get their act together and follow the new lead of the new Leader of the Opposition.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. The RCMP offered a constituent of mine the opportunity to become an informer in return for the dropping of criminal charges against him. This case came to a close in Whitehorse on Monday of this week. Would the Solicitor General advise this House what his views are on the use of bargaining by the RCMP for the dropping of criminal charges so long as the person charged will become an informer?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, as the Hon. Member stated the proposition I can certainly say that I do not agree with it, and it would not be Force policy to allow that type of negotiation to occur. But I would like to have the opportunity to look into the particular incident he describes before concluding whether his description is accurate and whether steps should be taken by me in connection with it.


REPORTED OFFER TO IMPAIRED DRIVERS
James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, would the Minister of Justice confirm that he is aware of cases where people charged with criminal offences such as impaired driving have been put in a position where the RCMP have bargained that away on the grounds that those people become informers? Would he also advise that he has been made aware by Judge

October 19, 1983
Oral Questions
Barry Stuart from Whitehorse that he considers this a dangerous practice? Would he also advise if he is aware of any other cases in Canada where this is applied to indictable offences as well as to summary offences, and whether or not he agrees with this kind of plea bargaining and abuse of process?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: Madam Speaker, I do not have personal knowledge of any of the matters mentioned by the hon. gentleman. I would want to leave a considerable margin for the prosecutors and judges in all cases of plea bargaining.


ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY UNITED STATES PROPOSAL FOR YEAR-ROUND SHIPPING
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for External Relations, regarding the concern of some municipalities and communities along the St. Marys River over the U.S. House of Representatives Bill HR3678 which provides for year-round shipping in the Seaway and which could have adverse environmental impact on Canada, such as harming the fishery resource and the flooding of adjacent areas.
Can the Minister say what response he has received from the U.S. administration to the Canadian diplomatic note delivered a few weeks ago? Is the U.S. administration going to use its considerable influence to oppose this part of the Bill in the House of Representatives, and what further actions or steps are planned by the federal Government to protect our environment in this matter?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of State (International Trade)):: Madam Speaker, at the time of my last inquiry there had been no reply from the United States to this note. I want to assure the Hon. Member that the Canadian Government has no plans for extending the navigation season on the Seaway, particularly in view of the current under-utilisation of Seaway capacity. The draft American Bill on the subject is still at an early stage, and developments remain uncertain. But our note very clearly expressed concerns about the potential environmental impact under the season extension proposal.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister on an unrelated matter. Given the reports by Radio Free Grenada of extreme reaction to the house arrest of Prime Minister Bishop and the report, about 2.20 this afternoon, that the Prime Minister had in fact been released but had been shot, and there was no report as to his condition, can the Minister indicate to the House what information he has, for the benefit
of thousands of Grenadians here in Canada who will be most anxious and concerned about the well-being of their country and Prime Minister?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, the situation in Grenada is extremely unsettled, as the Hon. Member indicates by the latest of the radio reports to which he referred. However, we have no confirmed reports of the shooting of Prime Minister Bishop. What we do have is an indication that his supporters had released him from house arrest and that there is considerable confusion about what is happening on the island. According to our latest indication, there seems to be no danger for the Canadians who are on the island, and there is no report of widespread violence.


SAFETY OF CANADIAN CITIZENS
J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Speaker, in his continuing monitoring of this situation could the Minister not only determine for sure, because he is somewhat vague, the situation of Canadians, whether tourists or otherwise, who may be there, and whether they are free to leave or return to the island? Would he perhaps take an early opportunity tomorrow to give us an updated report as it has now been one week since there have been those extreme difficulties on that island, and particularly pay attention to whether or not there is any suggestion that this same turmoil might be in the process of being extended to other small islands in that part of the Caribbean Basin?
Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of State (International
Trade)): Madam Speaker, we have absolutely no indication or reason for thinking that there could be any extension of the unsettled conditions from Grenada itself, where a particular situation exists. We are continuing to monitor the situation. There has been a representative of the Canadian diplomatic post in Barbados present in Grenada and in contact with a substantial number of the Canadians in the area. According to my information there are about 81 Canadians resident there. Through answers to questions we certainly will attempt to keep the House informed about the situation as it develops in Grenada.


FINANCE
Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance whose Department issued a discussion paper entitled "Charities and the Canadian Tax System", in May. The Minister has heard from a wide cross section of Canadian groups such as health care, and religious and social service agencies. There has been widespread criticism of the proposed elimination of the distinction between charities and charitable foundations.
October 19, 1983

In light of this simplistic proposal circulated for discussion, does the Minister have plans that he can now announce for amending the proposals put forward, and has he had discussions with the Secretary of State about a more suitable response to the voluntary sector in Canada?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, a departmental working paper was published precisely so that all interested parties could express their views, give us their suggestions, and guarantee, on the one hand that there would be no abuses of the fiscal system by the foundations, and on the other, that true charitable organizations would receive all the fiscal benefits provided by the Act. We have had many meetings with representatives from these organizations. We have received many suggestions. We are now examining these proposals and I shall be able to announce in due time certain decisions or conclusions. For the moment, we are still considering the comments and suggestions made to us.


ROLE SUGGESTED FOR COMMITTEE
Walter Franklin McLean: Madam Speaker, while the Minister has had individual representations, there has been no opportunity for these groups to appear before a committee of this House, or in any other public forum. Is the Minister now prepared to put the findings he has received before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs in the same way as the subject of the general support of the voluntary sector has been referred to that committee for discussion?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the suggestion of the Hon. Member is certainly surprising. I have to tell him once again that I made public a working paper which is neither official nor governmental, but simply a departmental working paper, so that the organizations concerned can express their views. 1 repeat that we have had many meetings. The submissions made by these organizations are in the public domain if these organizations so wish it. When 1 decide to make a specific legislative proposal to Parliament, this proposal will obviously be considered by Parliament at that time. Until then, I believe that such an initiative would be at the very least premature, and I would invite instead the Parliamentary Committee to concentrate on issues dealing with specific bills.
Time Allocation


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I would like to rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deans:: I rise on a point of order.


Lloyd Axworthy: I wish to inform the House that there have been consultations among the representatives of the Parties.


Ian Deans: Point of order!


Lloyd Axworthy: It has not been possible to reach an agreement pursuant to Standing Order 80 and Standing Order 81 with regard to the allocation of time on the report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Shame on you!


Ian Deans: Point of order.


Lloyd Axworthy: Therefore, at the next sitting of the House I shall propose a motion, pursuant to Standing Order 82, to allocate two sitting days to the report stage and one sitting day to the third reading stage of the Bill.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I contend that the statement made by the Minister is certainly not a point of order. It may well be a statement by a Minister for which authority has been granted, but there is no point of order that allows a Minister to rise and make a statement.
While I am on my feet, I move:
That we proceed to Orders of the Day.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member is quite wrong. Such motions have been moved before under points of order. I have a list of them here. Therefore, that notice of motion by the Hon. Minister is quite valid in the House.
If the Hon. Member now wants to move another motion, he may do so. But that particular motion was perfectly valid. Furthermore, the Hon. Member should know that he may not move the adjournment of the House on a point of order.


Mr. Nielsen:: Madam Speaker, I would have expected the courtesy, by the traditional usages and customs of this place, of being heard on the point of order raised before the Chair made a ruling, for I did have submissions to make. I would like to make them now while the Minister is in his seat. You have made your ruling, and I will not question that.
The way that the Minister functioned here was very sneaky and totally unnecessary.

October 19, 1983
Time Allocation


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: He learned it from you, Erik.


Erik Nielsen: I hear the Hon. Member over there with his usual loud voice, saying that he is learning from me. If the Minister had paid closer attention he would know that there is a way to do this properly and not contemptuously as he has done. This could have prevented the problems from arising yesterday had they done it the right way. The right way is to do it during Routine Proceedings and not on any sneaky, contemptuous point of order. In my submission that is the way it should be done, during Routine Proceedings. The Chair will remember that I presented no less than 28 precedents to the Chair last year when discussing this very subject. The Chair agreed at the time that, in addition to other areas in our proceedings, Routine Proceedings could be used for giving such notice. That is what should have been done yesterday and what should have been done today. The Government would have avoided all of the difficulties that it encountered yesterday.
This contemptuous way of proceeding is indicative, of course, in this whole question. To give notice which triggers closure in this fashion just shows the level to which a ragtag bunch on that Treasury bench are prepared to stoop.


Madam Speaker:: For the benefit of the House, I believe I should read Standing Order 82 under which the Hon. Minister acted and the House will see what the restrictions imposed upon a Minister are in such a case. Standing Order 82 reads:
A Minister of the Crown who from his or her place in the House at a previous sitting has stated that an agreement could not be reached-
Those are the restrictions.


Erik Nielsen: That does not apply.


Madam Speaker:: What the Hon. Minister did was perfectly in order.


Erik Nielsen: That Standing Order does not apply.


Madam Speaker:: I remember the Hon. Member's submission last year and a number of cases that he cited, but he should remember that I also cited a number of occasions when such a motion-


Erik Nielsen: One.


Madam Speaker:: Well, that is enough.


Erik Nielsen: Out of 28.


Madam Speaker:: It does not say otherwise that you cannot do it.


Erik Nielsen: Twenty-eight went the other way.


Madam Speaker:: It never said you cannot do it on a point of order, and it has been done. Therefore, I have no choice but to declare that it was perfectly in order.


Ian Deans: While this matter is being discussed, would the Speaker enlighten us on another question? Since it does not say specifically how the question can be raised, whether or not the Minister can raise it on a point of order, could the Speaker point out which Standing Order says that a motion will lapse at six o'clock?


Madam Speaker:: Is the Hon. Member reflecting on a ruling of the Chair?


Ian Deans: Just asking a question.


Madam Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member resume his seat. If he wants to do that-


Ian Deans: I am asking a question.


Madam Speaker:: There is a procedure that he can use and I invite him to do so. Otherwise I would ask him to please not mention anything else in the House. He is reflecting on a ruling of the Chair, and that cannot be allowed.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: On a point of order.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member has another point of order?


Ian Deans: Yes, thank you.


Madam Speaker:: I hope it has nothing to do with the ruling.


Ian Deans: Nothing at all. Since there are numerous precedents for what the Minister has done. 1 would like to know if Your Honour would be kind enough to provide for the House the precedents on other motions and how they too should be handled from now on?


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member is again reflecting on a decision I made. I said that this motion was perfectly in order. If the Hon. Member wants supplementary information on precedents of the House on how matters should be handled, he knows-


Ian Deans: Why don't you go and sit beside them.


Madam Speaker:: -that the Table officers are willing to inform him at any time on any procedure he may use, as they always do.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, if I heard correctly what you were reading from in support of the Minister's action, it was Standing Order 82 which deals with the motion which follows the notice. With great respect, that is not applicable in the case of the Minister giving notice. As the Chair and most Members are aware, this process follows three stages: first the notice, second the motion following the notice, which follows 24 hours later if the Government wishes, and third, the allocation process of the allocated days.
October 19, 1983

Today the Minister was giving notice and, without reflecting on the Chair whatsoever, the Standing Order does not provide for that being done on a point of order. Standing Order 82 from which the Chair read has nothing to do, with great respect, with the process we are embarked upon today.


Madam Speaker:: I did not quote the Standing Order to the end but the Standing Order, as the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) has quite rightly said, exposes the three stages that are necessary in this particular procedure. It does not indicate that it may be done on a point of order, which does not necessarily mean that it cannot be done on a point of order. Therefore, the only restriction upon a Minister in such a case is that he should be standing in his or her place at a previous sitting of the House.


Mr. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order on this question. The Speaker has indicated that the Minister can rise and give notice of a motion on a point or order. I would draw to the attention of the Speaker Citation 233-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I have ruled on that.


Mr. Benjamin:: Why don't you sit over there?


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I have ruled that this notice of motion is perfectly in order. I will have no more submissions on it. I have ruled.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Overrule then.


Madam Speaker:: Therefore, Hon. Members will know that once the Chair has ruled, they may not comment on the ruling. If they want to challenge it, they know how to do that. There is a procedure for doing that.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is very clear that points of order are questions raised with the view of calling attention to any departure from the Standing Orders or the customary modes of proceeding in debate or in the conduct of legislative business and may be raised at virtually any time by any Member. That is Citation 233. To use a point of order in a manner which is not specified under Citation 233 is in itself a breach of the rules. If I did not know better, I would say the Speaker was taking her marching orders from the Government in this matter.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


An Hon. Member:: Throw him out!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I am afraid 1 have to ask the Hon. Member, since he has said something which really reflects on the impartiality of the Speaker, to withdraw those words.


Mr.   De Bane@: Tell him to resign.
Time Allocation


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, I believe the proceedings which have taken place so far are a mockery of this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. We are not discussing that now. The House may not proceed to any other kind of debate until the Hon. Member has withdrawn those words which reflect on the impartiality of the Speaker.


Ian Deans: What words?


Madam Speaker:: And as the Hon. Member knows, the House cannot function-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: What words?


Ian Deans: What words?


Madam Speaker:: I will not repeat them because they are not supposed to be spoken in this House. I ask the Hon. Member to please withdraw the words that reflect on the Speaker's impartiality.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, I stated very clearly that if I did not know better, I would say the Speaker was taking her marching orders from the Chair because of the abuse which seems to be taking place in this House. It is a shambles.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. "Marching orders from the Chair?" This time the Hon. Member is saying from the Chair. The last time the Hon. Member said from the Government. What exactly does the Hon. Member want to say?


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, let us be clear on what is taking place here. The Speaker is refusing to listen to a legitimate point of order. I said "if I did not know better", because I cannot imagine that the Speaker would seriously take her marching orders from the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy). If I did not know better, it would certainly have appeared to be the case that the Speaker had consulted with the Government and was taking her orders from the Government, because she is not listening


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I have to ask the Hon. Member, and I plead with him to recognize for the proper functioning of this House, that he has gone far beyond what is acceptable in referring to the Chair. 1 would ask him to withdraw the words used the first time when he made an implication in precise words. His first intervention was quite clear and now he is muddling it up, but I want him to withdraw the words that he used the first time.

October 19, 1983
Time Allocation


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, I have no intention of withdrawing the statement I made.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Out!


Svend Johannes Robinson: 1 believe what has taken place in this House is a travesty. If I did not know better, I would say that the Speaker was in cahoots with the Government to prevent this Party from putting its position-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. For the last time, will the Hon. Member withdraw those words?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: When is your last time?


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, I chose my words with care. I will stand by those words and I hope that the Speaker might consider in the circumstances Citation 233 of Beauchesne and realize that the Minister had no business doing what he was doing and, in effect, is making a mockery of the processes of this House.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Since I have warned the Hon. Member for the last time, I am afraid that I have to name the Hon. Member.


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, I move:
That the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) be expelled from the House for the remainder of this sitting.


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Madam Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Allmand
Andre
Axworthy
Bachand
(Division No. 370)
++YEAS


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order to express our very serious reservations about the events that occurred here today.
Messrs.
Baker	Beauchamp-Niquet
(Gandcr-Twillingate)	(Mrs.)
Beatty	B6gin (Miss)
Berger
The Minister is right in what he did but we are still convinced that the time at which he did it is quite wrong. The integrity of this institution was at stake here. We could not support the juvenile and rude conduct of the Hon. Member for
October 19, 1983

Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) who was encouraging anarchy in this institution.
The Chair has mentioned options that are available for Members who are dissatisfied with rulings of the Chair. We are going to review all of the options open to us between now and the next sitting, including those that have been suggested by the Chair. We supported the Chair, which is the symbol of authority and order in this place, of all of us.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Any insulting behavior toward the Chair is insulting behaviour toward all of us.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I, too, regret what has happened over the course of the last two days.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: 1 remember the days when the Conservatives charged the Chair. 1 remember the days when the Conservatives kept the House of Commons tied up on points of order. I remember the 15 days when the House of Commons could not sit while the Conservatives tried to get more benefits for their oil company friends. I regret that the Conservatives have chosen to ignore the rules of Parliament and to support the motion.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: In view of the vote that has just taken place in the House and the way that the motion has been resolved, I must ask the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) to withdraw from the House for the remainder of the sitting.
And Mr. Robinson (Burnaby) having withdrawn:


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I wish to ask for unanimous consent, since we are about to start on private members' business, but perhaps I should explain. Although it is 5.15 p.m., I think it would be advisable, if Hon. Members agree, to keep at least one of the three hours set aside for private members' business. On this side of the House, there is consent for granting a full hour, that is, the first of the three hours provided for private members' business. I am asking the consent of the House for one full hour, but we are not prepared, however, to give consent for two additional hours, since it is already late. I also wish to inform our colleagues that there will be Royal Assent
Petitions
at 5:45 p.m., and that the hour in question does not include the time required for royal assent.


Madam Speaker:: Does the House give its unanimous-


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, could the Government House Leader refresh my memory on the order of business that will be discussed in that hour?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague knows perfectly well it is the motion that is on the agenda today. The motion was moved by a private Member, on a subject for which the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General (Mr. Tardif) is responsible, and that is the motion I am referring to.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, we would be very happy to give that consent if the order of business was the business standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington).


Madam Speaker:: Then do I take it that there is no unanimous consent?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, on the order of the day for Private Members' Business which is usually dealt with by my Parliamentary Secretary, I am told that we are talking about Notice of Motion No. 44. That is the offer we are making. We are willing to give unanimous consent to deal with Motion No. 44 and to give it a full hour, not including the time required for Royal Assent.


Erik Nielsen: We agree.


Madam Speaker:: Does the House give unanimous consent for Motion No. 44 to be considered by the House for one full hour?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Robert Bockstael (St. Boniface):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from the undersigned residents of Canada who humbly sheweth that Petro-Canada owns a service station and restaurant at Warren's Corner on the Trans-Canada Highway in St. Boniface; that this restau-

Order Paper Questions
rant-service station has been serving the local and travelling public effectively since 1948 and that, by proceeding with the demolition of this facility and replacing it with a self-serve gas bar, Petro-Canada will cause a loss of 22 jobs at the end of this week. Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament for such measures as the House may think expedient to take to encourage officials of Petro-Canada to construct or cause others to establish a convenient truck-stop restaurant on the site-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member is taking a bit too much time for a petition. He knows that all that is required is to give the title and maybe a few sentences in explanation of his petition. We will consider that the Hon. Member's petition has been given in the House and filed with the Clerk.


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):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 5,006 and 5,262.
[ Text]


Mr. Blenkarn: 1.	Did the Government participate in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species in Botswana between April 19 and 30, 1983?
2.	Was Canada's delegation the third largest delegation of the ten official delegations at that meeting?
3.	Did the Government pay for the cost of six unofficial delegates from the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada. The Assembly of First Nations and the Canadian Sealers Association and, if so, for what reason?
4.	What were the names of the delegates sent by Canada, either as official or unofficial delegates?
5.	What was the total cost of the Canadian delegation to Botswana?
6.	Did sending the delegation of sixteen to the Convention in Botswana constitute an appropriate response by the Government to the 6 and 5 Program?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. Canada did participate in the biennial meeting of parties to the Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) held in Gaborone, Botswana, April 19-30, 1983. One of the principal reasons for this participation was the presentation at this conference of both a proposal and a resolution either of which, if passed, could have seriously damaged the Canadian economy. The proposal called for the inclusion in an "endangered species" list of all phocid seals including those currently harvested in Canada, either commercially or on a subsistence basis by our indigenous people, a proposal which Canadian scientists judged to be groundless but which if passed would likely have removed any hope for a recovery of the Canadian
October 19, 1983
sealing industry. The resolution called for a complete halt in the international trade of furs taken from animals trapped by what were alleged to be inhumane methods, a resolution which ignored the steady progress being made in Canada to ensure that trapping is carried out humanely, but which if passed could have severely damaged the $600 million annual revenue of the Canadian fur industry.
2.	Canada's delegation, with ten members, was the third largest of the 53 official delegations, behind the U.S.A. (15) and Botswana (30), although only slightly larger than delegations from countries such as the F.R.G. (9) or Britain (9). No other country, however, would have been proportionately more adversely affected than Canada if the proposal or the resolution had been passed.
3.	Individual Canadian Government Departments subsidized the expenses of participation as observers of the following representatives of non-government organizations: Messrs. Enoch Obed and Peter Ernerk of the Inuit Tapirisat, Mr. George Erasmus of The Assembly of First Nations of Canada, Mr. Willie Deraspe of the Canadian Sealers' Association.
It was considered vital to allow representatives of those Canadians likely to be most adversely affected if the proposal or the resolution were passed to be able to speak for themselves on the issue, especially where such persons are from disadvantaged groups unable themselves to pay the high costs of international travel. All of these observers provided persuasive personal touches which were particularly effective in allowing Third World delegates more closely to identify with the human issues involved. CITES meetings allow the participation of NGO representatives as observers, and nearly 150 attended.
4.	The official delegation consisted of:
Mr. Bert Tetreault,
Director General,
Canadian Wildlife Service,
Environment Canada,
(Head of Delegation);
Mr. John Heppes,
Administrator for CITES for Canada,
Environment Canada,
(Alternate Head of Delegation);
Mr. Peter Ittinuar, M.P.,
Special Advisor to the Delegation;
Mr. William T. Munro,
Biologist,
Fish and Wildlife Service,
British Columbia Government;
Mr. George Cowley,
Head, Environment Section,
Energy and Environment Division,
Department of External Affairs;
Dr. Nick Novakowski,
October 19, 1983

Co-ordinator, Wildlife Research,
Canadian Wildlife Service,
Environment Canada;
Dr. William Doubleday,
Director,
Resource Research Branch,
Department of Fisheries and Oceans;
Mr. Paul Montreuil,
Resource Research Branch,
Department of Fisheries and Oceans;
Ms. Judith Swan,
International Directorate,
Department of Fisheries and Oceans;
Ms. Theresa Nahanee,
Senior Policy Analyst,
Department of Indian and Northern Affairs.
The observers listed in part 3 above could not strictly speaking be considered delegates, "unofficial" or otherwise, since they acted in purely independent capacities. Other Canadian non-government organization representatives attending as observers at their own or their organization s expense included: Mr. Jan Duvekot of the Northwest Territories Government, Mr. Goerge Whitman of the Fur Fashion Council, Mme. Denise Ange and Mr. Oscar Respitz of the Fur Trade Association, Mr. William Anderson of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, Mr. Don Dailley of the Canadian Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums, Dr. Nicholas Mrosovski of the Canadian Committee of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, and Ms. Anne Doncaster of the International Primate Protection League of Canada.
5.	The total cost to Canada of participation in the conference included the basic costs of air travel, room, board and incidentals for the 14 federal Government sponsored participants, approximately $75,000, and another $7,000 in expenses associated with participation, bringing the total to approximately $82,000.
6.	The Department of External Affairs, in common with all other Federal departments and agencies, continues to observe the 6 and 5 restraints in its over-all conference participation and other budgets. The larger than average size of the delegation to the CITES conference has been compensated for by reductions in or eliminations of other delegations to less crucial conferences. The outcome of the votes of the CITES conference were in doubt until the final counts, and it is reasonable to conjecture that a lesser delegation might not have achieved the singular successes of the one actually sent.


Mr. Gamble: 1.	What is the total number of Canadians staffing the Canadian Embassy in Moscow?
Order Paper Questions
2.	Are there Canadians, in addition to those referred to in Part I, performing diplomatic or consular services in the Soviet Union and, if so, how many?
3.	What is the total number of citizens of the Soviet Union staffing the Soviet Embassy in Ottawa?
4.	Are there Soviets, in addition to those referred to in Part 3, performing diplomatic or consular services in Canada and, if so, how many?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. There are 44 Canadian Embassy staff in Moscow.
2.	There are no Canadian diplomatic or consular representatives resident outside Moscow.
3.	There are 45 Soviet citizens assigned to the Soviet Embassy in Ottawa.
4.	There are 16 Soviet citizens who work at the Soviet Consulate in Montreal. Of these nine enjoy consular status.


John Leslie Evans: Madam Speaker, if question No. 4,493 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliament Secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 4,493 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: The return will be tabled forthwith.


Mr. Siddon: 1.	What was the total cost of the government's participation at the 1982 Pacific National Exhibition in Vancouver?
2.	What amount did the Government expend for (a) the rental of exhibition and display area and premises (b) the rental or purchase of display equipment, lighting, utilities, decorations and other related paraphernalia (c) staff salaries for personnel attending to the government displays (d) security (e) transportation of equipment, materials, displays and staff (f) remuneration for contractors, special consultants or other outside personnel in relation to designing, constructing, assembling and/or disassembling each display (g) publicity and public relations contracts (h) publications, brochures, other printed matter and promotional or information handouts in relation to its participation at the Exhibition and, in each case, from which department's budget were the funds expended?
Return tabled.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 must once again ask the Parliamentary Secretary why we have not had an answer to question No. 2,042 which was asked on January 29, 1981. That simple request for information-asks what was the total cost-of the Prime Minister's December/ January world tour. As we know, Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister is warming up again for another tour. I feel it is only

October 19, 1983
Royal Assent
fair to the Canadian public that we at least get an accounting for the tour he made in 1980-81 before he leaves on his current tour in a few days' time.


Erik Nielsen: A three-week tour.


John Leslie Evans: I would be glad to look into that particular question for the Hon. Member, Madam Speaker.


Mr. Beatty:: Madam Speaker, perhaps I could bring to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary questions Nos. 2,672 and 3,506. The first question was placed on the Order Paper on June 23, 1981. The second question was placed on the Order Paper December 2, 1981. Both these questions deal with the policy of the Government relating to public opinion surveys and request that the Government declassify those surveys. What is the reason for the delay in answering these two questions?


John Leslie Evans: I give the same answer to the Hon. Member as I gave to the Hon. Member for York-Peel, Madam Speaker. I will look into the matter and try to get back to him personally and indicate the answer I am able to find.
Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Stand.


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


Madam Speaker:: Shall the notices of motions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received which is as follows:
Government House,
October 19, 1983
Madam,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Brian Dickson, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor
General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 19th day of October, 1983, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to a certain Bill.
I have the honour to be,
Madam,
Your obedient servant,
Esmond Butler,
Secretary to the Governor General



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS

['Order, please!']
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. Shall all orders listed under Notices of Motions preceding order No. 44 be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from April 3, 1981, consideration of the motion of Mr. Fennell:
Thai, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of allowing a free vote in the House of Commons on the reinstatement of capital punishment for first degree murder.
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, this motion touches the core of a matter which has bothered me and other Members of Parliament for some considerable period of time. In every poll taken, every testing of public opinion in, I suspect, virtually every conceivable constituency in Canada over the past 15 and 20 years, somewhere between 70 per cent and 90 per cent of the respondents to these polls have indicated that they wish-even demand-that the punishment for premeditated murder, which in this motion is called first degree murder, that heinous crime of murder with intent, should be a crime for which the death penalty is appropriate. Yet somewhere along the line certain Members of Parliament, particularly Leaders of Parties in this House, have used the authority of the Party system to prevent a decision on this type of treatment in the Criminal Code to come to a free vote.
The consequence of this is that this Parliament, by the use of the Party system and the control it imposes upon Hon. Members, has managed to prevent what the vast consensus of the public demands. There is something wrong. There is something wrong with the Party system which says not that an Hon. Member should use his own discretion as to what he might want, but which dictates that one has to follow the Party line if one is a Member of Cabinet, a Parliamentary Secretary or a Member of the Government Party. Clearly it is, then, not a question of following one's own conscience when one votes as a Member. It is not a question of following the
October 19, 1983



dictates of one's constituents. It is a question of following what a Member is required to do in terms of a Party Whip and the Party's position.
There are some issues which are not matters of Party policy or Party position. The issue of capital punishment for heinous premeditated murder is one of those issues. Perhaps abortion is one of those issues as well. Perhaps the right to smoke marijuana should be one of those issues. There are certain issues in our society which deal with the way we look at what is right and what is wrong, and the way the public of Canada looks at what is right and what is wrong. Those particular questions of what is right and what is wrong are not questions of a Party position. They are questions of the individual conscience, not only of Hon. Members but of individuals in our constituencies.
Some of us may say we are obligated to follow the consciences of the majority of our constituents. I tend to take that view. Some of us may say that we were elected to use our best judgment and we are entitled to use our best judgment even though it might be in total contravention of what our constituents want. I believe all of us must take the position that this is not a matter which should come before the House of Commons as a Government matter. It should come before the House of Commons as an open matter, a matter on which all of us can individually vote the way we individually want to vote, not the way we must vote in order to stay within the controls placed on us by the Party system. Every time this matter has come to a vote in this House it has been on the basis of an amendment to the Criminal Code moved by the Government.
In effect, then, Members of the Government Party have been forced to vote with the Government, the theory being that if they did not they would be voting against Cabinet solidarity, against themselves. It is a Government Bill, therefore they must vote for the Government Bill. That position negates the whole concept of Members of Parliament being able to handle issues such as the capital punishment issue in an independent and sensible way, the way our constituents expect us to handle the issue.
1 say to you, Sir, that it is vitally important that this House proceed with this motion because we as Members of Parliament should be allowed to express our concern on issues involving the way we as a nation should be governed, on moral issues. At one time, Mr. Speaker, the Criminal Code provided for the chopping off of arms if you committed theft, or even hanging. Certainly in times past people have been stoned for adultery and so on. The question of punishment appropriate to the offence is determined to a large extent not by people who are in the egghead part of society, as many of us are, but by the ordinary, common person. Surely Members of Parliament should be able to come to this place and, when we are dealing with an issue such as capital punishment, be free from the controls of Whips, free from the controls of the way our Party or Leader views the matter, and free to express ourselves by
Capital Punishment
voting clearly on the matter without any control. Therefore, Sir, I say to you and this House that this motion should be supported.


Mr. Gilles Marceau (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate, I recall the difficult time we had a few years ago when this important subject was debated in the House. It is clear that the motion now before the House is concerned with a very specific subject, namely capital punishment, but it also reflects the kind of society to which we belong and the kind of society we want.
Mr. Speaker, you will recall, since you were in the House at the time, that on July 14, 1976, there was a free vote, and I agree with the comments of the previous speaker who said that the free vote was perhaps influenced, and I think we should realize this, not by Government policy but by party ideology. When I voted as I did, it was to express a philosophy, to show the kind of society to which I wanted to belong, and I was doing so through the political party of which I was a member. However, I can say quite frankly that no one could have forced me or compelled me to act as I did, if I had not, as a matter of conscience, deliberately decided in favour of abolition of capital punishment.
Mr. Speaker, 1 realize the issue is a difficult one, that it probably goes beyond political parties as such because it depends on the personality, as it were, of the individual and the environment in which he lives.
I was listening to the previous speaker who said that 79 or 80 per cent of Canadian polled were in favour of capital punishment. With respect, I do not share my hon. colleague's opinion. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the wording of a question tends to influence the answer given by the respondent. If there is a single question in the poll, such as "Are you for or against the death penalty?", and that the question does not suggest any alternative, it is quite possible that a good many Canadians who have just heard about foul crimes would favour the reinstatement of capital punishment. However, if there is a second question in the poll, such as "Are you in favour of handing out a 25-year jail sentence to a criminal convicted of first degree murder?", most, if not all, Canadians would say yes. In other words, Canadians are expressing fear and they are saying to the Government that criminals should not be set free to roam the streets after relatively short prison terms, as if hardened criminals can regain their freedom after spending very little time behind bars.
Mr. Speaker, I can support that statement with personal experience. I received similar letters from two lifers who did not know each other and were not even in the same institution. Yet, their viewpoint was exactly the same: we would rather face capital punishment than a 25-year jail sentence. It proves that, in a world where we are rightfully seeking punishment for odious crimes, I can say respectfully to those who believe that the death penalty is the solution, and to my colleagues

October 19, 1983
Capital Punishment
who share that view, that they are mistaken, and that Canadians who support that opinion are mistaken as well, because people who have been convicted of a serious crime punishable by a 25-year jail sentence consider that they are more severely punished when, pursuant to the new legislation, they are kept in jail and deprived of their freedom during 25 years for first degree murder or 15 years for second degree murder.
Mr. Speaker, that is another way of saying that in a debate such as this one, we must try to forget for a moment the nature and circumstances of the crime which has been committed, and think instead about the kind of society in which we want to live.
A criminal is accused of taking someone's life. An individual is thrown in jail because he has committed the most despicable crime, taking the life of a fellow human being. 1 think it is sometimes difficult to react any other way when confronted with repugnant and totally meaningless crimes. The first impulse of the ordinary man is understandable. He says that the criminal no longer has any right to his freedom or even his life. But should the legislator be influenced and seek vengeance? Should the legislator take a decision when he is emotionally stressed? I do not think so, Mr. Speaker. I think that as spokesmen for all Canadians, our role is to enlighten them and provide them with every means to enable them to make a fair and honest judgment.
Mr. Speaker, when speaking of fair and honest decisions, I think that my colleagues will agree that statistics are undoubtedly a useful tool to make decisions. Polls are the usual procedure to gauge public opinion, but when a decision must be made, we should not make it exclusively to comply with people's wishes. Statistics clearly indicate that since 1956, when the death penalty was abolished, the number of crimes or murders has decreased. But there is a distinction to be made: the number of violent crimes has not diminished. Violence has increased, but the number of murders has fallen. I think that this shows that statistics can be used by both sides on the issue of capital punishment. I suggest that on the whole, the statistics to which I referred tend to support my views, although I do not pretend to be an authority giving confirmed opinion. I am only speaking according to my conscience, since my colleague referred to it a while ago. We all have our conscience. We try to abide by own conscience as legislators when we must doose a direction which offers true protection and security to Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, as far as public opinion polls are concerned, we realize that some countries have abolished the death penalty. Those countries often have a lower crime rate than before.
On the other hand, there are nations which have both the death penalty and a very high crime rate. Certain countries have chosen to abolish the death penalty for some reason or other, but in this country, in my opinion, we made that
decision for a very important reason, and we did so in a non-partisan move.
Moreover, I remember the very eloquent comments of the Right Honourable the then Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), when he stated: "I have realized that the death penalty is no deterrent for the peculiar type of persons that murderers are". He also added the following: "Our duty is to establish whether the threat of capital punishment would deter those who might be likely to take a human life, that is to commit murder". I have seen no strong evidence that the threat of that penalty could be a deterrent, and 1 agree with the views put forward by the then Honourable Leader of the Opposition.
The Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) had also stated, and I quote: "I do not believe there are arguments either of reason or of a moral nature in support of capital punishment". He also stated: "The Solicitor General has stressed like others that the information at our disposal is not conclusive to say the least".
Those are statements made by dedicated politicians, by men with just as good and sound a conscience as any citizen who would advocate capital punishment, and those men of experience and distinction did support at that time the very close vote to abolish capital punishment.
Mr. Speaker, there is a fundamental reason why I cannot, as a member of Parliament and as a citizen, support capital punishment. It is not the kind of criminal acts, frequently of a sordid nature, that have been committed and that call for a penalty. It is, in my view, the injustice involved in reinstating capital punishment. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and in view of your vast knowledge I know you are aware of them, but I take the liberty of reminding you of the facts. To what class of citizens do criminals belong? Most of them come from the ranks of the have-nots, the poor, the unemployed, and those on welfare. They are the ones that are mostly involved in criminal acts that go as far as murder. Why should our society lay on people who are already underprivileged, why should it lay on them the burden of an error that often is not the fault of those who committed it but that of the society in which they live?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please!



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Madam Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the Chamber of the honourable the Senate.
October 19, 1983
[Stage Direction]
Accordingly, the Speaker with the House went up to the Senate Chamber.
And being returned:
['Order, please. It being now 6.34 p.m. and in accordance with the agreement reached earlier today, the time allowed for consideration of the motion\nCapital Punishment\nhas expired, and the House stands adjourned until 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).\nAt 6.34, the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.']
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House did attend His Honour the Deputy to His Excellency the Governor General in the Senate Chamber, His Honour was pleased to give in Her Majesty's name the Royal Assent to the following Bill:
An Act to amend the Export Development Act.



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Fennell:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of allowing a free vote in the House of Commons on the reinstatement of capital punishment for first degree murder.
Gilles Marceau: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the three traditional knocks on this door to summon us to the Senate were meant to ask me to reflect on the comments I had already made before Royal Assent, but in any case, I believe that I can repeat these same comments and say once more that the central argument on which I base my decision not to support the reinstatement of capital punishment concerns justice and equity towards the people most often involved in serious crimes of violence.
As I was saying earlier a society which to show its disapproval and express its anger for an infamous act, commits itself such an act by throwing into jail or taking the life of people who are already disadvantaged, is not behaving with fairness and decency.
Mr. Speaker, much has been said about premeditated acts. However, it has been established that 70 per cent of all premeditated murders are committed by people who are on welfare or unemployed. They are not the ones who are responsible; society is to blame, and if we were to commit such a reprehensible act against people who are already disadvantaged, what we would be doing ourselves would also be unacceptable as we would be forcing people who do not deserve it to pay the price that we should all collectively pay for the acts committed.
Needless to say, there are also cases of miscarriage of justice. I remember the famous Coffin case of the fifties. It
Capital Punishment
now seems virtually established that Mr. Coffin, who was hanged for the crime, did not commit the murder for which he died.
In any case, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that we must be guided in this debate by logic and the interests of the people we want to defend. I invite my colleagues who believe that the reinstatement of capital punishment might be the answer, to reflect on the fact that it is not by adding to the violence which has already been committed and by having the government or the Parliament retaliate with a similar act, that we will solve the problem; on the contrary, we would be playing into the hands of those who want to break up our society by promoting violence, who want to destroy it by making us forget that whatever the act committed, someone is involved, a family is involved, and that while a penalty must be imposed, no government and no Parliament is ever allowed to take the life of someone who received it from God. In view of these facts, I believe that we should not reinstate the death penalty.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Before recognizing the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), perhaps it would be useful for the Chair to inform the House that the full hour of debate will expire at 6.34 p.m., since the House took nine minutes to go to the other place for Royal Assent.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of comments to make in the course of the debate on Motion No. 44 concerning the advisability of allowing a free vote in the House of Commons on the reinstatement of capital punishment for first degree murder. I would mainly like to direct my comments to the whole question of free votes.
I was interested in the remarks of the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) when, in speaking in favour of the motion, he indicated that he saw a lot more room for free votes on matters having to do with what he called moral issues or, as they have also been called, issues of conscience. He cited capital punishment as one of these. There are others which have traditionally been regarded in this way, such as issues having to do with the question of abortion. The Hon. Member for Mississauga South cited the legalization of marijuana as another example of an issue which, in his view, belonged to this category of moral issues and issues of conscience. He felt such issues should stand somewhere beyond the reach of Party discipline where Members of Parliament could make decisions either according to an understanding of having a responsibility to make their own best judgment, which is the traditional conservative view of the role of a Member of Parliament, or according to an understanding of themselves as having a responsibility to respond to majority opinion in their constituencies, which is a more modern, liberal view of politics. In either case, the Hon. Member contended that certain issues ought to be beyond the reach of Party discipline because they belong in the category of moral issues.

October 19, 1983
Capital Punishment
I both agree and disagree with the Eton. Member on this and I will try to say why. 1 agree with him because I think that there ought to be a wider range of issues than at present on which there is occasion for free votes, an occasion for Parliament to express itself without the constraints of Party discipline. In that respect I agree with the Hon. Member.
Where I have some hesitation in agreeing with him is when he wants to limit what is viewed as moral issues to issues such as capital punishment, abortion and so on. That sets up a distinction between those issues and other issues which I find hard to accept. In my view, how we organize our economy is a moral issue. It is not as though we have a little group of issues on one side which have a moral dimension and another group of issues, such as how we organize our economy, how we treat the poor, what our social programs, international relations and policy are as far as the Third World is concerned, on the other side.
Whatever issues lie outside the group of issues which the Hon. Member for Mississauga South articulated also have a moral dimension to them. Everything we do in this House of Commons, every policy that we consider and debate in this House, has a moral dimension to it. My hesitation therefore about that part of the analysis of the Hon. Member for Mississauga South is the danger of setting aside certain questions having to do with morality and, by doing so, implying that there is a broader range of issues which are purely administrative in nature, or technical or managerial and do not have a moral dimension. As I said, everything we consider in this House has a moral dimension.
Returning to the question of free votes, I would agree that there has to be a wider range of issues on which Members of Parliament have occasion to exercise independent judgment and judgments which are independent of Party discipline. I say this for two reasons. The first is that I think there does exist a range of issues on which independent judgment is more appropriate than Party displine and the second is that the heavy hand of Party politics is more omnipresent and pressing in Canadian politics than in the politics of almost any other democratic country of which I am aware.
Now the United States of America is often cited as an example of a political system in which people who belong to one political party or the other feel that there is much more freedom to criticize positions taken by members of their own party or positions taken by Presidents who belong to their own party. That is the Congressional system, but that is not what I am advocating.
I am advocating something that can be found simply by going to the mother Parliament in Britain. As I understand the British parliamentary system from having spent some time there and from having considered these matters as a member of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, there is a much broader range of issues on which it is understood and is conventional that Members of Parliament will
exercise their own judgment. This occurs, for instance, on matters having to do with the House of Commons itself. The first example of this sort that comes to my mind is because I remember a vote which caused tensions in all caucuses here dealing with pay raises for Members of Parliament. That is just an example of issues which impinge upon the life of the House of Commons itself. Those are issues on which, in my view, Members of Parliament should exercise independent judgment. Caucuses and Parties should feel no compunction to take a position on every issue in this area.
As I understand it, it is also the case in Britain that there is a much more relaxed acceptance of the fact that on issues such as capital punishment, for instance, there will be independent and individual judgments rendered by Members of Parliament. This was demonstrated most recently by the result of the free vote which was taken in the British House of Commons on the subject or restoring capital punishment. The House of Commons in Britain was fresh from a massive Conservative victory. The Government and the Parliament could easily have been dominated by the policy or at least the tendency of the party in power which, I understand, is in favour of the restoration of capital punishment. However, the vote had a strange outcome. The motion to restore capital punishment was defeated in a House of Commons dominated by Conservative members.
There we can see how the free vote works, though perhaps not in the same way as those who advocate a free vote on capital punishment generally hope it would work. Nevertheless, that is an example of what I mean. We would have liked to see a free vote here in the House, as we so often asked for, on the testing of the Cruise missile. Issues dealing with disarmament are other issues for which I think it would be good if Members of all Parties felt freer to express what they truly felt.
In the final analysis it is not just for the sake of individual Members and their feeling this independence that I should like to see more of this; it is for the sake of Parliament itself. I think there is too much emphasis in Canadian politics on Party discipline and Party unity in the sense that too much negative attention is paid to the fact that people who belong to the same political Party may disagree with each other on certain matters, probably not on what is regarded as the core platform or emphasis of that Party, but on a range of issues that are not regarded as essential to the Party's self-understanding. I do not know which came first, the chicken or the egg, in this case; but 1 think what reinforces this is the fascination of the media with any disagreement within a political Party. Politicians become almost paranoid about doing anything which can be construed as an attack on either their leader or on their Party policy. Any creative debate within political Parties has become almost impossible as a result of the paranoia created by the negative attention paid by the media to any so-called signs of disunity. Probably the same media people complain about political Parties being monolithic, autocratic and that there is not any real debate going on within the Party. Of course, the minute there was debate going on they would be there like a
October 19, 1983

bunch of vultures trying to exploit it and distort it and make it out to be something other than it was.
For the sake of Parliament and for the sake of the political process, I think there has to be more opportunity for MPs to exercise individual judgment. In the minds of the public there has to be more occasion when they can see that it makes a difference to talk to their MP about an issue-that it makes a difference or at least that it could make a difference, because MPs are not always going to agree with whatever group they happen to meet or that happens to lobby them on a particular issue. Nevertheless, there would be a theoretical possibility that in some instances, and in more instances than is the case now, Members of Parliament could exercise independent judgment and not be expected simply to vote the way the Party votes on that particular issue.
People need to feel that it makes a difference that there are 282 minds in this place, that there are 282 thinking beings in this place and not 282 voting machines which, on every occasion, do exactly what their Party requires them to do.
This takes us back to the life of the House of Commons itself and the need for Members not only to have more independent input into a broader range of issues which may fall outside the reach of Party discipline; it also brings us to the question of Members of Parliament having more control over the life of the House of Commons itself.
This is another matter we discussed in the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure. That is why we recommended, for a start-and I can think of no more appropriate day to mention this-that the House have more genuine control over the selection of the Speaker of the House of Commons. The Speaker would have the moral authority of someone who was genuinely selected by the House of Commons.
We also recommend that the House of Commons have more control over the Commissioners of Internal Economy. I do not want to get too far off topic, Mr. Speaker, but these things are all related to the integrity of Parliament itself as the public sees it. Free votes are related to votes of confidence and the need to rid our Standing Orders of all the procedural ways in which matters which should not be votes of confidence are now regarded as such procedurally in the Standing Orders. If that were eliminated there would be more opportunities for free votes or at least fewer excuses on the part of the Government for demanding of its Members that they regard every vote as a vote of confidence. That would make life more difficult for Government backbenchers, I admit, but in the final analysis it would make life better for them because they would be less robotic, shall we say, in their deliberations and they would feel better about themselves knowing that on occasion they could exercise that kind of freedom.
I believe that these are some of the directions in which we ought to move. I hope a number of Hon. Members were listening to my comments on these matters because I feel there is a consensus in the country that the authenticity of the input
Capital Punishment
of Hon. Members of Parliament has to be greatly enhanced in this institution if it is going to continue to hold what respect it has and to increase that respect.
One of the ways we can do that is by giving to all of our constituents the sense that Members of Parliament make a difference, that what Members of Parliament think and what constituents tell their Members of Parliament makes a difference. The question of free votes and the frequency of them is intimately related to that question. In that respect, I am very happy to have had the opportunity to comment.


Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I will take only a very few minutes to state my views on this motion. Tragically, this debate could not be more timely. The nation's capital has just experienced the brutal killing of Police Constable David Utman. The alleged killer has been quoted as saying he wanted to kill a policeman, any policeman. This latest incident has once again raised public consciousness and a demand for a debate in this House on the capital punishment question. The need for a full-fledged debate on the death penalty is probably more important in the 1980s than it has ever been, given the rise in the numbers of violent crimes in our society. What is needed even more urgently, Mr. Speaker, is an absolutely free vote on this highly personal, emotional and sensitive issue.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and Members of his Liberal Government not only refuse to bring the capital punishment question back to Parliament for renewed debate, but the Prime Minister has consistently refused to take off the Liberal Party Whips and allow a truly free vote on the death penalty. The reason, I believe, is obvious. He knows that great numbers of Liberal Members of Parliament would vote according to their consciences and reinstate capital punishment.
Quite apart from my own strong feelings about the need to restore the death penalty in this country for first degree murder-and I am on record in this Chamber as giving my reasons for holding that opinion-there is another fundamental reason for which I support this motion in the name of the Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell). We have heard recently that a large number of Canadians feel that Parliament is irrelevant. One of the reasons our constituents have a sense of futility about this place is that they do not feel that we, as Members of Parliament, are legitimately representing their interests. Quite rightly, many Canadians feel Members of Parliament are here only to gratify our own egos and to toe the Party line, regardless of the opinions of the majority of people we were sent to Ottawa to represent. Of course, the electors have to make a choice at election time as candidates from different Parties state their opinions on emotional and moral issues like capital punishment.
Yes, there are constraints on those of us in political Parties to adhere to a particular Party line because we are team players, most of us. But there are some issues, moral issues, the conscience questions, where an individual Member of Parliament must weigh very carefully the decision to exercise his or her own judgment on a case, but keeping in mind the majority

October 19, 1983
Capital Punishment
view of that Member's constituency. Sometimes that is a tricky decision to make but it is one each and every single Member of Parliament should be given the chance to make on a question of conscience through a free vote and not with Party Whips attached.
What I cannot abide, Mr. Speaker, is this Government's defiance of public opinion on this and other moral questions. We all know of the massive public desire for at least a renewed debate on capital punishment, and a substantial majority want the death penalty returned for first degree murder. They want that death penalty returned to the Statute books. I said a substantial majority: the latest Gallup poll shows that 72 per cent to 74 per cent of Canadians sampled wish a return of the death penalty. But more importantly, the issue facing us right now, the question we must resolve in this afternoon's very brief debate, is the urgent need for a completely, totally, absolutely free vote on this question.
The Progressive Conservative Party, under the leadership of the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark), was committed to an absolutely free vote on the death penalty. Under our new Leader, the Hon. Member for Central Nova (Mr. Mulroney), I am confident that it is still the intention of this Party's leadership to reintroduce the capital punishment question at least for debate. I am equally confident that a new Progressive Conservative Government will allow a free vote on capital punishment.
I will conclude by quoting criminal lawyer Louie Nizer, who said it does no good for sheep to pass resolutions in favour of vegetarianism when the wolves think otherwise. This very minute the wolves are slaughtering our loved ones. What in God's name are we waiting for?


Mr. Fennell:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Under Standing Order 41(2) a reply shall be allowed to a Member who has moved a substantive motion. 1 rise at this point to exercise my right.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Hon. Member is quite right. However, the Chair has noticed other Members rising to speak at this point and the Chair did recognize the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary in any case. Even if the Chair recognized the Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell), it would still have to advise the House under Standing Order 41(3) that the reply of the mover of the original motion closes the debate. At that point in time that then affords an opportunity for any other Member who wishes to contribute to the debate to rise and the Chair would have to recognize that Member. If no other Member rose at that point, of course the Hon. Member for Ontario could be recognized and he would in fact close the debate. But that is not the case because another Hon. Member has risen. It is the Chair's obligation to recognize that other Hon. Member at this time.
I trust that the explanation is satisfactory to the Hon. Member for Ontario.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, are you then stating that the debate on this motion is not closed if 1 do not rise within the allotted time?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Absolutely. It is standard practice that once we have reached the full hour of debate in any given sitting of the House when dealing with Private Members' Motions, the motion does not die; it goes to the bottom of the list. Of course, it can be resurrected and given greater priority, if there is an understanding between the Parties. But that is not for the Chair to decide. In any case, it does not deprive the Hon. Member of his right eventually to close the debate.
The Chair is attempting to explain that we have not yet reached that point because another Hon. Member who has not yet spoken wishes to contribute to the debate.


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. 1 just want to point out two items. First, the House is now under an order that was agreed to by the entire House that the debate would go for one full hour. This motion states that the mover shall have the right to close the debate. Consequently, when those are put together I contend that the Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell) should now have the right to close the debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: It is my understanding that the Hon. Member is giving an entirely different interpretation to the agreement reached earlier this day with respect to the proceedings now under way. I do not want to take extensive time but Hon. Members will recall that the situation which faced the House following an earlier vote was that we had gone well beyond the time of approximately three o'clock when we usually engage in Private Members' Business; in fact, it was well past five o'clock. It is the Chair's understanding that there was agreement between the Government House Leader and the House Leaders for the other Parties at least to deal with one item today. They agreed what item that would be and this is what we are debating. However, I do not believe that in any way, shape or form it was the intention of the Parties to that agreement that debate should conclude today on the motion now before the House.


Mr. Tardif:: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that this issue was raised in the House on five or six occasions over the past year and a half, as a result of some motions calling again for the consideration of the capital punishment issue, while others called for a referendum. Again, this afternoon, we are being urged to deal with it in a different way through the following motion, and I quote:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of allowing a free vote in the House of Commons on the reinstatement-
October 19, 1983


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. It being now 6.34 p.m. and in accordance with the agreement reached earlier today, the time allowed for consideration of the motion
Capital Punishment
has expired, and the House stands adjourned until 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6.34, the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.