1984-04-17

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs) moved: that Bill C-32, an Act to establish the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to propose to the House an Act to establish an independent institute which will make a major contribution to Canadian understanding and discussion of international peace and security issues. This proposed Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security should be seen in the context of increased concern in Canada over the state of East-West relations.
There have been some signs of improvement recently. However, we have not achieved an atmosphere in which conflict between East and West can be ruled impossible. The threat of nuclear war continues to loom. These spectres are of immediate concern to all Canadians. Fortunately there exists a broad-based, non-partisan consensus among us all that Canada has a right and indeed a moral obligation to play a lead role in efforts to reduce these tensions.
Canada has not stood on the sidelines. Since the Second World War, successive Canadian Governments have striven to achieve international peace and security. Highlights of this long road include Louis St. Laurent and Mike Pearson's contribution to peace-making and peace-keeping at the United Nations and Howard Green's dedication to nuclear disarmament. The valuable and timely initiative launched by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) last Autumn was another demonstration of Canada's commitment to improved East-West relations and increased global security.
In last December's Throne Speech, this Government vowed to create a publicly funded centre to gather, collate and digest the enormous volume of information now available on defence and arms control issues. Fresh ideas and new proposals, regardless of source, will be studied and promoted. That was
the statement in the Speech from the Throne. This Bill makes good the Government's commitment in that Speech from the Throne.
The purpose of the institute is two-fold. First, it will increase knowledge of issues related to international peace and security with particular emphasis on defence, arms control and disarmament. Second, it will encourage public discussions on international peace and security issues. The institute should not and could not duplicate the vast range of work already done abroad. It will develop Canadian understanding and expertise. It will bring a Canadian viewpoint and Canadian concerns to the issues of peace and security.
At present the principal sources of information on defence and arms control questions lie beyond our borders. This means that public judgment in Canada is shaped by perceptions of security devised by others and for the most part reported by others consequently. Issues of special importance to Canada have not received adequate coverage, nor have the concerns of Canadians been fully appreciated.
We cannot any longer rely in part or wholly on work done abroad. We must do more to explore these questions from a Canadian perspective. The proposed institute represents a major infusion of energy and resources by the Government of Canada. By complementing and assisting existing institutions, this independent institute will both add to the debate and increase the funds devoted to international peace and security in this country.
A prime goal will be to improve the quality and quantity of research and information available in Canada on peace and security. The institute will collect and disseminate information and ideas. The first priority will be to set up a library and data base for the voluminous published material on these questions. It will draw together and make available information. It will be a central resource for research and interest in this field by individuals as well as by groups and institutions.
The institute will promote scholarship in these areas and thus expand the pool of such talent in our country. As such, it will complement the excellent work already done, for example, in the five chairs of military and strategic studies at Canadian universities. These chairs will, of course, suffer no adverse consequences in terms of support, financial and otherwise, by the Government. The institute will have a limited inhouse research capability. It will depend largely in its early years on research by experts and institutions already existing in Canada.
The institute will not compete with existing groups, organizations and institutions. I assure the House it will not swallow

April 17, 1984
International Peace and Security
up nor reduce government funding available to existing organizations. Neither is it our intention that this new institute would seek funds from non-governmental sources. It must not and it will not crowd out such worth-while bodies as the recently established Canadian Centre for Arms Control and Disarmament or overshadow the excellent work of universities from coast to coast. It will stimulate the levels of interest in peace and security to the benefit of all.
To encourage public discussion of these central issues, I expect that the institute will sponsor or hold conferences and seminars in all parts of Canada. The publication of the results of its research and activities will contribute to informed public debate in Canada. It is our intention that the institute will act as a major resource for scholars and the general public who are concerned with these issues.
The institute will be financed on an annual basis by appropriations from Parliament and will be funded equally by grants from the Department of External Affairs and the Department of National Defence. Financing for fiscal year 1984-1985 is projected at $1.5 million, rising to $5 million by 1988-1989. The Government intends this institute to be apolitical and a centre of excellence which will serve all Canadians. It will be governed by a board of directors composed of men and women who are knowledgeable in the field and who can be relied upon to carry out their functions in a completely non-partisan manner. In this vein, myself and my colleague, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Blais), will seek nominations from the Opposition Parties before any recommendations are made to the Governor in Council regarding appointments to the board of directors.
It is our intention that the institute will have maximum flexibility and independence. It will be free to engage in research and information gathering and dissemination as it sees fit. It will specifically be free to publish the considered findings of its researchers. It will be publicly accountable to Parliament. An annual report on its activities and finances will be submitted to Parliament through the Minister. Naturally, this report will then be referred for examination to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.
A country like Canada, which does not have nuclear weapons, depends on the persuasiveness of its ideas on defence, disarmament and arms control rather than any military leverage it has to affect these questions. The Government wants to be able to tap this new source of knowledge and ideas. It may on occasion request advice and research from the institute. In this way future governments will be able to benefit from this additional source of expert knowledge. In so doing, it will increase Canada's ability to propose realistic and imaginative solutions to the difficult and complicated questions of arms control.
The institute will be devoted to both peace and security, to defence and arms control, and disarmament. This Canadian institute will neither be exclusively devoted to strategic studies
nor to peace research. In our view, arms control and disarmament are inseparable from security.
The institute is only one manifestation of our commitment to peace and security. To encourage more public involvement in these questions we intend to increase funding for voluntary associations and private research groups. As an initial step, the Department of External Affairs disarmament fund has been increased from an original $338,000 last year to over $700,000 effective April 1. As well, funds for the study of verification procedures which are critical to successful arms control negotiations and agreements have been doubled to over $1 million.
The foundation of this institute, Mr. Speaker, is a reflection of the abiding interest of all Parties in the House and the response to many Canadians who are deeply troubled over global peace and security in the nuclear age. In planning for the institute we have sought the ideas of a wide range of Canadians and I would like to thank them for their views. This Bill has benefited from a number of constructive ideas which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) has put forward in correspondence with the Prime Minister. A number of specific changes were made which accommodate these concerns. The New Democratic Party also has put forward positive suggestions which merit serious consideration in this debate and at the committee stage. In a spirit of consensus and co-operation among all Parties, we remain open to suggestions for further change to the Bill.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that a nation's greatness lies in the power of its ideas, not only its armed might. Concern is not enough; it must be accompanied by informed views and constructive ideas. It is our hope that this institute will make a major contribution to deepening Canadian understanding of the fundamental questions of international peace and security.


Mr. Stevens:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put one or two questions, if I may, to the Minister. As the Minister knows, Clause 3 states that a corporation is hereby established-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. gentleman but our Standing Orders do not provide for questioning at this time. We first have a round of three speakers, one from each Party, and then speakers will enjoy a 20-minute period for their remarks which would then be followed by a 10-minute question and answer period.
We are back in debate. The Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark).


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Yellowhead):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be back in debate. I am pleased to be able to rise to speak on this Bill because I think there can be no question anywhere in the country that the concept of the establishment of a peace institute centred in Canada is of great importance to us. That concept enjoys wide support.
April 17, 1984

I think I owe it to the House to say at the outset that we believe the Bill that has been presented which sets up this particular institute is fatally flawed. While there have been some consultations to date with regard to improving the Bill, those consultations have not resulted in the kinds of changes that we hoped to see. We need changes that will guarantee the independence of this agency, changes that will guarantee its accountability to the House of Commons and Parliament, and changes that will ensure, more than the words of the Minister have, that there will be a complementing of the activities of agencies and institutions already engaged in the field of peace research in the country rather than a supplanting, directly or indirectly, of those agencies.
The House will know that last fall the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) asked me to undertake certain inquiries with an eye to making recommendations to him as to the policy that would be useful for a new government to follow in the field of arms control and disarmament. I have interpreted that mandate to involve public hearings across the country.
I come to this debate from five public hearings in five Canadian centres-Vancouver, Montreal, Halifax, Edmonton and Toronto-in which we had the opportunity to receive some 70 briefs from Canadian organizations and hear 92 witnesses. The most particularly valuable witnesses were those who came forward in an open session to make their contributions and to participate and express their views on an issue which they considered to be of deep concern to them. I have also had conversations with a wide range of Canadians and people outside the country regarding appropriate policies and institutions which should be established.
Without question, there is in Canada a deep and growing concern about the possibility of nuclear conflict and a deep and growing concern about whether our country is acting as effectively as it might to inch the world away from nuclear destruction. I will be reporting fully to the Leader of the Opposition later on my inquiries and recommendations. I think it might be helpful as we consider this institute if I touch on some of the testimony and bring to the House of Commons some of the views I heard in public hearings from concerned Canadians across the country, people who are not sitting in the House of Commons and are not part of the policy making, but who consider themselves very much affected by the issues that we are here discussing.
I would like to begin with a reference to testimony from a young woman who came from Great Island to the open forum at the hearing in Halifax, Nova Scotia. She came at considerable inconvenience to herself because she felt involved in these issues and wanted an opportunity to have her views expressed. She said that where she lives unemployment and poverty were very high. She said that disillusionment, apathy and despair were widespread, especially among the young, and that that disillusionment, apathy and despair were based primarily upon a deep sense of powerlessness. She suggested that many of her neighbours believed that the hearings which we were holding were simply meant to try to defuse the public's concern and
International Peace and Security
play to their undying belief in the democratic process, but that nothing would be done. That was her fear when she came. She said that she came nonetheless because she dissents from that prevailing cynicism. She believes that governments and parliamentarians will listen to people on the peace issue and will try to translate the wishes of concerned ordinary Canadians into realizable policy. She said she would go back to her community and try to convince her neighbours that it is not hopeless, that parliamentarians and governments will listen and will respond.
She spoke for herself, but she spoke for much more than herself. She spoke for a wide feeling of powerlessness, concern and a sense of being isolated in the country. As we discuss institutions today which we might establish, we, the Parliament of Canada, must be conscious that we are responding to the concerns of Canadians like the woman from Great Island and others who have nearly given up on the system and who may give up on the system if they see us put in place something that appears to be strong but in fact is not, something that appears to be independent but in fact is controlled by the Government.
One of the startling pieces of evidence that came before our hearings concerned the growth of fear among children in the country. Many of us who have children know from our own experience the extent to which they are preoccupied and concerned about these questions. My daughter, who is seven, began one or two years ago to ask me when the war is going to come, when is the world going to end? I have no recollection of putting questions of that kind when I was six or seven, nor do most of us in the House.
That is not just random observation. That expression of fear is now common in the country. Coming before our public hearings across the country were trained psychologists, some of them based at McMaster University where there is now a cross Canada study being conducted of the effect of the threat of nuclear war upon the attitudes of young people. Most of the evidence that has now been gathered is evidence that has come from the United States. It is compelling! In a study published in 1982, 3,500 American children were asked what they expected if there were to be a nuclear war. Most responded eloquently and simply by saying "I will die. We will all die". They expressed bitter resentment against adults who had already lived a full life and were putting their chance for a full life at risk.
J. C. Mack, publishing in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist in 1981, after a survey of 1,000 schoolchildren, concluded:
-young people are growing up without the ability to form stable ideals or the sense of continuity upon which the development of stable personality structure and the formation of serviceable ideals depend.
In Vancouver we heard from the Physicians for Social Responsibility whose testimony in part I will read to the House:

April 17, 1984
International Peace and Security
Scientific data indicate that a nuclear war would result in a catastrophe of degree and magnitude beyond comprehension, and that there could be no meaningful medical response to such a catastrophe. We believe that it is our responsibility, as physicians, to do all in our power to prevent what would be "the final epidemic".
There is a very real fear in the country among the sophisticated and among the innocent that we will destroy ourselves. I recognize, as does the House, that fear is no basis for foreign policy. But we recognize also that that fear is a wholly understandable reaction to a situation in which negotiations between the superpowers are broken and suspended. The number of nuclear weapons states is growing, not reducing, and the world is vulnerable to nuclear terrorists or accidents.
Canadians have cause to be afraid and, as their representatives in government and Parliament, we have a duty to address and reduce the causes of fear. I believe there is not much point in spectacular gestures. I believe we are more likely to find real progress by proceeding in a steady, sober, consistent, balanced way.
The second concern that was raised during the hearings quite consistently was a concern about how effective Canadian policy is now in responding to concerns that exist in our public and around the world. I want to summarize some of those concerns about our effectiveness that are germane to this debate.
One that was repeated frequently is that Government interest in these issues is sporadic and not well co-ordinated. That testimony is saying two things. It is making the observation that one year we have for a while a suffocation policy, then it lapses. Later we have proposals for a five-power conference, a tour and consultations, and then they lapse. But there is none of the persistence now in Canadian policy which helped former Governments achieve agreement on test bans, which helped the former Prime Minister, Mr. Pearson, contribute to the establishment of the United Nations peace-keeping operations. They are saying that there is a sporadic, inconsistent nature to our public positions on policy.
Second, there is the concern that expertise is spread around in Government. Internal expertise is not co-ordinated. Much of it is concentrated in the Department of National Defence, for example, whereas the Department of External Affairs is supposed to be the lead Department.
A second theme that was consistent is that we have a greater capacity than we are using to develop and advance specific responses to particular problems on the path to peace or on the path away from tension now. Canada is, of course, doing important work in a multitude of fields, but we are not organized to contribute up to our potential.
A third concern has to do with individual Canadians, whether they are experts or simply worried citizens, who believe that they are outside our system, that they are affected by our failures, but have no impact upon the policies we follow. They have neither the information they require nor the influence they require.
Finally, and it is very important in the context of this debate for it to be understood, there is a very real concern-the Minister made reference to it-that there is an imbalance between the emphasis on defence studies funded and encouraged by the Government, carried on across the country, and the need for studies that deal particularly with the question and with the perspective of peace, and that that imbalance has to be corrected if we are going to be as effective as the country can be in moving the world, in inching the world, away from conflict.
I think these concerns provide a useful context for the consideration of this Bill. We are not discussing here a series of policy initiatives. There was to have been a resolution presented to the House. That resolution was the subject of extensive consultation among the Parties, but that resolution has not come forward. It dealt with the general question. We are here dealing with a very specific question. We are dealing with a specific Bill to establish the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security. It is a Bill to establish one agency in a field where several agencies exist. It is a Bill that has to do with one initiative on a question where several initiatives are needed.
I make the point to the House that what we do with this institute will affect what we are able to do in other ways to increase security and world peace. If the widespread concern of Canadians over the possibility of nuclear war is addressed, if what I call the fear issue, the force of fear in the country, is addressed, that can be a means of bringing Canadians into our foreign policy debate generally.
This involvement of Canadians should not be seen, as a threat to Canadian policy. It should be seen as it is, as an unparalleled opportunity if we choose to avail ourselves of the strong, sophisticated, deep interest that exists in these questions in the Canadian public.
On the other hand, if we choose to ignore public concern in the hope that it will simply go away, we run the risk of souring the public on the ability of their elected representatives to provide leadership on this crucial issue. They will turn then, in my view, from the tone of seriousness, of sophisticated responses, a tone that marked the hearings I held, and opt for more radical or for more unilateral solutions. It is essential that we find ways to bring interested Canadians into the discussion of what their country should do in a field of policy which affects them vitally.
Of course, the issues are complex. That complexity is not only a limitation to the participation of Canadians outside Parliament; that complexity is a limitation upon the ability of Members of this House to be as informed and as effective as we should be. Elected representatives, as well as the general public, have a great need of being better informed on the technical issues relating to peace and security questions. In short, the essence of the challenge facing elected representatives is to improve the quality of knowledge upon which we might act and then enlarge, in the country and in the House, the will to act.
April 17, 1984

What is needed is an institute designed to encourage and facilitate informed debate and to produce independent, nonpartisan research and information, a world-class research and public information institution on international peace and security questions, not merely on the narrower question of arms control.

Mr. Speaker, we believe that the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security could play a very useful role. It can make a very positive three-fold contribution to world peace and the Canadian policy: by helping the world nations to draft policies and plans likely to minimize the risk of nuclear conflict; by keeping Canada's own politicians and population well informed so as to increase their influence over public policies; finally, by symbolizing the commitment of the Canadian Government and Parliament to make the quest for peace one of our great national priorities.
Those are all worthy endeavours. In the course of this debate, we must stress the fact that the institute must have the independence, credibility and determination required to take up that challenge. In our view, this Bill does not give it the necessary independence and, therefore, restricts its credibility.
We also believe that we are duty-bound to establish clearly to what extent the activities of that organization would mesh with our national objectives to foster international peace and security. Other measures must be taken as well. The Government's internal structure must be much more coherent about any peace-related issue. The independence and integrity of research institutions already active in Canada must be maintained and protected. The Government itself must be much more open with Canadians and aware of the deep and sincere concerns about international peace.

I think it is very important, Sir, that we distinguish very clearly in this debate between the idea of an institute and the proposal that exists in this Bill. In our view it is important that there should be an independent institute centred in Canada to study peace and security. That is unquestioned; that is very clear. But we have a very deep and profound concern about this Bill, Mr. Speaker.
There have been extensive inquiries by the Government prior to this proposal being brought into the House of Commons. I rather regret that the full conclusions of those inquiries, the full range of alternatives, prepared for the Government were not presented to this Parliament. This, after all, is a parliamentary matter. We are establishing here a Canadian institute, not simply a governmental institute. It would have aided immeasurably the parliamentarians who have to make decisions on this question to have had access to the recommendations presented to the people making the inquiries by the Government and indeed to have had access to the recommendations made to the Government by those representatives.
There are, as the House will know, broadly two kinds of agencies, broadly two kinds of institutes in the world, two
International Peace and Security kinds of models, speaking generally, of approach to this question. One focuses internally. It is inward-looking. It serves the Government. It is, for example, like the National Security Council in the United States. Its purpose is to pull government advice together. Its purpose is to ensure that there is a balance in government decision-making internally to protect, for example, against an unusual influence from the military side or an unusual influence from somewhere else. It is an internal agency. That is one model which could be followed by an institute established by this Parliament. The other model is external-encouraging independent research, encouraging public information and having its focus beyond government rather than being locked into government.
Those are the two models, broadly, which exist in the world. They play very distinct roles. They are very different. However, what we have here in this institute is an attempt, in effect, to combine both approaches-not to have an agency which is strictly internal, not to have an agency which is independent and external, but to have one which combines features of both.
Our concern as we look at this Bill is that, in attempting to combine features of both, the Government creates a very real confusion about exactly what kind of agency we will have here. That confusion will almost certainly continue. That confusion, if it does continue, as I believe it will, could cripple the institute. If we are not careful in debate today, we could place upon this institute, if we adopt the Bill as it sits, restrictions which will severely, perhaps fatally, handicap its future. This institute has to be done right the first time.


Mr. Trudeau:: Could you tell us how? Could you be more precise?


Charles Joseph Clark: Yes. I am pleased that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is involved in the debate. Yes, I will be telling him how. The Prime Minister already has some recommendations from the Leader of the Opposition, most of which he has ignored. I will come to that later on.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Most of which have been listened to and respected.


Charles Joseph Clark: "Listened to"; that is exactly the point. That is exactly the fear one has here, and that is exactly why it is so important to have an independent institute. We do not want to have something which goes around listening to people and then ignoring them.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The Prime Minister has put his
finger on the essence of our concern.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes.


Charles Joseph Clark: Well he should and well he could, because it is a concern which is born in part by the practice of

April 17, 1984
International Peace and Security the Government in so many other fields. We cannot afford to sacrifice this institute, which is so important to goals shared by all people in the House, to the practice and the fear of independent activity which exists on the Government side. This institute has to be independent or it is nothing. That is the point.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Tell us how to make it more independent and we will do it.


Charles Joseph Clark: All right. If that is a serious offer-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes.


Charles Joseph Clark: You will do it, all right. I would like to see the clause which indicates that the Minister can direct the institute as to what it should do-


An Hon. Member:: Clause 28.


Charles Joseph Clark: I will depart from the normal rules since I have been asked a question by the Prime Minister and quote precisely the clause. Clause 28 now reads:
On request therefor, the Institute shall undertake research for or provide advice to the Minister in relation to any issue involving international peace and security.
I would like to see the word "shall" changed to the word "may", because that leaves the decision in the hands of the independent institute.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Just move an amendment.


Charles Joseph Clark: Oh, no, I do not want an offer from the Prime Minister that we move an amendment. I want an undertaking from the Prime Minister that he will accept that amendment. Do I have that undertaking?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Come to the committee.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: We are not discussing here a detail. We are discussing the fundamental independence of this institute. We are discussing a fundamental principle which affects the effectiveness of this institute. The Prime Minister has intervened. He has said that he will act on what we propose. I have just made a proposal which would guarantee, or take a step toward guaranteeing the independence of this institute. Will the Government accept that proposal?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If that is all you want, yes.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: No, but it is a start; it is a start.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is what we want to hear. Don't tell us about the ladies in Halifax.


Charles Joseph Clark: The ladies in Halifax, the women in Halifax, have an interest in this issue because it is their lives and the lives of their children which are affected by what we do here. It is their future which is limited-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: They do not want you to talk out the institute, which is what you are trying to do.


Charles Joseph Clark: -if we create here an institute which is not independent, which is not credible and which intrudes upon the independence and credibility of agencies already in the field. They are very much involved. The Prime Minister would serve us all well if he showed less contempt for the women of Halifax, for the people of Canada and others who are very much concerned about this issue and this institute.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I was saying that this institute has to be done right the first time because institutions define their nature in their very early days. This Bill has the following faults. First, it is confused as to what kind of institute the Government wants. Second, it is far too dependent upon government. Third, it is not accountable to Parliament. Fourth, it is not clear, despite the Minister's words, how this institute would relate to other agencies which now exist in the field.
Those are all major flaws which have to be corrected now while we are defining the nature of the institute. It would be irresponsible to let the measure proceed with these defects which could be crippling. Those of us who unfortunately have had experience in this House with offers across the floor which are not backed up in practice will require a little more than casual statements by the Prime Minister from his seat before we will be satisfied that we have an institute which guarantees the independence that is essential to this kind of undertaking.
Let me very quickly review some of the limitations upon the independence of the institute in the Bill as it now sits. I have spoken about the most dangerous of them, Clause 28, but there are also others, Clauses 6 to 8 speak about the appointment of a board of directors. Under this provision Cabinet will appoint the directors and the executive director. We have had an offer that there will be consultation with the Opposition Parties. What use is consultation when the Government makes the decision alone? This Bill gives the Government the power to make this decision by itself. There has been a proposal put forward-and the Prime Minister is interested in proposals- which would have the board of directors appointed by consensus of the standing committee of the House interested in external and defence policy. That would provide independence. That empowers the committee to appoint. It does not merely permit them to be consulted, it empowers them to appoint. That gives a much greater degree of independence than does the present measure.
Clause 14 of this Bill, which limits the kind of independent institute that we need, gives Cabinet alone the power to fix the fees of board members and fix the terms and conditions of
April 17, 1984

employment of the executive director-very powerful instruments in the hands of Cabinet. The Cabinet determines where the principal office will be. That is a fairly minor matter, but why should Cabinet decide it? Why should that not be decided by some agency more independent than the Cabinet of Canada?
In Clause 26 Cabinet has the power on its own to direct the board to make, amend or repeal any of its by-laws. In other words, what the board does after due deliberation, Cabinet can come in and has the power to undo. The effect of Cabinet coming in and undoing it is final. In effect Cabinet controls the by-laws of this institution.
I have spoken about advice to Ministers under Clause 28. Clause 29 regarding funding indicates that the institute's funding will come from "moneys apropriated by Parliament for the purpose", so it says. No other details are given, but in our view if we want to guarantee some kind of independence, consideration should be given to provisions for funding on a basis longer than one year to facilitate longer-term planning and, again, to promote the institute's independence from the Government's priorities for research.
We have had very serious and disappointing experiences with the problems of agencies that are supposed to be independent but in fact are not. There is, for example, a very clear danger in this Bill as it is written that this institute would be encumbered with political appointees who will either be reluctant to provide objective, independent analyses of, and information about, peace and security issues where such analyses would conflict with government policy or, should they be inclined to show that kind of independence, they could find themselves in the kind of situation that Doris Anderson found herself in when, as President of the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, she dared to suggest that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as originally tabled in the House did nothing for Canadian women.
We have had too much experience with agencies that were supposed to be independent but were not independent in fact. We cannot afford to risk the independence and credibility of this institute by imposing upon it the kinds of restrictions and limitations which have so weakened institutions in other fields of policy in the country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) suggested that we should approve this Bill in principle here in the House and then work out the details in committee. What the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs called details go to the very heart of this Bill. They concern fundamental questions of independence and accountability. This Bill as it is written would allow the Government to control absolutely the work of the institute. The Government alone appoints its directors. The Government alone decides how they are paid. The Government alone has the right to dictate to the
International Peace and Security institute, to tell it what to do and then require it to do so. That is not the kind of independence which Canadians expect of this institute, nor is it the kind of independence we were led to believe this institute would have.
This Bill creates an agency which the Government can transform gradually, easily and completely into an instrument of government propaganda or indeed into an instrument of Party propaganda. If a government chose to do what this bill gives a government the power to do, the effects would spread well beyond this particular institute. This Bill effectively gives the Government the power to limit the independence of existing agencies which are working now for peace because the institute we are discussing here can move very quickly to centre stage. It will have an immediate and permanent profile high above private agencies already working in the field and it can become the standard against which they are judged.
I remind the House that this institute has behind it more than the power of example. It has the power of money. If this institute which has the power to fund other agencies or individuals is to be truly independent, no strings will be attached to that funding. But can it be truly independent when the Government alone appoints its directors, when the Government alone sets its salaries, when the Government alone can tell it what to do? That, Sir, is not independence. Without independence, this institute has the power to do more harm than good. The power this Bill gives the Government to control this institute and, by extension, to influence unduly the tone and direction of research carried out by other agencies interested in peace and security is one fatal flaw in this Bill.
Another fatal flaw in the Bill is that while this Bill gives the Government the power to control the institute, it does not give Parliament the power to hold the institute accountable. There is no accountability provision here. The Minister may lay on the Table a report. Many reports are laid on the Table of Parliament. There is no accountability of this institute to Parliament. There is instead tight and very fundamental control by the government of the day. That is inconsistent with the purposes of the Bill and is a very unfortunate aspect of it which we simply must see changed.
Reference was made to consultations that have occurred and to recommendations that have been made by the Leader of the Opposition, some of which have been adopted. Clause 5(a) of this Bill as it now reads reflects a recommendation of the Leader of the Opposition to create a national library and data base on peace and security agencies. Clause 5(e) reflects a recommendation of the Leader of the Opposition to provide facilities for conferences, seminars and funding for some other bodies.
There have been other important but minor agreements to proposals put forward by the Leader of the Opposition as a result of consultations. However, we must ask two questions about those consultations. Why did the Government agree only on the relatively minor questions and not agree on the questions which provided accountability or independence for the institute? Why did it agree only on the minor matters and disagree on the major ones?

April 17, 1984
International Peace and Security
The other question we must ask is why did the consultations end so quickly? The Prime Minister knows that there was a long process of consultation with regard to a resolution on the peace initiative, a consultation in which views were put forward by the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the New Democratic Party, many of which were accepted. The Prime Minister shakes his head. Am I incorrect? I can speak only for the proposals put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. The Prime Minister now tells me that I am correct. I appreciate his correction.
There was a very fruitful process of negotiation on that question. I gather that problems with members of the NDP have made it difficult to bring the resolution forward, but agreement was reached on major matters between the Government and the Official Opposition in the House of Commons. The process of that kind of genuine consultation works. It began in relation to this Bill but was then suddenly stopped. Why was it stopped? Why did the Government bring this Bill into the House now rather than carry on the discussions that had begun to be fruitful regarding the production of a Bill which could come into the House and be accepted by all Parties in the House?
The Parliament of Canada approves the concept of a peace institute. We want to see something established along the lines of what was referred to in the Speech from the Throne. What we have here is something very different from what we were led to believe by the Speech from the Throne would be brought forward by the Government. It is different because it is not independent. It is different because it is not accountable. It is different in fundamental ways that go to the heart of the capacity of this institute to be seen as a credible institution in the Canadian community.
Because we have had too much experience to do otherwise, we are going to require from the Government some guarantees now that it is prepared to make this institute independent and that it is prepared to build in accountability. We do not want to see the Government sabotage its own institute by imposing upon it limitations that will kill its credibility in the country. If we do not do this right the first time, the institute may well be doomed. We think the issue is too important to allow the Government's concerns about independent activities to doom this institute.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) will know but apparently as the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) does not know, we in the New Democratic Party have been pursuing the subject of the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security. We have been pursuing the subject of having peace research chairs to complement the chairs on strategic studies. We have been listening to the Canadian public for the last many years about their concerns with the nuclear arms race. We have participated actively in the reference in the standing committee on security and disarmament which, of course, the Right Hon. Member for Yellow-head would not know about. Therefore, it is a bit of a surprise to me to find out that the Conservative Party has just discovered the issue and the public's concern with this issue.
A Conservative Party task force held hearings in five cities and the Party discovered that the Canadian public is very concerned about the issues of international peace and security. I welcome Conservative members. I am glad they have finally discovered this.
The Minister knows that we did have an excellent series of sessions in the standing committee dealing with our reference on security and disarmament two years ago. He will also know the great importance that attaches to concerned citizens having their voices heard when it comes to such an important matter as setting up an institute for research in these subject matters. I will come back to this in a moment.
I just want to preface my remarks with not being too hasty. We agree with the Bill in principle. We agree with much of its content. I have half a dozen fairly important amendments to suggest and I will suggest them today. They will be discussed in committee. I urge the Minister and the Prime Minister, whom I am glad to see here, to ensure that the committee and its chairman, who is here as well, has time to hear the Canadian public and seriously to address amendments that would strengthen this Bill.
The Prime Minister will recall that when the International Development Research Centre was established, first reading was in the late fall of 1969. The Bill then went to the Standing Committee on External Affairs where it remained for several months. Several extremely important amendments were made. Indeed, final reading establishing the IDRC did not take place until the fall of 1970. Even the title of the centre was changed in committee. Many members on that committee took a very strong interest in the IDRC. Perhaps we cannot take that long, but I do urge that the committee not only have hearings for the members of the Canadian public who are concerned in this matter, but that it also have the careful, detailed discussion that the Bill needs when it comes to making some amendments.
There are two matters that bother me about the Bill, although it has a lot of pluses. It has not articulated in a sufficiently Canadian way the purpose of the institute. Second, Clause 28 seriously undermines the independence and the hands-off relationship that must exist between the Government and the institute.
From what the Minister said in his speech, I think he would agree that the institute must reflect the Canadian viewpoint on international issues of peace and security and start providing our own data base, information gathering, analysis and assessment. We have never had very much of this in the Government of Canada.
There must be a way, and I will not go into detail on this, in which we can make clear in Clause 4 that what we are looking for is a Canadian-based analysis and assessment of issues of
April 17, 1984

international peace and security. We are not like SIPRI, the Swedish institute, looking primarily at the whole global range of issues of international peace and security from every possible perspective.
The Minister and the Prime Minister have argued, and I agree, that we need a more Canadian perspective. In a* sense we have lost our independence in this country because we are so derivative, so dependent on the information and analysis of other countries, particularly the United States. There should be more mention in that clause of the hope that the institute will look at these matters from a Canadian perspective.
In the "purpose" clause, I would put 4(d) first, "foster, fund and conduct research on international peace and security issues of particular interest to Canadians or to the Government of Canada". That is the intention of the Government and should be the intention of all of us to emphasize.
Putting (a) first, "collect and disseminate information and ideas on international peace and security", instead of in the next section under "powers", does not give the clauses enough vigour. We hope this will be a go-getting organization doing basic and fundamental research, not just collecting information, and doing it in accordance with the needs of Canadians and from some Canadian perspective, whether it is talking about the nature of the Soviet threat or whatever. The purpose could be strengthened.
The other main area in which I have concern is Clause 28. The Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead also referred to this. He suggested that it could be made more acceptable to him and his Party by changing "shall" to "may". The clause would then read:
On request therefore, the Institute may undertake research for or provide advice to the Minister in relation to any issue involving international peace and security.
I heard the Prime Minister call out that he would be quite willing to change that word from "shall" to "may". The Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead went on ranting and raving. If the Prime Minister did say that and if the Government is willing to do that, it should properly take out the clause entirely. It can remain silent. Anybody, Mr. Speaker-you, I, a citizen or group-may request the new institute to undertake something. An ordinary MP could make the request. I would hope the standing committee might do that occasionally. Anybody may request the institute to undertake research or provide advice. The institute's board would then meet and decide yes or no.
There is no reason that the clause should be in the Bill. It is not in the IDRC Act. What happens if the Government wants the IDRC to undertake something? This happened with the Conservative Government when the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) was Minister. When it wanted the IDRC to do something, it had to put in a request. This was in connection with an international science and technology conference. The board met and the IDRC said: "Yes, we may do this, this and this under these conditions". This was in the 1979 period. It was perfectly all right. However, that can be done without any clause at all. I was going to
International Peace and Security
raise this point independently, that if you change "shall" to "may", you do not need the clause at all. You simply remain silent.
That is at the nub of the independence question. I do not agree with the Conservative argument; there are many other clauses in the Bill with regard to the appointment of directors by Order in Council and so on and the fact that you must have more than the tabling of the annual report and studies by the institute in Parliament and before the committee.
I judge this on the basis of similar Canadian bodies and a body like SIPRI where there are almost identical provisions. It has to report through a Minister and table its reports in Parliament. IDRC has the same arrangements, with one important exception in the choice of board of directors.
As I look back on Canadian history, I do not feel that the Government, whatever government has been in power, has abused the right to appoint directors and so on. That right may be terribly abused in appointments to the other place, but quite frankly I do not think it has in this instance. Maybe we could do as IDRC does and have a provision that two members of the board of directors may be MPs or members of the other place. That sounds terrific. I do not know whether Senator Steuart knew about this when he resigned from the IDRC after being made a senator. He could have stayed. That Act allows, as the Prime Minister will remember, up to two members of the board drawn from either House, and that might be a good idea. I feel we should explore it in committee.
What I am saying is that the other points raised by the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead regarding the board, the executive director, appointments and parliamentary accountability, I believe, frankly, are adequately protected not only by this Bill but by the traditions of Canadian Governments, both Liberal and Conservative, when one talks about the Economic Council of Canada, the Science Council of Canada, the IDRC and so on. However, I do feel there is one change which might be made, and that is that after the first executive director is appointed, subsequent executive directors are chosen by the board. That is a suggestion I would make, and I have other minor suggestions in that connection.
However, it seems to me that we do not want to take away from what is the most important goal for this institute, and that is that it should freely engage in short, medium, long-term research; that it should foster such scholarly activities elsewhere, which we badly need in Canada; that it should be absolutely free to publish; and that if it is asked for advice or to do research, it may or may not do so and it may or may not do so whether the request comes from the Minister or from you or me, Mr. Speaker. That is what is particularly vital and that is why it is not even necessary to amend Clause 28. One simply removes it.
Therefore, we can liven up the purpose, make it more clearly of concern to Canadians, and in that connection, by the way, I really do not see why the Government copied the IDRC in one respect, namely, having non-Canadians on its board of direc-

April 17, 1984
International Peace and Security
tors. I believe that was and is essential for the IDRC but I do not believe it is essential for this institute. I believe this institute will be looking primarily at the Canadian perspective on international peace and security issues. In fact, if someone like George Ball or Paul Warnke or someone like that were asked to be on the board, I believe it would be of some embarrassment to them. The institute can always get their advice and, indeed, I am sure it would, as we all do. However, I am not at all sure that that particular copying of the IDRC legislation was necessary or desirable.
I will have specific clauses to help strengthen the purpose section. In the powers section we would put the collecting and disseminating of information. In connection with the publishing of studies, I would draw the attention of the Minister to Clause 5(c). This is kind of a mixed up clause. It states that the institute may:
-publish studies and reports prepared for the use of the institute and publish or otherwise disseminate scientific, technical or other information as it sees fit;-
The words "scientific, technical" came from the IDRC. I would say that that clause should simply read that the institute may "publish or otherwise disseminate reports, studies or other information relevant to its purpose". That is nice, clean wording. The phrase "for the use of the institute" is not, I believe, what the Government intends.
There are three kinds of studies and reports which the institute might undertake. It might do inhouse research. It will have a small inhouse research capacity. It might contract out research for its use. However, there might be research done out there-and the Minister pointed out how anxious he would be that this would complement rather than supplant research and scholarly activity-and the institute might well pick up a piece of research done out there, think it extremely valuable to its purpose and agree to publish it, even though it was not for its use, if the outside person wanted it published. Therefore, I simply guard against the use of the words "for the use of the institute". In fact, I would remove them entirely, and have clause 5(c), a very important clause, simply read" publish or otherwise disseminate reports, studies or other information relevant to its purpose".
While I am on Clause 5,1 have another small point I would like to make. In order to ensure that the institute itself is not going to seek funds in the private sector, it would be quite simple to change Clause 5(g) from "acquire any property, money or securities by gift" to "accept any property". That is a more benign phrase, and I will be putting forth that amendment in committee. I am just giving the Minister lots of notice on these amendments.
Clause 7 reads:
The Executive Director shall be appointed by the Governor in Council to hold office for a term not exceeding five years.
Any executive director, subsequent to the first director who would be appointed in this way, should, I feel, be appointed on the recommendation of the board of directors.
With respect to Clause 18, I have already mentioned the question of non-Canadians on the board and I would appreciate a response to that at some time. As I said, I believe that is entirely appropriate for IDRC. It is certainly entirely appropriate for SIPRI. By the way, SIPRI responds to a Minister, the Minister lays its reports before Parliament and SIPRI is extremely independent. So we should take another look at Clause 18.
I have already discussed at length why Clause 28 should be removed. I agree with all other speakers, including the Minister himself, that one of the most important things is that the institute should have an arm's length relationship with the Government, and that it should be genuinely able to decide for itself on the research it does and the advice it gives.
On the financial side, the Minister mentioned that the funding would be $1.5 million in the present year, rising to $5 million by 1988-1989-it could well rise more than that, I assume-and that it would be jointly funded by annual grants from the two Departments, the Department of National Defence and the Department of External Affairs.
Again, going back into history, if I may, to IDRC-and the reason I compare it so much with IDRC is that it is so similarly structured-as I remember, IDRC was initially funded from an appropriation by CIDA, but it very soon achieved its own separate line item. I would hope that the same would be the case here. Frankly, I believe it should start immediately with its own separate line item, and I will have an amendment to that effect when we come to committee.
In summary, this Party has been in favour, is in favour, and shall continue to be in favour of such an institute being established, a Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security. We believe it is badly needed. Far from suffocating other bodies engaged in this goal, we feel it will encourage them, help fund them, and will produce a good deal more scholarly material. I believe, frankly, it is superior to the Australian institute, which I received information about yesterday, which is tied solely to the Australian national university. I believe, if the purpose is made clearer, that this institute will for the first time-and perhaps this is something which governments should have done long since-provide a scholarly Canadian assessment from a Canadian perspective as well as from a world perspective on the issues of international peace and security.
I like the emphasis, as we all do, on peace and security issues. Of course, as the Minister has said, this will include strategic studies, although we have more accomplished in that field already. We want the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence to have time. That is what worries me more than anything else.


Mr. Prud'homme:: We give you one month.


Pauline Jewett: The Chairman is here. I know the Committee controls its own timetable because every time we ask the Government for something, it says it is in the hands of the Committee. I am glad, come to think of it, that they have always said to us: "Well, the Committee has the power; it is in the hands of the Committee".
April 17, 1984


George Albert Proud: Five days a week for one month if you want.


Pauline Jewett: Well, what a commitment! We also have to hear from Canadians, as I say, because they are concerned about this. The fact that the Minister did not mention Clause 28 in his speech, Mr. Speaker-and it is so important that we not have Clause 28-


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I want to argue about that.


Pauline Jewett: -I hope indicates that he, too, realizes that a Minister could destroy the institute. Not this Minister, of course, but a Minister could. He could have it so busy doing research for him and giving him advice that it would never do anything else. I am sure he will be the first to agree, when he speaks again, that if this is to be the first-class institute I know he wants and we all want, then it should decide, the institute should decide what research it does and what advice it gives.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona on a point of order.


Mr. Kilgour:: Mr. Speaker, since the Chair indicated a while ago that under our Standing Orders the House cannot question the minister at this time, could I ask for unanimous consent so that we may have a brief question period on this bill?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The Hon. Member will realize this is an extraordinary request. However, the House being master of its rules, I might ask if there is unanimous consent.

Does the House give unanimous consent to a question period?

There does not seem to be unanimous consent.


Mr. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am very pleased to speak today on second reading of this Bill to establish the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security, particularly after listening to the arguments of our two Opposition colleagues. I know full well that the former Leader of the Opposition had spoken at length on the question of independence, and particularly on the appointment of members of the new institute's board of directors dealt with in Clauses 6 to 8.
As I was listening to his remarks and his suggestion about Committee members reaching a consensus and making recommendations concerning appointees to the institute, I could just see him and the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) being on the same Committee, and I was wondering how we
International Peace and Security might possibly reach a consensus if those two sit on the same Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I do think we would be expecting too much if we thought that the Committee might agree on 27 appointments. Should the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) have a precedent in mind, perhaps he would enlighten us before the Bill is referred to Committee for consideration. I noticed that he and our colleague of the NDP did not see any need to dwell upon the first few clauses of the Bill dealing with the purpose and powers of the institute.
Therefore, we can safely assume that the two Opposition Parties see nothing wrong with the principle of the Bill and that their complaints bear on minor details. As I said earlier, the matter of appointments did come up-I can still recall the position taken by the Hon. Member for York-Peel during the Committee study on Latin America. Once again, how could he go along with a consensus on appointments? History usually repeats itself, Mr. Speaker, and that explains why I feel that such a solution is unrealistic.
Besides, our colleagues opposite always talk about the responsibilities of the Government concerning foreign corporations. In that respect, I think that the Government should indeed take its responsibilities. Given the impartial nature of the activities of the institute, the Prime Minister gave the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the New Democratic Party the assurance that they would be consulted about the appointments. I do not see what more can be said at this stage but, in the course of Committee proceedings, we might come up with alternative solutions which would be more practical than the one advocated by the Member for Yellowhead.
With respect to Section 28,1 think that many Members are concerned about the fact that the Minister can ask the Institute to give him advice or to undertake research work. Mr. Speaker, considering that public funds will have been allocated to an institute, whenever the Minister needs some advice to develop policies, the best source of information will certainly be this institute. The latter will certainly be in a position to provide him with ideas, not necessarily ideas that will please him, but well informed advice. Everyone in this House will recognize the need to establish an agency which will make a regular, in fact an ongoing examination of issues as important as international peace and security. I do not know to what extent the Minister may be criticized for asking the advice of this institute. Should this agency be established only to be ignored, either by the Government, by the Members of the Committee or by the public? I believe that the Minister should have the privilege of using the valid advice of the Institute in developing his policies, and, for this reason, I have no difficulty in accepting that the Minister should be allowed to ask for the advice of the Institute, even though, in fact, he does not necessarily have to follow such advice. The Institute will strictly be a major source of information for him. Since the

April 17, 1984
International Peace and Security Canadian public will be paying for the Institute, I think that it would be . .. Would it be better were the Institute to refuse to provide advice to the Minister, who would then have to spend additional public funds to have the same research done elsewhere? I wonder to what extent this can be considered as limiting the independence of the Institute since the contents of the advice given will not be dictated by the Minister. In this regard, I believe that the Minister should in fact be able to avail himself of the good judgment of the Institute and I have no difficulty in accepting that.
As far as salaries and benefits are concerned, I know that they do worry the Hon. Member for Yellowhead. Are we going to ask the Committee to set this gentleman's or that lady's salary, to approve the Institute members' expense account? The Hon. Member for Yellowhead said that he did not want the Government or the Cabinet to set either the salaries or the expense accounts. Who will do it then, Mr. Speaker? Should we ask, for instance, the Committee on External Affairs and National Defence to determine how much money this or that person will be paid, as he suggested initially? I believe that, first, this would be asking the Committee to get stuck in red tape, and second, that it would be quite irresponsible for the Government to delegate this administrative responsibility to people other than those who, finally, are accountable to the public for it.
Section 26, which also seems to worry our friends of the Official Opposition, concerns the by-laws which will be passed by the Institute. The responsibility always comes back to the Government in the end, but, in any case, I believe that this type of provision is quite common and has already been applied to nearly all the Crown Corporations established to this date.
As we all know, this is not done regularly or routinely. It is the kind of unusual action which must be warranted and which in any case has not been the current practice these last few years, namely that the Government should issue Orders in Council which go against the by-laws of its own corporations, institutes or agencies.
I therefore do not share the concern of our friends opposite about the methods or the relationship between the Government and the Institute. I believe that the Canadian public feels the need for a group specializing in these matters which affect all of us. The Canadian public needs more information, and we do expect to obtain data of a less complex nature than those which come to us from all kinds of sources, especially foreign sources. This is one of the purposes of the Institute. Everyone is concerned by this issue. There are bonafide groups from all across the country which certainly want to have access to such an agency. In particular, I know hundreds of students who are concerned by the issue of international peace and who will certainly want to use the data, the library facilities and all the information compiled by the Institute.
In such wide-ranging negotiations, Mr. Speaker, the way a country is knowledgeable and familiar with the issue at hand probably weighs more heavily than the sheer number of its population or its political views. It is in that sense that, in my opinion, with such an institute, Canada will play a much more significant role than we would expect in terms of its current political, demographic or economic power. If our politicians on both sides of the House really know the issue inside out and can count on applied research done by experts totally dedicated to this cause, we as a country will certainly have greater influence on the international scene and more input in drafting our own defence and peace policies.
A lot of energy is being spent right across the country in the quest for peace-we know that some people are deeply committed to that endeavour-and the various groups will finally discover the kind of outlet they need-not within but close to the Government-to exchange ideas, air their views and propose their own solutions. Those discussions will certainly be launched from coast to coast and be of great use to all those who have public responsibilities. In that sense, I am glad to see that our colleagues opposite are generally favourable to the establishment of the institute. Once in Committee, they will have every opportunity to debate at length the various aspects that bother them, but I would hope that they will not tie up the proceedings by arguing about insignificant details. I know that our NDP colleague intends to introduce a series of amendments. Since the institute will not be the exclusive realm of the Government, because the main issue is much more important that any political faction, I am convinced that the proposed amendments will be given due consideration.
On the other hand, we should not attempt to come up with an organization so far removed from reality that we would defeat our own purpose. I heard the Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) insisting that the institute must be independent and, in the same breath, urging that it be consistent with our national goals. How can he reconcile that? That is what he said, and the blues are there to prove it, but I can see that it is not going to be easy. They also said that the institute must be accountable. Well, Mr. Speaker, that should not cause any problem since an annual report will be tabled in the House and, as we all know, such reports can indeed be taken under consideration since they are automatically deemed to be referred to the appropriate Committee. In other words, the members of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence will have all the time in the world to scrutinize the reports of the institute.
This is a new procedure, of course, so perhaps it slipped the mind of our colleague from Yellowhead, although he is usually aware of the intricacies of our Standing Orders. As a matter of fact, if he were to sit on the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, he would certainly be in a position to read the annual reports and insist that they be gone over with a fine comb during Committee proceedings.
April 17, 1984

I have no qualms about the financial accountability of the institute. For instance, he spoke about two models-an instrument of internal information and an instrument of external information-and said that those were the only possibilities, yet he concluded that we are trying to have a little bit of both. In fact, Mr. Speaker, if we can at last establish a direct link between the people who are genuinely interested in this cause and who often are experts-some of them may be self-appointed experts-and the institute first, then with Parliament and the Government which will certainly act upon the recommendations of the institute, I think, Mr. Speaker, that that would complete the full circle. I am therefore convinced that, by operating along the lines proposed in this Bill, the Institute will certainly influence Government policy and the views of the Opposition, and this will be important. The Institute will be at the nerve center of all the activities related to the quest for peace and disarmament and actually everybody will benefit from it. As for the groups, and I know that the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead has probably met with hundreds of them which are concerned with disarmament, they always feel somewhat at a loss when they have to gain access to the system. I for one, I believe that the Institute can certainly be a window opening on the system with a capital "s" since some of these groups now deal with the Department of National Defence while others call on the Department of External Affairs without really knowing who is mainly responsible for such matters in the system. In this regard, the Institute will certainly be an access to the system for all these groups and individuals.
These groups will also certainly be useful to the Institute. I am certain of it. The Bill mentions the possibility of having research work farmed out or of using the results of research carried out by others, and there are about fifteen groups in Canada which are particularly interested in research in this field. The Institute can certainly use them. Finally, the Institute will be able to work in co-operation instead of always looking for confrontation.
The Members opposite claim to be against confrontation, but, to this date, I believe that in the quest for peace, there often is a high degree of confrontation. We know that there is a communications gap, especially where the pacifist groups are concerned, even though they often pursue the same objectives as we all do. The fact that the Institute will distribute information, develop ideas and communicate with these people will certainly bring about the new consensus we all need. I believe that our energies must be gathered together, and the focus of this concentration will certainly be the new Institute.
Mr. Speaker, I am more than happy to see that the commitment voiced in the Speech from the Throne is on the point of becoming a fact and that we are finally going to be able to pass this Bill with the co-operation of our friends opposite within the next few weeks. I am convinced that, in committee, with the suggestions put forward by both sides of the House,
International Peace and Security we shall be able to finalize the text of the Bill to make it as acceptable as possible to all without taking anything away from the very concept of the Institute. We already agree on what the purpose and the powers of the Institute should be. All that remains to do is therefore to work out the administrative details.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the House is dealing today with a subject which will certainly interest today's generation, as well as all future generations. In fact, the closer we come together, the greater the degree of confrontation there is and the more we look for some way to break the deadlock. This Bill represents a commendable effort on the part of the Government, and with the support of the other political parties, we can all do our share and contribute to the debate. I am convinced that the originality of the studies and the Canadian-ization of solutions will contribute to the international exchange of views. This is why, Mr. Speaker, I await impatiently the opportunity to examine each section of the Bill in committee. I am convinced that we shall be able to arrive at a peaceful compromise.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Questions and comments.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, could the Hon. Member indicate for the benefit of the House whether there is a model for this institute to follow? Is there another type of institution in the world that would be the Hon. Member's model for the Canadian version to follow?


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to the Hon. Member that the Government has selected a model with special powers which would meet our expectations as a Government, Parliament and a country. Not being an expert on such institutes, I can only suggest that what the Government is proposing here is neither the internal nor the external models described by the Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark), but a sort of bridge between all interested parties. Although I am not aware of such a model, I am sure it does exist; we would have to ask our researchers to find out.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, could the Hon. Member indicate whom he would feel might be a suitable chairman for the new peace institute?
[ Translation]


Jean-C. Lapierre: I am not qualified to say who might be a suitable candidate to chair such an institute, Mr. Speaker, but I know for sure who would not be suitable.
3130

April 17, 1984
International Peace and Security


Mr. Skelly:: Mr. Speaker, the Bill before us today proposes to develop a Canadian peace research institute and it is certainly commendable. However, I fear that we are looking at another example of government hypocrisy. There is no doubt that research on peace and disarmament is necessary and the NDP will support it.
In addition to research, however, action and integrity on the part of the Government is also extremely important. One cannot advocate peace and disarmament and at the same time test the Cruise missile.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I just want to know if the Hon. Member is asking a question, making a comment or making a speech. This is a period for questions and comments.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, it is a brief comment to which I would like the Hon. Member to respond. One cannot advocate peace and disarmament and test the Cruise missile. One cannot advocate peace and disarmament and build components for nuclear weapons. One cannot advocate peace and disarmament and stand idly by while the Americans savage sister countries in Central America with what are illegal activities. Would the Hon. Member comment on that basic hypocrisy in government policy?


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is giving me an opportunity to keep the record straight. In my view, establishing a Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security does not necessarily mean becoming irresponsible. To that extent, I submit that with his comments, the Hon. Member is trying to score cheap political points when he should be considering the bill itself.
Certainly, the Cruise missile problem could be examined by that Institute, as well as other arms-related problems, possibly in the light of American involvement around the world. In my view, the Institute could enlighten the Hon. Member and the whole Canadian people on those issues. I think the Institute will proceed with the studies the hon. member unfortunately did not have the time to make.


Raymond John Skelly: I certainly do not think that the question of scoring points is the issue here. What is at issue is the apparent division between the Government's effort in terms of creating this peace research institute and the serious questions raised by the kind of activities it will be involved in and, on the other hand, its apparent attitude and activities in terms of permitting the testing of that Cruise missile. We in the House know the history of the proposals on the suffocation of nuclear delivery systems.
We are extremely concerned about the building of nuclear components in this country, the Government's attitude toward
sister nations in Central America that are trying to free themselves from dictators and oppression there and the activities of the United States. These are not cheap political points, they are matters of extremely serious concern for the Canadian people. The Government would do well to respond in an effective manner to those concerns.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, the same comments exactly were made by the Hon. Member. Instead of criticizing, he should be happy that we took action along the lines he advocates. When he refers to the Cruise missile, or the suffocation theory, or the manufacture of nuclear components, he should welcome this initiative that he is apparently supporting. Hopefully, the Institute will yield enough influence, so that in the future that kind of thing will not happen anymore, but we should not be living in a dream world the way the Hon. Member would like to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Does the Hon. Member have another question? Debate.


Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-32 is an extremely important and timely Bill. It is timely because of the widespread and growing fear and concern that is felt and expressed by thousands of ordinary Canadians that not enough is being done to move the hands of the nuclear clock back from midnight. It is also important because that fear and concern is justified.
Less than ten years ago I had the privilege of being part of an annual Remembrance Day service when it was possible to say with hope and gratitude that, for the first time since World War II, no wars were being fought anywhere in our world. Although the world was not calm, at least it was, for once, at peace.
Today, less than ten years later, the world is at war in far too many places. Tension, military confrontation and the concomitant risk of resort to the use of nuclear arms are greater threats than any of us can possibly believe we can afford.
The Bill is important because an institute for peace and security could contribute greatly if its mandate is designed properly. Imagine the progress toward true peace that effective research into conflict resolution and verification procedures alone could have. Canada is especially poised in the world as it sits today. We are one of the very few nations left with sufficient credibility around the world to produce such research and have it seen to be objective and intended purely for the development of international peace and harmony.
As Members of the House know too well, credibility is much harder to obtain than it is to lose. It is precisely because of that credibility that we have two obligations. The first is an obligation as a nation to do all that we can. An institute with a proper mandate is an important part of that goal. It is for that reason that we on this side believe that a Canadian institute
April 17, 1984

designed to research ways to make peace happen should be created.
The second obligation arising from that first obligation is to make sure that as we debate this Bill and create this institute we are doing the right thing. It is to make sure that we are creating an institute that, by the very nature and words of its creation, can have credibility. That is why the issue that will be raised by our side consistently throughout this debate will be the question of the quality of the independence of this institute.
Let me divert and talk about the process of arriving at non-partisan agreements. Since coming to the House I have been privileged on two occasions to witness Parties in the House being able to resolve issues or resolve their own conflicts. One such case was referred to by the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) when he talked about the way at least two Parties in the House were able to come to some agreement on the potential of a peace resolution. The other involved a decision by the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) to allow the question of broadcast strategy to be referred to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture prior to the adoption of a firm position by the Government. I believe he did so because some of us told him that the Committee could do good work if it were given a chance. This, the Committee did. It adopted a unanimous report. Much of that report has shown up in the Minister's broadcast strategy.
I find it offensive that the opening comments of the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) contained an assumption in advance of any debate in the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence that consensus is not possible. If that is the attitude, Mr. Speaker, that will be carried into the Committee, then, of course, consensus is not possible because it is that attitude which makes consensus impossible.
I want to put all my comments on the question of independence and the quality of research that needs to be done in the context that I believe consensus is possible. I believe consensus on this issue, among others, and perhaps on this issue above all others, is preferable to conflict. I suppose that is one of the reasons the process which led to the introduction of this resolution and the termination of a conversation between the offices of the Leader of the Government and the Leader of our Party concerns us, and why that conversation terminated so quickly. It should be clear to Members of the Government that an agreement worked out which would have overcome what is sometimes a natural tendency to mistrust each other would have been infinitely preferable.
Let me come to the Bill briefly, Mr. Speaker. Let me say a couple of words about what the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) had to say. I think what is instructive in his speech is that within five seconds of opening his speech today he thought it was important to refer to the creation of "this independent institute". It was his opening phrase and he returned to that phrase at least three times to
International Peace and Security
my knowledge; the blues may show more. One cannot be surprised, therefore, as we read the Bill that has been tabled in the House and we know the question of independence is apparently important in the language of the Minister and that the question of the quality of the independence was part of the discussion between the Leaders' offices, if we ask where are the changes from the draft Bill to this Bill to guarantee that independence? They are not here.
The Minister indicated that the primary purposes of this Bill were, in his words, to increase knowledge of issues and to encourage public discussion. Both of those are positions we support. Both of those are terribly important these days. But, Sir, if the purpose of the institute is to do those things, then how can it be reasonable to argue that the institute should have an obligation to conduct research for the Minister at the Minister's suggestion? The Hon. Member for New Westmin-ster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett) in her comments indicated that perhaps the answer was to abolish Clause 28. That may well be. But it must be clear to the Minister that we believe the Government should understand very early in this debate that it may ask this institute on behalf of Canadians to be one of two things, not both of two things. It can ask this institute to conduct research, to do issue-based research, to make comments to help Canadians and others perhaps understand these issues, or it can perform as a research arm of the Minister advising the Minister. But it cannot, with credibility, do both.
If the Secretary of State for External Affairs looks a little perplexed when I make this point, then let me take him back, through you, Sir, to a debate that occurred, again in the broadcast and communications committee, about two years ago on a similar kind of matter when the Government brought in its estimates of funding for the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and, for presumably good reason, announced it was prepared to permit an increase in the funding of that Council provided that that agency began to do research into specific areas that the Government wanted researched. If the Minister wants to check, he will find that the hue and cry and furore that created in the academic community was unequalled in the five years previous, because the perception was created that the Government proposed to use an independent research agency to do the work the Government wanted done, not the work which the research community believed needed to be done.
We have exactly the same question here, Mr. Speaker. It is not going to go away. The quality of the credibility for all of us-for all the folks in the world-of the research that comes out of this institute will depend upon the degree to which it is perceived to be free from the possibility of direction from the cabinet and government of the day.
Let me go back for a moment to an example, if I may, Sir. In this world the greatest issue confronting us is to find a way to reduce tension. The way, in my view, to do that is to do everything we can in the area of conflict resolution. The quality of the work done on conflict resolution, if it is perceived as being dependent upon the Government or if it is perceived as being directed through Government policy, will

April 17, 1984
International Peace and Security suffer. It must be independent and be seen to be independent. Let us make that point over and over until it is adopted. Alone in the area of reasearch, if I may stay with it, I think there is a legitimate concern as to the degree to which this institute, for the best possible reasons, may impact upon other research agencies in the areas of defence, arms control and strategic studies.
It will be very important in committee, I say to the Minister, that the words he used which are different from the Bill, namely that this institute will have "limited inhouse research capability", be clarified. I may say to Members of the House-I say this with a sense of humour for the moment, not in a partisan way-that we are getting used to Liberals clarifying their comments. But I say seriously to the Minister that this issue of the degree to which this agency will complement and be guaranteed to complement in research terms is an issue. Some people outside as well as some people in this House have a fear that some other Minister, at some other time, will talk about the funds in this agency as meeting the Government's commitment to increased research as opposed to what we believe it should be-an independent, important and special project delivered with public funding through this institute. I never want to see anybody being able to turn to the research community of Canada and say: "We haven't really reduced funds for research in this country because look at the total, including this". That is a concern I have personally, Mr. Speaker.
While I am on that point and just before breaking for lunch, the Minister ought to know that in a way he has in fact introduced a note of confusion today. I may say it is a shame that Members of the Liberal back-bench chose to stop the practice of asking questions of the Minister today because that might have helped the whole debate. But the question will be asked of the Minister, if this agency is to do the work it is supposed to do, why does he talk about separate funding, doubling, for apparently separate work and verification procedures? Presumably if the Minister wants to argue that this institute may do what it wants to do, then presumably if it decides that verification needs to be studied, it must have that right.
May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker?
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Mr. Speaker, the results of a recent study by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business confirm that excessive taxation by all levels of government is driving businesses and jobs out of Canada.
Almost half the 300 smaller Ontario manufacturing firms contacted responded to the survey. Of those 16 per cent already have a plant or branch in the United States and a quarter of them have investigated such a move. John Bulloch warns that 75,000 manufacturing jobs are at risk in Ontario alone.
The businesses contacted believe that Canadian labour costs are at least 10 per cent higher than those in the U.S. They know that the cost of meeting labour standards is higher here and that municipal, business and payroll taxes greatly exceed those in the U.S. Excessive government regulation at all levels is at the top of the list. All levels of government share responsibility for taking the action required to keep businesses in Canada.
The federal Government has the responsibility to take the lead by reducing the onerous burden of payroll taxes and by seeking the co-operation of all levels of government to stop this drain of jobs into the United States.



THE MEDIA


Mr. Marcel Dionne (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the House that the people of Chicoutimi and the Saguenay area are incensed over an article published in the Toronto Star. A newspaperman, David Miller, has insulted them when he tried to make the English-speaking readers of that newpaper believe that Chicoutimi is the poorest city in Canada. It is dishonest to compare any city of Canada with Markham in Ontario which is allegedly the most prosperous city in Canada.
Why did that reporter launch an attack against Chicoutimi? The worst part of it is that, after checking the facts, it appears that all the individuals named in that article except one are nothing but figments of his imagination.
Finally, the article on Chicoutimi was entirely negative, the reporter giving no positive fact at all.
I wish to remind the Toronto Star that Chicoutimi is a university city with one of the best business schools in Canada. Its hospital complex is one of the most important in Quebec. A
April 17, 1984

federal building of several million dollars will be erected to bring together 400 employees working in 20 federal departments in Chicoutimi. Moreover, Chicoutimi is a business city, having two large shopping centres with 250 shops and stores.
The people of Chicoutimi can rightfully demand apologies from the Toronto Star. They could demand a more balanced report which could easily show that Chicoutimi is on the verge of becoming-


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



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to discuss an issue of utmost importance to the potato industry on Prince Edward Island concerning the inspection of potatoes. Potatoes exported from P.E.I. have achieved a standard of high quality throughout the world. It is this reputation which has made the potato industry so important to P.E.I. Good inspection practices for potatoes are essential to keep this reputation. Unfortunately the P.E.I. potato industry has been on a backslide due to the decline in the quality of these inspection services.
The reason for this has been the program of cross-utilization of inspectors which has been used over the past few years. Cross-utilization of inspectors, the use of table stock inspectors to inspect seed potatoes and vice versa, does not work. This is leading to disaster within the industry, as potatoes are being placed on the market which will damage P.E.I.'s reputation for high quality.
There is a continuing downgrading of inspection services on P.E.I. which is placing the industry in jeopardy. Not only has cross-utilization of inspectors hurt the industry, but the federal Government has indicated that it may be cutting back further on mandatory potato inspection. One government official has stated that the reason for further cutbacks in inspection services is due to the lack of available funds. I find this explanation totally unacceptable. The federal Government can find money for countless, less worth-while projects which are not nearly as important to the economy. The Prince Edward Island Potato Producers' Association has pointed out that the honour system does not work, that we need only look to Maine as an example of this, and that should these cutbacks occur we will certainly lose our world renowned status. I urge the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) to study this serious situation surrounding inspection practices.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Andre Maltais (Manicouagan):: Mr. Speaker, the Iron Ore Company has given notice to the Canadian Transport Commission of its intention to discontinue entirely its railway service between Sept-Iles and Schefferville.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly object to this decision of the Iron Ore Company to discontinue rail service between Sept-Iles and Schefferville because following a parliamentary committee meeting we were assured that the service would be maintained.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that in this intance we are faced with a major social and economic problem, and before the CTC has the opportunity to look into the representations submitted by Iron Ore it is of the utmost importance to hear what Indian band councils, as well as local unions and hunters' committees have to say about this problem, a local problem with an economic dimension. Such a decision is totally unacceptable.
Also, I suggest that the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Mulroney), who knows quite well the Iron Ore people, should contact them to make sure that the railway service is maintained as long as all interest parties have not been heard. Because the Iron Ore Company had made a commitment to the Indians to provide them with this service, it would be unfair at this stage to accept its representations.



FINANCE


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, two years ago the Queen proclaimed our new Constitution along with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This guarantees to all Canadians freedom of conscience and religion. Canada has long recognized freedom of conscience as a valid reason for refusing to serve in the military. In the two world wars many conscientious objectors found alternate ways of serving their country.
Today many Canadians are concerned about the spiralling arms race and Canada's part in it. They object to paying taxes for this insanity which threatens our world with nuclear holocaust. People who object to supporting the arms race with their taxes want a positive alternative which will neither do violence to their conscience nor destroy their reputation as good citizens.
I call upon the Government to establish a peace tax fund which could be used for such items as peace research and promoting international understanding. People who contributed would receive a 100 per cent income tax credit up to the percentage of their tax normally allocated to defence spending.

April 17, 1984
A peace tax fund would not only make freedom of conscience a reality, it would also make a positive contribution to Canadian security and world peace.



TOURISM


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, Canadian tourism is suffering at the hands of Canada Customs border officials. I have received correspondence from as far away as Florida where newspaper articles have slammed Canada Customs in no uncertain terms.
The St. Petersburg Times quoted Barry Pitegoff, Director of Research for the Florida Division of Tourism, who was harassed at the border. Ironically, he was heading to Charlottetown to present an address on hospitality at the annual meeting of the Tourism Industry Association of Canada.
In another instance, country music singers Shelly West and David Frizell have vowed never to return to Canada to perform. They were subjected to a strip search at a border crossing at Windsor, and were left embarrassed and devoid of personal dignity. Press coverage of this nature in the United States is doing untold harm to the Canadian tourism industry as a whole.
Reports claim that female customs officials tend to be the most severe with travellers. I am aware that the constant search for illegal goods must take place, but the situation is out of control. I would ask the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism (Mr. Smith) to speak with his colleagues at Canada Customs on this pressing and urgent matter. The present situation is counter-productive to reversing the sky-rocketing tourist deficit.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the House a case which dramatically illustrates the serious inadequacies of the present system for enforcing support and maintenance orders.
Ms. Kerry Moore, who resides in Brandon, Manitoba, is owed more than $5,000 in maintenance payments by her ex-husband, money she has been unable to collect despite numerous legal proceedings which began in January, 1982. Meanwhile she struggles to support herself and her daughter. Her husband has failed to appear in court on more than one occasion, he has ignored court orders to make payments on his arrears, and at present his whereabouts are unknown.
Divorce is difficult enough without the added complications which result when one spouse does not meet his or her
maintenance obligations. All too often women are the victims of this system and many of them, because of their Financial circumstances, find it very difficult to pursue legal action. I regret that some have simply given up.
The Government has, at long last, indicated its willingness to establish a central registry which would keep track of all maintenance and support orders. That would be a good start. But as Kerry Moore's case demonstrates, it is not enough. Along with it must go the power to enforce the orders. Otherwise, single parents like Kerry Moore will continue to be caught between courts which tell them they have legal rights, and a system which offers them little means to protect those rights.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with priorities. During the last year western grain producers have been given a good indication of how low their priority really is with the Government. First the grain freight rates were raised by 20 per cent on January 1, and we can expect a raise of another 300 per cent in the next couple of years. Meanwhile the railways are guaranteed a 40 per cent profit on the movement of grain.
Branch lines are being abandoned, and each abandoned line increases farmer costs and decreases railway costs. Taxes on petroleum have pushed the cost of farm fuel and fertilizers up by 300 per cent or more. Meanwhile the oil companies are given billions of dollars in incentives and tax concessions.
Farm Credit Corporation interest rates have been increased to 14 per cent and 16 per cent. Meanwhile banks are increasing profits because the inflation and the real interest rate spread. Initial grain prices have been lowered.
The Government is unwilling to take a chance on farmers, while it risks billions of dollars on Massey-Ferguson, Chrysler, and other large corporations. Western grain stabilization money which could help many farmers survive sits idle while the Cabinet twiddles its collective thumbs. All these facts, Mr. Speaker, indicate that the Government's priorities are far from the prairie farm.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, one of my constituents is a married civil engineer who selflessly undertook voluntary work overseas for a period of time which proved to be over a year. He received no remuneration for this work other than food and lodging. Upon returning to Canada and being unable to find work, this man learned that he was
April 17, 1984

ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits even though he had accumulated many times the number of sufficient insurable weeks prior to his departure overseas.
Section 18 of the Unemployment Insurance Act stipulates that an extension to the 52-week qualifying period of 20 insurable weeks within the 52-week period prior to a benefit claim may be granted if the claimant proves to the Unemployment Insurance Commission that he or she was not employed in insurable employment during that time because he or she was incapable of working due to a prescribed illness, quarantine, or pregnancy, was in jail, was in attendance at a prescribed course of instruction, or was in receipt of temporary worker's compensation benefits. The qualifying period would thus be extended by the number of weeks a person was in jail, ill, or so forth.
I am suggesting that we treat this formerly employed Canadian at least as well as we treat criminals. The same fate awaits graduate students who study abroad for over a year, or teachers and professionals who are on extended sabbaticals. Is it just to extend the qualifying period for criminals, persons who already place a great strain on our national economy, and do nothing for individuals such as my constituent who contribute to our national and international well-being by volunteering their expertise in countries less fortunate than ours?



PENSIONS


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, Canada's pension system remains a mess. Though criticized and debated for many years, this hard fact remains. Canadians do not have access to fair pension arrangements. Old Age Security with the guaranteed income supplement is the single greatest source of income for the elderly. Fully half of those over the age of 65 must accept income-tested GIS benefits because they do not have adequate pension income from other sources.
The pension system is failing to protect the elderly, and the burden is falling on women. Three-quarters of single pensioners receiving GIS, the poorest of the elderly, are women. Most have incomes well below the poverty line. Even with the Government's announced increase of $1.66 per day, the majority of single pensioners will receive a yearly amount which is over $2,000 below the poverty line.
The Government's response is shamefully inadequate. Changing the rules affecting occupational pension plans will not affect the more than 60 per cent of working women who do not have access to a company pension plan. The RRSP changes will benefit most those with an income averaging $86,000 per year, yet less than 2 per cent of women ever earn that amount in a single year.
The Government says that it has no money and that therefore pensions must wait. At the same time it issues Budgets which grant new corporate tax breaks worth $2.4 billion and provide full inflation protection for certain investments. In
Oral Questions
addition, the Budget of February 15 will provide tax breaks of up to-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Unfortunately the Hon. Member's time has expired.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of National Revenue. However, in his absence I will direct my question to the Minister of Finance. I learned this morning that Richard Barton, the President of Time Air of Lethbridge, Alberta, has now cancelled orders for four of the Dash-8s which cost $6,900,000 each, for a total of $27.6 million. This news comes on top of an already threatened cancellation by Air Atonabee of another $34.5 million worth of aircraft, not to mention another possible cancellation by Norcanair of Saskatoon. In light of the fact that this threatens 2,500 jobs at de Havilland, not to mention the thousands of jobs in the spinoff industries across the country, what does the Minister of Finance intend to do about it?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, it is touching to hear the Hon. Member speaking for members of the Tory Party in this manner after their attack on de Havilland. The support that the federal Government has given to de Havilland to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars has been consistently attacked by members of the Conservative Party.
I would like to tell the Hon. Member that we have provided support to de Havilland and we will continue to provide support to make sure that this company is actively producing planes. Obviously, however, the Canadian Government cannot guarantee the intentions of every single company which is considering purchasing those planes.
Regarding the information to which the Hon. Member has referred, that is obviously a decision that a private entrepreneur can make on his own, for all kinds of reasons. He can decide whether or not he wants to put in an order for, or buy, a particular plane. That is a decision that is in the hands of the private entrepreneurs concerned.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, the Minister of Finance obviously does not understand that it was the Liberal Government that made the commitment to these aircraft companies that it would assist them if they placed orders for de Havilland Dash-8s.

April 17, 1984
Oral Questions


AIR ATONABEE-OFFER OF INTEREST TERMS
Mr. Bill  Doram@Peterborough: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In light of the fact that an Irish company came to Canada and offered an interest rate of 7.5 per cent to Air Atonabee if Air Atonabee would switch their order over to that company, and in light of the fact that that particular Irish-built aircraft costs over $2 million less than the Dash-8, how could the Minister of Finance have stood in the House yesterday and, in answer to questions, said that Canada must respect its international commitments to other countries? If it is all right for an Irish company to offer 7.5 per cent interest rates to Air Atonabee, why is it not all right for the Canadian Government to offer 7.5 per cent interest rates to Air Atonabee?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, it is again interesting to hear that the Tories are recognizing that it is this Government which has guaranteed support to de Havilland, contrary to the attitude of members of the Conservative Party in that regard. I must remind my colleague that we are not only giving support to de Havilland but we are giving domestic support to a large number of firms through various fiscal incentives. We believe that the Dash-8 is an excellent airplane and that it compares favourably with other airplanes which provide the same kind of service. However, de Havilland must compete in the market.


GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE INQUIRY
William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, the Minister obviously does not understand that they are sitting with $100 million worth of orders and they are blaming the situation on the fact that they are members in the GATT agreement. These companies from offshore are coming in and disturbing the market where we need the jobs. The Minister says we are not in a position to help. If the Government is not going to help de Havilland in this situation, then the Government does not care. It is high time the Government honoured its commitment to these airlines when it said: "Order from de Havilland, the Crown corporation, and we as a Government will make the necessary incentives available in order that we will be competitive." Why don't you say it? You can't run an airline. You never could run an airline. Why don't you make some of those-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member should direct his remarks to the Chair.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, not only is the Hon. Member losing his cool, he is looking more and more ridiculous. The Conservatives have opposed support for de Havilland. This Government has provided support to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. The Conservatives can talk out of both sides of their mouth as much as they want on this issue. The record is clear as to where they stand on support for the aerospace industry. They have attacked Canadair, de Havilland, and Bell Helicopter.
The record is clear. We have supported the aerospace industry in this country to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, and we are going to continue that support.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Science and Technology who seems to have found time to return to the House. Yesterday the Macdonald Commission produced a list of problems and choices, but little by way of solutions. In fact if McDonald's ran their restaurants the way Don Macdonald wrote his interim report, it would be all bun and no beef for the customers. Is the Minister happy with the ambivalent approach which Macdonald takes to the challenge of technology, or does he still support his submission to the Commission where he said that Canada must raise its commitment to research and development in a major way in order to create thousands and thousands of new jobs for Canadians?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, clearly I stand behind the submission I made to the Macdonald Commission. From what I have seen of the report, and I have not had the opportunity to study it in great detail, it does raise these issues. It seems to me the purpose of a report at this stage is to raise these issues for the attention and commentary of Canadians, those in public life, universities and industry. I believe the preliminary report will indeed serve that purpose.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Some of us believe that, by the time Macdonald gets his act together, many of the solutions will be well on their way to accomplishment.


GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT IN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister have an explanation for why, in the two years he has been Minister of State for Science and Technology, Canada's investment in research and development had dropped from 1.29 per cent of our Gross National Product to 1.28 per cent this year? According to Statistics Canada, it will only reach 1.24 per cent of GNP next year. That is totally at variance with his commitment, and his Government's commitment, to create additional jobs by increasing that investment to 1.5 per cent GNP by 1985, only a few months away?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, there are several points I would like to make in which the Hon. Member may be interested. First, the Government's commitment to research and development has been consistent. The Government's com-
April 17, 1984

mitment is the only one that in fact has not decreased during that period. Second, during a recession it is unfortunate, but understandable, that in the industrial sector R and D suffers. We all know that. It is unfortunate, but that is one of the outcomes of any recession. It is one area where cuts are made. Third, the economic growth during the period, and this is the good news which I am sure the Hon. Member will want to hear, exceeded the anticipated rate of growth, and hence the percentage of R and D as measured as a percentage of GNP obviously declined.


BANKS AND BANKING
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. It concerns some very serious changes that are taking place in the managerial level of the Bank of Montreal. Yesterday we learned that the Government has given approval for upwards of 50, 60, and perhaps more positions in that Canadian bank to be taken over by American citizens, including the chairman of the bank, who is an American citizen and who recently said of the Bank of Montreal: "The bank is no longer a Canadian bank with international appendages. It is an international bank that happens to be based in Canada." Is the Minister concerned that this Americanization of key positions in that bank will lead to banking decisions being made in Canada that are not in the national interest of Canada?


Marc Lalonde: No, Mr. Speaker. I will give a little explanation. The Bank of Montreal has indeed become a very important international institution. In that sense I certainly welcome the fact that Canadian financial institutions are going to be able to take on other institutions on a world-wide scale. This country can afford large institutions that are able to compete around the world.
As to knowing whether decisions would be made contrary to the national interest, I remind my colleague that banks in Canada are very heavily regulated. They are supervised by the Superintendent of Banks. Also, they are in constant contact with the Bank of Canada.
As far as management in that institution is concerned, at the present time there are 196 officers in Canada with the rank of vice-president or higher. Out of that number, 19 are non-Canadians, including 12 Americans. In posts abroad, there are 15 Canadians in senior positions. I am not nervous about there being 19 foreigners working for the Bank of Montreal in Canada. There are 15 Canadians working abroad for that bank, in senior positions. This is 19 out of 196 positions. We should let those institutions try to recruit the best people for the job, realizing that there are people in Canada for those jobs, as 90 per cent are now Canadian citizens.
Oral Questions


INVESTMENT IN UNITED STATES BANK-LEGAL CONSEQUENCES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the people of Canada will certainly be reassured to learn that a Canadian bank operating abroad has Canadian people in key personnel positions. The Minister says that as though we should be surprised. Most of us would take that for granted.
The Minister knows the Government has given approval for a whole batch of additional Americans to take on senior positions in the bank. Since he is not concerned about the decisions being made by the bank, I would ask about its current plans to invest some $700 million in the United States to take over the Harris Bank in that country. Will the Minister confirm that, if this operation is successful, the Bank of Montreal, allegedly a Canadian bank, in all of its operations abroad will be subject to American law?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is asking for a legal opinion. He knows that under the rules I cannot give a legal opinion in the House.


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL ASSURANCE ON EXTRATERRITORIAL APPLICATION OF U.S. LAWS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I am not asking for a legal opinion. 1 had hoped that the Minister of Finance, who obviously did some homework in anticipation of this question, had looked into this crucial question, because 80 per cent of the profits of the Bank of Montreal come from Canadians. We expect that bank to operate according to Canadian law, not according to U.S. law.
Will the Minister assure the House that he will look into this matter, and if the Bank of Montreal has managed to take over this U.S. bank, will he confirm that it will be subjected to U.S. law, not Canadian law? If this has not yet happened, will the Minister give us his assurance that the Government of Canada will take steps to stop the Bank of Montreal from moving into this kind of U.S. operation and ensure that Canadian banks, with Canadian money in them, will be operating according to Canadian law?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell my hon. friend that he knows, or should know, the position of the Canadian Government about extraterritorial application of legislation, particularly American law. We have taken a consistent position in that regard over the years.
As far as asking for particular legal opinions is concerned, he knows that this is not permitted under the rules. I can assure him that indeed I have examined the situation and I am not going to take any steps to prevent the takeover of the Harris Bank by the Bank of Montreal. I believe this is a development which is a normal part of business and one which should be encouraged in terms of building strong multinationals in this country. I am not leaving the multinationals only to foreigners and foreign countries.


John Edward Broadbent: But subject to American law.

April 17, 1984
Oral Questions


Marc Lalonde: We should have strong Canadian multinationals based in Canada, and I will support such developments if they happen.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the widespread interest and concern over the Canadian Pacific takeover of Eastern Provincial Airways could the Minister tell this House whether, before the sale or the purchase was announced, he had conversations with top officials at CP and what assurances were given that the service in the region affected by EPA would be continued and there would be no displacement of jobs?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is quite right, that the purchase by Canadian Pacific of EPA is a very important step. We want to make sure that there is every protection of the interests of the Atlantic region. As we understand it, the commitment by CP is to maintain the headquarters and maintenance facilities in the Halifax region, and to maintain EPA as a full subsidiary. It will not be merged into the normal operating lines of CP itself, but will provide a subsidiary feeder system, and the full maintenance and activities will be retained in the Atlantic region. That, of course, will also be part of the examination the CTC will have to undertake when it approves the sale, as it must do under the National Transportation Act. That will be a proper opportunity for any conditions like that to be completely and quite clearly finalized as far as that sale is concerned.


CANADIAN TRANSPORT COMMISSION HEARINGS
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister for that answer. However, would he just go one step further? In terms of my question, he did not quite touch on the assurances which were given to him or his officials. Were the assurances given by the President of CP, at that level? And because of the public interest affecting such a large area of Atlantic Canada, would he expedite whatever hearing procedures there are before the CTC so that there can be public input at that hearing?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I should explain that I was out West when the announcement came, so I did not talk directly to the CP officials. However, officials of my Department did, and did report to me that, in fact, there were very clear commitments. I should say as well, Mr. Speaker, because of the interest of the Hon. Member, that one of the advantages of that particular purchase is the commitment by CP to invest substantial amounts of capital in the refitting of the EPA fleet. I believe the Hon. Member knows, because he has raised it in committee, that
there has been some concern expressed in the Atlantic region about the equipment problems. CP is now prepared to invest money in its upgrading. However, we will make sure that those hearings are proceeded with as rapidly as possible. As the Hon. Member knows, if there is any question of public interest, then the CTC has a right to call public hearings in that respect.


WESTERN GRAIN STABILIZATION ACT
Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-LIoydminster):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. The Minister, I am sure, is aware that farmers enrolled in the Western Grain Stabilization Act are presently in the fields making an effort to produce grain and food for a hungry world. Many of those farmers, Mr. Speaker, are unable to secure the credit or the money to purchase the needed inputs for production. They do not have that ability because of falling grain prices. Is the Minister prepared, today or tomorrow, to bring in an amendment to the Western Grain Stabilization Act, which can be passed, in order to trigger a pay-out from the $1 billion fund?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I certainly share the Hon. Member's admiration for the work of western farmers. I was in his province yesterday and fully regarded the intense activity in which those farmers are engaged. I would say to the Hon. Member that this Government equally respects that activity. We are considering changes to the Western Grain Stabilization Act and, as soon as Cabinet has had a full opportunity to look at it, I know that the Minister of State responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board would be in a position to make an announcement. However, obviously there would have to be full cabinet consultation before that takes place.


REQUEST FOR EARLY INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION
William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, on April 5 the House Leader for our Party said that we would pass seven Bills for one so that the Government could clear the Order Paper to bring in this legislation. The President of the Privy Council on April 5, as reported at page 2763 of Hansard, stated: "The Government is responsible for the House business". I ask again, will the Government, which is responsible for House business, order that business so that the producers of food for a hungry world will have the ability to do what they are best at-producing grain?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. House Leader said in the first week of April, we are always pleased to have the Opposition make offers of co-operation. It happens so infrequently that it does catch us sometimes by surprise. However, the fact is that we are always open to overtures of that kind.
April 17, 1984

As I explained in my first answer, the matter is very much a priority with our Government and very much a priority with Cabinet. As soon as we are in a position to complete the quite complicated discussions about what is the best and most effective way of dealing with amendments to that Act, they will be, I know, announced by the Minister of State.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to direct a question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The Minister knows that the Bank of Montreal in the last few years has recruited two dozen or more senior executives who are non-Canadians. It also has authorization from the Minister's Department to recruit another 25 or 30 people. Given the fact that the Government of Canada, and the provinces, in recent years have spent tens of millions of dollars for post-graduate studies at our universities, turning out thousands of economists, graduates in business administration, and chartered accountants, many of whom cannot find jobs, will the Minister explain why his Department has been so generous in giving the Bank of Montreal permission to bring people into the country? That is the kind of generosity which no other company in Canada has been able to get.


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would be accurate to characterize this as some extraordinary generosity. The Hon. Member, I hope, will recognize that the bank is engaged in international activities. If we expect to employ Canadians abroad in the bank offices which are undertaking those activities outside the country, it is reasonable to expect that we should have some people entering the country from outside to take positions in Canada as part of their regular career development. If one were to look at the balance between the number of Canadians working abroad for the bank and the number of foreigners who are working in Canada in the bank, you would not find it was particularly favourable to the entry of foreigners, on balance.
The fact is that we have here an international operation which employs Canadians outside the country and we should, I believe, expect it would be natural that a reasonable number of foreigners would be operating within Canada as part of the career pattern they are following in the international activities of the company.
Oral Questions
temporary employment positions, but permanent employment positions. The Minister and every other Member of Parliament have had requests from constituents, from small-business people who have asked permission to bring people in and have been turned down. The Department has said that if there is a Canadian who can fill the job, it will not give permission. Why does the bank receive the kind of permission which no other company or individual in Canada has been able to get?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, there are other companies which make use of the same kind of provision.


Mr. Blenkarn:: Not very many.


John (Moody) Roberts: I really cannot understand the basis of the Hon. Member's question. Is he really saying that it is desirable to have Canadians employed outside the country and absolutely refuse to have the same operation employ people from outside the country in Canada? Is he really suggesting that we can insist only Canadians be employed, both inside and outside Canada? There has to be a reasonable balance. If we expect Canadians to be employed in our banking activities outside the country, I think it is reasonable to accept that we are going to have to employ some people from other countries in the banking structure within Canada.


NEWFOUNDLAND OFFSHORE RESOURCES
Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy. John Turner was quoted yesterday as saying that under his leadership Newfoundland would get the lion's share of offshore revenues, and a more friendly reception in offshore talks with the federal Government. He also bragged that he had no battle scars. This statement may be clarified or changed today, Mr. Speaker, but can the Minister tell the House the Government's current position?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I will wait for the clarification.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Great stuff, Jean.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, you are going to think we got together to write that.


PERMISSION GRANTED BY GOVERNMENT
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Minister knows that the Bank of Montreal is neither the biggest nor the most profitable bank in Canada, and the other banks have not followed this procedure. I say to the Minister that what we are looking at is not just the granting of


OFFSHORE OIL INCENTIVE GRANTS
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, recently the Minister of Economic Development questioned whether or not incentive grants are the best way of bringing in offshore oil. Can the Minister clarify the confusion this conflict is creating in the minds of the Canadian people, with his Cabinet col-

April 17, 1984
Oral Questions
league's statements on the one hand and the Government's position on the other?
Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Mr. Speaker, the grants were established in the NEP so that it would be possible to Canadianize the oil and gas industry in Canada. That was the only mechanism available to give more grants to a Canadian company than to an international or multinational. You cannot do it by tax incentive because it is not permissible under the law. That is why we went with the system of grants.
If you want to depart from that system, Mr. Speaker, you more or less sacrifice a big aspect of the NEP, that of Canadianization. That is why it is the policy of the Government to carry on with the PIP grants.


Mr. Munro (Hamilton East):: And frontier development.


TOURISM
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and relates to a statement issued this weekend by the Minister of State for Small Business and Tourism. He said: "If the tourism industry gets more bitchy or complaining, it will be hard to persuade the Cabinet to continue this current level of funding". It seems to me that a stupid statement like that qualifies the Minister to join the group of Liberal leadership candidates. Therefore I ask the Prime Minister if it is government policy not to allow the industry to voice its concern in public. If not, will he ask the Minister to withdraw that silly statement?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the statement, but I will gladly take notice of the question and try and see what was said.


TAX ON ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES
Otto John Jelinek: The Minister of Tourism may not like it, but I will raise a concern by way of a question to the Minister of Finance. The major concern facing the tourism industry is cost competitiveness, which last year alone resulted in a staggering $2.1 billion deficit. Will the Minister consider allowing hotels, restaurants, and tourist resorts to buy liquor and beer tax free? According to most studies this would not only help stimulate the industry but create a greater net return to the government Treasury? Would he consider such a move?


Marc Lalonde: No, Mr. Speaker.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. He and his colleagues often stand up in this House and brag about how well their job creation programs have worked. The city of Port Alberni has tried all of the Government's job creation programs, including NEED, EBAP, CCDP, CRP, Canada Works, and Summer Canada. We have even had an ILAP program. Despite the best efforts of the community, we still have 3,000 people on unemployment insurance and 2,500 people on welfare in the Port Alberni Valley.
Will the Minister now tell the people of that area what plans the Government has, beyond these short-term job-creation programs, to reduce dependency on UIC and welfare? Will he indicate if he is prepared to open negotiations with the Province of British Columbia on a forestry agreement so we can get people back to work in that industry?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, we have undertaken discussions with most provinces about economic regional development agreements. We certainly are quite ready and willing to sit down with the Government of British Columbia also. Agreements have been signed with a number of provinces, and in some other provinces they are under negotiation. The same rule applies to British Columbia as to any other province.


Edward Allan Miller: Obviously one of the suggestions from a forest community is to see people go back to work in reforesting the land, Mr. Speaker.


VOLUNTARY EARLY RETIREMENT POSSIBILITIES
Edward Allan Miller: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pursue a question asked by my colleague from Hamilton Mountain yesterday. Some 1,400 people in Port Alberni indicated they would be interested in early retirement through the Labour Assistance Benefits Program. Will the Minister consider looking at the possibility of early retirement at age 60 on a voluntary basis, and what mechanism he can provide people in the age bracket of 55 to 60 who are unable to find work or get job retraining?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the Hon. Member's question is really directed to the possibilities of ILAP adjustment relating to workers in situations he has described. These matters are before Cabinet at the present time, and I think he can expect an announcement forthwith.
April 17, 1984

Oral Questions


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport I will direct my question to the Minister of Finance. If the Minister has had an opportunity to go over the financial statement of Canadian National Railways he will note that everywhere the railway operates in competition with private industry, as in the hotel, trucking, and express businesses, it loses money. Given that, can the Minister tell us why the Government does not direct the CNR to privatize its hotel, trucking, and other operations which cost the corporation and the Government money?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the CNR, along with other Crown corporations, has been contacted by me to discuss how to provide adjustments relating to various subsidiary operations. Their boards of directors are addressing this question at the present time. I would be quite happy if the Hon. Member wished to attend the committee, I think it is this afternoon, to discuss it. We could do so with more length, more leisure, and more edification than we can in Question Period. I invite him to join us this afternoon.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, can we take it that it is the policy of the Minister and his Government that the CNR will get out of these money losing businesses and turn them over to private corporations which will operate them at a profit? They only lose money because they are so inefficient and poorly directed. The hotel operation, for example, is a disgrace and, as the Minister knows, has been for some period of time. The Minister knows we have been losing money for dozens of years on CN hotels. Why do we still operate that business?


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for Canada Post. Last Friday I was approached by a very irate constituent. He had been charged 10 cents by the Post Office before he could get his government cheque. It was explained to him that this was charged because the letter was non standard mail. When he asked why it was non standard mail it was pointed out to him that his postal code was not evident in the window of the envelope. When and why did the Post Office decide to charge this so-called double deficiency charge on benefit payments sent out under government programs?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I am quite surprised by the hon. member's statement. I had always thought that the cheques issued by the Canadian government bore the proper postal code. I am going to verify this, but I would be extremely surprised if indeed these government dispatches were not correctly addressed.


NON-APPEARANCE OF POSTAL CODE ON SECURITY CHEQUE ENVELOPES
William C. Scott: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Did the Post Office inform her that all benefit recipients would be subject to this double deficiency charge every time the postal code happened not to appear on the face of the envelopes?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, it did not come to my attention, but I will check with officials.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I do not have to draw to the attention of Members of this House that this Government most often shares a different point of view from the Hon. Member. We believe that there are often very good reasons for supporting a transportation service which is vital to the economic development of a particular region. I would draw to his attention the great importance of the maritime freight rates where the Government of Canada supports a major subsidy program for the railways. That in itself is a major source of jobs and economic development. I hope the Hon. Member might talk to some of his colleagues from the Atlantic region and learn something about how valuable the support of transportation services really can be.


CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It is with regard to the proposed royal commission on the drug industry. Has the Minister in fact been planning such a royal commission? If so, when would that royal commission be reporting? In the interim, will the policy on generic or no name drugs, which had been enunciated by the former Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, apply?


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are planning a commission. It has not been announced yet. I will release details when that announcement is made.

April 17, 1984
Oral Questions


GOVERNMENT POLICY ON GENERIC DRUGS
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. When her predecessor considered the question of no name or generic drugs, he had a plan whereby there would be a longer period of time on a payback for companies that had developed drugs. Is that policy, which her predecessor announced prior to her assuming the porfolio, the policy of the Government, or has she backed off from that policy as well?


Judith A. Erola: Mr. Speaker, obviously the commission will be looking at all facets of it. Until the recommendations come forward there will be no changes in policy.


WESTERN GRAIN STABILIZATION ACT
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Government House Leader. Would he consider bringing forward amendments to the western grain stabilization fund before the Easter break? If he would, we would be prepared to sit this evening, and perhaps again tomorrow evening if necessary, in order to pass it.


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I will consult with the Minister of Agriculture. I think I will be in a position to give the Hon. Member an answer when we come back after the recess.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. The United States is considering putting further restrictions on, or even banning, the use of leaded gasoline, because the EPA has estimated that approximately 12 per cent of Americans are switching from the unleaded form to the leaded form due to price factors. Is the Minister familiar with the number of people in Canada who would be switching from unleaded to leaded gasoline because of price? What sort of compliance factors do we have in Canada for the regulations that are now in place?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of the Environment: Mr. Speaker, the practice of switching comes under the responsibility of provincial Governments. I raised that matter at the last meeting of Environment Ministers in Winnipeg. It is a subject of continuous examination. It is my intention to raise it again next fall, to ensure that the practice is kept under control and ultimately reduced to a minimum.


ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATIONS
Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same Minister. I appreciate that there are provincial controls in terms of the regulations. However, certainly there is a federal interest and responsibility in terms of the concentration of lead in the atmosphere, and the total effect. Would the Minister consider asking the advisory committee which he appointed in December, 1983, or in fact the Department of the Environment, to undertake an assessment of the amount of compliance with the regulations which are in place now?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of the Environment: Mr. Speaker, first we must assess the exact extent of the problem. That is a matter for the provinces to establish and convey, hopefully at the next meeting of CCREM. If that does not become the case, I will certainly consider the alternatives.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville on a supplementary to a previous question.


WESTERN GRAIN STABILIZATION ACT
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Government House Leader. In reply to the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain he said he would consider this after Easter. In view of the plight of the prairie farmers who are starting seeding very shortly, would he not consider meeting the two opposition House Leaders with a view to getting this amendment to the western grain stabilization plan passed before the Easter recess, perhaps by sitting this evening or tomorrow evening, so we can have a pay-out this spring?


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I have not had the time to consult with the Minister of Agriculture since the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain asked the question. Therefore, the answer is the same.


INDUSTRY
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
Yesterday, the Minister of Finance answered a question that was put to him by my colleague from Etobicoke Centre concerning the future of Bell Helicopter; the Minister merely took the opportunity to make a statement which I consider quite partisan.
April 17, 1984

The Minister of Finance is fully aware that an investigative study by Charpentier and Provost is making headlines in a Montreal daily newspaper. In light of commitments made by Bell Helicopter and in light of requirements stated by the Government-and I would like to state unequivocally that I am most interested in the success of this business venture- could the Minister of Finance, with a view to giving complete information to all Canadians, make an assessment of the study conducted by the authors of these articles published in a Montreal newspaper, articles which seem to me to be quite negative as to sales projections? In my view, this would be the best way to reassure the people of Quebec concerning the future of Bell Helicopter.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I did not make any partisan statement yesterday. I have simply put into the record the approach and the position stated by the Progressive Conservative party's official critic for industry. The critic, who appeared in various interviews on television and other media, has stated on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party a position which is quite negative concerning the Bell Helicopter project.
The Hon. Member could look up quotations on this matter, and if he is too embarrassed to ask, I will be very pleased to provide them to him. He will realize that the official position of the Progressive Conservative Party, as stated by the Official Opposition critic, was extremely negative regarding the Bell Helicopter project. I must say the Opposition was also very critical about Canadair on various occasions. I will be pleased to provide those references as well.
Conservative Members are now changing their mind because they realize that they have put their foot in it; they realize that they were being blamed by the population of the province of Quebec because of their attitude about both Bell Helicopter and Canadair.
Regarding the question put by the Hon. Member, I would invite him to read a speech which was to be delivered today by a spokesman from Bell Helicopter stating their answer to the allegations published in the papers.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER REASSURE QUEBECERS AND OTHER CANADIANS
Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
The Minister is well aware of the fact that my party has made a point of speaking against Canadair and de Havilland's mismanagement; it now expresses the wish that Bell Helicopter be well managed. Never has my party denounced the idea and the objective of developing advanced technology in Canada generally and Quebec in particular. That is my party's position. I think the Minister should respond to these articles in a Montreal daily and state unequivocally whether there is any basis to these articles and whether the assessment made by
Oral Questions
the authors-who seem like responsible people-is appropriate. In order to reassure Canadians and Quebecers on Bell Helicopter's future, could the Minister deny these articles, unless he has no choice but to recognize that they are partly founded.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend should acquaint himself with the position taken by the official critic of the Progressive Conservative Party on industry, trade and commerce matters-


Roch La Salle: On management!


Marc Lalonde: -and I do realize how unhappy he must be with them, because the Progressive Conservative Party has systematically denounced the support which the government has given to Canadair-


Roch La Salle: To the management! Senator Argue has given ample evidence of that and you know so!


Marc Lalonde: -and the support given by the government to Bell Helicopter. The fact of the matter is that the Hon. Member is already complaining about the mismanagement of Bell Helicopter-


Roch La Salle: That is not true!


Marc Lalonde: -which is not in operation as yet. We know what is the position of the Progressive Conservative Party on this. Whenever the government is considering a major development or advanced technology project for Quebec-


Roch La Salle: How dishonest can you get!


Marc Lalonde: -his party has been against it, and the record is clear on this.
The Hon. Member, therefore, should find out about the positions of his own party generally, and read the statement which Bell Helicopter's representatives have made concerning this-


Roch La Salle: I thought you were more responsible than that.


Marc Lalonde: -to know exactly where his party stands on the Bell Helicopter project.


An Hon. Member:: Listen to his reply!


Marc Lalonde: This project will be developed in Quebec against the objections of the Progressive Conservative Party.

April 17, 1984
Business of the House


PETITIONS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Gourde), by filing it with the Clerk of the House on Monday, April 16, 1984, and the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Okanagan-Similkameen (Mr. King) on Monday, April 16, 1984, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



POINT OF ORDER


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I made note of your remarks with respect to the unparliamentary nature of my remark directed to the Hon. Member for Brampton-George-town (Mr. McDermid) the other day. Naturally, I wish to withdraw it, although may I add that it was one of the few remarks-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carr Munro: -that I made in the House that received so little controversy since it was made. However, 1 withdraw it.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As a result of exchanges earlier, I think I must ask the Minister of Agriculture if he is prepared to advise the Government House Leader whether or not he has amendments to the Western Grain Stabilization Act ready-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. On one day of the week there is a traditional question relating to House business. The Chair would entertain the question at that point, but it is not a point of order. Since we adjourn tomorrow, the Chair would be prepared to consider questions relating to House business tomorrow.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, since we are not sitting on Thursday this week, may I ask-


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has indicated that it would be prepared to consider questions relating to House business on Wednesday instead of Thursday this week.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, in order to prepare for the possibility of dealing with this matter tomorrow, I request the
indulgence of the Chair in order to ask the Minister of Agriculture if he would be prepared to submit amendments to the Western Grain Stabilization Act to the Government House Leader and we will volunteer to meet tonight, tomorrow night or, if necessary, Thursday morning by special agreement.


Mr. Speaker:: This places the Chair in a certain difficulty. There is a traditional way of dealing with House business. There are the usual channels by which information is transferred and discussions take place relating to House business. Regretfully, I must rule that this is not a point of order. It is not a question which the Chair will consider at this point.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the third report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments in both official languages, to which, pursuant to Standing Order 69(13), the Committee requests a comprehensive response.


Mr. Speaker:: Statements by Ministers.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to ask whether the Minister of Agriculture would be prepared at this time to make a statemement on motions regarding the Western Grain Stabilization Act.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member is not raising a point of order. The Chair has called for statements by Ministers and the Minister has not risen.


PETITION
Mr. Bud Bradley (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege and honour to present a petition signed by some 14,700 constituents of southern Ontario who are extremely concerned with the effects federal taxes are having on the tobacco and related industries in this country.
The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefore provide remedy, humbly sheweth that the federal excise tax

April 17, 1984

placed on tobacco products is therefore a serious threat to employment and economic viability in the tobacco industry and the communities involved.
The petitioners hope that in your examination of the petition you will find the petition in order and that you will exercise the discretionary powers vested in the Office of the Speaker of the House of Commons to allow discussion and referral to a committee at the earliest possible time in order that employment and economic viability in this region of Canada may be preserved.


NATIONAL FLAG OF CANADA MANUFACTURING STANDARDS ACT
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-234, an Act to establish standards for the manufacture of the national flag of Canada.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to ensure that a high quality of material, design and colour will be used in the manufacture of the Canadian flag. The objective is to reduce fading and other signs of wear which render our flags unsightly after a short period of use.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read a second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 148, 373, 472 and 605.


Mr. Crosby: 1.	Did Mr. R.A. Bandeen, as President of the Canadian National Railways, refuse to attend the hearing conducted by the Canadian Transport Commission relating to the acquisition by Canadian Pacific Limited of the Dart shipping group and, if so (a) for what reason (b) was a legal technicality involved and, if so, for what reason did he not appear on a voluntary basis to explain relevant matters?
2.	Was Mr. Bandeen paid fees or other remuneration by the CAST shipping group with respect to services provided as director, officer or otherwise and were any of the funds paid to him returned to the CNR?
Order Paper Questions


Lloyd Axworthy: The Management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows:
1.	Mr. R. A. Bandeen, as President of Canadian National Railway Company, did not attend the hearing conducted by the Canadian Transport Commission relating to the acquisition by Canadian Pacific Limited of an interest in the Dart shipping group on the basis that both his appearance at the public hearing and the information requested of him, with respect to the CN/CAST relationship, was totally irrelevant to the terms of reference of a public hearing which involved the acquisition of an interest in a totally different shipping line, namely Dart, by a totally different railway company, namely Canadian Pacific Limited.
In addition, the subpoena contemplated that Mr. Bandeen would bring certain documents with him relating to the earnings resulting from CN's holdings in the CAST organization. It was Canadian National's position that, in addition to that information being irrelevant for the purpose of the public hearing, it was also confidential and privileged in nature since (1) CN's holdings/investments are in connection with private companies which do not disclose their financial statements and in which Canadian National holds only a minority shareholding interest and (2) that disclosure could only be detrimental and cause serious financial harm to these companies and their shareholders.
2.	Mr. Bandeen was not paid fees or other remuneration by the CAST shipping group with respect to services provided as director, officer or otherwise.


Mr. Huntington: 1.	To date, what was the total cost to the taxpayer or to any Crown corporation or agency of the production and screening of television commercials referring to Canadian National Limited which were shown on the CTV morning program "Canada AM"?
2.	What (a) was the total cost of advertising on each morning program (b) was the total cost of production of each one-minute commercial (c) company or companies were employed to produce the commercials?


Lloyd Axworthy: The Management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows:
1.	All costs associated with placing television commercials on the CTV program "Canada AM" were paid by CN. The total for the two years 1982 and 1983 was $444,470.
The appearance of CN television commercials on "Canada AM" is part of a larger campaign that CN has had underway since 1968. The costs for any particular TV program are not readily available for the years prior to 1982 because earlier records were not maintained in such manner. However, the above sum represents a typical level of exposure that CN has purchased in recent years.
2.	(a) Average cost per programme:
1982	$651
1983	$773

April 17, 1984
Order Paper Questions
(b)	All English language commercials produced for our advertising campaign each year appear in rotation on "Canada AM". The proportion of the total production cost relative to their exposure on "Canada AM" is $10,500 for each of the years 1982 and 1983. This is an average because expenditure is based on commercials having a two-year span of usefulness.
(c)	SDA and Bob Harwood Productions.


Mr. Howie: 1.	To the knowledge of the government what was the total cost of the downtown Moncton, New Brunswick, Revitalization Plan and did the government pay any portion of the cost and, if so (a) what amount (b) under what programs was the assistance given and, in each case (i) what amount was allocated (ii) how and when were assistance applications filed?
2.	Did any department oversee the federal role in the project and, if so, which department?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works):: 1. The Revitalization of Downtown Moncton Plan dated July 27, 1983 was prepared by municipal staff. The federal government is not aware of the cost to produce it.
(a) and (b) Not applicable.
2. Not applicable.


Mr. Corbett: Are there any licenced eel fishermen in New Brunswick and, if so, what are the names and addresses of such fishermen in (a) Queen's County (b) King's County (c) Saint John County (d) Sunbury County?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Yes (see attached list).
Following is a list of licenced eel fishermen in New Brunswick:
(a) QUEENS COUNTY DISTRICT #56
Bruce Allen	R.R. #1	Gagetown, N.B. EOG 1V0Carl A. Allen	R.R. #1	Gagetown, N.B. EOG 1V0Allan Chapman	R.R. #1	Cody's Queens Co., N.B. EOE 1E0George Chase	R.R. #1	Gagetown Queens Co., N.B. EOG 1V0Gary Robert Cormier	123 Gould St.	Dieppe, N.B.James Lloyd Murray	R.R. #1	Gagetown Queens Co., N.B. EOG IVOGeorge B. Robinson	R.R. #1	Cody's Queens Co., N.B. EOE 1E0Reginald G. Robinson	R.R. #1	Cody's Queens Co., N.B. EOE IE0
(b) KINGS COUNTY DISTRICT #55
Terry Hugh	R.R. #2	Clifton Royal Kings Co., N.B. EOG 1N0Hugh Raymond	185 Adelaide St.	Saint John, N.B.Cunningham	E2K 1X2Chester H. Murray	R.R. #1, Box 10	Grand Bay, N.B. EOG 1W0Joseph D. McAulay	P.O. Box 132	Grand Bay, N.B. EOG 1W0Robert McGuire	R.R. #2	Clifton Royal Kings Co., N.B. EOG 1N0(c) SAINT JOHN COUNTY DISTRICT #48 & 49	Bernard W. Brown	93 Germain St. West	Saint John, N.B. E2M 2G2Donville E. Cormier	131 Riverview Dr.	St. John West, N.B. E2M 1M5William Curtis Cormier	109 Riverview Dr.	St. John West, N.B. E2M 1M5Roy Elmer Dixon	P.O. Box 756	Hampton, N.B. EOG 1Z0John Frederick Green	33 Glengarry Dr.	Saint John, N.B. E2J 2Y4Harold Mang	R.R. #1	St. Martins, N.B. EOG 2Z0Michael O'Donnell	280 Duke St. West	Saint John, N.B. E2L 1P3Norman J. Richard	52 Saint John St. West	Saint John, N.B. E2M 2C9(d) SUNBURY COUNTY DISTRICT #57	Alcide Cormier	123 Gould St.	Dieppe, N.B.Wendell E. Coy	R.R. #1	Gagetown, N.B. EOE 1V0Neil L. Smith	R.R. #3	Oromocto, N.B.Donald B. Perry	Coles Island, N.B. EOE 1E0Ronald J. Nowland	Pokemouche, N.B. E0B 2J0Leo Robert Rivers	Pokemouche, N.B. E0B 2J0


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered.


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Parliamentary Secretary when we might expect an answer to Question No. 759? I realize that it was only put on the Order Paper on March 26 but I would like to have the answer in time to deal with an adjournment debate shortly. If the Hon. Minister could give an answer quickly, we would certainly appreciate it.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I will bring that to the attention of the Minister to see if we cannot get an answer to that question in time for the Hon. Member's proceedings.
I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
April 17, 1984



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen that Bill C-32, an Act to establish the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.
John William Bosley: Mr. Speaker, this morning we had laid before the House our general support for an institute of this nature. We had indicated our reservations about the independence which this Bill appears not to grant to the institute proposed. I had come in my remarks to some concerns about research in general.
It seems appropriate, therefore, to refer Members of the House to an article in today's Toronto Star written by Mr. Adam Bromke of McMaster University. The very concern about this institute's relationship to research organizations is raised and very clearly expressed.
I left off referring to what I think is a confusion caused by the remarks of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) and I would like to return to that briefly. The Throne Speech talked about the need for an organization to digest, disseminate and collate information. It had a second paragraph which talked about the Government's intention to increase its funding for voluntary associations and private groups. I think most members of the community read those two paragraphs as one, as part of the same organization.
I was confused, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure I am not alone, in fact I know I am not alone in my confusion, when the Minister in his comments earlier today referred to the Government's intention to proceed whith this Bill as it stands and, at the same time, increase funding for private organizations and double separate research funds for verification procedures. Clearly at some point the Government will have to answer the question as to what the relationship is between the institute and its research activities and private sector organizations.
I want to put on the record something that is of personal concern. I would hope that this institute will honour as completely as possible the words the Minister actually used even though the Bill does not use the words. The Minister said that this institute should have a limited inhouse research capacity. It is my personal view, and I hope we will be able to deal with this in committee when we get there, that it is important in terms of this institute's relationship with the universities and with the other research institutions of Canada that to the greatest extent possible this organization be a funder of research in Canada more than a doer of research. I think that is essential if the other research institutions are to believe that this institute is not in fact a competitor and a threat. I am
International Peace and Security confused by the Government's words in the Minister's speech.
I make that point because I think it is essential that it be clarified.
Finally, in the couple of minutes I have left, I want to deal with a few points made by the Hon. Member for New West-minster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett). She raised what I think is a most interesting point with regard to the apparent similarity of the appointments to the board of this proposed institute and those of the IDRC. The point she was making, I take it, was that while there may be some justification in the other operation for non-Canadian appointment, there may not be, in her view, that justification here. That is a point which had not occurred or been brought to me before. I think it is important.
I think we will have to be very careful on that point in committee.
I was confused by the Hon. Member's comment that she was not worried about the total control of appointments to the board by the cabinet of the day, given her apparent willingness to allow the cabinet of the day to make those appointments. I think it is essential in understanding all of the concerns which the research community has, that we have and several of the organizations deeply interested in peace have, that if one is to understand the importance of independence, Mr. Speaker, then one has to deal directly with the degree of potential control, not just the degree of actual control that is available to the cabinet of the day with regard to this proposed institute.
I want to stress to the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam and to all Members of the House that here nonpartisanship is of the essence. It is absolute in dealing with peace matters. I want to put right back on the record that I think the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam should rethink that concern.
It would be extremely useful if we could come to an agreement across the floor of the House to allow some body other than the Cabinet to have a deep and serious say, and preferably control on a consensus basis, regarding the appointments that are made to the board. I think that if Members were to understand the potential value of having the external affairs committee make those appointments on a consensus basis, it would be invaluable both for the institute in appearing to be independent, and invaluable for all of us in being able to say it is independent. If we can come to an understanding of that, at least we will have gone a long way toward taking what we all believe in its conceptual framework is an important and useful idea and making it what it really ought to be-an organization as non-partisan as possible to be of use in what I think we all believe is extremely important, the search through whatever means possible for an everlasting peace.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Questions or comments. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade (Mr. Blaker).


Mr. Blaker:: Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the same references were made by the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) and by the Hon. Member for Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley). I am a bit confused about the concept of indepen-

April 17, 1984
International Peace and Security
dence. If it is the intention of both Members to ensure the independence of a peace institute, the difficulty I have with that is that on the one hand both Hon. Members have expressed the view that that independence can best be guaranteed by recommendations, made, I take it, by the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, as to appointments within the institute, or possibly by Parliament as a whole. My understanding is that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) had indicated to the Leaders of both Opposition Parties that a consultative process might be available. I am a little lost as to the specifics of how to appoint the chairman, executive director, and board of such an institution in a way that the Opposition might feel is non-partisan. I would encourage the Hon. Member for Don Valley West to express the mechanism in detail by which it might be done.


John William Bosley: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. I will try to answer it in two parts. One is the concern we have about the proposed method of appointment, and then I will try to answer directly his question about what we believe would be better.
There is always a concern in terms of the Cabinet when by Order in Council appointments may be seen to be or may in fact be not as non-partisan as they should be. I think the Member would understand that. I think we are somewhat reluctant to accept the simple statement that the Leader of the other Opposition Party and the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition will be "consulted" as to whether that is good enough. On this issue we do not believe it is. What we believe ought to be done and what we should look for is a method whereby the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence could be asked to make appointments to the board on the understanding that the Committee had to operate on a consensus basis and not on a simple majority vote basis. We believe that out of the process of coming to agreement would come non-partisan appointments.
That is the process we believe should be used to make these appointments. The Hon. Member may ask whether Parliament could do that. I know of no mechanism that allows Parliament to do that as a whole. That is why I think we believe the committee should have that power.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, in this House the Conservative Party is on record as voting in favour of testing of the Cruise missile. The Conservative Party is on record as supporting the construction of components for nuclear weapons delivery systems. The external affairs critic and a number of other caucus members have publicly endorsed the position of the United States in Central America. Could the Hon. Member for Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley) explain the contradiction of how the Conservative Party can in fact be supporting peace and disarmament on the one hand, while in fact in this House and on the public record it is supporting and endorsing activities which certainaly are not, in the minds of most Canadians, conducive to this nation's movement toward peace and disarmament? Could the representative from the Tory Party explain that contradiction?


John William Bosley: Mr. Speaker, we are also on record as supporting NATO. I presume the Hon. Member would go further in his comment and suggest, as he has argued before, that support of NATO is in conflict with the view we in this Party share which supports peace and disarmament. If the Hon. Member finds that there is confusion, I believe it is in his mind.
The issue for us, and I hope for the Hon. Member, is that whatever one's view about the appropriate defensive posture a country must take-and it is our view about NATO and some other positions-it is our firm desire to reduce tension in the world and to reduce the need to resort to military defence. That is the position which this Party has consistently supported. That is why we support this proposal, at least in its conceptual form. We believe deeply that we cannot simply attain disarmament or a lack of tension by saying that we want it. We have to do what we believe is necessary in the time and place. At the same time we have to find some way to create dialogue, a reduction of tension and a conflict resolution which will make it possible for all countries in the world to reduce their arms build-up and their reliance upon military measures.
I see no conflict, as the Hon. Member may, between our support for matters which relate to current situations of conflict and crisis and our desire to find a way to reduce the underlying tensions which lead to those conflicts. What we are saying here is that the importance of peace can never be over-estimated. We want to take whatever steps or measures we can to ensure that the institute created to inch us back, as the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) indicated, from the nuclear chasm will work. That is what we are trying to say today.


Mr. McRae:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member for a clarification of the word "independence". I have great concerns about this particular organization. I feel very strongly that it should go through, and I will be speaking on it in a few minutes. The independence I am worried about is that it be completely independent of Government Departments such as the Department of National Defence or the Department of External Affairs and that it functions independently in that way.
I am beginning to get the feeling that the Hon. Member is talking about political independence, that it be sort of non-partisan. I think it should be too, but I am wondering whether the Hon. Member is thinking about both kinds of independence, whether it be a Liberal thing, a Tory thing or something like that, or whether basically he is thinking about an organization that is quite independent of other parts of government in terms of coming to its own decisions. This kind of independence is crucial, and I think the other kind of independence can be easily worked out in the way we work out the Bill. However, there are two different kinds of independence. I would like the Hon. Member to distinguish between one or the other. Perhaps the Hon. Member could indicate whether he is in favour of
April 17, 1984

this organization functioning without being dependent upon other organs or departments of government.


John William Bosley: I would be happy to try to answer the question. As I understand the system, Departments report to Ministers and Ministers are responsible for Departments. Therefore I find the concept of distinguishing between independence of Departments and independence of Ministries to be a null distinction.
If I may put it in a context which I know better, we believe that no Minister of the Crown of any political stripe, including our own, should have the right to tell the institute what it must research or to create an impression in the mind of the institute that it must do something in order to obtain the Minister's blessing.
If I wanted to put a parallel to the Hon. Member, it would be this one. For a series of extremely good reasons, we have over the years granted the Canada Council maximum possible independence from ministerial control, from governmental control and from departmental control, so that when it makes grants to people in the artistic community it is to the greatest possible degree seen to be acting independently of governmental, political or departmental control. I believe we are espousing that exact principle in terms of our proposals with regard to this institute. I repeat that we want this institute to be seen to be and to be independent of departmental, ministerial and political control, not for the sake of the government of the day but for the quality of research which will result given that independence.


Mr. Sargeant:: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I was not able to be here this morning to hear the opening of the debate because of other commitments. The Hon. Member for Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley), in his few minutes of wrapping up after the luncheon adjournment, made a comment upon which I would like to ask him to elaborate. He may have done it this morning. If so, I apologize for asking him to repeat it.
He said that he would rather see this institute being a funder of peace research than a doer. Would he elaborate a little on that and indicate what are his concerns? I do not necessarily agree with his comments, but I would like to know his reasoning for them.


John William Bosley: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. I want to be clear so that he knows I make no particular fuss about the institute doing some of its own research. However, I have a concern in terms of the academic institutions of the country, if the new direction for research is seen to be that the Government creates an industry which uses government research money to do research exclusively. My instinctive reaction would be that I think to the greatest degree possible we have two opportunities here. One is to increase the amount of money directed at "peace research". The second is to use that money to support institutions specializing in research by directing to the greatest practical degree possible the talent and resources to do the research and by asking the agency to do as much as it can in institutions which conduct
International Peace and Security research and to restrict its inhouse research activities to those areas where it has no other choice.
That is what I am trying to get at. I believe we would be risking support in the academic communities if we said that the Government's intention was to move its research funds exclusively into the area of inhouse research.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. For debate, the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. McRae).


Paul Edmund McRae: Mr. Speaker,
I am very pleased to participate in this debate because I feel there is a great degree of urgency in establishing this institute. On a number of occasions I have written to and spoken with members of the Government, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and so on, about the need for a very independent institute to conduct studies in peace and security. I am delighted we have finally arrived at the point where we can get around to establishing this institute. I hope there will be no difficulty and that in the next month or so we will be able to put it together and have it operating certainly by the summer.
I attended a meeting of 500 or 600 people in Toronto a couple of weeks ago at which United States Admiral Carroll was the speaker. He was asked about how much time he felt we had before a war would occur, or if a war would occur. His answer was that yes it would in about eight years and that the basic growth of very, very dangerous weapons and the attitudes of the two superpowers were such that this was a very real possibility.
This is something about which I have been very apprehensive. I find it difficult to accept that the House has spent so little time on this most important of all issues. We have a situation today where there are in excess of 50,000 nuclear weapons, nuclear warheads, that are pretty well distributed. There is a little more on our side than on the Soviet side, but theirs are larger ones. One way or another, there is an area where we have general parity. What I mean by general parity is that each side has the capability of destroying the other side almost completely and then being destroyed themselves. No one side could destroy the other side without they themselves being destroyed as well. That is the situation we are faced with.
There is in existence today something like 5,000 times the explosive power that was used in all of World War II. I simply do not understand those who say that we are not strong enough and need to build more arms. It is completely beyond my comprehension that we need more arms when we already have
5,000	times the fire power that was available in World War II.
We are told by some very eminent scientists on both sides of the Iron Curtain that we need to worry about more than just the explosive effects of these weapons. In total, these weapons have 100,000 times the destructive power of the weapons that destroyed Hiroshima. We have the situation of the explosive power and the nuclear fallout which, if the bomb did not hit Canada, would still kill about 12 million Canadians. More

April 17, 1984
International Peace and Security people from my own community of Thunder Bay would die than died in all of Canada during World War I and World War II. However, in addition to this, we are told by these eminent scientists that the effect of these explosions, even if only a small portion of them were used, would be to create a nuclear winter which would probably destroy most of the plant life in the northern hemisphere. Millions and millions of Canadians would then die from the cold and from famine. Civilization as we know it would cease to exist. Yet a retired American admiral, along with his friends, retired American generals and admirals, are saying that this can happen and that it can happen within the next seven or eight years. It can happen because the weaponry that is being built at this particular time can create a situation in which this can happen simply through computer error.
I would remind the House that as we sit here this very moment, a few Pershing II missiles have been installed in West Germany which have a six-minute to eight-minute time span between firing and destroying a target in the Soviet Union. The Soviets tell us that they now have weapons based six to eight minutes from the shore of the United States. We find ourselves in a situation in which a computer error could result in a mistaken firing which could result in return firing and a launch-on warning. This is the situation today and it is only beginning. It will become much worse. Shorter trajectory times and greater accuracy will be built into many weapons and the threat of a pre-emptive or first strike could cause the other side to strike in a crisis. These are the situations which exist today. It is possible that the world could be destroyed within 30 minutes.
It is absolutely essential that Canadians and people all over the world do whatever is possible to make sure that this kind of destruction is prevented. This is the reason why I support the need for this Bill. If we are to be successful as peace makers, then we must have access to good, solid, objective information. We should not have information from only one source like the Pentagon or another source like Soviet publications but we need good, solid information from all sources. There is an organization in Sweden called SIPRI which is set up to provide this kind of information. In the research I have done over the last three or four years, I have found that the information from that source has been very valuable to us in assessing the claims of both sides.
We have a situation where one side is saying the other side is superior and vice versa. Of course, all of the information available to me and the information from other sources like the Scowcroft Commission would point to the fact that there is no superiority, that we are in a situation of general parity and that now is the time to slow things down.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has done a great deal of travelling and has spoken to a great many leaders all over the world. He made a speech in the House on February 9 and came to the conclusion that there are about 10 major ideas which are common to the superpowers. We should begin to work with those common ideas. I will not deal with all of those ideas because I have only 20 minutes in which to speak, but I
will mention two or three of them. One such idea is the agreement that a nuclear war cannot be fought and cannot be won. There is agreement that we must get rid of destabilizing weapons and there is agreement that the other side exists, will continue to exist and that there should not be an attempt to depose the other side. These ideas are very vital and were common threads which ran through all of the discussions the Prime Minister had with all of the world leaders including the leaders of both superpowers.
In order to make these common ideas work, we must know what we are doing. We must have access to good, independent information. It seems to me that there is a very direct relationship between the kind of thing the Prime Minister and others throughout the world have been attempting to do and the kind of thing that we hope to do with this Bill. I am particularly interested in seeing that, through this Bill, we set up an independent organization. To me, an independent organization means one which will not rely only on the Department of National Defence or the Department of External Affairs. An independent organization will not follow only the demands of those two Departments.
I would agree entirely with Members of the Opposition and particularly with the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) who said that from Clause 28 of the Bill, the word "shall" should be removed. I think the Prime Minister as well agreed with that. If not, the Department of External Affairs and the Department of National Defence could very well ask this organization to respond in a certain way or to do a certain study. That is a legitimate request, but certainly the obligation to do such a study will not, in my opinion, give the organization the kind of independence it needs. I think that the word "may" is probably more applicable to the situation.
I would disagree with the Hon. Member from the NDP who suggested that that clause should be removed entirely. I believe that the word "may" at least indicates that the Department cannot force certain things on this organization. If the clause were not included in the Bill at all, there might be some assumption that the organization could be forced by the Department to do things. I think it would be just as well to leave Clause 28 in place and replace the word "shall" with the word "may". I think that would give to the organization the kind of independence it needs.
I spent some time looking at what they are doing at the Swedish peace institute in Stockholm. I looked at the structure of that institute and I believe that this is a model at which we should all take a good look. That institute has established itself in a number of basic areas and, in my opinion, a number of things about the structure of that organization give it a great deal of independence and the kind of independence we would like to have here in Canada.
First, that institute is funded by the Government and not by the private sector. I would not object to private-sector funding for various peace institutes, but I think the institute to which the Bill refers must be funded by the Government partly because there is a need for credibility when dealing with both sides. If we are to study Soviet-American relations, we must be
April 17, 1984

credible to both those groups. We must have an organization with that kind of credibility. If we are dealing with the Soviets, we will not be credible if the foundation is a legitimate one but is funded by large corporations from the private sector. It is important that we do it this way. It does not mean that other organizations, peace groups and study groups should not be funded by the private sector. This is one area where it is important that the funding come this way.
I may be running into some problems with the Opposition on this, but the Swedish Institute has an international board. It includes people from Sweden and also has an international component. I disagree with the Hon. Member for New West-minster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett) who spoke about keeping this institute Canadian. I have had a great deal to do with the peace movement over the last few years, the last three years in particular. One of the dangers is the tendency to become pure, just to worry about what Canadians are doing, making sure that we are pure, not doing anything wrong and in no way contributing to nuclear armament, not worrying about what is going on outside.
I have had a great deal of concern about the testing of the Cruise. If this testing does not take place in Canada, it will take place somewhere else. It does not make much difference where it has been tested if a war should occur. It is important in terms of how we feel about ourselves.
It is nice to advocate that Canada be a nuclear free zone. We can feel good about that. However, if there is a nuclear war, we will be in the centre of it. It will come to us. If we declare that we are nuclear free, that does not mean we will not have to worry about the war.
I feel that Canadians are becoming a little bit too concerned about appearing pure rather than being concerned about preventing a war between the superpowers. Therefore, it would be a mistake if the board were to be entirely Canadian. It requires an international flavour. I believe that the structure of the board should include Canadians and a number of people from other countries. That is tremendously important. If we are serious about preventing nuclear war, we must have an organization with global concerns. We cannot solve the problem just by being pure. We have to be concerned about the two superpowers and how they can be brought together.
While we have talked about the structure of this organization, we have not talked about its role. Earlier I referred to the 10 points which the Prime Minister presented as areas where we could get agreement. Canadians have to focus on the nature of the two superpowers.
We are very close to the United States and know a great deal about it. Many of us worry about the present U.S. Government. We feel the worries would go away if the Democrats were in power. At least that is my feeling. Basically we understand the situation. We understand some of what has to be done to bring the two superpowers together. We do not have a good understanding about the Soviet Union. We do not understand them. Their ideologies are different from ours. We
International Peace and Security tend not to want to know very much about them, what they are like and what their Government stands for. We have a situation where it is impossible to destroy that Government. It is not possible to do very much to change that Government. We have to understand their Government and the people there.
I hope the institute is set up fairly soon because the situation between the two powers is critical. Basically they are not speaking to each other. There are some talks going on in Stockholm. They are going on not too badly, partly because the superpowers are surrounded by other powers, including ourselves. They are not really confronting each other in areas where they should be talking.
If we develop these studies, particularly in the area of understanding the superpowers, we can use this information to bring other middle powers together and develop a negotiating team which could work between the two superpowers to reduce the tension. This could be done along the lines suggested by the Prime Minister, beginning in areas of common interest, concern and agreement. There are the 10 points, and others could be added to the list. If we could learn how to deal with them, if we could have ideas through third power groups, possibly we could bring some kind of sanity to the two superpowers.
If we do not do this in the next few years, then Admiral Carroll and other knowledgeable people on the subject will be correct that a nuclear war, which has never occurred in the history of mankind, will take place and we will be destroyed. The stakes are so great that this is absolutely essential. Even though it is a small step, we should take it, pass this Bill and set up a good independent organization.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Hon. Member quite closely. Several times he said how important he felt it was that the organization should be independent. Will he indicate if he feels in that context that it should be a government institution?


Paul Edmund McRae: Mr. Speaker, I thought about this a good deal. I have been saying that it should be independent in the sense that it cannot be set up in such a way that the individual Departments, particularly DND and External Affairs which are the two most vitally concerned, have a strong influence on either the day to day or long-term operation. This is tremendously important. This is why I strongly support the Conservative amendment that will replace the word "shall" with the word "may". The problem that I see from the speeches we have heard today is that this could be done on a partisan basis. I do not want to see that. It does not have anything to do with partisanship. I do not see how we can set up this institute, without some government action. The point is that we have to do this together. The word "consultation" has to be worked as it has never worked before in terms of how we set up this organization. Who is on the board is terribly important. You can have the best structure in the world but if the people in it do not want to succeed, you will not achieve anything. That is

April 17, 1984
International Peace and Security terribly important. I believe, through the workings of the committee and so on, we can get to a point where we can be pretty independent in the way it is structured. Once it is set up on its own then I feel it is terribly important that it be set up in such a way that it cannot be influenced at any given stage. That is why I feel that word "may" is important. It is important to leave "may" in there. It should not be taken out as an Hon. Member suggested earlier, because if it is taken out there could be some suggestion that the word "shall', would be quietly implied. We know that the word "may" means that the organization itself can reject any suggestions of the Government. It seems to me that is the key point.
As far as setting up this institute is concerned, I believe one has to go along with the notion that there is an executive in every government. A Party which hopes, and I suppose expects, to come to power in the next little while is going to find that the executive has to act. However, I believe there is no difficulty in this situation if we are all concerned, and I know we are. I know Hon. Members who spoke this morning are very concerned.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member is taking a little too much time, in my opinion.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, on the question of this peace research issue being debated today, I would like to raise with the present speaker the matter of the conflict in Canada's role in Central America. Tension reduction has been talked about, but I would like to know the Hon. Member's opinion on how that conflict results, say, from the sale of Buffalo aircraft to Honduras that could be used for military purposes against Nicaragua, and the idly sitting by of the Government of Canada while the CIA and other paid apparatchiks of the U.S. Government mined the ports in Nicaragua? Canadians have failed to take a full measure of the responsibility-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but I should remind him that questions and comments must be pertinent to the Hon. Member's speech. I do not see the relationship. I may have missed the point, but in any case would the Hon. Member clarify his question?


Raymond John Skelly: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. I believe the previous speaker knows well that there are a number of key points where this Government has failed to take action which would reduce tension. Today Hon. Members opposite are attempting to put forward what would appear to be a worthwhile initiative, but will not provide some action which will demonstrate this Government's good wishes and goodwill in terms of establishing peace and tension reduction in the world. I would like to hear the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. McRae) explain that, and possibly explain as well the Cruise missile issue and the defence production material, where we are producing components for the Cruise missile.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I do not believe the Hon. Member should invite the speaker to introduce an entirely
different matter into the debate. The questions must be pertinent and relate to the points raised by the speaker and not new matters. I do not feel I should allow the answer on this one.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed through you to the speaker. Would the Hon. Member tell us, please, whether he thinks, in terms of the all-important question of independence and non-partisanship, the endowment route would not be better than the year-to-year funding by the Department of National Defence and the Department of External Affairs? While he is answering that, would he perhaps tell us the reason for the sudden rush seemingly to get the Bill through before June 16? Why was it not brought in, in his view, months ago? Why are we suddenly being asked to get it through now quickly, in his opinion?


Paul Edmund McRae: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the endowment part of the question, I believe the Hon. Member has a very good point. I personally would have preferred an endowment partly because one does not have to go from year to year on a set fund which has been established, having to go back to the appropriate Minister. I believe an endowment has some advantages and, personally, I believe that it is worth negotiating. I am not sure of the Government's view on this particular point. I feel there are some negotiable items here, but since I am not part of the Government to the degree that I can say, "This is the way we should go", I will just say that I feel this is something worth looking into.


David Kilgour: Why the seeming rush to get it all done and through the committee before June 16?


Paul Edmund McRae: I suppose if the issue had arisen a year or so before, and if the Prime Minister's moves had been made a year or two earlier-and I believe the Prime Minister's moves had a lot to do with a number of factors-I feel it would have been nice to get this thing going before. However, I consider that, having gone through all of this and having laid out these points, now is the time to try to get this particular piece of legislation through. It seems to me that there has been negotiation going on for several weeks on this legislation and other related matters. I still believe there is no great rush. I think the time available between now and the end of this sitting in June is more than adequate to deal with this particular legislation. I just do not see that this is being done in a rush. The Chairman of the committee was sitting here this morning and he indicated quite clearly that we could sit five days a week for a whole month, if necessary, and it may very well be. I believe the Bill is very simple, but certainly we should have a great deal of public input. The people of this country should be able to participate and there should be an occasion for a real discussion of this particular point. But I do not believe the time is too short.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the previous speaker to give us his thoughts on the internationalization of the directors of the board of governors. He seemed to make quite a point of that. Is that related to the
April 17, 1984

role he sees Canada playing as the honest broker or mediator in trying to resolve the problems of East-West relations?


Paul Edmund McRae: Mr. Speaker, I believe that is precisely what I had in mind. However, I do not mean that Canada alone is going to do this. It seems to me that we can participate. In the first place, just geographically we are sitting between the two superpowers. We are sort of the meat in the sandwich, if you will. It seems to me that we have some very strong reasons why we should play a role, and I believe that if we are going to play a role we must have good, solid, objective information. We must have good studies going on. I believe also that the international board will give us an ability to function in a larger arena. More than anything I was worried about the fact that we would become just Canadians and look upon the solution with the idea that as long as we are pure, everything else will be fine. There are many middle powers, particularly, who are very concerned about this, and I believe we can make a contribution to those middle powers and with those middle powers. I believe there is a very strong role to be played by the country which sits between the two superpowers.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The time allotted for questions and comments has elapsed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Erie (Mr. Fretz)-Labour Conditions-Lay-offs by INCO at Port Colborne. (b) Job retraining inquiry; the Hon. Member for Dauphin-Swan River (Mr. Lewycky)- Visible Minorities-Use of Governor in Council appointments to increase representation. (b) Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission vacancy; and the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly)- Fisheries-Cowichan	estuary-Government	policy.	(b)
Application of policy.
International Peace and Security



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen that Bill C-32, an Act to establish the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Debate.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) on a point of order.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my point of order arises out of the form to be followed in the questioning of an Hon. Member following his remarks. I put one question. Then I had two supplementary questions. I am looking for advice. It seemed to me that what I really wanted was to come back with the thrust of my question; but the Chair did not give me the opportunity to ask my second or third questions.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair would like to compliment the Hon. Member for York-Peel for the brevity of his questions. He is playing exactly by the rules, the intent and the spirit of the reform. However, the Chair noticed a number of other Members rising at the same time, and so as to allow the widest possible exchange during this period, the Chair felt it ought to go to other Members. If a Member has one, two or three points to make, I think it would be incumbent upon him to condense those remarks or comments in the one opportunity provided to him. The Chair cannot guess whether the Hon. Member intends to follow up with other questions especially when a number of other Members rise at the same time wishing to be recognized.
However, the Chair is always in the hands of the House. If the House is disposed at this time to allow the Hon. Member for York-Peel to ask his additional questions, so be it. Does the House agree?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I thank Hon. Members and yourself, Mr. Speaker, for your and their courtesy.
As you will recall, the main thrust of my question was whether the Hon. Member felt that this new peace institute should be a government organization. I took from the tone of his response that he found this to be a very difficult question. He referred to what had already been dealt with, Clause 28, and the changing of the word "shall" to "may".

April 17, 1984
International Peace and Security
My second question deals with Clause 32. He will note it has the effect of adding the new peace institute to a schedule entitled "Other Government Institutions". Clearly the Government intends this to be another government institution as the legislation is now drafted. Is this something the Hon. Member would like to see changed?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Having complimented the Hon. Member, I must remind him that at second reading stage his comments should be of a general nature and not go into the detail of the Bill, which study is reserved for committee stage. However, the question was put.


Paul Edmund McRae: Mr. Speaker, I just do not quite follow the line of questioning. I understand what I have been asked but I am not so sure that I understand what the Hon. Member is attempting to get at. There are various kinds of government organizations, some of them fairly close to the Departments where they function, some at arm's length. For example, the IDRC is a fairly independent organization. What I am saying is that it has to be a body which is independent of government Departments. The degree of independence is the crucial point. There must be a way of funding so that once the institute is on its own it will function independently. But it is still a government organization.
I hope the Hon. Member is not suggesting that it should be funded by the private sector as some kind of a foundation. That is not what I want. I want this to be a government-funded organization but with the Government at arm's length.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, would the Hon. Member then agree that the Library of Parliament might be a better model in that it is responsible to the Speakers of this and the other place, as well as to a joint committee, and is funded by a direct appropriation from Parliament? In short, it answers to Parliament, not to the Government of the day.


Paul Edmund McRae: Mr. Speaker, I have not thought of that particular model. It seems to me we could look at it. That might very well be just as easy, although if you had an endowment it might be simpler.
If a Government is in power-and the Hon. Member and his colleagues beleive they may at some point come into power- the Government tends to direct Parliament. We are a parliamentary system, not a Republican system where you have separate executive and legislative branches. It seems to me that even though we are a parliamentary system, there would be quite an independent approach through the committee. Fundamentally, in our system the Government has to be in charge. If we want to change the system, that is a whole different ball game, but the Government tends to be in charge of Parliament. It has the votes to do what it has to do. Therefore, I just wonder if we are getting into something that does not mean very much.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: For debate, the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon).


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I have followed the debate with considerable interest since it began. I would like to compliment the Minister for his paticipation. I understand he has been travelling a lot lately and his speech was, in relation to the length of his trip, short, I suppose.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Inversely proportional.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Yes. He made a couple of remarks which indicated he was perhaps exhausted. He referred to a country like Canada which does not have nuclear weapons. That will be a great joy to many people who have been wishing for years that we get rid of nuclear weapons, if he is telling the truth. Otherwise he does not know about the nuclear weapons we have in various parts of the country as air to air missiles, and which have been a source of considerable conflict.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: They are on the way out, you know that.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) announced in December that they would be out of Canada by the first of July. I am rather surprised that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) does not listen to his Prime Minister as carefully as I do.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Split some wood, not hairs.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: The other remark he made, which leads me into the main part of my speech, was that this institute could not and should not duplicate work done abroad. There are an awful lot of institutions in the world, 264 by count, which do work similarly to what we envisage. Most consider themselves to be international institutes. I noticed that the title of the Bill puts the word "international" in a different place in the sentence. It says, "the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security", whereas a world-famous institute calls itself the International Institute for Strategic Studies.
I notice the U.S. has 60 or 70 of these institutions. Some are more prominent than others, and most are prominent because they have established a record of precise, objective work. Everything else tends to fail in this field or else becomes the Bible of single purpose groups who can read what they want to read in some of the inferior books and papers published by the lesser known institutions.
I would like to speak for a moment about the International Institute for Strategic Studies. If we are going to have an institute that is supposed to study international affairs, I believe that we should have a good one. It is difficult for me to understand at the present time exactly what the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security is going to do, what its main role is going to be and what its subsidiary roles will be. They seem to change with every speaker. I think the International Institute for Strategic Studies is the top institute of its kind in the world. That institute says it has three major functions: research, information and debate. They put out some publications, namely, The Military Balance, Strategic Survey, Adelphi Papers and Survival. These come out as
April 17, 1984

April 17, 1984
International Peace and Security choosing of the people involved. For example, the Bill states that:
The Directors ... shall be appointed by the Governor in Council to hold office for such term not exceeding three years as will ensure as far as possible the expiration in any one year of the terms of fewer than half of the directors so appointed.
This is probably the exact same thing that covers the board which is appointed by the Governor in Council to run Cana-dair and de Havilland. Those are government boards appointed for running organizations which they know nothing about. If that is the way it will be, there will be one extremely important person and it will not be the chairman, who will also be appointed by the Governor in Council. I shudder to think of some of the people the Government might pick.
The executive director is the chief executive officer of the institute. He is also appointed by the Governor in Council. His function is to run the organization and hire the staff. What kind of staff would there be if the executive officer was the Hon. J. P. Goyer or someone like that? I am very concerned about that position and the fact that there will be no input unless one is a Cabinet Minister in the current Government.
I very much favour this amendment taking the selection of these people out of the hands of the Cabinet and giving it either to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence or a meeting of the House of Commons where the various options could be presented to us.
The Vice-Chairman will be elected by the board. Clause 10 states:
The Board shall elect one of the directors, other than the Executive Director, to be Vice-Chairman of the Board.
According to this Bill, that is the only duty given to the board. After they elect the vice-chairman, they can go back to wherever they came from while the executive director continues to run the firm on direction from the Cabinet. I do not believe that that is the proper procedure.
I would prefer that the Bill be changed. While the purpose of the Bill is exactly what we need, in order to have a world class organization we must be very careful about how it will be structured, how people will be selected and what their terms of office will be. Will they have independence from the Cabinet? I do not believe that Canadair has independence from the Cabinet or from the Minister of Transport. I doubt very much that the provisions of this Bill will permit the organization to have independence from the Minister of National Defence and the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The directors themselves have a sinecure that might make them happy, but I do not think it will do much to increase the knowledge of Canadians about External Affairs at the present time.
I believe the only two items of importance in Clause 4 which lists the purposes are Clause 4(1) to "collect and disseminate information and ideas on international peace and security", and Clause 4(d) to "foster, fund and conduct research on international peace and security issues of particular interest to Canadians or to the Government of Canada". These are
strange words to use. How can matters be of particular interest to Canadians when we are talking about world peace? It is rather difficult for me to understand.
I am also totally baffled by the funding of this institute. While there is provision for $1.5 million in the coming year, which is to go up to $5 million, I notice that a small section of Clause 5 provides that the institute also have the authority to acquire any property, money or securities by gift, bequest or otherwise. Presumably this means that it would be open to public funding, if someone wished to contribute money to it. I am not sure whether in hard years the Government might not use that provision as a barometer and cut down on government funding and tell the institute that it would have to do as the local museum does and raise money on its own. It is not satisfactory to allow the possibility of public funding without responsibility for deciding whether it will use it or not.
My main concern lies with the selection of officers. We would like to have it taken out of Cabinet hands, particularly at this stage in our political life when an election is coming, whether the Government wants it or not. It is not the time to leave behind three years' worth of political hacks for the rest of us to deal with.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments?


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Mr. Speaker, I generally agree with much of what the Hon. Member has just said, especially about his concern about who might be appointed to this board if it is left in the current definition.
Could he expand a little on how he would prefer to have members of that board appointed, including the executive director? His colleague from Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley) suggested earlier today that this be done by the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence on a consensus basis. I question how that would work. What would happen, as might well be the case, if no consensus is obtainable in the committee? We know that these committees are set up with the majority of the Members being government Members. What would happen to the board if this process became stalemated in committee? Might it produce a stalemate in the entire operation of the organization?


Allan Bruce McKinnon: I think the Member's question reflects the analogy of a man at the age at 90 who said he rather likes the life he is leading when he considers the alternative. That is how I feel in this case. When we look at the possible difficulties of the committee's selecting someone, let us consider the alternative, which is the Cabinet picking a friend or defeated Liberal candidate. There will be many of them available in the months to come.
However, I would trust the committee to do the right thing before I would trust the Cabinet to do the right thing with respect to selecting those people, particularly if it is in a period when we are getting closer to an election and some of the monolithic group over there would possibly get some urging toward freedom and decide to stand up for their principles.
April 17, 1984


Raymond John Skelly: The comments about the funding mechanism available for the peace research institute was fairly interesting. Is it the Conservatives' philosophy that the organization will have to collect funding through bake sales, or would a Conservative Government guarantee an appropriate level of funding for the peace research institute? I was apprehensive about the Hon. Member's comments that funding would be flexible and it may have to depend on private charity. Would he clarify his position in that respect?


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, my objection to the funding as provided for in this Bill concerns the vagueness of the clause which permits it to acquire property, money or securities by gift, bequest or otherwise. It leaves it up in the air. I assume that is the purpose of it, to make it flexible. I would prefer to see it funded entirely by the Government.
To put it in another way, I do not understand why the Government wants to give it the ability to acquire property, money or securities. If we are going to have this group and it is to be appointed by parliamentarians, then Parliament should pay for it. I would prefer that to having the Cabinet pay for it under Cabinet direction by two Ministers.


Roderick Blaker: Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat puzzled by the remarks made by the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) earlier today and subsequently by the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley). I would like to understand what proposition is being put forward by the Hon. Members of the Official Opposition about how this factor of independence can best be achieved, given the fact that we have the British parliamentary form of government, known otherwise as responsible government.
Would the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) tell us what he believes could be an alternative organism to Cabinet for appointing the chairman, board of directors and executive director of this institution? I say that not in an argumentative sense. I say it because I have sat here today and I would love to understand what alternative option is available and justifiably available. If the Hon. Member is suggesting that it would require the Members of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence to make an appointment of the executive or the board of directors and chairman of this institution and then he refers to a consensus, I begin to lose track of what he means. I do not know of a system of parliament or a system of government, either one of them, that has been used in that sense. I have never heard of that type of appointment system before. I would love to be educated on it.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I sympathize with the Hon. Member about his confusion with the word consensus. He has not had an opportunity to find out, but Cabinet committees operate on consensus. Although that itself bears some argument at times as to what a consensus is. It is generally thought of as being very close to totality, but not necessarily so. It keeps individuals from having a veto in committees.
International Peace and Security
As far as the funding goes and the organization that should look after this, recommendations have been made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) to the Prime Minister, and I understand a recommendation by the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent). I am not privileged to divulge them. This afternoon the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) made a suggestion that the institute could operate in the way the Parliamentary Library does, which is operating, as far as this side is concerned, very, very well indeed. The Library has a good executive director. He picks a good staff and they do well. I cannot see any reason why we could not do the same with this proposed institute.


Roderick Blaker: Mr. Speaker, does the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) not understand that funding for the Library of Parliament is accessed through the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services? The fact is that the Library is run under the management of the Commissioners of Internal Economy, all of whom are Cabinet Ministers. That is our principle of responsible government. How does the Hon. Member propose to fund this committee? How does he propose to appoint members to this institution? How does the Hon. Member propose to run it? The example he gives confirms perfectly that in a responsible sense of British parliamentary democracy it is Cabinet Ministers who have to dispose of funds. Now the Hon. Member is proposing some committee of the House of Commons-or should we perhaps ask the Library of Parliament research committee whether or not it feels it should fund the peace institute? We would like a little clarity if we could.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, it is not my duty to write Bills because the Government is unable to write one that is satisfactory to Parliament. I think the group on this side of the House would prefer to have as much independence as possible for this institute. We feel that it would be absolutely impossible for the institute to have its independence if we go along with this Bill, which will give the Cabinet an ability to put its finger into the business of the institute at any time it wants. Indeed, there is a particular exception for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. If the Secretary of State for External Affairs can tell the institute what to do and if he wants some advice on any area or subject, he can insist the institute do it. That is the kind of interference we really do not want.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: You do not want the Minister to be enlightened?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. For debate, the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, my intervention this afternoon will consist mainly of probing the Government to find answers to questions that are not satisfactorily answered in the Bill as it now stands. I think that is a very proper procedure on second reading. There are matters here and there will be comment and criticism as well of the Bill as it stands. But also, at least in the first part of my intervention, there will be some inquiries as to where the

April 17, 1984
International Peace and Security
Government thinks it is going with this institute and why it is doing it at this time.
That, indeed, is my first question. It is a question of timing. Why in the spring of 1984 in Canada, in Holy Week, has this matter been brought before the House of Commons? I have heard it said that Holy Week is considered in some church circles as the week of peace. That is a very appropriate stance for the churches to take at this particular season of the church year. I do wonder, however, whether the Government is trying to come under this umbrella and make use of that particular time of year to sneak in its proposals about a peace institute.
The other question that comes to my mind, and I do not know whether I will ever get an answer to it, is whether there is some relationship between the introduction of this Bill now when the Government is talking about June 16 as a deadline for its completion and the retirement of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). Or whether there is a thought in somebody's mind that maybe the present Prime Minister should be the chairman or the executive director of this institute as a form of occupation after he ceases to be the Prime Minister of Canada. Is that what lies behind the timing of this Bill? I think the whole country is interested in that. That matter of peace has been before the world for centuries. I venture to suggest that those of us who have worn uniforms are the strongest advocates of peace. Those who know and those who have been under fire know what peace is and what peace means. We would like to see peace. I wonder also about the political implications of the timing, because it has been my experience that very little is done by this Government that does not have some political overtones, either to discomfort the Opposition or to further its own cause with the electorate at this time. There is an election coming. I think peace, a peace institute and the concept of peace are much too valuable to play with in this way. I suspect, nonetheless, that there is an element of politics in this, a very strong element.
What about the economic climate in which this matter is being introduced? Is this just a smoke-screen so that the problems of unemployment can be forgotten and put aside for a time? What about the problems of the economy, the national debt and inflation? These matters that affect the lives of so many Canadians, are they being put to one side, obfuscated and made less clear by this particular introduction? There were other times when this particular matter could have been brought forward.
I gather from the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. McRae) that he has some notion that this institute is going to achieve peace in the world, that somehow or other Canada will act as the intermediary, the honest broker, the mediator between East and West through the medium of this institution and I wonder whether that is what the Government has in mind.
The other question which I have to ask myself I will ask aloud in the hopes that there will be a reply from the government side. It concerns the matter of haste. Why are we trying
to rush through this matter just now? However, before dealing with that, there is one element which confuses me-the shift in emphasis in the title of this particular institute from the notion in the Speech from the Throne that this particular matter would be brought forward. We have heard the Speech from the Throne quoted before wherein it indicates:
-the Government will create a publicly funded centre to gather, collate and digest the enormous volume of information now available on defence and arms control issues.
It went on further to indicate:
The Government will increase its funding for voluntary associations and private research groups interested in security, arms control and disarmament issues. Resources for research and development of verification procedures, the basis of successful arms control agreements, will be expanded substantially.
The emphasis in the Throne Speech was upon defence, arms control verification and disarmament. The word "security" appeared there, and now we find it transmogrified or shifted in some manner or other and it has come out as the establishment of the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security. Obviously there is a relationship between disarmament, international peace and security. Also there is a relationship-and I say this in pure objectivity-between armament and security. Therefore I find myself somewhat mystified by the shift in the wording as it appeared in the Throne Speech to the title as it now stands. I wonder whether this change of emphasis from the original purpose is intended to establish the linkage between defence and security, for example, or the linkage between arms control and international peace. What is it that underlies this shift of emphasis?
I think the Government owes Parliament an answer on that. I think it also owes the Canadian public an answer. The answers to these questions were not fully laid out by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) in his opening remarks. I listened carefully to see whether he would establish that. Somewhere along the line, perhaps in committee or if the Minister intervenes at some time, we should be able to probe this particular matter and discover what motivated the Government to change its mind in this way.
I mentioned earlier the matter of the haste with which we are now being asked to consider this Bill. Timing is one thing, and I have mentioned that already, but the urge to get the institute set up and operating as soon as possible is another. That is a matter of haste. Why the haste? What lies behind the need to have this institute set up?
Some notion was expressed somewhere or other that the committee to which the Bill will be referred should examine this matter in a matter of a week or so. Mr. Speaker, do you know how many institutes and concerned people there are in this country who are concerned with peace and will want to make representations to the committee? I do not understand how the Government considers it possible between now and June 16-and the mysticism surrounding this particular date escapes me-for this institute, with all the flaws in the Bill, to become fact.
April 17, 1984

It is vitally important that the hearings before the standing committee be of sufficient duration to obtain the input of all interested and involved Canadians, be they individuals, the academic community or organized groups of one kind or another. I am sure the Council of Bishops would be interested in making representations, urging changes and urging that the institute be set up. I will not speak for that Council, but many organizations will want to make representations to the committee. I think a full opportunity should be provided to them for that purpose. It would be an error of prime importance if there was any intention to let the axe fall on these hearings or on the discussions of this particular Bill.
I urge that there be no precipitated or under-considered action on this matter. Perhaps it is possible to be consistent with the suggestion of the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan. Perhaps what is needed is a Canadian centre for East-West studies so that we could understand the problem and get to the root, in Canadian terms, of some of our troubles. When the Bill goes before it, the committee should be allowed to hear the matters fully, not cut off debate.
I would like to turn to the purpose of the institute as set out in the Bill. Aside from the uncertainty created by the confusion concerning peace and security on the one hand and defence, arms control and disarmament on the other, with which I have already dealt, there is or ought to be a strictly Canadian emphasis in the purpose of the Bill. We are all exploring. The Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) mentioned the need for internationalization. 1 happen to feel that there is a very strong argument in favour of Canadianiza-tion and the insistence thereon. In fact, if we look at Clause 4(d) of the Bill, we find that research on international peace and security issues which the institute is to undertake shall be "of particular interest to Canadians or to the Government of Canada". I think that is most important. After all, we are part of the Parliament of Canada. Surely it is in our interests to ensure that Canadians, the Government and all institutions in Canada are aware of the issues involved in this matter. Clause 18 leaves open the national bias of directors. I find that just a little odd, but I will return to it if I have the opportunity. Clause 18 reads:
The Chairman, Executive Director and at least eight of the other directors of the Board must be Canadian citizens.
This leaves open the possibility of appointing seven non-Canadians to the board of governors. I tried to find out from the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan what he had in mind and why he felt it was so essential that the directors be internationalized. Unfortunately, I did not receive a satisfactory answer. I myself am not clear in my mind why that should be.
I wonder if the Government will ever let us know what kind of people it has in mind for this board. Are academics, retired public servants, retired Prime Ministers, retired Cabinet Ministers or unelected former Cabinet Ministers to be nominated to this board of governors? I believe it is time we had some
International Peace and Security
clarification on that matter. I mentioned a few people in the international field who might be in the Prime Minister's mind.
I do not know whether it might be the former Prime Minister of Jamaica, Georgi Arbatov of the Soviet Union or anyone else. However, I think the time has come when the Government should give us some indication of whom they have in mind for appointments to these other seven positions.
How is such a board to preserve the Canadian focus of which I spoke a few moments ago? How will it focus on Canada's interests? The names of the people to be nominated are not forthcoming. We do not know what kind of Canadians the Government has in mind let alone what kind of non-Canadians.
I turn now to another very important matter which has been the object of the concerns of all our speakers, and that is, the independence of this institute from Government and its accountability to Parliament. I did not receive a copy of the Bill until last evening but I went through it fairly carefully and I was a little worried by the lack of independence provided for the institute by the Bill. I will turn to the lack of accountability in a moment.
I was struck forcibly by the comments of the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) this morning when he drew the attention of the House to Clauses 25 and 26 of the Bill. I had missed those clauses when I read the Bill last evening. Those who missed those clauses might well consider the words of the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead. Clause 25 of the Bill reads as follows:
The Board shall, forthwith after making a by-law, send a copy thereof to the Minister and the President of the Treasury Board.
Why should such a copy not be sent to Parliament as well? I do not think that that matter is too troublesome. However, Clause 26 reads:
The Governor in Council may, by order, direct the Board to make, amend or repeal a by-law within such period as is specified in the order.
Is this independence of the Government, Mr. Speaker? I would ask the Minister that question to his face. Is this what he conceives as being independence of the institute from Government? As well, Clause 27 is relevant to the matter of independence.
I believe that it is absolutely essential that this institute be independent. There should be no question about its independence. There is a means of ensuring this. I believe it was the Hon. Member for Lachine (Mr. Blaker) who asked how independence could be secured by the process of having the standing committee approve proposed directors. He asked what would happen if consensus could not be reached. My answer to that is that we would bring forward another nominee if a particular nominee did not receive the approval of the committee. He may have had the approval of the Government-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. The Chair regrets to interrupt the Hon. Member but his time is up.

April 17, 1984
International Peace and Security


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I regret that as well. I still have a great deal to say.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the stream-of-conscious-ness contribution of the Hon. Member and I especially enjoyed his indication that the Conservative Party was interested in receiving more input from Canadians and was very concerned about tension-reduction mechanisms. I recalled the speech of the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) who travelled around the country talking about input from Canadians. A great number of Canadians appeared before his committee indicating that they were extremely concerned about the testing of the Cruise missile in Canada. In later news reports, the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead indicated that even though there was an enormous amount of input opposing the Cruise missile, it was unlikely that that would change his Party's opinion on the subject.
I wonder how that particular statement squares with the comments made by the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) about tension reduction. How does he explain that conflict? We are looking at a peace research institute that is designed to reduce conflict and provide confidence-building mechanisms. Yet the Conservative Party endorses the testing of the Cruise missile and Conservative members refuse to listen to input from the public even though they held public hearings on the matter.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) wishes to increase tension by keeping this matter alive, he is perfectly at liberty to do so. What he neglects to take into account is the fact that the name of this institute is the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security. Security simply means security for the population of Canada.
With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I would place NATO in the forefront of the peacemakers of this world. NATO has maintained the peace in Europe for a good many years. Let us not forget about that. That means security for Canada.
I believe I have answered the Hon. Member's question about the Cruise missile. The Cruise missile deals with security and will deal with security in the future as well. Therefore, I do not see any inconsistency whatsoever between supporting the testing of the Cruise missile and supporting this particular concept.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, could I ask my friend a question? Since he and I were very active on the committee to which the Bill will be referred, it being the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, and since I will have to chair that committee unless you see otherwise, Mr. Speaker, could my friend give me an indication as to how long he thinks that committee should sit? I am prepared to sit on that committee if I am ordered to do so. I have always done so with pleasure.
The hon. gentleman said that we should not hesitate to call individuals, groups and organizations before the committee and that we should hear from them fully. I am not opposed to
that and have no particular views regarding the length of time that this would take. However, since the Hon. Member raised the issue, could he give me some indication of the time this would take? Would we sit five days a week for a month or three days a week for a month? Could he give me an indication so that we can prepare ourselves mentally to do a good job and return to the House a very good Bill?


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I fully agree that the Hon. Member is a faithful Chairman of the Standing Committee. He is the servant of that committee on all occasions and will work overtime chairing it. As to how long the hearings should last, I have no idea. It depends entirely on how many organizations, individuals and groups seek to be heard. I believe they should all be heard, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS

['I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-3, An Act relating to cash contributions by Canada in respect of insured health services provided under provincial health care insurance plans and amounts payable by Canada in respect of extended health care services and to amend and repeal certain Acts in consequence thereof, without amendment.']
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Shall all orders and items preceding item No. 90 stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Agreed. They stand by unanimous consent.



Hon. Jim Fleming (York West) moved: that Bill C-226, an Act to ensure, at the national level, competition and independence of the daily press, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity, my first chance to put forward a Bill in Private Members' hour for some years. It is a very important issue for discussion this afternoon. Always the optimist as a Member of the House of Commons for some 11 years, I hope that it might gain support from all sides of the House, or at least go to a vote. I will not
April 17, 1984

waste a lot of time pleading that case, knowing tradition during this hour.
This Bill is entitled "an Act to ensure, at the national level, competition and independence of the daily press". The Bill is essentially a carbon copy of a Cabinet-approved Bill put forward during this Parliament in response to the royal commission on newspapers in Canada. The only exception is the exclusion of the part of the Bill dealing with a national newspaper advisory council, its establishment and the creation of an endowment fund, and within that same section the offering of matching grants of up to $50,000 for up to three years for daily newspapers in Canada which would open up new bureaus outside of the region in which they are located or outside of Canada and reporting back to Canada.
I say that for clarification as I begin to make my presentation on this Bill. First, as we all know, Private Members' Bills are not allowed to put forward the expenditure of money. This removes that possibility. I might say that we do have across Canada, since the report of the royal commission and the proposals by the Government that followed at that time, the development of volunteer press councils across this country. Previously there were only press councils in Ontario, Quebec and Alberta. Frankly, in Ontario, less than half the daily newspapers with far less than half the daily circulation belonged at that time. Now almost all daily newspapers in Ontario belong and almost all in Quebec. Indeed, we now have a council for the Maritime provinces, a council for Alberta and Saskatchewan, a new council in Manitoba and a new council in British Columbia.
I am heartened by that, although I am still concerned about the issue of credibility of those press councils. They are largely funded by the publishers. The first set of appointments to those councils are made by the publishers. Often editorials and journalists suggest that we must not show either a conflict of interest or a perceived conflict of interest. Therefore, I see some problem with that credibility. The proof will be in how they perform. I want to be an optimist on that. When so many of our Canadian cities have only one daily newspaper, at least there is a place where individuals can go to vet their grievances.
In the case of the grants, which are not included in this legislation but were in the proposed daily newspaper Bill, there was a great deal of hyperbole from the newspaper industry about how they would not accept money from the federal Government, how that would somehow be government trying to get into the newsrooms of the nations. I found that absurd. There is no excise tax on newspapers. That is an allowance of government which saves newspapers in Canada many millions of dollars. The press facilities on Parliament Hill must cost many tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars. They are used without question. I certainly do not see the press being bought off by having those facilities. There are postal subsidies which are of assistance today, particularly in western Canada, in helping some dailies reach their customers.
The complaint against the grants is a bit hollow. At least as I pass that part and note that it is not included because of the
Daily Newspaper Act
costs involved and therefore not allowed in a Private Members' Bill, I make the point that the Kent Royal Commission found, and I very much agree with it that, sadly, in this country there is very little reporting from one region to another. Out of that comes our continuing lack of understanding of each other as Canadians. When we count so much on our place in the international scene, and certainly 25 per cent of our Gross National Product relates to exports, we should have more Canadians in key centres around the world and experts on Canada reporting back to us.
I now want to move to the two major issues which are included in what is left of this Bill, which is almost word for word the same as the previously proposed Cabinet-approved daily newspaper Act. Those two major issues are the issue of concentration of ownership of daily newspapers in Canada. The second is to establish in principle for future purposes in the starting up of newspapers editorial independence from other interests.
First let me deal with the issue of concentration. In English Canada two chains, Thompson and Southam, now control almost two-thirds of daily newspaper circulation. They have arrived there within the law. That is not my attack. That level of concentration, as I will try to argue over the next few minutes, can have a critical effect upon what a free press must be in a democracy like ours.
Second, in French speaking Canada the concentration level by chains is 90 per cent or more, the difference being that in Quebec most of those chains are in head-to-head competition with each other. In the case of English speaking Canada, those two chains generally have exclusively to themselves, one or the other, a particular daily newspaper marketplace.
I believe at the national level, when we now have a higher level of concentration in this country than in any other democracy in the western world, a level of concentration of ownership four times as large as that in the United States, surely the time has come when we must stop this and encourage more competition.
When we use the famous phrase of free press, some publishers and indeed editorialists believe that it means it is free for them to use as they see fit. Indeed, that is an element, but finally and essentially a free press belongs to individual Canadians. Canadians have a right to a whole diversity of views and expressions of newspapers and information available for them to make their judgment on society at the local, provincial and national levels. A free press is the right of individual Canadians and of our society, not a right of parliamentarians, government or the publishers. It is a right of the people.
The free press must be diverse in order that we will have competing sources. Competing sources of information means a number of things. It means that journalists have mobility. If there are only one or two big bosses to work for, your boss does not like what you are doing, you feel in conscience you are honestly reporting something and you know there are not many other places to get a job, that may well hamper your ability to be an independent and outspoken journalist.
3162

without a phone call from head office saying, "Do not report on our labour disputes" or "Do not report on the criticism of the machines we turn out in another part of this company", just by the very knowledge that head office also has those other interests, the story might not be reported or as well reported. That was a major concern of the Kent Commission.
The proposal in this Bill is that if someone who is largely not in the information business is going to buy a newspaper or start up a newspaper, they would simply have to go to the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission and demonstrate how they would ensure that that editorial room was independent of other interests. The penalties are not great because we only have the right to inquire. But that public focus, that need to be judged so that the public can point the finger and say, "Indeed, that is your intention," the independence that that would give to such an editorial operation seems to me to be very important, and it is totally absent from the proposed new combines legislation.
I also want to note that during my time as Minister responsible for the government reaction to the royal commission, the indignation of most of the publishers, in my view, approached the ridiculous. Concerns about concentration of press ownership have been tackled by most western democracies. I mentioned earlier some detail on that. That includes Britain, Germany, France, Italy and even the United States. Therefore, we quiver and shake and say, "Politicians, keep your hands off newspapers". I agree that no government, no politician, should have the ability to impact on or influence the editorial room, the news room. On the other hand, Parliament should not stand back when concentration of ownership, by the admission of all the publishers I have spoken to, has reached a point when that concentration of ownership can become dangerous, although they would not say exactly what that level was. When concentration endangers the free flow of information, diversity, accuracy, the mobility of reporters, then surely it is the responsibility of parliamentarians to act.
Royal Assent
individual Canadians, in all their diversity and with all their need for and right to diverse information and views.
Parliament works because the system forces us to keep each other on our toes, open to competing views, positions and criticisms. That same pressure of competition and competing views is essential for the maintenance of a free press. Newspapers are special. They set the news agenda. They are more permanent. They are the printed record and have a special credibility. To ignore what has been happening in the Canadian newspaper industry, to bend to the vocal, powerful and largely self-serving few who already dominate, is to invite a weaker and a poorer democracy. I urge you all, my colleagues in this House, each of us as Private Member, to support this Bill and the fundamental freedom it is attempting to protect.


*	MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-3, An Act relating to cash contributions by Canada in respect of insured health services provided under provincial health care insurance plans and amounts payable by Canada in respect of extended health care services and to amend and repeal certain Acts in consequence thereof, without amendment.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A free press does not belong to press barons. It is just the opposite. It is a principle which is fundamental to a healthy democracy. A free press means a free flow of information, neither intimidated by government censorship or the censorship of free flow which becomes possible and even likely when too much is held by too few.
This Bill is a minimum. It is limited. It is cautious but it is fundamental. It limits to 20 per cent the amount which can be owned in the future. It does not roll back. It encourages others to grow, and thus encourages competition. It notes the principle of editorial independence while keeping government completely away from the news room. Along with the already adopted cross media directive, it at least stops further concentration and declares the essential principles of competition, limits on concentration of ownership, and the independence of editorial operations from the other interests of the owner. To oppose this Bill is to support a less diverse, less free, less independent press in Canada. It is to climb in bed with a powerful few and to leave out in the cold more and more
['Order, please.']
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Government House,
Ottawa
April 17, 1984 Sir,
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 17th day of April, 1984, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain Bills.
I have the honour to be. Sir,
Your obedient servant, Edmond Joly de Lotbiniere, Administrative Secretary to the Governor General

April 17, 1984
Daily Newspaper Act



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Fleming that Bill C-226, an act to ensure, at the national level, competition and independence of the daily press, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Mr. Michel Veillette (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we cannot remain silent about the historical background of this Bill. The Government has been interested in the newspaper industry for many years now. Hon. Members may remember, first the 1971 Senate report on mass media and, more recently, the Kent Royal Commission on Newspapers which reported to the Government. As a result of that report, the Hon. Member made public in July 1983 a series of recommendations aimed at regulating concentration and conduct in the newspaper industry. The purpose of those recommendations was to elicit public reaction and to draft appropriate legislative measures. The Bill before us today is only an offshot of the July 1983 recommendations. The first question, of course, is whether it faithfully reflects the public reaction. The 1983 Bill contained provisions which fell under three categories. First, it made it a criminal offence for anyone to own more than 20 per cent of the daily newspaper national circulation. This provision was to be administered by the Director of Investigation and Research appointed under the Combines Investigation Act.
Second, the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission was empowered to assess the editorial impartiality of newspapers taken over by non-media corporations.
Third, an advisory council would have been established to hear public complaints wherever such a council would not already have been created by the provinces. I see that Bill C-226 does not contain the 1983 legislative provision concerning a press council. Other than that, there is not much difference between the two Bills. We must ask ourselves whether this Bill is a good policy for Canada with respect to newspapers. The Bill we are considering flows from the assumption that the existing legislation cannot solve the problems of the newspaper industry. We have to know whether that assumption is still valid. In other words, is the newspaper industry so different from other industries that it has to be regulated by a special act? If it is, will Bill C-226 solve the problems of that industry?
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comparison with the situation before 1975. Before then, most service industries were not covered by the general act pertaining to competition in Canada, namely the Combines Investigation Act. Many distinguished Members of the House will recall
that the Economic Council of Canada had raised a furore when it recommended that the service sector be governed by the Combines Investigation Act. The counter argument at the time was that service industries were different from manufacturing and resource industries.
And yet, service industries were responsible for a growing share of our national product. Fears were expressed that a wide-ranging legislation such as the Combines Investigation Act was not quite applicable to service industries. Indeed what a disgrace it would be to place the professions on the same footing as the manufacturing and the selling of products! It was pointed out that it was impossible to assess the quality or the quantity of the services provided. Many other objections were also put forward.
One of the major conclusions contained in the report of the Economic Council of Canada was that the competition policy should from now on apply to services. It said the following:
There is, in our view, enough evidence pointing to the existence in the service sector of the anti-competitive practices detrimental to the public interest to lead to the conclusion that the continued exemption of parts of this sector from competition policy cannot be justified. We therefore recommend, first, that the per se provisions of the revised Combines Investigation Act be made applicable to all commercial activities, including services provided in connection with the sale or rental of land and buildings and the unregulated activities of "regulated industries". The only major exemptions would be those which already exist in respect of bona fide trade union activities, and arrangements between fishermen in British Columbia and their customers. Some de facto exemptions would of course also continue in respect of activities clearly subject to alternate social control in the form of direct regulation or public ownership.
One of the effects of the recommended change would be to bring services related to "articles" immediately and clearly within the scope of the Act, without the protracted and socially wasteful litigation which the wording of the present legislation makes necessary in such cases. Personal services, such as those of hairdressers and travel agencies, would also be included, as would such business services as those provided by advertising agencies, building cleaners and telephone answering firms. The professions, financial institutions, a broad range of communications services, and all recreational services, including professional sports, would also be covered in so far as other types of social control did not apply.
The Council has observed a difference between goods and service industries in the sense that the products of the latter are intangible, and this creates problems, especially for consumers. Often, they are unable to check, return or resell what they are buying. In addition, they may have to purchase the service based only on an approximate assessment of the final costs. Such factors increase the need for competitive markets.
Another difference noted by the Council was the absence of import competition in many service industries. Actually, the nontransferability of some services also reduces internal competition.
While some people are asking that the law also apply to services, the Council had to examine whether some intrinsic aspect of true service industries justify their exemption simply because they provide services. After examining the question, the Council came to the conclusion that:

April 17, 1984

-while there are important differences in the nature of the products supplied by goods and service industries respectively, these differences are not such as to render an efficiency-oriented competition policy less relevant for service industries. On the contrary, it may in some ways be more relevant.
In 1975, the Combines Investigation Act was amended to apply to services generally. This is the policy of this Government with respect to competitive practices. This Government believes that the Combines Investigation Act should be universally applied.
As many are aware, in a few well-known cases, proceedings were undertaken against newspapers under the Combines Investigation Act. I refer mainly to the K.C. Irving case and more recently the Southam/Thomson case. Both these cases resulted in acquittals. Does this mean that a general legislation such as the Combines Investigation Act cannot be applied effectively to the newspaper industry? I do not know the answer to that. However, I doubt that such a conclusion could be drawn so quickly. Anyway, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. Erola) introduced a bill earlier this month to strengthen the Combines Investigation Act and make it more efficient. As many other members, I heard Mr. Fleming's comments on the legislation. Clearly, the Hon. Member for York-West feels that the Competition Bill cannot replace his own bill. In my view, the legislation put forward by the Hon. Judy Erola in many ways would deal much more efficiently with the newspaper industry than Bill C-226.
For instance, under Bill C-226, nobody could hold more than 20 per cent of the national, total circulation of daily newspapers. That provision is aimed at containing large newspaper chains. But competitionwise, would it not be better that there be a little more competition in New Brunswick for instance, where Irving controls 100 per cent of the market? An arbitrary figure bearing no relation to the relevant market would prevent the Southam or Thomson chains for instance from penetrating the New Brunswick market and perhaps compete efficiently with Irving. Moreover, there is nothing in Mr. Fleming's bill that would help remedy the situation in New Brunswick by making impossible for Irving to control 100 per cent of the provincial market.
On the other hand, the legislation put forward by the Hon. Judy Erola would require that large chains give notice to the Director of Investigation before going ahead with a merger. The merger would then be examined as to the degree of competition in the relevant market. Civil courts could issue orders to remedy the situation. That procedure in my view is more flexible and better adapted to the adjudication of newspaper mergers or takeovers than a bill based on arbitrary criteria leading to fines under criminal proceedings.
Under Bill C-226, the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission would make inquiries to assess the editorial independence of newspapers acquired by non-media corporations. Mr. Speaker, why should the Restrictive Trade Practices Commis-
Daily Newspaper Act
sion be asked to get involved in such matters? In giving the Commission powers of inquiry, is there no risk of jeopardizing the constitutional validity of the Combines Investigations Act?
It is not my contention that an amended Competition Act will solve all the problems in the newspaper industry. Far from that. I submit however that we should rely as far as possible on general laws, such as the Combines Investigations Act, to regulate the newspaper industry.
In my view, Parliament should discuss first the amendments to the Combines Investigations Act as proposed by the Hon. Judy Erola. In the course of that discussion, the parties concerned could be invited to put forward their views to a Standing Committee. The extension of the Combines Investigation Act to the newspaper industry could be one subject the Committee could study in depth.
As indicated by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the Government is open to proposals for amending the Competition Bill, inasmuch as such proposals do not fly in the face of the aims of the bill. Although I commend the Hon. Member for York-West for his consistent efforts, I feel the House should look at other priorities. The special problems of the newspaper industry should be discussed at the relevant Standing Committee, during its discussion of Bill C-29, an Act to amend the Combines Investigation Act.


Mr. Jack Burghardt (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to join in the debate on Bill C-226, the Daily Newspaper Act, proposed by my hon. colleague from York West (Mr. Fleming). As he has already stated, this particular Bill in essence was originally proposed by the present Government as a document to, some suggest, stimulate discussion, and not necessarily as a hard and fast policy position. However, be that as it may, the Bill itself was never brought forth and introduced in Parliament. A great deal of discussion and comment has resulted. Hopefully, the present Government has taken the comments, views and wishes of those who have made representations regarding the original Daily Newspaper Act into consideration. That is perhaps the reason the legislation is not being presented by the Government.
In addressing Bill C-226, I would like to recall the circumstances which led the Government to propose the original Daily Newspaper Act. You may recall in 1980, and I believe the Hon. Member for York West has alluded to this fact, that the Southam and Thomson chains closed newspapers in Ottawa and Winnipeg. Although the director of investigation and research began an inquiry into this affair, the Government appointed Mr. Tom Kent to study the matter in the form of a royal commission. The royal commission on newspapers carefully studied the state of affairs in the newspaper industry and submitted a report which expressed concern on the high degree of market and ownership concentration in that industry as well as the need for measures to promote accountability and improve editorial quality of newspapers.

April 17, 1984
Daily Newspaper Act
When the Government put forward the proposed Daily Newspaper Act, it was with the full intention, I am sure, of soliciting views of members of the industry and the general public. The proposer of this Bill, the Hon. Member for York West, has mentioned the fact that much was said on the part of daily newspaper publishers and editorial writers regarding this particular Bill. I would suggest to the House, Mr. Speaker, that while much of this comment at the time perhaps seemed rather harsh and extremely critical of that particular Act, many of those comments have been taken into account. That is one of the reasons this legislation was never introduced in Parliament.
I think it is important to consider how the environment has changed since the events of 1980. I would like to take the opportunity to make a few observations on these changes which have taken place since the Government proposed the original Daily Newspaper Act. I would like to share some of my views on how these changes are likely to affect the newspaper industry today and, more important, in the future.
You may recall that on April 2 the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. Erola) tabled proposals to amend the Combines Investigation Act. You may also recall that when the proposed Daily Newspaper Act was released a period of contentious debate followed. The criticisms that were levelled at that time included a statement that specific legislation geared toward a particular industry was a less preferred policy than the application of a general law of general application such as the Combines Investigation Act. The critics, however, conceded that the existing Combines Investigation Act needed to be strengthened. Indeed that is what the Minister's proposals are designed to do. The Combines Investigation Act, being a general law of general application, applies to all industries including newspapers. At the time the debate was going on I personally heard from a number of newspaper publishers and editors. They said that if the Combines Investigation Act of that time were strengthened it would look after some of the fears and concerns expressed by the Government and particularly the Cabinet of the day.
The proposals the Minister has put forward should alleviate these concerns about unchecked increases in concentration in Canadian markets. This, of course, applies to newspapers as well as it does to shoes. In the context of newspapers, I think I can safely venture that had the proposed Combines Investigation Act been in place in 1970, we would today have more competition and perhaps a lower degree of concentration in the newspaper industry. The Cities of Montreal, Ottawa, Winnipeg and Vancouver would have had a chance at having more than one resident English daily newspaper.
This is because the proposed amendments to the Combines Investigation Act make it a more flexible and pragmatic law which takes into account the business realities confronting Canadian firms. Mergers and joint production facilities in interests of efficiency gains would be allowed under the proposed Act. More significantly, and I think this is very important, the amendments would not treat businessmen as criminals. Rather, they would remedy the lessening of competition by taking all relevant market factors into account.
Another development I want to mention is the growth of voluntary press councils. The Hon. Member for York West has mentioned this because it was part of the original Daily Newspaper Act. He has dropped it from this particular Bill. I presume the reason is, of course, that initiatives have been taken by the newspaper industry itself to form voluntary press councils, to the extent that we now have councils in almost every province and region of the country from coast to coast.
Whether it can be argued that newspaper were forced into joining the voluntary press councils is another matter. There is no question that they certainly received the message and took the personal initiatives themselves and are now part of these voluntary press councils at which Canadians who have complaints or concerns to air about a particular newspaper can put their case forward. Hopefully their concerns will be dealt with in a very judicious, fair and equitable manner.
Finally, we know that the Kent Commission raised the issue of cross media ownership. It was in July of 1982 that the Governor in Council issued a directive to the CRTC pertaining to cross media ownership. We know that the directive asked the CRTC to examine, on a case by case basis, applications for broadcasting licenses by firms which also had a controlling interest in newspapers. This directive was partly designed to safeguard the independence in sources of news and information a community may receive. In issuing the directive, the Cabinet ensured that the CRTC would continue to have flexibility and discretion over matters that it is best equipped to deal with.
It is my understanding that to date, the CRTC has applied the directive in seven cases. However, I must admit that there is one aspect of the directive on cross media ownership that troubles me. As an example, let me cite a case in my own area of London, Ontario, where a particular company owns the only daily newspaper plus an AM radio station, an FM radio station and a television station. In applying for a renewal of the licence for its AM radio station, it had to address the issue of the cross media ownership, and rightly so because this was the Cabinet directive handed to the CRTC.
This particular company was prepared to address this particular issue to try to prove to the CRTC that especially in the area of news and information services, the individual companies did operate independently of each other. The CRTC eventually renewed the AM radio station licence and in doing so issued a glowing report about this particular company's independent operations when it came to news and public service events as it pertained to the four media outlets.
Approximately two months following the issuance of that AM radio licence, the same company had to apply for renewal of its FM radio licence. In my view it is unfortunate that it had to address again the issue of cross media ownership. This took a lot of time, money and effort on the part of the company. It had already been given a clean bill of health when it received its AM radio licence. It had to go through the whole procedure
April 17, 1984

again in receiving renewal of the FM licence. Probably in another two months' time when it applies for renewal of the television licence, it will have to do the same thing again.
I would respectfully suggest that this is one area of Cabinet directive on cross media ownership that should be changed. Perhaps the Cabinet would take this into consideration, still allowing the CRTC to address the areas of concern and need. But once they have arrived at a particular decision, I feel that a company should not have to go through the same process time and time again.
I would like to reiterate that there have been significant changes in the general environment as it pertains to the newspaper industry. However, this is not to say that concerns in this area do not remain. I congratulate the Hon. Member for York West for bringing this Bill to the floor of the House of Commons at this time. But the solutions we may seek need to be tempered somewhat by the changes that I have mentioned.
I suggest that the House should give quick passage to Bill C-29 which looks after the entire area of competitiveness and combines investigation and the like so as to modernize the competition laws of Canada. This will give us an opportunity to stimulate newspaper competition. After we see how well the competition laws deal with the issue, perhaps we will be in a better position to see whether we do in fact need Bill C-226.


Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, as the previous speaker mentioned, the Bill before us today would place limits on the concentration of ownership of daily newspapers in Canada at the national level. Presumably its purpose is to ensure that concentration does not lead to restrictions on the freedom of the press or reduce diversity of opinion. It is assumed therefore, that concentration of ownership restricts freedom of the press and that concentration somehow restricts diversity of opinion. That is the assumption upon which this Bill was written.
The problem is that there really is no conclusive proof that concentration of ownership has such a result. I would like to point out to the House that it may be that concentration of ownership, in certain circumstances, may encourage a diversity of opinion.
The evidence is as follows. First, as many observers of newspapers can readily conclude, there has been a great increase in the number of one newspaper cities in the United States, Canada and Europe. One would assume that this would decrease the diversity of opinion. What has happened, however, is that there is a great diversity of news available through a variety of newspapers, all owned by the same person or company in many instances. There is competition within a newspaper. We are all aware of the journalists who often take opposing views on the same subjects and we find their views on the same day, on the same page of many newspapers in North America.
There is also competition within the media. Traditional types of newspapers, which I believe are referred to as broad sheet papers-I stand to be corrected-have been replaced in
Royal Assent
many markets by tabloid newspapers. It is clear that poor performance or perhaps failure to keep up with changing demand attracts competitors. We have the example in Canada of the Sun newspapers, which have developed at an astonishing rate across the country from absolutely nothing a number of years ago, which express an editorial point of view. It is clearly quite different from many of the traditional newspapers. In Quebec, there is a similar newspaper-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have the honour to inform the House that when the House did attend His Honour the Deputy to His Excellency the Governor General in the Senate Chamber, His Honour was pleased to give in Her Majesty's name the Royal Assent to the following Bills:
Bill C-3, an Act relating to cash contributions by Canada in respect of insured health services provided under provincial health care insurance plans and amounts payable by Canada in respect of extended health care services and to amend and repeal certain Acts in consequence thereof-Chapter No. 6.
Bill S-2, an Act to provide an exception from the public general law relating to marriage in the case of General Harvey Fudge and Audrey Marie Saunders.
Bill S-3, an Act to provide an exception from the public general law relating to marriage in the case of Louis Philippe Nadeau and Marie Therese Rita Brule.
Bill S-4, an Act to provide an exception from the public general law relating to marriage in the case of Ernest Hodel and Norma Dora Laurie.
Bill S-5, an Act to provide an exception from the public general law relating to marriage in the case of Benjamin Josheph Andrade and Heather Winnifred Andrade.
Bill S-6, an Act to provide an exception from the public general law relating to marriage in the case of Juan Andrade and Emilia Rodriguez.
Bill S-7, an Act to provide an exception from the public general law relating to marriage in the case of Henri Patry and Aldea Bea Pitt.
Bill S-8, an Act to provide an exception from the public general law relating to marriage in the case of Joseph Roland Rejean Daoust and Marie Lise Sylvie Girard.
Bill S-9, an Act to provide an exception from the public general law relating to marriage in the case of Pearl Kim Lee and Thomas Siegfried Wieland.

April 17, 1984
Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 45 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, as a result of questions I raised a short while ago, I would like to deal with the subject of research and development, a topic which has seen some media coverage in the last few weeks from Liberal leadership contenders who are filling the air with rhetoric on that subject and, indeed, on other subjects as well. Sometimes it is difficult to distinguish between what is Liberal Party policy and what is being said by these mini-Prime Ministers for their own purposes.
Perhaps we will have to wait until the leadership convention is over before the current Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Johnston) will once again have to contend with reality instead of catering to the whims of delegates to the June convention. It is easy to say that he will sell PetroCan stations and make many other promises when he has aspirations to be Prime Minister. However, if the Minister really wanted to be Prime Minister he should have taken part in last year's convention.
There is a lack of adequate incentives for companies to indulge in adequate research and development. Hand in hand with that is the lack of facilities for retraining workers who face extinction due to the ever-changing needs of the high-tech workplace. A case in point is the closing of a manufacturing plant in Fort Erie called Hart & Cooley, throwing about 70 people out of work. I think the first priority of those charged with the development of science and technology should be to get rid of the "pie in the sky" attitude which deals in science fiction rhetoric and concocts wonderful generalities about happenings in the future. What we need is a common sense approach to the questions facing taxpayers and indeed voters, not only in the 1990s but right now.
Take, for example, the response given by the Minister to a question directed to him by the Conservative spokesman on science and technology, the Hon. Member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon). The Hon. Member requested that the Government make a co-ordinated effort to ensure that jobs connected to the space program come to Canada. He specifically asked that the 88 Canadian companies that have already submitted proposals for contracts with the space program be given first consideration in the awarding of any contracts.
Instead of answering this specific question, the Minister carried on with generalities which gave no indication that he was prepared to guarantee that Canadians get priority in the letting of contracts. This is indicative of the Minister's and,
indeed, of the Government's very fuzzy approach to the whole question of science and technology. It is clearly this approach that has led to the current lack of opportunities for Canadians in this very important field.
This attitude was underlined again in the last Budget which was supposed to consolidate the recovery, yet failed to extend research and development benefits as defined under the Income Tax Act to the development of computer software. This is one area which will bring Canada to the forefront of the high technology world, yet the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) failed to give consideration to helping out that fledgling industry, nor did he even consider adding to the funding available for the total research and development package sufficient funding to bring it back to the level which it enjoyed back in the year 1968.
Let us have some assistance for what I feel is a very important program. Otherwise we may find ourselves at the portal of the year 2000 with the technology of the 1970s, and we will have to blame someone for this problem. No doubt the Minister of Finance will be chosen for that honour along with the Minister of State for Science and Technology. To avoid such a scenario, it is absolutely essential that modern industry develop new products to make use of the workers and processes made obsolete.
Let me take a case in point. The Inco plant in Port Colborne had to lay off 490 workers because of decreased demand for its electrolytic nickel. Why does this kind of thing need to occur? It is a disaster, Mr. Speaker, when in a town of 20,000 people, 500 people are laid off. I know that is not the mandate of Government to tell private industry if it can or cannot shut down a plant or lay off workers. This is approaching too much the ideals of our friends to the left, physically as well as philosophically. However, it does make sense to provide adequate financial incentives to such companies to look into new markets and innovative products. That is what we need to do.
The same people in the same place could be manufacturing the products of the 1980s instead of opting for the nice sounding but unpleasant prospect of early retirement. One group which must not be forgotten is the unemployed people who are over 40 years of age, many of whom will have great difficulty indeed being rehired because of their age and lack of up-to-date skills. Therefore, the Government must take the responsibility to ensure that these people are retrained and encouraged to once again enter the work force. The Government must help them out of the lonely abyss in which they find themselves when they are too young to retire and too old to be easily redirected to another career.
Who is to blame for this problem? Indeed, the Government must accept some of the blame for not encouraging companies to pursue the new markets they need and the development of new products. The companies too must take some of the blame for not devoting more of their energies to those directions.
In conclusion, it seems sad and incomprehensible that we in Canada are spending only a shade over 1 per cent of our GNP on research and development while our competitors are spending considerably more. With a GNP like that of the United
April 17, 1984

States, the amount of money spent is staggering, and it appears certain that if the same trend continues we are doomed to have a second rate branch plant economy.


Mr. Jean-Guy Dubois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy that the Hon. Member arrived at the point of the question. When he began to speak, I was surprised; I thought he was dealing with the wrong subject when asking his question. The question is with regard to Inco at Port Colborne. I have a reply for him concerning the question he asked on April 3. I hope that the point 1 make tonight answers the question he asked the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts), not the Minister of State for Economic Development (Mr. Johnston). I am not sure he was really on the point of the question. I have a response regarding the Inco situation which I will give in French.
[Translation\
As the Hon. Member for Erie (Mr. Fretz) is certainly aware, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian mining industry has been dealt a severe blow these past few years because of the softening of the demand on the international market. That is one of the reasons why INCO has decided to end its production of electrolytic nickel in Port Colborne. This restraint measure should improve INCO's position as a low cost nickel producer. The resulting layoffs will affect 415 hourly-paid workers who have received a 12 week advance notice, except those with over five years of service who are entitled to a severance pay of one week salary for each year of service up to a maximum of 26 weeks. In order to minimize the actual number of layoffs, the company has offered to study, together with representatives of Section 6200 of the United Steelworkers of America, programs of early retirement for eligible hourly-paid workers. They hope that by encouraging eligible workers to opt for an early retirement, they can reduce the actual number of layoffs. Some 75 other salaried employees will be laid off. The company has hired an independent professional counselling firm to help salaried employees thus affected to secure other jobs, to move to other areas or to plan their retirement. INCO has offered to examine manpower adjustment issues with Canada Employment and Immigration Commission officials and union representatives, and to set up a committee of the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council for the purpose of suggesting ways of helping these workers by offering them new jobs and career retraining. CEIC officials for the Ontario region have contacted INCO's representatives who have confirmed their intention to set up a committee of the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council. CEIC officials are to meet with union representatives to seek their support for this committee. The CEIC will study the economic context of the Port Colborne community and surrounding area to determine whether these special manpower adjustment measures are warranted. In the past,
Adjournment Debate
such cooperation between the CEIC, INCO and the union have solved similar problems resulting from job losses. I believe their continued cooperation will alleviate the current situation.

That is the reply I have for the Member concerning the question he asked of the Minister of Employment and Immigration on April 3.


VISIBLE MINORITIES-USE OF GOVERNOR IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS TO INCREASE REPRESENTATION. (B) CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION VACANCY
Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin-Swan River):: Mr. Speaker, I will address my question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Gourd). I am pleased he is here this evening. It follows a question I raised yesterday regarding the use of Governor in Council appointments to increase the participation of visible minorities on boards and commissions. I am, of course, following up on some of the recommendations in the Equality Now report. I begin by quoting one of the black actresses who said;
If we are not accurately seen in the mirror that the media holds up to society, then clearly we are somehow not part of that society.
This last weekend at a conference in Winnipeg, which I referred to in my question, there was Focus on the Visible Minorities in Advertising Conference. We heard a very touching story from Ron Nadeau with native communications. He gave the illustration of a young native boy in school whose teacher asked him to cut out of the catalogue a picture of somebody who looked like his family.
The young native boy wrote to one of the catalogue companies and said: "I was not able to fulfil the request of my teacher because when I looked in your catalogue there was nobody like my family. Everybody was white." He said to the catalogue company: "In the next catalogue, I hope you will have somebody who looks like me."
There are seven Indian reserves in my constituency. The Indian chiefs often ask me why there are never any Indians in the advertising that we see over television. That same conference dealt with the question of the participation of visible minorities in advertising. I was a bit disturbed and appalled. Ad agencies and even large companies with public relations departments that spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on advertising failed to be present at that conference.
We should focus on the CRTC and various boards that deal with regulations and the way that visible minorities are portrayed in Canada because they have an awful lot of legislative clout. In terms of the impact on Canadian citizens the CRTC, and possibly the CTC, the Canadian Transport Commission, have an enormous amount of weight, and both have a fantastic impact on Canadian citizens.
Recommendation 21 of Equality Now report of a committee on which I had the privilege to serve, urges the federal Government to use Governor in Council appointments, to

April 17, 1984
Adjournment Debate
increase the participation of visible minorities on federal boards and commissions. On page 51 of that report we specifically refer to the CRTC.
When I asked the Minister yesterday to act on this matter, I specifically referred to the CRTC. He said he was very happy with the general principle of the participation of all racial and of all other groups of our society on these boards. But the 19-member board of the CRTC is an all-white board. There are no participants of the visible minorities. I was urging the Government to consider the fact that presently there is a vacancy. In fact, that vacancy has been there since February of 1983, for over one year. There is an opportunity for the Government to make sure there is a chance for all members of our society to participate.
There is a myth out there that all the visible minorities are not qualified. There have been enough studies which have shown that that is not true. In fact, the CBC had a trainee program and instead of using the old boys' network to advertise for the applications, they used the ethnic press and ethnic media. There were 800 applications of which they themselves judged at least 150 were eminently qualified to fill the eight positions which existed.
We are not asking for quotas. None of the visible minorities have ever asked for quotas. We are not asking that unqualified people be appointed. We are saying there are qualified people. Let us get going and implement some of the recommendations of Equality Now. Let us have some action now. I hope that the Minister will, if he has not done any kind of survey or study, undertake to make sure that in our society there is an equitable participation of all members of society, of all ethnic cultural groups, especially after the Equality Now report of the visible minorities in our society. I will await the answer of the Parliamentary Secretary. I hope that it is a much better one than the answer I received from the Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Collenette) yesterday.


Mr. Robert Gourd (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Mr. Speaker, as usual, the Hon. Member gets all his ideas mixed up. He talks about appointments, about the CRTC, about the CBC. All this is just a pretext to deliver a speech in front of his constituents. As for the answer to his question-

*-it is the practice of the federal Government to use Governor in Council appointments to increase the participation of visible minorities on federal boards and commissions, as well as in the senior management of the Public Service and Crown corporations. The Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Collenette) since assuming office has been increasingly active in the promotion of candidates to various boards and commissions as positions became vacant.
The Minister recognized that the federal Government must tap the immense pool of talent and experience which is present in the visible minority community.

I could easily quote a number of people from visible minorities who have been appointed to various functions within commissions or the federal Public Service: Mrs. Ann Cools who was elevated to the Senate; Jean Augustine, who was appointed to the Royal Commission on the Status of Women; Juanita Westmorland-Traore, to the Canadian Human Rights Commission; Jean Gamage, to the Harbourfront Corporation; Tom Shoyama, to Petro-Canada and to the Royal Commission on the Economic Union and Development Prospects for Canada; and Mr. David Suzuki, to the Science Council of Canada.
In addition, the Minister of State for Multiculturalism has brought the matter of Governor in Council appointments of visible minorities to the attention of his Cabinet colleagues. He is confident they will all recognize the importance of that community and its contribution to this country.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that this provides an adequate answer to my hon. colleague.


FISHERIES-COWICHAN ESTUARY-GOVERNMENT POLICY. (B) APPLICATION OF POLICY
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, since 1980 when this Parliament began I have been concerned and on a number of occasions have raised the issue of the Cowichan estuary. The people who live in that area, fishermen on the British Columbia coast, and myself as their representative, have been trying to get the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to protect the estuary as a very important part of our fish habitat. The importance of estuaries in the life cycle of salmon has only been recently recognized, but it is becoming increasingly clear that unless we protect our estuaries we do not have any hope of maintaining a salmon industry on the Pacific coast.
The destruction of fish habitat, Mr. Speaker, is equivalent to the destruction of the fishing industry. That in fact is what we see happening in British Columbia today. The neglect of fish habitat by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is a very important piece in the jugsaw puzzle of fisheries mismanagement. As they say, the chickens are now coming home to roost, but unfortunately the salmon are not coming home to spawn.
We face a very serious crisis on the Pacific coast. Cutbacks on fishing time for trawlers to supposedly help conserve dwindling stocks of Chinook salmon mean these fishermen are not going to be able to get enough weeks in fishing to qualify for their UIC benefits. They are cut back to two months instead of
April 17, 1984

the usual five and a half months. That is one indication of the Department's mismanagement of that situation. As the President of the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union said, the fisheries policy is really a fast track to bankruptcy for these trollers. The restrictions on the Gulf trolling fleet will be followed soon by restrictions on other gear types.
The Cowichan estuary is critical to one of the most important Chinook stocks off Vancouver Island. The loss of habitat there is inexcusable and will result in the direct loss of jobs. As a result of a trade-off or sell-out that the Minister participated in, Doman's Mill was able to trade 23 acres of farmland for the right to boom logs in some 40 acres of inter-tidal area within the estuary. Then the Minister and his Department have the nerve to call this a no-net loss of fish habitat. Let us get this straight, Mr. Speaker. We are not questioning Doman's right to be on the estuary and have some booming grounds. That was recognized several years ago. But we do question the need to expand that booming ground. The local economy badly needs the jobs at Doman's Mill, but it also needs the jobs in the tourist and fishing industry which will be lost if we do not protect our estuary. The mill does not need extra booming area.
A 1978 study for the fisheries and marine service of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, which was Appendix 11 of the Cowichan Estuary Task Force Report, estimated that at times Doman's were storing logs in the estuary in excess of 14 months. This is far beyond the normal requirements for a mill storing logs. It recommended that there should be a 20 acre limit for Doman's to store logs in the estuary. I would like to hear from the Department and the Minister why the Fisheries department abandoned that policy. Why did they abandon the policy of saying there would be a 20 acre limit for Doman industry to boom in that area.
On December 20 I asked the Minister questions about the so-called no-net loss policy. I asked if there would be a public process for any exchanges that were made. The Minister assured me that that would in fact happen. However, it did not happen. In fact, the public was kept completely in the dark about the conditions of the exchange. Members of the Cowichan Estuary Preservation Society were in fact isolated from everything that was happening. Fisheries Department officials did not even answer their phone calls.
I am not a person who traditionally likes to engage in bashing bureaucrats. I think that generally speaking they do a good job. However, there seemed to be some directive from on high that prevented these people from dealing in an open way with the people from the Cowichan Estuary Preservation Society. We want to know what studies were done to determine if the exchange was in fact a fair exchange, and if in fact there was a no-net loss of habitat. If there were any studies I urge the Minister to release them and make them available. I suspect that we will be waiting a long time because I do not think any study can possibly justify the trading of 23 acres of farmland for 40 acres of very valuable intertidal estuary area.
Adjournment Debate
We want answers. The public is entitled to answers on this very important public resource. We want to know why there is a sell-out of our fisheries and a betrayal of fish habitat. We want to know if that is the pattern that will be followed with the Kemano II project. I would very much appreciate if the Parliamentary Secretary could be straightforward in the answers he gives to these questions.


Mr. Maurice Harquail (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, representing the beautiful constituency of Restigouche in the Atlantic area where we have the Atlantic salmon coming up the rivers to spawn, newsprint mills and the importance of forestry and fishing, I can fully understand the concern that is being brought forward here this afternoon by the Hon. Member. However, I would hasten to remind the Hon. Member that he would have had an equal opportunity to pose his questions at the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry the other day when we devoted the entire time to questions relating to the Pacific Coast. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, we had officials on hand at the Standing Committee to respond directly on fishery matters in greater detail than we would have had the time for in the House.
However, the Hon. Member has raised a number of questions relating to the Cowichan Estuary and our Department's fish habitat management policy. In recent times the Minister himself and other Department officials have been making statements with respect to fish management, salmon management and the whole range of the subject he has raised here today.
The waters of the Cowichan estuary on Vancouver Island have been used for storing logs by a number of forest companies for many years. Our Department has been negotiating with these companies and with the Province of British Columbia to reduce the total amount of log storage in fish habitat areas within the estuary. I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, to announce that our regional staff are finalizing arrangements with these companies and the B.C. Government which will result in a reduction of more than 50 per cent of the total acreage of log storage in the estuary. This reduction will result in the restoration of valuable fish habitat and serves to illustrate well the fish habitat restoration goal which is clearly outlined in our Department's discussion paper Toward a Fish Habitat Management Policy.
Not only will fish habitat currently altered by log storage be restored but, in addition, some land in the estuary, which is currently not available as fish habitat, will be developed into productive fish habitat as part of our overall habitat improvement efforts in the estuary. This will serve to further increase the total amount of productive fish habitat in the estuary. The Cowichan estuary is thus an excellent example of the kind of habitat restoration project our department will be pursuing through the implementation of the fish habitat management policy.

April 17, 1984
Adjournment Debate
The Hon. Member has also asked about opportunities for the public to review these projects. Our Department's discussion paper on fish habitat points out that public consultation on major development affecting fish habitat is a necessary strategy as part of an overall fish habitat policy.
While it is not the Department's intention to consult with the public on the numerous minor habitat issues it deals with on a regular basis, I would like to assure the Hon. Member that for those major new developments with potentially significant impacts on fish habitat, public consultation will be an
integral part of our Department's decision-making process. In this regard, my Department has participated in public meetings which provided interested citizens-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. The time allowed to the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has expired.
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6.32 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday, April 18, 1984