1984-01-18

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada last week released a major study on highly trained manpower in our country. The Symons-Page Report documents the extent to which universities in Canada are continuing to hire some 28 per cent of their faculty from among non-Canadians. This practice is occurring when there is a surplus of highly qualified Canadian citizens, in most cases in the very fields for which foreign faculty are being actively recruited.
The universities should welcome faculty from other lands, especially on a visiting professor basis, but surely something is seriously wrong when Canadians cannot get positions in their own universities for which they are eminently qualified. Even the great international universities like Harvard, Oxford, and the Sorbonne do not allow non-citizens to exceed between 2 per cent and 10 per cent of their total faculty.
I urge the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts) to examine the relevant regulations in light of the Symons-Page Report, and to act immediately on this serious problem.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Pierre Deniger (La Prairie):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ever since the Post Office Department was restructured, the people of the riding of La Prairie have complained to me about the poor service provided by the Canada Post Corporation. Last Monday, I read in the papers that the President of the Corporation, Mr. Michael Warren, is seeking to enlarge the scope of the Corporation's activities.
Mr. Speaker, I think Canada does not need any more Crown Corporations competing with private enterprise, and I think
the scope of Canada Post Corporation's mandate should certainly not be expanded. Mr. Warren may have forgotten the Corporation's main responsibility which is to sort and deliver mail. In my riding, there are whole neighbourhoods in Saint-Lambert, Lemoine, Greenfield Park, Brossard, La Prairie and Candiac that have been without home delivery for six months. Mr. Speaker, I think we should remind the people in charge of the Canada Post Corporation of their true mandate, which is to deliver the mail. They have a mandate, and they should carry it out and do so immediately, that is, provide Canadians with an excellent postal service, and I would suggest they forget about expanding their activities until they do what they are supposed to be doing.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I expect that there is no job title that more accurately describes the general expectation of the task to be performed than that which is embodied in the words "civil servants". The civil servant is expected to be both a public servant, and civil.
In ten years as a public servant and an equal period of time in political life, I have come to recognize that the quality of work and the degree of civility projected by the vast majority of civil servants are commendable and noteworthy. I report with sadness, however, that the abusive treatment of citizens by a minority of civil servants runs the danger of damaging the credibility of the Public Service with the citizens at large.
Too frequently we hear of phone calls that were placed but were never returned, of letters that were sent but never answered or acknowledged, of the Department that received a concern which applied to a different part of government but failed to be helpful in redirecting the citizen. In all cases the public should expect service with civility.
Advanced payments for prairie grains is one example of where the staff has become too nit-picky about the manner in which information forms are completed. Another example is a constituent of mine who made a visit to an office of Immigration Canada where he took a number and was told to wait. At the end of two hours he asked: "How much longer do I have to wait?" Whereupon a minority-minded civil servant took his number, 66, and issued him a new number, which was 102.
Since I have been frequently well served by conscientious, hardworking civil servants, yet cognizant-

January 18, 1984


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but his time has expired.


Some Hon. Members:: Let him continue.


Mr. Speaker:: He may continue with unanimous consent.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, during the last few days a group calling itself the National Citizens' Coalition have been advertising against Bill C-169, the amendments to the Canada Elections Act, which passed both Houses of Parliament last Fall with unanimous support.
One of the provisions of the Bill forbids political advertising during election campaigns except by legitimate candidates or parties. This was done to ensure that all parties and candidates could adhere to the election expenses laws without fear that some ad hoc pressure group could be set up to thwart the rules and that no fringe group could frivolously interfere with the fair democratic election system that was set up with the agreement of all parties in Parliament-in other words, so that power not follow or respond to money or those who have money.
The prohibition applies only to the 50-day election period that comes only once every four or five years. Advertisements at other times are perfectly legal and probably more effective.
It is regrettable that this group has won editorial support from some respected national news agencies like Southam and Thompson Newspapers which, of course, would be the prime financial beneficiaries of this advertising.


THE SENATE
Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw to the attention of the House the matter of Ian Sinclair's appointment to the Senate. It is highly commendable of the Government to reward at least one Canadian for the sacrifices we have all made under the six and five restraint program.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has concern about reflections on individual members of the other place-


Mr. Nielsen:: Or this one.


Mr. Speaker:: -bearing in mind the general problem which the Hon. Member raises, but traditional courtesies have applied in such a situation. The Hon. Member for Levis.


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Mr. Gaston Gourde (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on some insidious and untrue advertising by the National Citizens' Coalition of Toronto which appeared recently.
This group alleges that all Members of this House have banded together to prevent Canadians from expressing their views during a federal election.
Nothing is further from the truth, Mr. Speaker. For a number of years we have been adopting a series of measures encouraging Canadians to take part in our democratic process and enabling all Canadians who so desire not only to be a candidate but also to have a fair chance of being elected. Under the legislation, all candidates have access to the same financial resources and the same Government assistance.
As for our fellow citizens, they are free to become a member of the Party of their choice and to work for that Party. They are even entitled to a tax credit for contributions made to candidates and parties. Furthermore, individuals and groups are free to spend as much as they like on encouraging debate on a given subject or promoting ideas they support. However, all this is not enough for the Citizens' Coalition which likes to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on partisan, insidious and even vicious politicking against certain candidates.
The Citizens' Coalition does not believe in equal opportunities for all but seems to think that money is synonymous with freedom. Freedom for whom, Mr. Speaker?


FINANCE
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, the creation of new regulations and statutes to govern financial intermediaries, the trust companies, the insurance companies, the credit unions, the security dealers and the banks, is not a matter of partisan politics. It is a matter that vitally concerns all Members of Parliament.
The Minister of State (Finance) (Mr. MacLaren) has decided to appoint a Task Force Committee that does not include any Members of Parliament. The Minister presumably believes that the bankers, insurance executives, the bureau-
January 18, 1984

crats, and the professionals in the business should be the only ones to have a say on how the financial intermediaries that affect every one of our constituents should be governed. In typical Liberal government style, the Minister of State for Finance feels Parliament is not necessary. The representatives of the people be damned!
The failure to bring legislation up to date, the failure to deal with the various pillars of financial responsibility in financial service industries by giving to those industries new laws and new powers, to redefine responsibilities, has seriously hurt the recovery.
This party calls upon the President of the Privy Council to name a task force committee of this House to inquire into the rights, the responsibilities, the duties, the obligations and the privileges of the banks, the insurance companies, the trust companies, the credit unions and the security dealers, so that new and uniform rules will apply to the management of persons and businesses in these activities.


BANK OF CANADA
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to inform the House of the Government's latest attempt to devalue the Canadian dollar bill. No, it is not a plan to push our buck below 75 cents U.S. It is not an inflationary move to reduce further the value of the 1971 dollar to 30 cents this year. It is far more insidious than that. It is a decision to cheapen the feel and the handling qualities of the Canadian buck by replacing the Canadian flax content with U.S. cotton. Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have cottoned on to the Government's plan and we are going to give it flax, that is the plural form of flak.
Oral Questions


U4I5) THE ECONOMY TAXPAYER'S CHRISTMAS THANKS
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Mr. Speaker, during the Christmas recess Members of Parliament had an opportunity to hear firsthand the concerns of their constituents. Some representations are made in person, sometimes we get our messages through letters, and occasionally in Christmas cards.
The abysmal record of the Government in terms of unemployment and economic activity again tops the list of concerns expressed to Members of Parliament across Canada. This concern was symbolized by the following Christmas greeting which I received from western Canada:
Well, the festive season is upon us, and it is time to count our blessings and give thanks.
Thanks to the tax department for not making us pay any income tax this year.
Thanks to the National Energy Program for relieving us of all that tiresome accounting and investing.
Thanks to our banker for ridding us of all that bothersome collateral.
Thanks to my broker for liquidating my commodity account in time, thereby cutting my losses to 80 per cent.
Thanks to the six lawyers we have hired to keep us out of jail.
As you may have surmised, things are a bit difficult. In fact, if things get any worse we are considering getting out of our business and getting a real job, but as you may have guessed, Dorothy and the kids are very lazy and won't even go out and look for work.
Merry Christmas,
The Birds.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


[Stage Direction]
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) should know that all of this has been going on while he has been passing out $276 million to modernize Canada's pulp and paper mills. Now these mills say they can no longer make flax content paper for our bucks. But wait, there is more. While we are not making flax paper, the Europeans are starting to ask for it because they cannot find enough pure cotton for their bank notes.
I do not know what the Finance Minister thinks of this. I can tell you what western Canadian grain growers think, Mr. Speaker. They are angry. The farmers are still angry at McDonald's for importing hamburger buns made in the U.S.A. and ignoring Canadian wheat-
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but the time allotted to him has expired.


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. For several days Hon. Members on this side of the House have been attempting to end the coverup over the quota system in National Revenue. After stonewalling the House of Commons yesterday, the Minister left the House and, in an interview with the press, he changed his story and conceded for the first time that a quota system was in place in more than one district office. Will the Minister now produce for the House of Commons a list of all district tax offices which have had quotas in place while he has been the Minister?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, first I want to tell the Hon. Member that I have never tried to cover up any particular situation.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

January 18, 1984
Oral Questions


Pierre Bussières: Let us look at the facts. I have refused to become involved in the fishing expedition the Hon. Member and his colleagues were conducting. I have refused to play the nit-picking games the Hon. Member and his colleagues were playing.


An Hon. Member:: You have refused to do anything.


Pierre Bussières: My responsibility was to show, the first time a particular situation was brought to my attention, Hon. Members of the House and the taxpayers of the country that I was concerned about it.
I took steps. First, the policy not to have quotas imposed on individual auditors in the Department was clearly reaffirmed to all our district offices by local management. Second, my responsibility was to have assurances as to where and when such particular situations existed. They were corrected by local management. I have received those assurances, and I want to reiterate to Hon. Members and to the taxpayers of the country that I have assurances that no individual particular quota is imposed on our auditors in the Department of National Revenue.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


IMPORTANCE OF ISSUE
Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Minister could answer this simple question. How can Canadians believe him now when they could not believe him before? Why should we believe that he is telling the truth now?
The Minister dismisses protecting the rights of taxpayers as nit-picking. In view of the fact that he feels the quota issue is sufficiently important to issue directives to every district tax office in the country to have it stopped, why does he feel individual taxpayers, whose rights have been affected here, are not entitled to the information so that they may know whether their reassessments came as a result of these odious quotas?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, our Members and other Members of the House, as well as other Canadian taxpayers had a chance to hear yesterday, or to read today, the comments of someone who 1 think can be expected to be objective since he is the president of the Union of Employees of National Revenue Taxation.
After meeting with senior departmental officials, Mr. Gillespie, the Union President, said he was convinced that there was no such policy. Mr. Speaker, I do not think the President of the Union of National Revenue Employees is out to save anyone's credibility, not even mine.
I think these objective comments confirm that my answers were correct, and Canadian taxpayers now have twice the assurance that they are being treated fairly and equitably by the people responsible for auditing the accounts of a specific
group of taxpayers who are in a very special situation in terms of the Income Tax Act, compared to millions of other taxpayers who have to take it for granted that the system is fair and equitable because they have no choice in the matter. They pay their taxes every week or two weeks or every month.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the Minister talks of Mr. Gillespie attempting to protect his credibility. He has no credibility. I ask the Minister to answer the question, and I would like a direct answer. In view of the fact that the Minister feels that these odious quotas were sufficiently damaging to taxpayers that he has issued a directive that they are to stop, why does he feel that affected taxpayers are not entitled to know that their reassessment had come as a result of quotas in their particular district offices?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, it is clear the Hon. Member is readily inclined to make judgments on the basis of assumptions, and does so either on his own or his Leader's very generous account. They condemn people without even hearing what they have to say and probably without even knowing them. I would like to point out to the Hon. Member that if I had the slightest suspicion that the system had been odious, that is to say, that it had caused excessive recovery of monies from taxpayers, I would take further action.
However, being aware of the established practice for carrying out audits and issuing tax notices, I have no reason to harbour any doubts on this point.


EXTENT OF QUOTA SYSTEM
Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister. For the past six weeks he has acted like he is Pontius Pilate, wanting to wash his hands of the irresponsibility his subordinates have shown to the taxpayers of Canada. I am not going to refer to the Minister's statement, but I am going to refer to a statement by the Director General of Taxation of Canada. Yesterday he said this:
There are supervisors who are more off-the-line and aggressive on their own. There are some people who did set quotas or figures.
We want to know the extent to which quotas have existed in Canada. That is the point. The Minister has done an investigation, and he knows the extent of the quotas. Where do quotas exist? In what aspects and subsections of the Department do they exist? Has he talked to Mr. Shoobert of the Toronto office who has said that not only have they existed with respect to small businesses, but also in other areas? Will he answer that specific question?
January 18, 1984


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I did express my concern and emphasize the need to have from each district office the assurance that Government and departmental policies will be fully respected. I have just indicated to his colleague that I was assured by senior Department officials that, if unfortunate steps were taken, they have been stopped as a result of the guidelines which were issued. I think that such assurances will go a long way towards sustaining the confidence of Canadian taxpayers in the practices of the Department of National Revenue.


DEPARTMENT'S ATTITUDE TO TAXPAYERS
Chris Speyer: Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the Minister that it is not only members on this side of the House who have expressed concern. The Hon. Member for Kitchener has quite properly expressed his concern with respect to Revenue Canada. Last week in Calgary, the Hon. Member for Sudbury said:
I think we have to assert the political will on top of the Revenue Canada Department and just say "Back Off".
After six weeks of intense questioning with respect to the attitude, and misbehaviour in my view, of Revenue Canada, will the Minister, on the premise that confession is good for the soul, please admit that there are attitudinal problems in his Department?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I have good news for the Hon. Member. He has mentioned a few Members on this side of the House who are concerned as well about the Department of National Revenue. I must say that Government Members regularly speak to me very politely and very constructively about the problems they have to deal with concerning the Department of National Revenue, and that I am always eager to co-operate with Liberal Members to make sure that each specific case concerning taxpayers who might be wronged or need help to straighten out tax problems will be given proper consideration. I can always count on the active support of Liberal Members to redress such situations.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who knows there has been a tremendous growth in takeovers in Canada, particularly foreign takeovers, in the past two decades. The past two years have been record years for
Oral Questions
takeovers in Canada. The Government knows very well the effect of mergers on the Canadian economy and the adverse effects on pricing and jobs.
Will the Minister now assure the House that the long promised amendments to combines legislation, which apparently we are finally going to be seeing in this House, will have the necessary clout to protect workers and consumers from continued and increasing anticompetitive and unproductive takeovers, and not simply be a sop to big business?
Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that the new competition policy, which 1 hope to table in this House very shortly, will be a dynamic, creative competition policy which will bring to the Canadian market the kind of policy that reflects the economic reality of our times. I expect the strong support of the Member.


MINISTER'S CONSULTATIONS WITH BUSINESS GROUPS
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, we know that at least one group is apparently happy with the proposals, having seen confidential documents; that is, the Business Council on National Issues, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, and the Canadian Manufacturer's Association. Why have the Minister and her predecessor chosen to consult very closely only with those organizations and refused to give documentation or provide consultation to the other groups affected, particularly labour and the Consumers Association of Canada? Why is she just cozying up to big business, which seems particularly happy with the Bill which is going to be tabled?


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: The facts as the Member states them are not correct. The three organizations to which he refers make up the business community of Canada, both big and small. When you take in the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Business Council, and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, you are covering all business interests in the country. We did, of course, consult with them and, because of that, we are coming forward with a Bill which, as I said, is dynamic and realistic. But I would like to add that we have consulted with other groups such as the Consumers Association of Canada, and we plan to broaden that consultation within the next couple of weeks.


NEWSPAPER OWNERSHIP CONCENTRATION
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, if the Government has consulted with the Consumers Association of Canada, it is news to that body as of this morning.
One of the glaring illustrations of the weakness of the present combines legislation was demonstrated by the dismissal of charges against the Southam and Thomson Newspaper chains. The Minister's colleague, who was dumped from the cabinet, had a proposal in the Canadian Daily Newspaper Act

January 18, 1984
Oral Questions
which would begin to deal with this very serious problem of concentration. Will the Minister assure the House that the proposals contained in that Bill, or stronger proposals, will be fully encompassed in the new competition legislation?


Judith A. Erola: I reiterate, Mr. Speaker, that the proposed new competition Bill has been hammered out over the past couple of months with business, with experts in the field, and we feel it will deal realistically with the realities of business in Canada today.


THE ECONOMY
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The Minister must be concerned with the delays and the slow progress of the recovery in Canada. Canada's national income today is well below the peak it reached prior to the 1981-82 recession, whereas in the United States it is well above that peak. Since this means government policies simply are not working today, will the Minister explain to the House why he is telling his business friends in private meetings that he is not proposing any changes in economic policy in the next budget?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have had extensive consultations with various groups across the country, labour unions, farmers, consumer groups, business people and professional economists. I have not told them that I was not considering or was considering any particular step. The purpose of my consultations was to ask their advice. 1 want to report to my friend that the unanimous reaction I have had up to now from these consultations has been to the effect that the general thrust of government financial and economic policy announced in my Budget last April, is one that has been endorsed and fully supported across the country by all organizations that I have met. No one has recommended a 90 degree or a 180 degree change. There were some specific proposals and some suggestions for improvements made by various groups, and I have undertaken to examine them very carefully.
For the record, I should like to point out to my friend that, for instance, the latest issue of The Economist has a set of economic and financial indicators. If he looks at the situation in terms of industrial production, gross national product, retail sales, unemployment improvement, and inflation reduction, to mention only these, he will find that the situation in Canada compares favourably with that in the United States and is better than that in any other industrialized country. He can get those figures for himself.


Mr. McGrath:: Why don't you compare unemployment? Get the real picture of what is going on.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, there is no question whatsoever that in Canada we are well below the peak we reached in 1981 and we are also far, far behind the United States in job creation. They have made far better use of their talents down there than we have up here.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER CHANGE POLICY PRIORITIES
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Two weeks ago the European Management Forum reported that last year Canada had fallen from fifth place to eleventh place in international competitiveness. That means that Canadians jobs are being transferred to other countries which are more competitive.
Since the competitive position of a country is the key determinant of economic performance and permanent job creation, would the Minister agree to shift his priorities from announcing temporary, ineffective job-creation programs, announcements which are made purely for political reasons, and launch a wholesale attack on the problem of lack of productivity and loss of our international competitive position?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is wrong in his first statement. Last year Canada created more jobs, proportionately, than did the United States.


James Aloysius McGrath: That is not true.


Marc Lalonde: The employment creation record of Canada was better last year than that of any other industrial country, including the United States. That is the situation in terms of job creation, and I challenge the Hon. Member to prove the contrary.
As far as the question of competitiveness is concerned, if my hon. friend had read my speeches and listened to my budget speech last year, and to the economic statement I made in October, 1982, he would find that the questions of productivity and competitiveness are at the top of our preoccupations in order to create good, steady jobs for Canadians. He quotes from a European publication which apparently refers to figures dating back to 1982 and the first quarter of 1983. My friend should know that in 1983 productivity in this country made a big, positive jump. Rather than rely on outdated information and publication of facts about 12 months old, he should keep up to date, look at the latest figures, and realize that Canada has done extremely well in 1983, and that we intend to do just as well in 1984.


CRIMINAL CODE
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice who is proposing changes in the Criminal Code which would charge customers
January 18, 1984

as well as prostitutes with soliciting for purposes of prostitution. Since the present law cannot be enforced against prostitutes, how does the Minister feel it can be enforced against their customers?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will be aware that it was not just one but two amendments which I announced last June would be made to the Criminal Code and which are now proposed for the new omnibus Criminal Code Bill. One of those is to ensure that motor vehicles in or on a public place will be considered, for the purposes of the legislation, to be a public place. That is a very important amendment because it reverses a decision in her province which would have held to the opposite effect. That will, of course, help expand the effectiveness of the law. That, plus the clarification of the question with respect to customers, which again is in doubt in her province, will, I think, make the law more effective.
As she also well knows, we are awaiting the report of the Fraser Committee. We encourage her to encourage the success of those hearings.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, expanding a bad law does not alter the fact that it is a bad, ineffective law.


DEFINITION OF &quot;PUBLIC PLACE&quot;
Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has referred to his acceptance of the Justice Committee's recommendation that a public place be expanded to include automobiles. Why has he failed to accept the Committee's view that a public place should also include parking lots, back lanes, garages, and apartment foyers, where street soliciting takes place? Why has he failed to protect child hookers from a lifestyle which involves drugs, disease, and possible death?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member obviously has her own ideas of what the law should contain. If she is right-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That is more than could be said for you.


Mark R. MacGuigan: -I presume she will believe that her views are shared by the majority of Canadians. If that is the case, the Fraser Committee will be reporting that to us and we will be very pleased to consider legislative changes of that kind.
As the Hon. Member well knows, there is a great division apparently in the country on the question of what kind of laws we should have to deal with this problem. It is a problem which we all admit is a very real and very serious one.
Oral Questions


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. It concerns the Key Lake spill of radioactive water. The company, Key Lake Mining, operators of the mine, say they are waiting to clean up until AECB and Sask. Environment give them details of how to do it. To date, all the answers given to questions in the House have not been with regard to the clean-up. There has been talk about having a study to prevent future situations occurring.
Last night in the adjournment debate the Parliamentary Secretary suggested that the water be pumped back into the mill, treated, and released again into the environment. Is this an admission that the Department of the Environment and AECB can pump frozen water, or is the Government going to wait until the Spring thaw and then let the radioactive spill loose into the environment?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of the Environment: Mr. Speaker, the answer is implicit in the way the Hon. Member is posing his question. Obviously frozen water cannot be pumped into the system, and he knows that very well. What he continues to ignore is the fact that action is being taken on the site. I am informed that the company is preparing a report to be submitted on or before February 1. At that stage we will have full knowledge of the causes of the accident and we will have an input, as Environment Canada's officials will be part of the reviewing team.


CONTINGENCY PLANS INQUIRY
Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, 1 compliment the department and the officials for studying the causes of the situation, but the situation is still there, that we have radioactive water out in the environment. There were indications as early as August 3, 1983, when 400,000 litres of contaminated water slipped from the mine site.
This question should perhaps more properly be put to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who is in charge of AECB, but since he is not here, and since the Minister of the Environment admits to working closely with him, I will put the question to him. I am sure he will know if there are contingency plans in the case of such spills of radioactive material, so that they can be cleaned up immediately when there is a spill. If there are such plans, would he table them in the House of Commons? If there are no such plans, there should be severe criticism of the federal Ministers and of the Atomic Energy Control Board for their disregard for safety in the uranium industry.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of the Environment: Mr. Speaker, while I do not dispute the necessity of developing

January 18, 1984
Oral Questions
plans in this matter, because there was an accident which took place under certain circumstances which are still the subject of study, I wonder whether the Hon. Member realizes that the Government of Saskatchewan has the power to launch an inquiry to get to the bottom of this issue as well. Actually, there are powers which that Government has, I am told, to launch an inquiry and to reach certain conclusions which are necessary before a plan can be developed.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Can the Minister confirm that while he was in Halifax on Monday to inspect a naval squadron due to depart that day for exercises in the Caribbean, he first pronounced the navy in super shape and then observed that only two of the five ships in the squadron left the harbour on schedule; that the H.M.C.S. Fraser, a 27-year old destroyer, as late as last evening was still tied up to the jetty; that a sixth warship, the H.M.C.S. Ottawa, on its way to Florida to be painted, was seen "dead in the water" in Halifax harbour, unable to proceed, and, finally, that the guns on both East Coast supply ships have been removed and the ships could be approached by someone in a rowboat, and sunk? In view of that, could the Minister explain why he echoed his Prime Minister and declared the navy in great shape?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to thank the hon. gentlemen for his ongoing interest in the Canadian forces.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Blais:: I would like to say that, judging from his question, he is basing his premise upon, unfortunately, inaccurate press reports. I would have hoped he would have spoken with the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East who was with me at that particular time.


Harvie Andre: I have. He knew what ship he was on.


Jean-Jacques Blais: I might point out to the Hon. Member, Mr. Speaker, that of the ships which were slated to participate in the demonstration, there was one ship, the H.M.C.S. Saguenay, which was delayed for less than eight hours or nine hours. The other five ships, Mr. Speaker, attended the demonstration in accordance with the schedule. I would like to thank the personnel of all of the squadron for the competence they exhibited in the demonstrations in which they participated, including, Mr. Speaker, the transporting of the press from the H.M.C.S. Iroquois to the H.M.C.S. Preserver amid six and seven-foot swells during that demonstration.


Mr. McDermid:: Despite what you have done to them.


Jean-Jacques Blais: I am sure that the press was impressed by the competence of the Canadian forces personnel.


Harvie Andre: My colleague who accompanied you was aware that he was on the H.M.C.S. Iroquois with you, even though your comment was about the H.M.C.S. Huron at the time.


PREPAREDNESS OF VESSELS
Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, Canadian sailors, as our soldiers, regularly win contests with NATO allies in terms of their competence. So we know it is not the sailors who are at fault. We also have the benefit of many studies, most recently the Senate Subcommittee on Defence, pointing out the atrocious situation of the equipment available to Canadian sailors. Does the Minister not believe that it is somewhat absurd that only 40 per cent of our five ships could get out of the harbour on time? Does he not appreciate that, if we are to have any sort of defence capabilities, he, and his colleagues in the Government, should do something about this atrocious situation, and do it soon?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: Mr. Speaker, 1 said initially that I was impressed that the hon. gentleman wanted to further the welfare of the Canadian forces. Based upon his last two premises, he persists in advancing erroneous information. Indeed, 80 per cent of the ships performed in accordance with the schedule. There was one ship which was delayed, as I indicated, until eleven o'clock that evening. I also indicated that I was on the H.M.C.S. Iroquois. That is again an indication of misreporting. As the Hon. Member for Darthmouth-Halifax East very well knows, I was on the H.M.C.S. Huron last spring, and I knew very well that I was on the H.M.C.S. Iroquois


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Jacques Blais: -and, Mr. Speaker, not only that, but I had the experience which the hon. gentleman did not have, of being able to gauge the excellent comportment of the members of the Canadian forces on the H.M.C.S. Iroquois at that particular time.
In terms of how we are dealing with the Canadian forces, Mr. Speaker, you know as well as I that we have just signed a contract for six new frigates and the keels are going to be laid in July of this year. They are going to be delivered, Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the schedule.
1 might also point out to the hon. gentleman that we have maintained our 3 per cent-


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the Hon. Minister has replied. The Hon. Member for Halifax West.


Mr. Crosby:: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Canadian navy can colour code its ships so the Minister can tell them apart.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
January 18, 1984


THE SENATE
Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and deals with his policy and position on Senate reform. The Prime Minister, in common with all Hon. Members, mandated a joint parliamentary committee to consider Senate reform. He must know that there is almost universal objection to the method of appointing Senators and to their term of office. Will the Minister explain how his appointment of eight new Senators for full terms, before the joint parliamentary committee reports, will advance the cause of Senate reform? 1 would like to remind the Prime Minister that there was almost unanimous support for an elected Senate, and that these appointments will cost the taxpayers millions of dollars.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, 1 will simply remind the Hon. Member that I have been seeking in this House, and in federal-provincial conferences, for the past 14 years, to reform the Senate, to reform its method of appointment. We proposed before this House in Bill C-60, in 1978 or 1979, a way in which the appointment of Senators would have been changed. It was the Hon. Member's Party which took the Bill to court to ensure that the federal Government, that the federal Parliament, could not change the method of appointment to the Senate. It was also that Party, the Conservative Party, which ensured that in the amendment of the Constitution the provinces would have to agree to amendments to the composition of the Senate.
These are two points, Mr. Speaker, for which that Party is responsible, and which will mean that in reality it will be a long while before we are able to make the reforms which this Government has advocated and which that Party opposed.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Howard Edward Crosby: The Prime Minister cannot use technical points to deal with a matter of principle.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER DELAY MAKING FURTHER APPOINTMENTS
Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, the principle at issue is the reform of the Senate and how that is carried out, and the Prime Minister cannot contribute to that process by appointing Senators purely on partisan bases with no regard to the principles involved in the appointments. Will the Prime Minister at least undertake now that he has made these appointments, not to make any more appointments to the Senate until he hears from the parliamentary committee dealing with Senate reform? And will he abide by the recommendations of that committee?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's own colleagues have summoned me in the past to fill those vacancies. They have said that there are too
Oral Questions
many vacancies and that they should be filled. As I explained in my first answer-what the Hon. Member called a technicality-I have attempted to ensure that the Senators would be named, not by the Government but by a process where the provinces would be involved. If the Hon. Member would look up Bill C-60 he will find that it is the Hon. Member's own Party once again which prevented that type of reform, or any other type of reform, from going through.


John Horton McDermid: The Supreme Court did.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, it is the court, because that Party alleged-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, the Hon. Member could collect the views of his colleagues on this and try to make a presentation. Does he want the vacancies to be filled, or not? Does he want a reform, or not? If he wants a reform he will know that now we cannot bring in a reform. It has to be brought in in conjunction with the Provinces. I promise him that it would take a long long time before the provinces agree.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin-Swan River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State (Multiculturalism). On December 7, 1983, the Government promised a new Multiculturalism Act. Will the Minister indicate what type of consideration he is giving to the establishment of regional research and resource centre in either multiculturalism or comparative Canadian cultures, so that institutional structures would be in place to give multiculturalism in Canada more of a concrete, institutional, organizational presence?


Hon. D. M. Collenette (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for his question, of which he gave me notice yesterday. I would like to remind him that we in this Government have funded five chairs of ethnic studies at Canadian universities, and the list for such future chairs is growing. I am under great pressure to provide additional funds for that. We did rededicate ourselves to the cause of multiculturalism with a number of announcements in the Throne Speech, the best of which was the promise to bring in an Act very soon. I shall try to accommodate the Members very soon on that.
The specific suggestion is a very worth-while one, and one I am prepared to consider. I would like to remind the Hon. Member that in a number of areas we have improved our commitment to multiculturalism, not the least of which was the Prime Minister's recent appointments to the Senate.

January 18, 1984
Oral Questions


REQUEST FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF WESTERN REGIONAL CENTRE
Laverne Lewycky: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same Minister. I would like to point out a difference between development of ethnocultural histories, such as the ethnic studies chairs undertake, and multiculturalism, which means sharing or doing a comparative type of study.
My supplementary question is more specifically directed to the request being made for a research and resource centre from both the University of Manitoba and the University of Winnipeg, to have such a regional centre established in western Canada. What type of consideration would the Minister be prepared to give to having, even on a pilot basis, that type of research and resource centre set up, in which universities are prepared to work together for the development of multiculturalism?


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport, my colleague from Winnipeg, has made representations on this particular project. I certainly shall give it active consideration.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the Canada Post Corporation. Since the subject was discussed with the Minister before the Christmas holidays, the Minister is surely aware of the importance to weekly magazines of inserts and advertising flyers, which provide necessary income. I suppose the Minister is also aware of the fact that the Canada Post Corporation intends to compete heavily with our weeklies by distributing certain advertising brochures. In the circumstances, and considering the fact that the Corporation is thereby competing directly with the private sector, could the Minister inform the House today whether he intends to recommend that the Corporation drop this idea of competing with weekly magazines?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the complaint voiced by the Hon. Member has also been brought to my attention by a number of Government Members. I intend to ask the President of the Canada Post Corporation to revise the directives he has given in this respect to his various regional representatives, because it seems to me that the main role of the Canada Post Corporation is to deliver the mail and not to print advertising. I hope the Canada Post Corporation will take action as soon as possible in this respect.


INQUIRY AS TO WHEN CORPORATION WILL ABANDON DESIRE TO COMPETE WITH PRIVATE INDUSTRY
Roch La Salle: I would like to thank the Hon. Minister very sincerely for his reply, Mr. Speaker. In view of the circumstances, all those involved with this delivery service, and I am still talking about the weeklies, all those who must prepare budgets for 1984 are obviously anxious to hear the final answer of the Canada Post Corporation. Can the Minister tell the House when he expects the Corporation to announce its intention to abandon this project which we find unacceptable?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I shall of course transmit the representations of the Hon. Member to the Chairman of the Canada Post Corporation. I imagine that its board of directors will meet, if not at the end of January, at least early in February, and that a decision will be made at that time, of which I will be able to inform the Hon. Member and others in this House who have made the same representations.


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Mr. Speaker, I have two brief questions for the Acting Minister of Public Works, as the regular Minister very seldom appears for Question Period. My question is in regard to CMHC. In Vancouver a number of federal Government subsidized co-operatives and social housing projects are providing low cost housing to persons who can well afford commercial market accommodation, including a number of senior CMHC officials. Does the Government condone the practice of senior CMHC officials benefiting from housing meant for low income families? That is you, Bussieres!


Pierre Bussières: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the practice mentioned by the Hon. Member. However, I can assure him that I will draw the attention of the Minister responsible to the facts referred to, and I am convinced that he will look closely into this matter and provide a satisfactory answer to the Hon. Member after looking into the facts.


USE OF HOUSING DESIGNED FOR LOW-INCOME FAMILIES
A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of these housing units is to provide accommodation for low-income families. Can the Minister explain why the Melton Court Co-op in Vancouver, to name one, is filled with well-to-do bachelors, and only two children?
January 18, 1984


Pierre Bussières: Much as I have just said, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the facts. This is a specific case which I will draw to the attention of the Minister who will look into it and provide an answer to the Hon. Member.
* *
*


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs. Has the Peter Kiewit and Sons quarry proposal for Yukon in fact now been cancelled, or is there some hope that the project will go ahead?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member is aware, I turned down the application for the reason stated at the time. Whether there are still intentions on the part of Kiewit to keep up their efforts to try to get approval for the project is something that one can only determine by examining the mentality of the people that own Kiewit.


REASONS FOR REJECTION OF PROJECT
John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Yukon is in favour of it. I believe the Council of Yukon Indians forwarded a telegram to the Minister supporting it, and asking that it proceed. The citizens of the Yukon are in favour of going ahead with this project. Can the Minister now give us a real good reason why this project should not go ahead, so that some much needed employment could be realized in Yukon, which has suffered over the last few years?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how the Hon. Member constitutes himself as an authority on public opinion in Yukon. As the official critic of the Department of Indian Affairs he should be concerned about the concerns of 40 per cent of the population in the Yukon, which is of native origin, to say nothing about-


Erik Nielsen: Rubbish.


John Carr Munro: -many non natives who are concerned about environmental matters. CARC, which has been in touch with the Hon. Member with regard to its policies, and CYI and COPE, to name just a few, are all citizens. I am sure the Hon. Member would agree that they are citizens and voters too. They have quite clearly indicated to me in submissions that they are opposed to Kiewit proposal.
Petitions


POSITION OF INDIAN REPRESENTATIVES
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to that asked by our critic for Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I can assure the Minister that the sentiments expressed on behalf of Yukoners by him are 100 per cent accurate. Since the Minister has received a telex from Willie Joe, a member of the Executive of the Council of Yukon Indians, specifically requesting on behalf of that native organization, which represents 20 per cent of the population in the Yukon, not 40 per cent, that the project be proceeded with, and that the Minister lift his freeze on it, will he do so since Kiewit is prepared to go ahead?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member should be ashamed for perpetrating what is obviously quite a distortion. Perhaps he has had an unfortunate influence on his colleague, the critic. Willie Joe does not speak for the CYI. The Hon. Member is well aware of who is the president of the CYI and executive committee. If he wished the CYI to come out in favour of the Kiewit proposal, he would have sent the telex because he is the only one authorized to speak on behalf of the executive committee for the CYI.
* *
*


CANADA LABOUR CODE
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. Could the Minister of Labour tell the House when the changes to Part IV of the Canada Labour Code dealing with occupational health and safety will be tabled in the House? Could he also tell the House whether or not in those proposed changes the Government will bring the workers who come under Atomic Energy control and the Department of Transport under the protection of the provisions of the Canada Labour Code?
[ Translation]


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I hope to be in a position in a few weeks to table in this House the amendments to Part IV of the Labour code. The Hon. Member should be patient and I think that he will be pleased with those amendments when they are tabled.


PETITIONS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Tuesday, January 17, 1984, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.

Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: There is a matter which I would like to bring to the attention of the House. As Hon. Members are aware, yesterday, under Government Orders, a Ways and Means motion respecting anti-dumping and countervailing duties and to amend certain Acts of Parliament was concurred in by the House. Under the provisions of Standing Order 64(11), a Bill based on the Ways and Means motion was introduced and read the first time.
Later in the day, it was brought to the attention of the Chair that there was a Royal Recommendation attached to the Bill. Standing Order 66(1) states as follows:
This House shall not adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any tax or impost, to any purpose that has not been first recommended to the House by a message from the Governor General in the session in which such vote, resolution, address or bill is proposed.
As far as the Chair is concerned, this standing order has been adhered to since we now have a Royal Recommendation and the Bill, as yet, has not been passed by the House.
Section (2) of Standing Order 66 requires such Recommendations to be printed on the Notice Paper and, under my direction, this course was followed last evening. If Hon. Members look at today's Order Paper, on page VI of the Notice Paper, they will find the Royal Recommendation in relation to Bill C-8 printed.
The dilemma that the Chair is faced with at the moment is in the operative words of Standing Order 66(2) in relation to the printing of Royal Recommendations, and I quote:
-when any such measure is to be introduced-
In other words, if a Bill based on a Ways and Means motion with spending clauses requires a Recommendation by His Excellency, such Bills, as has been done in the past, should be placed on the Notice Paper with the Recommendation and later transferred to the Order Paper under Routine Proceedings when it can be introduced in the House and given first reading under our usual practice.
Unless the House is willing to allow the Recommendation attached to Bill C-8 to remain on the Notice Paper for the 48 hours required and then have the House officials print the recommendation in the Votes and Proceedings, the Chair will have no alternative but to direct that the order for the second reading of the Bill be discharged from the Order Paper and the Bill withdrawn. The Government can then reintroduce the Bill after proper notice. Since this does not affect the Ways and Means motion, that motion remains concurred in by the House. The Chair is in the hands of the House.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, there does not seem to be any particular urgency for this matter. I would like to study your remarks since they come as a surprise to me. I had no former
notification that the matter was to be raised by the Chair and I would like to consider the matter before responding on behalf of the Opposition.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has not had much time to consider the matter but has, immediately prior to these proceedings, looked at this carefully. Since there is not unanimous consent, under the circumstances I must direct the authorities to discharge the order from the Order Paper and declare the Bill withdrawn.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I do not want my stance to be interpreted as not meaning that I do not give unanimous consent. I have a solution which I am sure would be acceptable. By unanimous consent, we could agree to leave matters as they are now and I can rise in my place tomorrow and respond on behalf of the Opposition to the remarks of the Chair. But consent could be had now to let matters stand- as they are.


Mr. Deans:: Mr. Speaker, on the matter being addressed by the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), I would be quite prepared on behalf of my colleagues to agree to let matters stand until tomorrow when we have had the opportunity to look at the situation and then return to it and perhaps find a reasonable way to deal with it.


Mr. Pinard:: Mr. Speaker, perhaps if you were to seek unanimous consent tomorrow this would solve the problem.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to let the matter stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair felt the obligation to bring it to the attention of the House.


Erik Nielsen: Until tomorrow.


PRIVILEGE
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, some notice of which I delivered to you earlier today. I believe that my question of privilege is founded on two citations from Beauchesne, and I will establish the citations and refer them to what I believe is a breach of my privileges.
You will be aware that in Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation No. 21 states, under Privileges of the House:
The most fundamental privilege of the House as a whole is to establish rules of procedure for itself and to enforce them.
The second citation that I would bring to your attention is Citation No. 718 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition at page 221. It is in the section dealing with proceedings on public Bills under the headings "First Reading" and "Introduction". It states:
January 18, 1984

The purpose of first reading is to allow any bill to be introduced, printed and distributed so as to give Members an opportunity to study it.
Today, the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) held a press briefing on a Bill which I understand he intends to introduce in the House of Commons later this afternoon. At that press briefing the Solicitor General provided the press with printed copies of the Bill that he intends to introduce, together with explanations as to the Minister's and the Ministry's intentions with regard to the Bill.
I submit to you, Sir-and I want to make reference to certain arguments that were made before Speaker Jerome in 1978-that the Minister has breached the privileges of the Members of the House by providing to the press copies of a Bill in its entirety together with explanatory material in advance of that information having been made available to Members of the House of Commons through the proper channels.
I cannot read into what the Minister's intentions were, and his intentions may be laudable. However, it is quite clear that a public Bill must be approved by the House of Commons for printing and given first reading before it is made available to any other individuals and that the responsibility of Members of Parliament of the House to be able to deal adequately with a piece of legislation was grossly infringed upon. Others were given both the Bill itself and all of the explanatory material pertaining thereto in advance of Members and, therefore, Members are unable either to deal with the legislation adequately or, for that matter, to respond properly to questions from their constituents which may confront them.
You may know, Sir, that on November 27, 1978 as reported in Hansard at page 1519, a similar matter was raised before Mr. Speaker Jerome. At that time Mr. Speaker Jerome referred to the practice which was growing in the parliamentary procedures of having lock-ups and the resulting problems of having such lock-ups inasmuch as certain Members of the House were given privileged information in advance of other Members.
The Minister may want to claim that the information he has given out cannot be released in advance of the Bill being given first reading because he has required of the press that they remain within the confines of the room in which the briefing was given. I submit that the Minister has no right to presuppose that first reading will, in fact, be granted. The Minister has no right to presuppose that the Bill, upon his request for introduction, will automatically be given that introduction and will be permitted to be printed and to be proceeded with.
It is quite clear in Beauchesne that the practice of not granting first reading is a practice which is, if not common, certainly available to Members of the House of Commons under certain circumstances, this being one of them.
Therefore, what the Minister has done is made available to some individuals, not Members of Parliament, legislation that is not available to Members of Parliament. He has done so in such a way as to do two things. He is either going to keep
Privilege-Mr. Deans
those people locked up until the Bill receives first reading, which I submit could take weeks, or he is intent upon releasing the information in advance.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am going to direct the constables to clear the galleries. There appear to be conversations going on that should not be taking place in the galleries.


Ian Deans: I thought you were referring to me at first, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member understands exactly what I am referring to. I am asking the constables to clear the galleries, please.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It should be noted it is the Liberal galleries.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) has the floor.


Ian Deans: I was not questioning what you said, Mr. Speaker. At the moment I did not hear you quite clearly and 1 was not sure what I had done wrong.
What I was saying in essence was that the Minister has breached my privileges as a Member. Not only did the Minister agree to provide this Bill to members of the press; not only did the Minister set up a press briefing for the purpose of giving this information to members of the press in advance of giving it out to Members of the House of Commons, but his staff refused access to the room in which the briefing was taking place to a Member of Parliament who sought access.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Ian Deans: I suggest that goes even further in establishing my claim that there is, in fact, a prima facie case of privilege.
I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to review, if you would, the comments of Mr. Speaker Jerome in which he made reference to the practice which had grown up in which he said-I am paraphrasing it, and I will leave it for you, Sir, to read or to have read for you-that the practice which had grown up did violate practices of the House of Commons, which prior to that time had been acceptable, that the holding of briefings of this sort should be done only under careful scrutiny and with agreement from the Parties within the House of Commons and should not extend simply to the wishes of one individual Minister to gain for himself some additional press coverage at the expense of the rights of Members.
I ask you in considering this matter, Mr. Speaker, to consider whether it is not time we stopped this practice and whether it is not time that we required the proper procedures of the House to be followed, in other words, that the first time a Bill is made available for scrutiny is when it is introduced in the House of Commons for first reading-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

January 18, 1984
Privilege-Mr. Deans


Ian Deans: -that the Minister and all Ministers be directed to ensure, that this practice not be continued for as long as this Parliament sits at least.
If you do find there is a prima facie case of privilege, Mr. Speaker, which I contend there is, then I would, of course, be prepared to make an appropriate motion to have the question considered by a committee in order to establish rules under which we could operate.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, there is indeed, as the Hon. Member opposite has noted, a lock-up going on. I submit that that lock-up is following a very well established and useful practice in the House and that it would be a retrograde step for the Chair to find that such lock-ups should not occur, particularly on controversial or difficult legislation on which there is considerable advantage to be gained in media reporting from having advance access.


Ian Deans: Why not Members of Parliament?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I would also draw to your attention a matter which the Hon. Member opposite did not mention which should be considered in the rights being put forward by that Party. That Party's critic not only requested an advance copy of the Bill before other Members generally, as he insists should be done, but he received an advance copy of the Bill-


Ian Deans: It does not matter.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: -as did my critic in the Conservative Party before the matter was put forward. The Hon. Member is arguing for a practice that the critic of his own Party asked me to violate by making a copy privately available to him on the understanding that it not be made public and that he not comment on it until first reading.
1 suggest the behaviour of the New Democratic Party has demonstrated clearly the value of allowing Members, on a confidential basis-and I would submit the media as well-to begin studying important and interesting legislation before it is brought forward for first reading.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has listened to the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain and the Hon. Solicitor General. There is at this stage no matter on which the Chair can rule. There is no Bill before the House. There has been no document produced before this House indicating what has been disclosed or not disclosed outside the House. There is no basis which the Chair can examine to see whether information which was or was not distributed in any way corresponds or does not correspond to legislation which may or may not be placed before the House. At this stage the Chair faces a hypothetical situation and therefore the Chair cannot rule that there is a prima facie case of privilege.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise-


Mr. Speaker:: I hope Hon. Members are not rising on the same matter because the Chair has ruled there is no prima facie case of privilege. The Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn).


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order because reference was made to me by the Solicitor General with respect to the fact that a copy of the Bill-


Mr. Speaker:: With all due respect to the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West, there is no prima facie case of privilege.


Mr. Benjamin:: It is a separate matter.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member is talking about a point of order and refers to a Bill, a document, and a reference to himself. If the Hon. Member has a point of order, I invite him to make his point.


POINT OF ORDER
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I think it is a point of order, Mr. Speaker, and a legitimate one. The Solicitor General on the floor of the House stood in his place and acknowledged that the Bill, the first reading of which he intends to ask for today, was delivered to me, and he implied that I requested it in the same way as the critic for the New Democratic Party. This was done unilaterally by the Solicitor General. I did not request it. It was given to him before the Bill was to be tabled.
The fact of the matter is that the Minister has acknowledged that the Bill, which he is about to introduce, was the subject of a lock-up. I am not the one who made that statement. The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) did not make that statement. However, the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) has acknowledged-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saskatoon West has made it clear that he did not request a copy of the Bill. With respect to any suggestion that he somehow conspired or, shall we say, acted in a way contrary to the practices of the House, I believe the Hon. Member has clarified the record. It is his right and privilege to do so.
Is the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) rising on the same matter?


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, it is a related matter.


Mr. Speaker:: I hope the Hon. Member realizes that there is no prima facie case of privilege at this stage, and the Chair repeats, "at this stage". If the Hon. Member has a different point to raise, the Chair will hear it.
January 18, 1984


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, it is a different point in the sense that I in fact, as opposed to the previous speakers on this point, have the documentation in question which was referred to-the press package. When I attended the press briefing, I was informed by one of the Minister's staff that 1 was to be kicked out while the press were briefed on this matter. That kind of arrogance in the conduct of the activities of the Minister are-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. At this stage the Chair cannot be responsible for invitations to be present or the refusal to accept presence at meetings which take place outside the Chamber under circumstances for which the Chair is in no way responsible. The Chair can simply note that the Hon. Member has clarified the record by indicating that he is in possession of certain documents, the nature of which the Chair is not aware. There does not appear to be anything officially on the Order Paper or before the House relating to them, and the Chair will have to rule at this stage that that is the end of the matter.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member cannot persistently rise on a point of order to repeat-


An Hon. Member:: You do not even know what he will say.


Mr. Speaker:: No one can ever anticipate, but one can look at a track record.
Introduction of Bills


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear what you said a moment ago, but I thought it was a recognition that at that moment I was agreeing with the Chair. Not having heard that, I can say with all the positiveness I can muster at this moment that I disagreed with the Chair.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has a habit of nodding his head, and now he tells me that he disagrees.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I think now is the appropriate time to raise a question of privilege with respect to the matter as to whether or not the activities and the actions of the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) with respect to the disclosure of this Bill-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Until the Chair has cognizance of certain documents-the Hon. member for Yukon is nodding; that is a very deceptive nod on the basis of the record.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Minister shall have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, wanting to adhere to my track record, I want to ask for clarification. Is it the statement of the Speaker that the Speaker will in fact rule upon the tabling of any document or the tabling of a Bill by the Minister after looking at the document-


Mr. Speaker:: The matter is hypothetical. At this stage, as far as the Chair is concerned, there is no prima facie case of privilege. As far as the Chair is concerned, at this point that is the end of the matter. I note the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) is agreeing with me.


Erik Nielsen: What? I did not hear what you said.


CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE ACT
Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: for leave to introduce a Bill to establish the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, to enact an Act respecting enforcement in relation to certain security and related offences and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof or in relation thereto.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Minister shall have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
Allmand Appolloni (Mrs.) Axworthy Bachand Baker
Beauchamp-Niquet
(Mrs.)
Begin (Miss)
Berger
Blais
Bloomfield
Bockstael
Bossy
Breau
Bujold
Burghardt
Bussieres
Caccia
Campbell (Miss) (South West Nova) Campbell (Cardigan)
Chenier
Collenette
Comtois
Corbin
Corriveau
Cote (Mrs.)
Cousineau
Cullen
Cyr
Daudlin
Dawson De Bane de Corneille Demers Deniger Desmarais Dingwall Dion Dionne (Chicoutimi) Dionne
(Northumberland-
Miramichi)
Dubois
Duclos

January 18, 1984
Introduction of Bills
Messrs.
Dupras	Kelly	OlivierDuquet	Killens (Mrs.)	OstiguyErola (Mrs.)	Lajoie	OuelletEthier	Lalonde	ParentEvans	Lamontagne	PelletierFerguson	Landers	PennerFisher	Lang	PepinFlis	Laniel	PinardFoster	Lapierre	PortclanceFox	Lapointe	Prud'hommeFrith	(Charlevoix)	RobertsGarant	Lapointe	RobinsonGauthier	(Beauce)	(Etobicoke-1Gendron	LeBlanc	RompkeyGimaiel	Leduc	RooneyGingras	Lefebvre	RossiGourd	Loiseile	Roy(Argenteuil-Papineau)	Lumley	SavardGourde	MacBain	Schroder(Levis)	MacGuigan	SimmonsGray	Mackasey	SmithGuilbault	MacLaren	TardifHarquail	MacLellan	TessierHenderson	Malepart	TobinHerbert	Maltais	TousignantHopkins	Masse	TrudeauHudecki	Masters	TurnerIsabelle	McCauley	VeilletteIttinuar	Munro	WatsonJoyal	(Hamilton East)	WeatherheadKaplan	Nicholson (Miss)	Yanakis-128.
Althouse
Andre
Anguish
Beatty
Benjamin
Blackburn
Blaikie
Blenkarn
Bosley
Bradley
Carney (Miss)
Clark
(Brandon-Souris)
Clarke
(Vancouver Quadra) Coates Cook Cooper Corbett Cossitt (Mrs.)
Crosby
(Halifax West) Darling Deans de Jong Dick Domm Ellis Elzinga Epp
Forrestall
Fraser
Fretz
Friesen
Fulton
Gamble
Gass
Gilchrist
Greenaway
Gurbin
(1610)
++NAYS
Messrs.
Gustafson
Halliday
Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain) Hamilton
(Swift Current-Maple Creek)
Hargrave Hawkes Hnatyshyn Hovdebo Howie Huntington
Miller
Mitges
Mulroney
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich) Murphy Murta Neil
Nickerson
Nielsen
Nowlan
Nystrom
Oberle
Orlikow



Robert Phillip Kaplan: that Bill C-9, an Act to establish the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, to enact an Act respecting enforcement in relation to certain security and related offences and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof or in relation thereto, be now read the first time and be printed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the Members. Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Ring the bells.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Berger
Blais
Blaker
Blenkarn
Bloomfield
Bockstael
Bosley
Bossy
Bradley
Breau
Bujold
Burghardt
Bussieres
Caccia
Campbell (Miss) (South West Nova)
Comtois
Cook
Cooper
Corbett
Corbin
Corriveau
Cossitt (Mrs.)
Cote (Mrs.)
Cousineau
Crombie
Crosby
(Halifax West) Cullen Cyr Darling Daudlin
(Chicoutimi)
Dionne
(Northumberland-
Miramichi)
Domm
Dubois
Duclos
Dupras
Duquet
Ellis
Elzinga
Epp
Erola (Mrs.)
Ethier
Evans
Ferguson
January 18, 1984

Messrs.
Fisher	Lajoie	OlivierFlis	Lalonde	OstiguyForrestall	Lamontagne	OuelletFoster	Landers	ParentFox	Lang	PattersonFraser	Laniel	PelletierFretz	La pierre	PennerFriesen	Lapointe	PepinFrith	(Charlevoix)	PinardGamble	Lapointe	PortelanceGarant	(Beauce)	Prud'hommeGass	La Salle	ReidGauthier	Lawrence	(St. Catharines)Gendron	LeBlanc	ReidGilchrist	Leduc	(Kenora-Rainy River)Gimaiel	Lefebvre	RobertsGingras	Loiselle	RobinsonGourd	Lumley	(Etobicoke-Lakeshore)(Argenteuil-Papineau)	MacBain	RocheGourde	MacDonald (Miss)	Rompkey(Levis)	(Kingston and the Islands)	RooneyGray	MacDougall	RossiGreenaway	MacGuigan	RoyGuilbault	Mackasey	St. GermainGurbin	MacLaren	SavardGustafson	MacLellan	SchellenbergerHalliday	Malepart	SchroderHamilton	Malone	Scott(Qu'Appelle-Moose	Maltais	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Mountain)	Masse	ScottHamilton	Masters	(Victoria-Haliburton)(Swift Current-Maple	Mayer	ShieldsCreek)	Mazankowski	SiddonHargrave	McCain	SimmonsHarquail	McCauley	SmithHawkes	McCuish	SpeyerHees	McDermid	StevensHenderson	McGrath	TardifHerbert	McKenzie	TaylorHnatyshyn	McKinnon	TessierHopkins	McKnight	ThackerHowie	McLean	ThomsonHudecki	McMillan	TobinHuntington	Mitges	TousignantIrwin	Mulroney	TowersIsabelle	Munro	Trudeaulttinuar	(Esquimalt-Saanich)	TurnerJarvis	Munro	VankoughnetJelinek	(Hamilton East)	VeilletteJoyal	Murta	WatsonKaplan	Neil	WeatherheadKelly	Nicholson (Miss)	WenmanKempling	Nickerson	WilsonKilgour	Nielsen	WiseKillens (Mrs.)	Nowlan	WrightLachance	Oberle	Yanakis-221.Introduction of Bills
NAYS Messrs.	Althouse	Keeper	OrlikowAnguish	Knowles	ParkerBenjamin	Kristiansen	RiisBlackburn	Lewycky	RobinsonBlaikie	Manly	(Burnaby)Deans	Miller	Sargeantde Jong	Murphy	SkellyFulton Hovdebo	Nystrom	Young-24.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


Mr. Speaker:: When will the Bill be read the second time?


Some Hon. Members:: Now.


Some Hon. Members:: At the next sitting of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed. At the next sitting.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, surely after the vote and it being ten minutes past six, no further question can be put. With great respect, you cannot do that.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to reserve the opportunity to present to you tomorrow some additional argument on the question of privilege that I raised earlier today-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is not necessary; the Hon. Member will have every opportunity.
It being 6.10 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6.10 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, January 19, 1984