1984-06-13

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, the small Village of Ridgeway, where I make my home, was an area of great strategic importance during pre-Confederation days. One hundred and eighteen years ago on June 2, 1866, 54 years after the war of 1812, Ridgeway was not a peaceful little hamlet. Rather, it was the location of a fierce battle between the Canadian forces and the Fenian raiders from the United States of America.
A small house on a tract of land then owned by the Teal family, and recently restored by the Bertie Historical Society, was used as a field hospital to care for the wounded and dying soldiers. Bullets which missed their mark embedded themselves in the walls of the house, and are still visible. Women and children took shelter in a marsh just west of this house.
In 1975 the Bertie Historical Society undertook the project of restoring and moving the building. Now that this preliminary groundwork has been laid, the society would like to see the property taken over and maintained by the federal Government as an historical national site and park. Since my riding is experiencing high unemployment, and in light of the potential for job creation involved in the construction of a national historical site, I would ask that the Minister responsible for Parks Canada look into this matter immediately. I look forward to hearing from him, and providing more details.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the recent study based on the survey of 1,100 Metro students varying in age from 12 to 18 shows that 10 per cent admit to being troubled by war fears, 28 per cent wonder whether or not they will marry and have families, 24 per cent indicate the desire to live for the present and forget the future. It is my concern that the very
organizations wanting to prevent nuclear holocausts repeatedly and graphically present the horrors of such a conflict to the point of saturating the mind of the young and old without presenting factual information that gives some hope for the future, information such as the fact that, for 39 years, living with the nuclear arsenal has prevented wars in Europe, that there are powerful peace initiatives that have been activated in response to the threats of war associated with the escalation of nuclear material, and that, despite prevailing mistrust between the major powers, both are cognizant of the potential global destruction of a nuclear war between them and will not start one. This is not to say that nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists do not pose a frightening possibility of a localized nuclear explosion.
Young people are courageous and intelligent and, if given balanced information and views, not only can they handle a threatening situation, but they will make innovative suggestions for ongoing peace initiatives.


CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS
Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Home and School and Parent-Teacher Federation is a long established organization in Canadian educational circles. Its objectives have focused on improving the educational system. At a recent annual meeting held in Winnipeg, the Federation removed the following declaration from its constitution:
-to foster high ideals of citizenship and patriotism and to promote, through educational means, international good will and peace.
It has come to my attention that this clause was removed because of threats from Revenue Canada that, if the clause were to remain, the organization would be under threat of deregistration as a registered charity. Much of this was raised in an article in The Winnipeg Sun by Peter Warren, investigative reporter.
It has come to our attention that the reason for Revenue Canada using this kind of threat is that patriotism is seen as being too political. I ask this House why is the Liberal Government, through the agency of Revenue Canada, arguing that citizenship and patriotism should not be taught, and that those who do will be deregistered by Revenue Canada?

June 13, 1984


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, Indian people felt a surge of hope last November when a special committee of this House tabled a report on Indian self-government. The report called for a new relationship between Indian first nations and the federal Government, and for recognition of Indian self-government.
The First Ministers' Conference failed to provide constitutional entrenchment for this right because the Liberal Government, two days before the conference began, did not even know what position it would take. How then could it mobilize public opinion in support of Indian self-government? The promises to bring in framework legislation have also been a hoax. Instead of a new relationship with the federal Government, Indian people are being sucked into a new relationship with the Department of Indian Affairs. As one Indian leader told me last week:
The self-government report is failing our people. The Department is getting more involved in our lives rather than getting out. The Department is trying to tell us what Indian self-government is about.
Indian women have also been betrayed. The Government promised time and again to end Indian Act discrimination against them, but where is the Bill to do this? Why does the Government not bring it forward so that it can be studied and debated? Indian people have heard government promises for so long that they have become part of their heritage, almost like an aboriginal right. When will the Government begin to act? When will it bring in Bills to recognize-


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


CUSTOMS ACT
Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-6, the new Customs Act, is the Government's latest attempt to update a 137-year old piece of legislation that is inadequate and obsolete. Certain of the proposed changes are also inadequate, in particular the one dealing with the disposal of seized or unclaimed goods that have become the property of the Crown. It proposes that disposal by public tender or auction continue to be done according to guidelines established by regulation rather than by legislation. Current regulations prescribe that two senior customs officers shall conduct the public tenders, which the public is not allowed to attend. They also state that any envelopes opened by customs in error shall be resealed and held for the close of bidding.
The potential for abuse is obvious. What safeguards are there to ensure that the officers do not open each submitted bid in error, enabling them to determine the amount that a friend or relative could bid in order to win the tender? What
provision is there to ensure that the highest bid will indeed be chosen by the officers?
One of my constituents was recently denied the opportunity to attend a public tender. He was bidding on an item with a market value of $45,000. The customs officers had set a minimum reserve bid of $7,500 on that item. Surely it is not the policy of this deficit-ridden Government to sell off Crown property at fire sale prices! I urge the Minister to address these problems, either through the legislation or in the new regulations now being drafted by his Department.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Mr. Speaker, in January, 1961, American Motors opened up its Canadian production plant in Brampton. On Monday an announcement was made by the President and Chief Operating Officer of American Motors, Mr. Jose Dedeurwaerder, announcing an investment of three-quarters of a billion dollars in a new American Motors plant in Brampton.
The announcement was made by the President in conjunction with the provincial Government of Ontario and the federal Government, both of which participated in the negotiations and both of which are providing funding on a repayable basis through the payment of royalties over a number of years. I would like to add my congratulations to American Motors and to both levels of government. At the same time, I would like to congratulate Premier Davis on his 25 years of service to the public which began on June 11, 1959.


UNITED STATES ACTION TO RESTRICT STEEL IMPORTS FROM CANADA
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I recently read with interest a statement in the press attributed to high-ranking U.S. officials indicating that they were about to enter into a free trade agreement with Canada in one or more of our key sectors. I understand that it is the intention of the Canadian Government to enter into free trade arrangements with the United States on matters relating to computerization.
On the same day, and in the same newspaper, I read that the United States has moved to restrict the importation of steel from Canada into the United States. The Americans cannot have it both ways. They cannot argue for free trade and draw our Government into a position in which it may sign an agreement which will be detrimental to Canada's best interests, while at the same time argue for restrictive trade practices regarding the importation of basic steel. I would ask the
June 13, 1984

Government of Canada to sign no free trade agreements with the United States until such time as it comes to grips with the problem of how to deal with access to the U.S. market for the Canadian steel industry.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, today there is a strange fog rolling into Ottawa from North and South, from East and West. This fog is thick and warm and full of spirits. I am told that this fog is to last for four days and then the sun is to break through, and a new chief disciple of confusion is to be proclaimed. Party politics is the very essence of confusion.
For months now, the airwaves have heralded the coming of John, and the promise of a new gospel according to John. But which John is it to be? Is it to be John, or Jean, or Johnston? Or is it to be John Turn-right, or Jean the Creator, or John-boy, or perhaps John the Reformer, or even Smoke-Signal John? Or is it to be Almost John, who is really Stetson Gene?
After the first salvo, who is to be marked as John the successor to Pierre the Great? Let us hope that, come Monday, the fog will have rolled out into the hinterland again and that this place will regain its perspective.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

[DOT] (MI5)


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, the Government claims to have the best interests of Canadian farmers at heart. Every day I hear different Cabinet Ministers rise in the House and announce assistance for large corporations and guaranteed loans for other financially failing companies, such as Dome Petroleum. Yet when the Minister of Agriculture was questioned about assisting farmers by reducing farm credit lending rates, his only response was that rates are determined by U.S. monetary policy. When asked to extend the Farm Credit Corporation's interest assistance program to protect farmers from a sudden rise to a higher rate of interest, the answer was that no such proposal was being considered.
This, to me, shows a complete lack of commitment to this vital sector of our economy. Surely if the Minister of Agriculture could convince Cabinet that we must have a thriving agricultural industry in order to feed our people, Cabinet would see that further protection from escalating interest rates is essential now. Perhaps the Minister knows there is no use
Oral Questions
talking to Cabinet because agriculture has not been on its list of priorities for the last 16 years. As a result, we risk the possibility of losing cur reputation as a net exporter of agricultural products and, indeed, of even becoming unable to feed ourselves.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of amateur sport. It is a simple question. How much money has the sports pool lost to date? How much is it losing weekly?


Hon. Jacques Olivier (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, I must say that when the Canadian Sports Pool Corporation was started a number of weeks ago, it was very successful in getting a share of the market. The trouble began, however, when the provinces decided to boycott the sports Pool and to actually stop the sale of tickets in locations that had the facilities to sell them. The Canadian Sports Pool Corporation has made a tremendous effort to establish itself on the market and to stay there. To do so, the Corporation has spent funds it was allowed to spend under the Act.


John William Bosley: We have another clear, specific, and direct answer, Mr. Speaker.


CORPORATION'S FUTURE PLANS
John William Bosley: Mr. Speaker, since it would appear that the sports pool is losing approximately $750,000 a week, making even John Turner look like a piker, could the Minister tell the House what plans he now has in place, or is preparing to bail out the sports pool? Specifically, will the Minister confirm that he and his staff are considering a second game, modelled after the 6-49 lottery?
Will the Minister also confirm that a proposal is apparently under preparation to come to the Government to ask for a further $20 million for the sports pool?


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member opposite is letting his rhetoric run away with him, and he is now trying to destroy any hope of helping-of doing what we wanted to

June 13, 1984
Oral Questions
do. To answer his question quite frankly-Take the time to understand-You never understood a thing in your life! To answer his question-It always takes you half a minute more than anyone else to understand. What I wanted to say was that the Sports Pool has been set up and it is going to stay. We have no intention of getting involved in lotteries. We intend to continue the work we have begun, and when you say that we intend to borrow or that the Corporation has applied for a loan-First of all, I have never received an official request in this respect, and second, I invite all Members of the Parliament of Canada, whether they voted in favour or against, to see for themselves that under Section 20, the Act provides that funds may be borrowed to start up and continue the Sports Pool system.


REQUEST FOR PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
John William Bosley: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary question directed to the Minister is this: since we now clearly know that the Minister does not care about public money, will the Minister guarantee the House of Commons that no further funds will be loaned, forwarded, or sent to the Sports Pool Corporation until the House of Commons has had a full public accounting and inquiry into what the money has been used for so far, what contracts have been granted, what people have been employed, and whether there was any tendering of the advertising contracts? In short, will the Minister guarantee the House of Commons the right to inquire into the mess which has been going on under his direction?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Mr. Speaker, the Opposition's only contribution to the Sports Pool has been to discredit the Corporation. We never said things like the Leader of the Official Opposition, who stated that if he had been Prime Minister for fifteen years, he would never have hired a Liberal as long as there was still one Progressive Conservative alive! That is not our policy. That is not what we do. Certainly not. When it selected agencies to take care of advertising, the Government of Canada was entirely aware of the quality of the services these companies were able to offer.
Furthermore, when the Canadian Sports Pool Corporation was established, we knew for a fact that the Progressive Conservative Party was being supported by the provincial Conservative governments in its bid to sabotage this opportunity for helping people in Western Canada with the 1988 Olympic Games in Calgary, to destroy amateur sport in Canada, to destroy opportunities for getting funds for medical research!
What happened was that the former Government eliminated completely any possibility for the Government of Canada to make a contribution to the cost of sending Canadian athletes to national and international events. That is what you have done!


CANADA SPORTS POOL CORPORATION-REQUEST THAT MINISTER EVALUATE FINANCIAL SITUATION
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I must say I am very disappointed in the Minister's answers. If the Government is so anxious to help amateur sport and medical research, there are other and more honest ways of doing so.
Mr. Speaker, my question is-He can count on our support! My question, therefore, is as follows: The Minister is unable to inform the House what the Sports Pool's deficit is at the present time. The Minister is aware that there is a deficit, that it is getting bigger every day and that he is taking public funds to protect three or four hundred Liberal friends who will no longer have jobs after the next election. In the circumstances, I would ask the Minister to inform the House about the financial situation of the Canadian Sports Pool Corporation and at what stage the Minister will stop this blood-letting of public funds.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Mr. Speaker, I may remind my hon. friend from Joliette, and I have said so in the House, that I was available-and I have been available to Members on both sides of the House-to forward to the Canadian Sports Pool Corporation requests I received from Hon. Members for jobs for constituents within the Corporation. I accepted these requests which arrived at my office and I forwarded them to the President of the Corporation. If the Hon. Member for Joliette wants me to table the letters I received, I shall be glad to do so. But what I want to say is: we did not do what you are trying to prove we did. Certainly not! We made available to the Corporation, and this is public information, the amount of $10.5 million, which is allowed under the Act.
Furthermore, if the Corporation ever needs more money, Section 20 of the Act provides for mechanisms to allow funding, with the authorization of the Governor in Council, and we will see what happens then. Mr. Speaker, I have received no requests for funding at this time. What they are trying to do, Mr. Speaker, is discredit the Corporation just to show that at the national level there is no money available to help our athletes, support our commitments for Calgary and support medical research. That is what the Hon. Member for Joliette is doing by persisting in his criticism of the Canadian Sports Pool Corporation and by swallowing everything that has been said and printed without taking the trouble to do their own research. All they are doing is reading a few newspapers, and then asking questions! I am sure that the Hon.

June 13, 1984

Member for Joliette can read and that his information resources are far better than that.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER DISCLOSE FUTURE INVESTMENT IN CORPORATION
Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I am not impressed by the Hon. Minister's answers. The fact remains that he is incapable of informing the House what exactly the financial situation of this new Corporation is. The public is concerned, and the Government cannot afford to waste public funds at this time. That is the important point. The Minister knew perfectly well that he would not have the support of the Official Opposition for this "new creature", that he would not have the support of the provinces, because we had decided to give that source of revenue to the provinces-and we are glad we did so-and so, in the circumstances, the Minister is blaming the provinces, while he should be apologizing to the provinces instead of blaming them for being opposed to his system. Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask the Minister once more, and I will do so right now: How much public money will have to be spent to bail out an organization whose only purpose is to find jobs for partisans and Liberal friends?


Mr. Peterson:: Louder!


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member for Joliette wants to put on a show, I can do that too! However, my responsibilities would not permit-I have just informed the House that the Canadian Government has made available the sum of $10.5 million under the legislation creating the Canadian Sports Pool Corporation. I have just informed the Hon. Member for Joliette, through you, Mr. Speaker, that I have yet to receive a request for-So if you are smart enough to understand, which I doubt, this means that the full $10.5 million has not yet been spent. Is that what you want to know? Since they did not ask-But I can say furthermore-In any case, we are not going to be as lavish as you were, when you gave the provinces $500 million and kept only $35 million for the federal Government-We need money to meet our commitments to Calgary. The people of Calgary and of Canada-


Roch La Salle: There are other ways!


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: -believe in the Olympics! We, Mr. Speaker, believe in amateur sport! We believe in medical research! As for the Hon. Members opposite, they are indulging in a lot of rhetoric to destroy the credibility of a Corporation-In any case, I would invite the Hon. Member to read the Corporation's press release. The Corporation says quite clearly how employees were hired and how contracts were signed. The Hon. Member was afraid of referring to it.


Roch La Salle: That is false!


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: The Opposition will never refer to it.
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn).


IMPORT QUOTAS FOR JAPANESE MANUFACTURED AUTOMOBILES
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade. We in this Party are bitterly disappointed over the Minister's weak-kneed approach to Japanese automotive imports for 1984-85. Why did the Minister not demand a greater investment commitment on the part of Japanese automobile manufacturers than the almost negligible promise, in today's terms, of $100 million and 350 jobs, if we are lucky, by the end of this decade? Why was the Minister not stronger in his arguments?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the Hon. Member asked that question. I am also delighted that he showed to the public his lack of understanding of how to approach a very difficult question such as international negotiations on the level of car imports into our country.
The Hon. Member must keep several things in mind. First, we are a trading nation which exports more than it imports. Second, we sell far more to Japan than we buy from them. They are an important and growing market, creating jobs for Canadian workers. I want him to recognize that in continuing the voluntary agreement with the Japanese I wanted to achieve a level which would keep pressure on them to continue the very good start they have made with negotiations in this country.
It is all very easy for the Hon. Member to second guess. This is the first time the Japanese have started to invest and create Canadian jobs by manufacturing in Canada. This was negotiated by the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and is a big step forward.
Finally, he must keep in mind that this is not totally a one-sided thing. I have protected the Canadian workers with this level. I have also given Canadian consumers some continuing choice. They have the ability to buy Japanese cars if they choose to do so. That is the sort of world in which we should live.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, the Minister appeared so upset in giving his answer that I know very well he is not convinced that what he says is right. The Minister knows that he has not been bargaining with the strength he should have been bargaining with for the past four years. Japan has the most closed and most protected market in the world. I do not know why the Minister is not on top of it.

June 13, 1984
Oral Questions


LEVEL OF JAPANESE INVESTMENT IN CANADA
[Stage Direction]
that 25,000 Canadian automotive workers were recalled last year.
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister for International Trade. Why could the Minister not work out a deal with the Japanese who have over 20 per cent of our market, similar to the one Renault and AMC have entered into in Brampton where that company is prepared to invest $750 million and directly create 1,800 new jobs as opposed to 350, plus another 4,200 spin-off jobs in the steel and other related industries? Why could the Minister not get as tough with the Japanese as they are with us? Has he ever tried to sell a Canadian made washing machine in Tokyo?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to hire the Hon. Member as a salesman. That is the last thing I would do. He needs to learn, first, that Rome was not built in a day, and, second, that American Motors were already here.
I want to refer the Hon. Member to the statements of satisfaction with the quota I negotiated, from Ford and the other Canadian car companies. I think I would go by their judgment sooner than I would go by the Hon. Member's. I am glad to see the Hon. Member gave credit to what the Minister of DRIE did in relation to the Brampton deal. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that that was a case where AMC was already in the country. In relation to the Japanese, we now have the Honda deal in Ontario and we have a wheel plant in British Columbia. We have the Japanese using more Canadian parts including Michelin Tires from Nova Scotia. We are making some real progress.
Yes, Japan has been a very closed market, but it is a market that is opening up-


Mr. Crosbie:: Order.


Gerald Augustine Regan: -and it is offering more opportunity for our sales each time that it opens a bit more. I think we are bringing things along well, and at the same time we are putting first the interests of the Canadian workers in the automotive industry and providing a level of protection.


IMPACT OF AUTOMOBILE IMPORTS ON JOBS
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: I have a final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Minister has been failing for four years. He has achieved peanuts.


Mr. Nystrom:: The peanut man.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: When will the Minister ask the Japanese when they will give back those 20,000 jobs which they have taken from the auto industry and the auto parts industry? That is the question I am putting to the Minister.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should keep in mind the fact that this Government turned the economy around in such a way


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Stevens:: The industry is right down.


Mr. Nielsen:: It is right on its backside.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald Augustine Regan: That is the first thing I want to say to the Hon. Member. The next thing I want him to do is to take some time this summer to understand the flow of multilateral trade. As a country that has such a large trade balance in relation to our exports as against our imports, if we are going to say to every country: "Well, let us trade back the jobs that used to be in the other direction", then we will lose badly. We are creating many more jobs by our exports than our imports are costing us.


THE OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport. I want to inquire about what is going to happen to the Calgary Olympics. While the Government initially told the International Olympic Committee that it would guarantee funding for the Calgary Olympics, it subsequently said that such funding would depend upon the revenue from the sports pool. Given that the sports pool appears to be a money sump rather than a money maker, could the Minister tell the House just what effect this will have on the Calgary Olympics?


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that we were one of the first Governments to endorse Calgary's bid to host the 1988 Olympic Games. We were the first Government to make a $200 million public commitment on behalf of the Calgary Olympic Games and, along with the residents of that city, we promised that the 1988 Olympic Games will be a success on the national and international scenes. What I fail to understand is that people who hail from Calgary and western Canada are trying to discredit that source of revenue and simply do not want any national Government to promote the Calgary Olympic Games. That I cannot understand. What I do understand, however, is that the media have launched a petty political campaign against Calgary and the people of western Canada.

June 13, 1984


REQUEST FOR FUNDING GUARANTEE
Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport. What I would like from this Minister, Mr. Speaker, is a guarantee, the kind of guarantee which this Party has given, that the Calgary Olympics will receive the necessary funding, that they will not have to depend upon the Sports Pool Corporation, the bungling of this Minister, or these grits at the hog trough, the pork barrel, who are running the sports pool and costing us millions. Will the Minister make a simple commitment that the Government will guarantee the Calgary Olympics will have the necessary funding, regardless of what happens to the Minister's sports pool?


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Mr. Speaker, this Government has set up a program aimed at helping the Calgary Olympic Games through either Olympic coins, stamps or sports pools. This Government does honour its commitments and we have signed a contract with the Calgary-1988 organization committee to promote those Olympic Games. We have promised to come up with $200 million and, as a responsible Government, we intend to abide by our contract.


CANADA SPORTS POOL CORPORATION-FUNDING REQUIREMENTS
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport. Parliament has voted $10.5 million to the care of the Minister for the sports pool. There is evidence that money has gone. There is evidence to indicate that the losses will exceed $25 million a year. What the Minister does not understand is that he is accountable to Parliament for that money.


Mr. Crombie:: Right.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: That is the issue, Mr. Speaker. We have a right, indeed we have an obligation, to ask this incompetent Minister how much more money will Parliament be required to vote to bail out the Minister and the sports pool.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is not going to get a better answer to his question by calling me incompetent. I do not deny the Opposition its right to know the facts. However, I do deny the Opposition the right to try and
Oral Questions
discredit this Corporation. I recognize the rights of the Opposition. I recognize the right of the House of Commons to be informed. What I object to is, that the Opposition should knowingly discredit... And as soon as the Opposition decides to act responsibly, clear and specific answers will be forthcoming.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, the Minister does not seem to understand that this Corporation was discredited the day it started, because it was in violation of a federal-provincial agreement.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: That is what the Minister does not understand.


REQUEST FOR PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
James Aloysius McGrath: I ask the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport, Sir, if he has nothing to hide will he agree to a parliamentary inquiry into this slush pool, at a time when millions of dollars are being squandered and when 800,000 young people out there are crying for jobs?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Mr. Speaker, I have just said it again and I shall say it a third time... Pursuant to the Act, we have made a commitment to spend $10.5 million. We have complied with the Act and we shall continue to do so. Furthermore, as far as job creation is concerned, we are among the governments that have spent the most on job creation for young people. We spent $1.2 billion! So I do not think Hon. Members should start confusing youth and the sports pool. Youth has never been involved in the sports pool. What you are trying to do is to ... athletes across Canada-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: -You are denying their right to have an income! What you are saying is that we reneged on an agreement made in 1979. Mr. Speaker, we maintain that we have observed and are observing the 1979 agreement. The proof is that we created the Canadian Sports Pool Corporation. We knew right away that if we observed the agreement, it would be easier than having just a lottery.


Roch La Salle: You are competing with the provinces!


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: -You will see for yourself that it is not a lottery, it is a sports pool and it is harder to do.

June 13, 1984
Oral Questions


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It concerns the situation in the Punjab. The Minister may know that at present there are two delegates from the International Committee of the Red Cross in New Delhi monitoring the situation in the Punjab very closely. They will soon determine if there is a need for humanitarian and relief efforts by the International Red Cross. Has the Minister been in touch with the Canadian Red Cross on this matter and is Canada prepared to give assistance to these humanitarian and relief efforts?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we have been, obviously like the Hon. Member, monitoring the situation in the Punjab. We are quite distressed at the developments, particularly the situation that may affect the Canadians who are in that area.
The Hon. Member knows that this is basically a matter for the Government of India; it is an internal matter. Certainly we would be sympathetic, as we have been in the past, to lending our help on humanitarian grounds where there is an international move to do that. If this happened in the Punjab, we would certainly apply the same generous principles as we have in the past.


REQUEST THAT DEPORTATION ORDERS BE STAYED
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Sepaker, perhaps the Minister, in reply to my second question, will tell us what communication there has been with the Government of India concerning Canadians in the area. Then, in the absence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration, I wonder if I could direct my second question-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has one supplementary question.


Pauline Jewett: I will direct my second question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. As he knows, there are a number of Sikhs in Canada facing deportation. Could the Government assure us that while the violence in the Punjab continues those deportation orders will be stayed?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, on that precise point it is a matter I would have to draw to the attention of the Minister responsible for immigration procedures. While we are dealing with that subject, I should add that the Government of India has advised us that it will require visas for Canadians entering that country. That rule will apply on June 15.
Obviously we have been following the situation in the Punjab with respect to Canadians. There are, known to us, about 50 Canadians in that area. It has been declared a restricted area. It may be that the Indian Government will ask people not to remain in the area. We have no reason to believe at the moment that there is any cause for apprehension about Canadians in the Punjab.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Hon. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. Last Friday I asked the Acting Prime Minister if he would look into the practice of CN hiring back pensioned off employees to look after running trade operations in western Canada in the movement of grain. I pointed out at that time that CNR was not, as was its usual practice, hiring students, or young people trying to get into the labour force. Will the Minister of Labour investigate my accusation, get in touch with CNR, ask it to desist in this practice, and to hire young people and students who normally seek summer jobs on the CNR?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, indeed it is a surprising policy on the part of CNR. I will bring the representations of the Hon. Member to the attention of the Minister of Transport. I am sure the Minister of Transport will discuss this matter with CNR officials and will report to him and the House as soon as possible.


CANADA SPORTS POOL CORPORATION-FINANCIAL POSITION
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the amateur sports Minister. Does he know how much the sports pool has been losing per week?


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Mr. Speaker, I had a meeting with the Chairman of the Board of Directors last Friday, and I met the Chairman of the Corporation this week. I am therefore familiar with the operations of this Corporation.


Henry Perrin Beatty: We are making progress, Mr. Speaker. I might add that the Government has managed to do the impossible. It has found a Minister who makes the Minister of National Revenue look good by comparison.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
June 13, 1984


CORPORATION'S LOSSES
Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister this simple question? What have been the losses of the sports pool to date?


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Mr. Speaker, to evaluate budget operations, to evaluate the operations of a business on the basis of the first or second quarter, and over a year . . . We shall certainly act responsibly as a Government and table the annual report at the appropriate time. You will then have all the figures, and you will have a chance to challenge them.


REQUEST THAT AUDITOR GENERAL BE AUTHORIZED TO AUDIT CORPORATION'S BOOKS
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. It follows on the ones of my colleagues. This is a very serious matter. There is hard evidence with respect to the losses being sustained by the sports pool. If he feels the House of Commons, or a committee thereof, is too political to look at the books of the sports pool, will he agree to giving the Auditor General approval and authority immediately to conduct a full auditing of the operations of the sports pool and to report back to the House of Commons? Will he do the honourable thing and show that he has nothing to hide?
[ Translation]


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Mr. Speaker, the question put by my hon. friend opposite is strictly based on gratuitous statements. It is hearsay, and if he had any proof of bad faith or anything like that, we would be willing to investigate.


REQUEST FOR INDEPENDENT AUDIT
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, we have given the Minister at least 15 opportunities this afternoon to say that the sports pool is not losing a substantial amount of money. If he stands in his place and tells us that the sports pool is making money, or breaking even, that is one thing. This is not the SIU; the Minister will understand what I am talking about. Will he please allow the Auditor General to make an independent audit and report to the House of Commons? Only then will the people of Canada feel reassured, because the Minister has been evasive in attempting not to answer the questions we have put to him in a very direct way.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian people are going to understand that, considering the really insidious approach taken by the provinces ... it is difficult in an area where there
Oral Questions
is so much competition, where the provinces have almost doubled their marketing expenditures just to deprive people of their income because they agreed to sell tickets for us, you will understand that Canadians are going to be much smarter than the Progressive Conservatives. They will understand that we cannot give out figures just like that, in public, which would provide ammunition for our competitors who want to destroy the sports pool. That is the real reason, because we believe in amateur sport, and we believe we must help the Calgary Games.
Mr. Speaker, that is why Canadians are going to realize that in an area as competitive as this one, where the provinces, through their lotteries, are spending millions and millions of dollars to counter the sports pool and the federal Government's efforts to help amateur sport in Canada ... Canadians will, in due time, pass judgment on Opposition Members who do not want us to help the people in Calgary or amateur sport or medical research or arts and culture.
Canadians are going to understand, and if you do not understand, I suggest you do something about it.


CANADA LABOUR CODE
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. In regard to the passage of Bill C-34, which is important to the health, safety and lives of Canadian workers, the Minister is quoted as saying:
If we pass it, it's on our record. If we don't pass it, because of the Conservatives opposing it, we'll go on the hustings and blame the Conservatives for denying these amendments in favour of the workers.
This response is based upon election politics rather than upon any real concern for the lives of workers. It is completely unacceptable. Will the Minister take the legislation which he has proposed to the House more seriously, and agree to a House order which will ensure its passage before we recess for the summer?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, this is of course a matter that is open to debate and to interpretation, depending on which side of the House one happens to be. The Government's objective is indeed to have this Bill adopted, and I hope that next week, when the parliamentary committee is sitting, we shall have the co-operation of all members of the Committee, both Government and Opposition Members, and that we will be able to adopt this Bill before the end of June.


An Hon. Member:: Hear, hear!

June 13, 1984
Oral Questions


Rodney Edward Murphy: The quote obviously suggests that he is more concerned with politics than with the lives of workers.


STEPS IN THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, let me point out the history. It took over four years for the Liberal Government to introduce this Bill in the House. It took another month before debate on the legislation was started. It took another week before the Minister would even appear before the committee. That leaves us with less than two weeks to pass the legislation. We also know that this legislation is not on the Government's priority list. With those facts, why should the workers of Canada believe that the Liberal Government cares one iota for their lives, their safety, or for the health of unborn children of women workers?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, if we consider the work done by Parliament in the last few years and the last few months, it is clear that both the Progressive Conservative Opposition and the New Democratic Party have systematically held up the business of Parliament. Remember the bells. Remember the endless delay involved in adopting major bills involving the patriation of the Constitution and energy measures, and even now, the New Democratic Party is holding up the Security Bill. Mr. Speaker, if the NDP had any sense at all, it would let my colleague's Bill be adopted in the House and we could then proceed with the legislation for protection of workers.


CANADA SPORTS POOL CORPORATION-PROJECTED FUNDING FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Fitness and Amateur Sport. One of the issues that he used to bring some credibility to the ill-conceived sports pool was medical research. From his present projections, how much money will be given to medical research from the sports pool?


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Mr. Speaker, as provided for in the legislation approved by this House, our commitment is very clear, that is to provide assistance to the Calgary Olympics in the amount of $200 million and to subsidize the arts, culture and medical research. Depending on the revenue produced by the sports pool, this money will be distributed equitably, and in addition,
we shall first discharge our commitment with respect to the Calgary Olympics.


REQUEST THAT HIRING CONTRACTS BE TABLED
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, obviously there is no money for medical research because the Minister is losing money on the sports pool. It is incredible that this Government can run a lottery and even lose money on that. Does the Minister now agree with the chairman of the Medical Research Council of Canada that they are not expecting any money or planning on any money because they know they will not get any money? I would like the Minister to confirm that. Also, will he table for us the names of people who were hired by the sports pool and, in particular, the contracts of service?
[ Translation]


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Mr. Speaker, let me simply remind the Hon. Member opposite that this Government has already committed $170 million to medical research. He said we are doing nothing for medical research, but I have given him an example of what we are doing.
Second, we have already allocated this year $17 million from the revenue produced to arts and culture. Before claiming that there will be no money left for these activities, the Hon. Member should perhaps do his research properly!
Third, what I want to say once again is that the Members opposite are trying to destroy the credibility of the sports pool by saying there is pork barrelling and that the organization employs only friends of the party in power. I shall simply refer them to the press release published last week by the Chairman of the Canada Sports Pool Corporation wherein he describes at length how the 90 permanent staff members of the Canada Sports Pool Corporation were hired and interviewed and how the other 300 casual workers were hired following advertisements placed in newspapers. All this information was very clear and specific, and the problem is that the Members opposite do not want to understand and are refusing to tell the truth in order to gain political points even though they are systematically denying amateur sport the right to survive in Canada on a national level. Simply said, what they want is to give back to their provincial friends all the commitments and the net income of $500 million they can obtain through lotteries, while, for our part, we do not have any lotteries, just a sports pool!


REQUEST THAT MINISTER TERMINATE POOL OPERATIONS
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Fitness and Amateur Sport. The Minister said a few minutes ago that the Conservative Party was discrediting amateur sports in Canada. As a former
June 13, 1984

Canadian Olympian, I resent such a stupid remark by the Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto John Jelinek: It is the Minister and the Liberal administration that are discrediting sport right across this country by continually tying it to gambling operations.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto John Jelinek: Will the Minister do the honourable thing, terminate this phoney tax on the poor, a sports pool corporation which obviously is not working, and begin helping amateur sports in Canada by collecting funds in a more honourable way, such as I recommended to him personally in the past, through increased development fees by way of the private sector, and other honourable ways, and scrap this ill-fated nonsense?


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Mr. Speaker, considering that the Hon. Member is supposed to be quite familiar with amateur sport for having been an active and worthy participant in the past, I am surprised that he should be unaware that even the Canadian Olympic Association has censured the Opposition for its attempts to discredit sports pools, and that last week the COA issued a press release in favour of sports pools. So what happens to those people? Secondly, I must remind the House that this Government gave the most generous contribution and the strongest guarantee ever offered, so that Calgary would play host to the Olympic Games in 1988. It is also this Government which will pay the lion's share to send our athletes to Los Angeles. Our Government also played its part by creating programs to help amateur sports throughout Canada. I am surprised that a question should come from him, for in principle he ought not to repudiate his origins. On the contrary, he should try to make his colleagues understand that when he discredits the corporation, he also discredits amateur sports and, in so doing, he casts a slur upon our athletes. Our athletes deserve more respect, Mr. Speaker.


ALTERNATIVE SPORTS FINANCING
Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, the Minister misunderstands what I am trying to say. I resent the fact, as do athletes, that the Government is continually tying gambling operations to sports. It should not be doing that. I want to explain to the Minister, if he does not understand it, and I do not think he does, that a lot of tax dollars are being spent on developing amateur athletes in this country and not enough of the development fees are coming back. In skating, for example, a lot of our skaters are trained in Canada at the expense of the taxpayer, and then go to the United States to perform in professional ice shows. Why are we not getting development fees from professional ice shows, professional tennis organiza-
Oral Questions
tions, and right across the board? That is the way to collect money for amateur sport, and that is the way to help the Calgary Olympics.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand the Hon. Member since Canadians are all in favour of Commonwealth Games, Canada Games, Pan-American Games or Olympic Games. But Hon. Members opposite always speak out against providing funds for amateur athletes. Those people deserve more respect, much more respect. We have assumed our responsibilities, Mr. Speaker, and we have set up programs for our athletes, the best in North America, because all we want is to encourage them to make a name for themselves on the international scene. We need money to do that, Mr. Speaker. Members opposite are first when it comes to denying the fact that a Canadian Government anxious to promote international competition has the right to seek funds willingly given by people who respect a law passed by the Canadian Government. That is one field where you rank first.


FEDERAL AGREEMENT WITH NOVA SCOTIA-DISCUSSIONS WITH GOVERNMENT OF NEWFOUNDLAND
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I would like to switch from dealing with one sleaze-bag situation to dealing with another. Were federal negotiators, including the Minister of Energy and the present Minister of Finance, instructed by the Government to tell the Newfoundland Government that the Nova Scotia offshore agreement signed in March, 1982, was complete as described, while in fact there was a secret clause that gave the Province of Nova Scotia certain special rights with regard to equalization? Were the Ministers instructed to misinform the Newfoundland Government, or did they lie to the Newfoundland Government on their own hook?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I do know that exactly the same type of deal was offered to Newfoundland as that which was offered to Nova Scotia. That deal was the same, including any agreements which are made between the Governments and including any written or verbal instructions. In so far as the details of it are concerned, I would have to ascertain them from the Minister.
Certainly nothing was offered to Nova Scotia by way of revenues or by way of equalization treatment which was not also offered to Newfoundland. Therefore, it would seem to me that the Hon. Member's language was a bit excessive when he spoke of lying. I do not know if he was talking about his
4624

June 13, 1984
Committee Reports
Premier or not, but if he was talking about any of my Ministers I can deny it categorically.


DETAILS OF OFFER MADE TO NEWFOUNDLAND
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, so the Prime Minister will understand the question, the statement was that the federal negotiators, including the present Minister of Energy, solemnly told the Government of Newfoundland that the federal-Nova Scotia offshore agreement that was published and signed in March, 1982, was the entire agreement and that there was no more to it than that. However, it turned out several weeks ago, when the documents were tabled in this House, there was a secret side agreement dealing with the phasing out of tax equalization.
Did the Prime Minister instruct, or did the Government instruct these Ministers to keep this matter secret and to misinform-I will not use the word "lie"-or deceive the Newfoundland Government? This is a most important matter about which the Government of Newfoundland indicates that it was not told. It was told that the entire agreement was already publicly revealed, when it was not. If that is the case, could the Prime Minister tell us how there could be any agreement between those two Governments when the Prime Minister's negotiators have completely destroyed any good faith that might have existed, by using such tactics?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I had understood the question. I wish the Hon. Member had understood my answer. I already answered the question which he has just repeated.


John Carnell Crosbie: Will he check it out?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not have to check it out, Mr. Speaker. I do know that anything offered to Nova Scotia by way of a written agreement or by way of a side agreement on equalization was also offered to Newfoundland.


John Carnell Crosbie: That is not true.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the Hon. Member has been told something to the contrary, he has been told a falsehood.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister agree to a public inquiry in order to establish the facts? They don't like the truth on that side.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Speaker:: The fourth report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture was presented to the House yesterday. In its report, the committee recommends that the Government give
consideration to the advisability of introducing a new royal recommendation at the report stage of Bill C-33, an Act to amend the Western Grain Stabilization Act, and that the Government consider the comments made in committee relating to proposed amendments. The question is whether it is within the competence of a standing committee to make such a recommendation when its order of reference is a Bill.
The governing authority is Citation 621(2) of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, which reads as follows:
A committee is bound by, and is not at liberty to depart from, the Order of Reference. Bourinot, p. 469. In the case of a committee upon a bill, the bill committed to it is itself the Order of Reference to the committee, which must report it with or without amendment to the House.
In the view of the Chair, there is no room for doubt or question about this citation, and it has been reinforced on numerous occasions.
I would also refer the House to a ruling made by my predecessor, Madam Speaker Sauve, who ruled on a similar procedural difficulty on June 29, 1983, as follows:
I want to remind Members of all committees considering Bills referred to them by the House of Citation 783 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition:
"There is no authority that a committee of the House, when considering a
bill, should report anything to the House except the bill itself'.
The Agriculture Committee did just that in its Fifth Report presented yesterday. There are other procedural avenues for the consideration of such substantive proposals, but this cannot be done by way of a report from any committee studying a Bill. Therefore, I have no alternative but to declare the Fourth Report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture out of order and consequently it cannot be received.


PETITIONS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Tuesday, June 12, 1984, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the Fourth Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and the Fifth Report of the committee to which, pursuant to Standing

June 13, 1984

Order 69(13), the committee requests a comprehensive response.
[ Translation]


NATIONAL RESOURCES AND PUBLIC WORKS-PRESENTATION OF FIRST REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Rosaire Gendron (Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


CANADIAN ADVISORY COUNCIL ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, as Minister responsible for the Status of Women in Canada, I am pleased to table in the House today, in both official languages, two copies of the annual report of the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women.

Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the petition of the undersigned residents of the Town of Bolton in the Province of Ontario, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefore provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that although we the undersigned presently pay full postage rates, there is no home mail delivery; that although communities of equal size have home mail service, there has never been home mail delivery in Bolton.
Wherefore we the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to ensure that the residents of Bolton receive home mail delivery. It is unfair, and indeed unjust, that Bolton should be denied equal treatment with other communities of equal size. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. It is signed by several hundred petitioners and dated today.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
I Order Paper Questions
Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 50, 500, 513 and 545.


Mr. Howie: In the fiscal year (a) 1981-82 (b) 1982-83, did the Department of National Health and Welfare have any studies done regarding crisis centres by (i) departmental employees (ii) outside consultants?


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: (a) (i) No. (ii) No.
(b) (i) No. (ii) Yes. In 1982-83, the National Clearinghouse on Family Violence entered into two contractual agreements with outside consultants to conduct two projects related to crisis centres.
The first project, conducted by Mrs. Jean McKay, began in May, 1982, and is scheduled to end April 1, 1984. It is comprised of a survey of all Canadian transition houses for battered women and their children. A report is expected in late summer of 1984.
The second project, conducted by Miss Jeanne Molgat, began in October, 1982 and is scheduled to end April 1, 1984. It consists of gathering information on resources for victims of wife assault, and completing data on crisis services, including police-based family crisis intervention teams, local crisis centres, crisis telephone lines and other crisis related services. Data will be available by June, 1984.


Mr. Howie: Did the Department of National Health and Welfare conduct any studies relating to the illegal use of drugs and, if so (a) were any of them conducted by a person or persons outside the Department and, if so, what is a list of the name or names of all such persons (b) on what date will the studies be completed (c) at what cost?


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Yes. In January/Febru-ary, 1983, the Department of National Health and Welfare carried out a survey of use and attitudes towards marijuana, alcohol and tobacco among Canadian young people. About one third of this study related to illegal drugs.
(a) Yes, the study was conducted under contract by the Canadian Gallup Poll Ltd. (b) The study was completed in March, 1983. (c) The total cost of the entire study was $73,000.


Mr. Howie: On the last date for which information is available, to the knowledge of the Government how many Canadian hospitals had abortion committees, and how many did not?

June 13, 1984
Order Paper Questions


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: The Committee on the Operation of Abortion Law (appointed by the Privy Council, September 29, 1975 and chaired by Robin Badgley) issued its report which indicated that 271 hospitals had established therapeutic abortion committees by the end of 1976. The report also noted that 288 hospitals did not establish therapeutic abortion committees even though they were eligible to do so. These 559 eligible hospitals were viewed in the report against the total number of non-military hospitals in 1976 which was assessed at 1,348.
The latest data obtained from Statistics Canada (Institutional Statistics Section) pertains to 1982. In this year there were 1,218 non-military hospitals in Canada of which 261 maintained therapeutic abortion committees. No information is available on the number of non-military hospitals that were eligible for such committees in 1982.


Mr. Howie: Are any studies or research projects now under way relating to the use of hydrogen as an energy fuel?


John Leslie Evans: I am informed as follows:
In so far as the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources is concerned: The Federal Government supports a number of studies and research projects relating to hydrogen as an energy fuel. These are funded through the Inter-departmental Panel on Energy Research and Development. EM&R directly supports work in hydrogen/air fuel cell research at CANMET (Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology) with an annual funding of $600,000.
In so far as the National Research Council is concerned: The national research and development program on hydrogen is managed by the National Research Council and is supported by National Energy Program funds. The amount spent in 1983-84 was $4.5M. This was almost entirely spent on work outside the National Research Council through a system of directed contracts. A status report of the program has been issued in a National Research Council publication number 21081, April 1983, entitled "Hydrogen and Energy Storage, Federal Energy R&D Program."
Considerable world-wide interest also exists in hydrogen energy. Canada participates in task-shared programs of the International Energy Agency and chairs the International Energy Agency Executive Committee on hydrogen.
In so far as the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council is concerned: The total expenditures for 1983-84 for research projects relating to the use of hydrogen as energy fuel are:
Operating Grants	$ 54,017	(4 grants)Strategic Grants	255,009	(6 grants)PRAI (Project Research Applicable in	55,475	(1 grant)Industry)	Total	$364,501	(11 grants)
In so far as Transport Canada is concerned: Transport Canada recently completed a Hydrogen Bus Project contracted to Urban Transportation Development Corporation. The project report, dated June 30, 1983, is entitled "Hydrogen Fuel Cell for High Capacity Buses". Transport Canada also recently completed a study of the use of hydrogen in fuel cells contracted to the University of Toronto. The project report, dated January, 1983, is entitled, "To Study Canadian Fuel Cell Development Strategy: Definition of Fuel Cell Design Macro Parameters and Selection of Design Concepts (198182)". No other studies are currently under way.


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


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, June 12, consideration of Bill C-9, an Act to establish the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, to enact an Act respecting enforcement in relation to certain security and related offences and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof or in relation thereto, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs; and Motion No. 1 (Mr. Robinson) (Burnaby).
Mr. Speaker:: First, the Chair would like to make a ruling on a point raised by the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. June 13, 1984

Lambert). Then the Chair would like to hear argument on the point of order stemming from the remarks made by the Chair yesterday.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, if you will note, I indicated to the Deputy Speaker that I might wish to add further remarks before there was a ruling. At that time, I had an indication that in 1970 your predecessor, Mr. Lamoureux, had discussed this matter. He had not made a ruling, I say with the greatest respect to Your Honour. Our former colleague from Crowfoot objected at that time to committee reports being one month late, which was frustrating the work of the Agriculture Committee in drafting reports and in considering legislation. The then Hon. Member for Lotbiniere, who was Leader of the Social Credit Party, had also indicated that, because of that Party's representation in the House, members of his Party were not members of many committees and, therefore, could not participate in the discussion of legislation because the committee reports were so far behind. I am not alleging that committee reports are far behind now. At that time the delay was one month. If one refers to the discussions at the time, in May of 1970, one finds that I raised a question with regard to the Finance Committee and the tax proposals which we were then considering.
I take it this way. First of all, yesterday, those of us who are not members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs had no knowledge of the amendments, discussions or attitudes taken by the members of the committee, including the government Members. We are as entitled as any other individual. Every Member of the House has the right to examine and speak. That right must be protected by the Chair.
It has been seriously suggested sometimes by administrative officials and others that Hon. Members can go into the administrative catacombs of the House of Commons, to the committee section, and look at the "blues", which are the typescripts that may be on file, or they may use the telephone. Sir, I reject out of hand the notion that these are facilities available to Members to enable them to do their jobs properly.
Few, if any of my colleagues, could deal yesterday with Bill C-9 and the amendments which were put forward at report stage. May I say that the rules specifically provide that a committee report shall be filed and that within 24 hours before the debate is taken up on that report, Members have the opportunity of putting amendments. How can they learn of amendments if they were not members of the committee and if they have no printed reports? How can they possibly introduce any amendments? Any Member has the right to introduce an amendment. It is not limited to a specific Member, to the critic or to someone else from the Party. This is the right of every Member of the House. It is on that point that I raised this matter yesterday.
I fully understand that, perhaps, today I am in an academic situation because the four delinquent reports which were missing yesterday were delivered to my office this morning. That is all very well. That has dealt with that situation as of now, except for this: The debate having started on report stage, Members are precluded from introducing any further amend-
Security Intelligence Service
ments, which they have the right to do. However, they did not have the information because the committee report-the evidence-was not available to them.
This situation may arise again on another Bill in which we are at present interested. Sir, I serve notice right now that I will watch this situation very carefully. It is my contention, and this was the intention of the procedure committee of which I was an integral member in 1969. The House procedure was changed with respect to sending legislation to committees and with respect to Bills being reported back by the requirement that a 48-hour time period elapse between the presentation of the report and the commencement of any debate. It also provided for a 24-hour period with regard to amendments.
It was patently clear at that time that the committee chairman's report would have to contain the evidence. Reference to that was made in the report. It is not sufficient, particularly with this Bill when a stack of documentation which is perhaps two feet high if not more is tabled with a committee report. It is appended, it is included and it should be there. I repeat that it is not satisfactory. As a matter of fact, I would almost term it a sort of self-serving cop-out for anyone to suggest that Hon. Members could have reference to the typescripts which exist somewhere in the committees branch, or that one could resort to the telephone and make inquiries from a clerk in the committees branch in order to find out the necessary information.
I submit that I have a true point of privilege with respect to my ability to work as a Member in this House. That ability is being impeded and infringed upon by the non-availability of the printscipts of committee evidence which accompany a chairman's report on a Bill.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, my comments will not be lengthy, however, I wanted to rise in support of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). As we all know, he is a former Speaker-one of your predecessors in the Chair-to whom I pay a lot of attention, as we all do.
I wanted to make an additional observation with respect to the circumstances in this particular case. It will make the point made by the Hon. Member for Edmonton West even more germane and appropriate as a question of privilege. In this particular instance, the circumstance which developed was unprecedented in committee history, to my knowledge. Only those Members who attended the committee sittings had direct knowledge of and access to the information. The only way in which the rest of us could have had an opportunity to determine what had transpired, would have been if we had received a transcript of the proceedings of the committee. The Chairman of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, who ultimately submitted his report with respect to the deliberations of that committee, in fact unilaterally moved to impose-without any authority under the rules-closure on the debate within the committee.
The point which is being made is that in normal proceedings in which there is no controversy or limitation on the part of

June 13, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
Members to debate amendments, that is one situation. That is bad enough. However, when time allocation was imposed unilaterally by the chairman,-a distinguished Member of Parliament, whom I respect and admire as a colleague-I believe that was wrong in this instance. I find, under those circumstances, a situation which very seriously limits the ability of Members of the House of Commons to carry out their responsibilities.
If there had been full and unfettered debate in committee, we could, perhaps, rest assured that all the motions for amendments at report stage could have been dealt with by representatives of the Parties at committee. However, we did not have an opportunity of seeing how far the debate went. It was limited to five minutes or ten minutes for interventions with respect to each of these amendments. There was a severe and strict time limitation placed on them.
I brought this to your attention, Mr. Speaker, to show you what happens and what some of the difficulties are which arise when the Government rushes ahead to bring in legislation before we have had a full opportunity of carrying out, as parliamentarians, our right to file motions for amendment. I brought to your attention what has transpired with respect to amendments which were tabled in time, last Friday, by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) with the Journals Branch of the House of Commons. And what happened? The Journals Branch made a decision to deal with the very plentiful amendments and proposals put forward by the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson).


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: He is a good Member.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) says he is a good Member. What he did was to take all his amendments from committee, dump them in the laps of the people in the Journals Branch and say, "Fix them up and put them into proper form so they will be available for the Order Paper". I can understand the feeling of frustration of the people in the Journals Branch after receiving that kind of order. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver South, on the other hand, worked hard and long to make sure that his motions-I believe that to be the case-were in proper order so that they could be accepted by the Journals Branch and by the Table, by way of motions for the Order Paper, with very little attention necessary. There was a lot of work which went into the motions for amendment of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver South.


Mr. Robinson (Burnaby):: Point of order.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The point which I am making now, Mr. Speaker-


Svend Johannes Robinson: Point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: We are on a point of order. The Chair cannot hear an interruption of one point of order by another point of order. The Chair will attempt to hear systematically and in
sequence Hon. Members dealing with points of order. The Hon. Member for Saskatoon West has the floor.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To make a long story short, Mr. Speaker, what happened was that our motions, which were put in by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver South, were just simply not dealt with by the Journals Branch. We were informed that it did not have enough man hours or time in which to deal with these matters. So they were somehow arbitrarily put over. They appeared in the Votes and Proceedings on the subsequent day, which was Tuesday. They were dated Monday.
So this had two consequences. First, as I pointed out to Your Honour, by virtue of that decision by the Journals Branch, had the Government decided to move on Monday- which is its right, I suggest to you, and I pointed out the authority under our rules-to proceed with this business on Monday, we would have been precluded from having the motions or amendments on that day. That did not transpire. However, I say to you, Sir, that this is endemic-


Mr. Speaker:: With all due respect to the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn), the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has made a very specific point. The Hon. Member for Saskatoon West has got something else out of his system, but he is not really dealing with the point made by the Hon. Member for Edmonton West.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I was just getting to that. I was just clearing my throat.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will deal with the Hon. Member for Burnaby as soon as the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West has concluded his remarks.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The point I am making, Mr. Speaker-and I wanted to get this in perspective because I feel there is an analogy in terms of what my colleague, the Hon. Member for Edmonton West, suggested here-in terms of the privileges of Hon. Members of the House of Commons, is that in order to deal with any Bill which comes before us, we should be able to be assured of our complete and absolute rights as independent Members of Parliament. Part of that involves, of course, having access to the transcripts of committees which dealt with the legislation in question. I say to you, Your Honour, that the reason I raised this other matter is that it was another situation in which, it seems to me, we were very close to having our rights prejudiced in carrying out our duties as Members of Parliament by virtue of the Government bringing in this legislation before there was a full and adequate opportunity, administratively, for officials of the House of Commons to have carried out their responsibilities with regard to committee transcripts and to have dealt with motions sent to the Journals Branch on time and in proper form.
I simply conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that there are very few instances where legitimate questions of privilege arise, and they deal with circumstances, as you well know,
June 13, 1984

where there is clear and unequivocal evidence of Hon. Members of the House of Commons being somewhat limited or thwarted in carrying out their responsibilities. Sometimes these are external circumstances where people actually prevent other people from coming to the House of Commons. However, it is equally serious when we are prevented from carrying out our responsibilities as Members of Parliament by virtue of the fact that we do not have the information, or the administration is not up to providing us with information on legislation. Therefore, we do not have all the facts in our possession in order to deal adequately with the legislation before us.
I simply say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that I believe the point made by the Hon. Member for Edmonton West is a most valid point. I believe it is one of which we should be cognizant in terms of this piece of legislation and any subsequent legislation which comes before the House.


Mr. Speaker:: I recognize the Hon. Member for Durham-Northumberland (Mr. Lawrence) next, followed by the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) on this point of order.


Mr. Lawrence:: Mr. Speaker, you have invited argument on an intended ruling you will make. I may not speak on exactly the same point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Let me get things straight. The Hon. Member for Edmonton West has raised a very separate and distinct point of order on which I was going to rule. The Hon. Member for Edmonton West wished to present further argument, which I have heard. The Hon. Member for Saskatoon West more or less intervened on that point. I am quite prepared to hear argument relating to the other matter at an appropriate time. Is the Hon. Member for Burnaby prepared to intervene on the matter raised by the Hon. Member for Edmonton West?


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the question of privilege which has been raised-I believe it is a question of privilege. It certainly touches the privileges of all Members of Parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: It has been raised as a point of order. I have not been asked to make a prima facie finding of privilege. It has been raised by the Hon. Member initially as a point of order and it has been considered by the Chair as a point of order.


Svend Johannes Robinson: I am sorry. It was my understanding that it was raised in the context of privilege. I wanted just to take a brief moment to support the question of order or privilege which has been raised by the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) because, of course, it goes to the very foundation of the consideration of this legislation which is before the House at the present time. I would note, as the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West, the distinguished House Leader of the Official Opposition, has already pointed out, that this particular report and the proceedings of the committee in these circumstances were extraordinary. It was at ten o'clock on Friday morning, Mr. Speaker, that the committee proceedings on Bill C-9 adjourned. For the previous
Security Intelligence Service
two days, the committee had considered a series of amendments with strict limitations and, I might add, unprecedented limitations with respect to time. So the committee concluded its deliberations, Mr. Speaker, at ten o'clock on Friday morning, and at twelve o'clock, or shortly thereafter on Friday afternoon, the chairman of the committee tabled what purported to be the report of the committee.
I would note, as has already been suggested by the Hon. Member for Edmonton West, that it was only late last night- and I was in my office at the time the proceedings were circulated-well after six o'clock, that Hon. Members of this House in fact received the transcripts in both French and English of four separate meetings of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs with respect to this Bill.
I would note as well that, pursuant to Standing Order 79(2), all amendments made in any committee shall be reported to the House. I certainly did not see the exact form of the report which was submitted to the House, but nevertheless-


Mr. Speaker:: With all deference to the Hon. Member, I do not believe the facts are in dispute, as he is setting out. The issue before us is whether it is proper for the House to proceed with the legislative stages of a Bill in the absence of the committee evidence being distributed in the usual printed form. That is the matter before the House. Will the Hon. Member please direct his remarks to that problem?


Svend Johannes Robinson: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. As the Speaker is well aware, it is certainly the practice that proceedings of the committee are appended to the report of the committee so that Members attempting to draft amendments within the very strict time limits imposed will have some ability to do so. The circumstances are in many ways extraordinary. There is the unprecedented nature of the ruling in committee which resulted in the tabling of the report some two hours after the deliberations of the committee had been concluded. It was only last night that the transcripts of the committee proceedings were made available to all Members of Parliament. It was difficult, even for those of us who sat on the committee, to follow the somewhat tortured proceedings. Given all that, if there is to be an observance of both the spirit and the letter of the Standing Orders, Members such as the Hon. Member for Edmonton West should be given a further period of 24 hours within which to submit their amendments.
I note that we are on Motion No. 1 and I assume there will be some discussion on the Speaker's preliminary ruling with respect to the grouping of amendments. But that would not preclude the granting of what I consider to be the very important right of all Members of this House to submit amendments. A period of 24 hours should be granted so that the Hon. Member for Edmonton West and others who wish to peruse the transcripts of the committee-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member is arguing for a change in the Standing Orders. The Standing Orders are quite clear about the period of time in which amendments may be pre-

June 13, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
sented. The concern which the Hon. Member for Edmonton West raises is the possibility of the House proceeding at report stage in the absence of transcripts. That is the very narrow point to which the Chair will address itself at this time.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, let me say in conclusion that I fully support the point made by the Hon. Member for Edmonton West and I note that this is a precedent which should not be allowed to stand, particularly given the relatively short time limits for the submission of amendments. Those reports should be accompanied by the full transcript of the proceedings of the committee. I have suggested to the Speaker one means of ensuring that Members of this House, having perused the committee minutes, would be entitled to submit amendments. It is within the Speaker's powers to grant an order which would remedy what is clearly a flawed procedure, to assist Members of the House in peforming their duties of oversight of such an important piece of legislation.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) has been arguing that he has not had enough time and that he needs a 24-hour extension. To me he is arguing, first of all, that he has not been assiduous, or he has not had the intelligence to do his homework in that period of time, neither of which points he would be prepared to admit to.


William J. Yurko: Mr. Speaker, besides speaking to the point of order I think it is appropriate that I bring out at this time more than just a point of order, in fact, my relationship to this Bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member please resume his seat? The Chair wants to make it very clear that there is a point of order raised by the Hon. Member for Edmonton West. The Chair has been prepared to rule on that point and has heard further arguments. At this stage the Chair is not prepared to hear arguments on anything other than the very specific point of order raised by the Hon. Member for Edmonton West.


William J. Yurko: Before addressing myself to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to ask you if time will be available immediately afterwards to raise another matter which has concerned me considerably?


Mr. Speaker:: Obviously after this point of order is decided, the House will be the master of its own fate concerning how its business will be handled. Obviously Hon. Members will have an opportunity to raise points of order as they are deemed appropriate.


William J. Yurko: Mr. Speaker, maybe I could just make a few points-


Mr. Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member at this stage please address himself strictly to the point of order of the Hon. Member for Edmonton West.


William J. Yurko: I will, Mr. Speaker. In my view, this Bill is of extreme importance, second only to the constitutional Bill. I have tried to get a transcript of the committee proceedings for a number of days so I could acquaint myself, as an independent Member, with the discussions in committee and some of the amendments proposed.


Mr. Speaker:: The facts are very clear concerning the availability of transcripts. They were available yesterday, and sometime after six o'clock last night all the remaining transcripts were available, not before. The facts are not in dispute. The question is: Can the House proceed at report stage with the transcripts not being available? That is the issue.


William J. Yurko: That is exactly the point I was trying to make, if you would just give me a few seconds. I have been trying to get those transcripts for days. They were not available until last night.


Mr. Kaplan:: He just said that.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: But he is an independent Member. He has a good point.


William J. Yurko: They are voluminous. It is not possible to go through them in a matter of a few hours or days. I am simply saying that the suggestion that perhaps we should have another 24 hours is a good one, and I recommend that you give it serious consideration, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair would like to thank the Hon. Member for Edmonton West and other Hon. Members who have participated in the discussion concerning the point of order relating to the publication of proceedings of the standing and other committees of the House.
May I briefly state that the issue raised by the Hon. Member is not new. He himself raised it before, on March 17, 1983. Frequently, Bills are reported with amendments by committees on the same day as they are adopted in committee. That was the case last Friday, and some of the proceedings and evidence of the standing committee to Bill C-9 were not yet available at 11 a.m. in their usual printed form. The Hon. Member for Edmonton West objected because he claimed there was "no proper printed record". The Hon. Member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick) raised the question as to whether the debate could proceed since some issues of the committee proceedings were not available from the joint distribution branch.
First, let me say that the verbatim record was available in both languages on Monday morning through the Clerk of Committees or through the Journals Branch. Issues Nos. 38, 39, 40 and 41, in their usual printed form, were delivered to the offices of all Hon. Members last night. The Chair had intended to inform Members of the time the printed issues would be available before Private Members' Hour, but it took some time to obtain that information from the Printing Bureau. Normally, the proceedings of committees on Bills have first printing priority after the Order Paper, Votes and Proceedings and Hansard. I am sure that Hon. Members will
June 13, 1984

understand that that in itself is a problem of some magnitude. However, may I reassure the Hon. Member that both the reprint of Bill C-9 and the entire committee proceedings related to that Bill were available to Members, albeit not in their usual printed form. In the circumstances, Bill C-9 was taken up for consideration at the report stage at the first opportunity allowed by the Standing Orders.
If a reprint of the said Bill had not been available or the proceedings of the committee had not been available, the Chair would certainly have informed the House and sought direction. The rules are silent on the form of publication. The Chair hesitates to rule that the proceedings and evidence of a committee must be in their usual printed form before debate on a Bill can proceed. Indeed, the decision to print is a power that belongs to the committees. Could it be argued that, if a committee decided to sit in camera and not to print its evidence, debate on a Bill could not proceed in the House at report stage? What if a printing were delayed by a natural disaster or strike? This is a question the Procedure and Organization Committee may wish to clarify when it meets, for the Standing Orders offer little guidance to the Chair.
There is, however, a precedent. I quote Mr. Speaker Mac-Naughton on March 17, 1965, as reported at page 12479 of Hansard: He said:
The basic question is whether or not a bill in the House of Commons can be discussed, asssuming that the evidence has not been completely finished in its English and French printing. I have made a search of the records since confederation, and there is no case that says that a bill in the House of Commons which is up for discussion cannot be proceeded with until the evidence has been filed. If we were to accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), emotionally pleasing as it may be, nevertheless procedurally in my opinion it would be completely wrong, and would establish a very bad precedent.
That is a ruling of Mr. Speaker MacNaughton.
The Chair would like to make one or two observations at this point. First, there has been an attempt to improve the printing of committee reports. The delays have been very substantially reduced. The Hon. Member for Edmonton West referred to delays of up to a month. I can remember that when I was first elected to the House that was far too usual a practice. Thanks to modern technology and improvements-I would like to think in the administation-the delays have now been reduced.
The present occupant of the Chair is sympathetic to the argument and the concern. I might add that I have not been in a rush to make any final decision, bearing in mind that these transcripts were not available. They were available sometime after six o'clock last night. I feel a little more comfortable about it. However, I really do feel uncomfortable when Hon. Members do not have the transcripts. However, I am guided by the precedent of Mr. Speaker MacNaughton. I am guided by the fact that the rules are silent as to the form of printing.
In the circumstances, I have to reject the point of order of the Hon. Member for Edmonton West following the decision of Mr. Speaker MacNaughton. For now the Chair will contin-
Security Intelligence Service
ue to ensure that, in these unusual circumstances, the manuscripts are made available to those who ask for them through the Clerk of Committees or the Journals Branch.
I can assure Hon. Members that every effort will be made to ensure that transcripts are available promptly in order that we can avoid this kind of situation. However, I can give no assurance that there will not be occasional situations. I understand that the major problem was a breakdown of a piece of printing equipment over the weekend at the Queen's Printer. However, we are conscious of the need for making the transcripts available with the absolute minimum of delay.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, in your consideration of this problem, would you take into account the fact that when Mr. Speaker MacNaughton made his ruling the rules did not apply as they do today? There was not a 48-hour and 24-hour requirement. That did not apply, and therefore I object to-


Mr. Speaker:: I have the Hon. Member's-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I did not address this point.


Mr. Speaker:: I have the Hon. Member's point. The point of the Hon. Member concerns whether it is irregular for the House to proceed without the written transcript. I have dealt very narrowly with that question. I am aware that there is the additional question of the time in which amendments can be placed on the Table. Surely this is a matter in which the Chair will have to have some guidance from the Procedure and Organization Committee of the House. In the present circumstances the Chair is bound by the interpretation of the Standing Orders as I have indicated today.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I sincerely appreciate the sympathetic view that Your Honour takes with respect to this matter. On the basis of your very extensive experience as a Member of Parliament, I think you appreciate some of the frustrations that are experienced. I am sure that Members on all sides of the House will understand that our purpose is to ensure that we are fully able to carry out our responsibilities and to discuss matters in a proper and informed way.
Now that you have made your ruling, it is not my intention to comment further on it. Are we now proceeding with our presentations with respect to your preliminary statement of yesterday?


Mr. Speaker:: At this stage the Chair will invite argument relating to the preliminary statement which I made yesterday. As indicated, the Chair has delayed as long as it seemed reasonable to do so. I hope Hon. Members are now prepared to make their arguments. The Chair will recognize the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn).


William J. Yurko: Question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko).

June 13, 1984
Security Intelligence Service


William J. Yurko: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which I think must be addressed at this time before you begin discussing the previous matter.


Mr. Speaker:: If the Hon. Member is raising a question of privilege he must give notice in writing, unless it arises immediately out of proceedings of this day.


William J. Yurko: Mr. Speaker, I gave notice-


Mr. Speaker:: What is the Hon. Member's question of privilege?


William J. Yurko: Mr. Speaker, I gave notice to you on June 8.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member sent me a written notice. I called the question of privilege and the Hon. Member was not in his place that day. In fairness, the Hon. Member must observe the rules of the House.


William J. Yurko: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member please sit down? The Hon. Member gave written notice to the Chair of a question of privilege. That day the Chair very conscientiously called the Hon. Member for Edmonton East on the matter of which he had given notice. He was not in his place. The Hon. Member for Edmonton East.


William J. Yurko: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that I walked up to you on that day and spoke to you privately about whether such a motion could be brought forward that day. You advised me that there was no way under the rules that you could deal with that question of privilege in the House on a matter which occurred in committee. That is why I was not in my place to brint it forth that day. Since the transcripts were tabled last night for the first time, this is my first opportunity to bring forth a question of privilege. I shall read to you Section 75 of Beauchesne.


Mr. Speaker:: Let us have it very clear.


William J. Yurko: I shall read section 75.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the Hon. Member will resume his seat. The Chair can take notice of a matter of privilege reported by a committee to the House. The Chair does not look behind proceedings of committees. To that extent, committees are masters of their own fate. The Chair advised the Hon. Member that it would be difficult for the Chair to find a prima facie case on the basis of the argument that he had put forward. That was by way of a preliminary indication to the Hon. Member. If the Hon. Member is suggesting that he can now raise-


William J. Yurko: Yes I can.


Mr. Speaker:: -a question of privilege based on a communication of June 8 to the Chair, the Chair is saying that that communication is no longer valid.


William J. Yurko: Well-


Mr. Speaker:: On what basis does the Hon. Member for Edmonton East rise?


William J. Yurko: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the basis of Citation 75 of Beauchesne. I would like to read it very quickly. Citation 75 reads:
Many of the privileges of the House extend also to its committees. They may exclude the public from their meetings and commonly do so, particularly while considering their reports to the House. Members not on the committee may be requested to leave but cannot be forced to do so. Committee reports and the verbatim transcripts of committee hearings are documents published under the authority of the House and are entitled to the same absolute privilege as House documents. Extracts from committee documents enjoy the same qualified privilege as extracts from House documents.
Mr. Speaker, I am simply saying that I had to wait before raising my question of privilege, of which I gave you notice, until these documents were in fact available to the House. These documents were available last night. Under this citation of Beauchesne I can now bring forth my question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member totally misconstrues Beauchesne. The privilege relating to committees and the reports of committees does not relate to the matter which he indicated to me in his communication. However, if he wishes to make one further attempt to relate his question of privilege to the quotation he has put forward, the Chair will listen briefly. There are limits in terms of how far the Chair can be tolerant of an argument which so far is not very persuasive.


William J. Yurko: Mr. Speaker, I will try to be as fast as I can in making my point of privilege. I simply point out that once the documents came available to this House, then the point of privilege I raised in committee, which was dealt with by the chairman of the committee, makes it possible for me now to raise the point in the House. I have waited-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member can only raise that point if the committee so reports. This is the essential part that has escaped the Hon. Member. The report of the committee did not relate to any matter of privilege in the course of its proceedings.


William J. Yurko: It did, Mr. Speaker. The verbatim transcript has this statement in it:


The Chairman:: -


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The transcript of a committee is not a report of a committee. Will the Hon. Member for Edmonton East please be quiet for a moment? A report of a committee is a report. The transcript of proceedings is another document and it is not a report.


William J. Yurko: Let me say again, Mr. Speaker, that Beauchesne says:
-the verbatim transcripts of committee hearings are documents published under the authority of the House and are entitled to the same absolute privilege as House documents.
I am simply saying, Mr. Speaker, that the verbatim transcripts are considered under Citation 75 of Beauchesne to be

: V


June 13, 1984

subject to the privileges of this House. It is very specific. There is no doubt about Citation 75. Until I have those transcripts in my hands, it is not possible for me to raise the question of privilege which I brought to your attention on June 8. Now they are available, as of last night, it is possible for me to bring you my question of privilege in accordance with this citation found in Beauchesne. Am I permitted to put before you, Sir, my point of privilege on the basis of Citation 75 or am I not? If I am not, then indeed an independent Member of this House is a second-class citizen of this House. He is not a Member like all other Members.


Mr. Speaker:: The argument about the status of an independent Member is an argument on its own merit. The argument relating to privilege in committee is a very specific argument. Let me quote again Citation 76 from Beauchesne's Fifth Edition: It reads:
Breaches of privilege in committee may be dealt with only by the House itself on report from the committee. Thus should a witness refuse to attend, or refuse to give evidence, the committee must report that fact to the House for remedial action.
The Hon. Member is raising some point and the Chair will hear his argument. The Chair has serious concern. First, I think in fairness, the Hon. Member should have given the Chair notice today if he was going to raise it now. Notice given last week does not relate to Wednesday of the following week. I am not prepared to accept that as a precedent in any way. In view of the Hon. Member's serious concern-and the Chair is quite aware that there are difficulties for independent Members in relation to committees-I am prepared to hear a question of privilege. Will the Hon. Member please argue a very specific question of privilege and indicate what he wants by way of a prima facie finding and what kind of motion he would put?


William J. Yurko: I thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for your understanding of my problem in relation to Beauchesne's Citation 76, which I understood when you told me what the problem was on June 8. You told me that night. Therefore, I referred back to Citation 75. It is now under Beauchesne's Citation 75 that I am raising a point of privilege rather than under Citation 76. It says very specifically that transcripts once they are available from a committee are indeed documents of the House upon which privilege can be raised. That is why I am doing it today.


Mr. Speaker:: It reads "entitled to privilege", not upon which privilege may be raised. There is a difference.


William J. Yurko: Then, Mr. Speaker, very briefly I will try to put my question of privilege to you as fast as I can. I thank you for the opportunity.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William J. Yurko: I had appeared in committee and made a statement on Bill C-9. As I have said repeatedly, my view as an independent Member of this House is that Bill C-9 is the most important single piece of legislation dealing with the
Security Intelligence Service
future, substantively into the future, that this House has had before it during this entire session. I consider the procedures followed in committee to be extremely important in dealing with this Bill. I went to the committee and I made a pretty substantive statement there. Then I was appalled, Mr. Speaker, several days later, after a ruling was made by the chairman, to receive a copy of the ruling not from the chairman of the committee and not from members of the committee, but from someone outside of the committee. The ruling of the chairman limited debate. I understand it is his prerogative to do so. But in limiting debate, he did several things to independent Members who sit in this House. I do not mean just me. There may be 20 independent Members in this House. Indeed, the Social Credit Members, and there were six in the last session, were literally classified as independent Members. They were not a recognized Party. That ruling of the chairman is unprecedented.
Before I touch briefly on the ruling, I would like to read what the chairman said when I put my point of privilege before that committee. Here is what he said. "You refer to Mr. Allmand and he is an alternate member of this committee, and in this regard that is why my ruling took him into account.
I admit that your privilege might have been breached as a Member of Parliament. However, as the redress does not lie at this point in this committee, but in the House-" The chairman says "in the House". The chairman continues "I welcome the fact that you have brought this matter to our attention so that you then can bring it to the attention of the full House and ask the Speaker either to rule on it or to refer it back to the appropriate Table, which I suspect would be the Committee on Privileges and Elections".
That is the statement made by the chairman of that committee in ruling on my point of privilege. He has advised me to bring the matter here before you. This I did under the citation in Beauchesne which makes it possible for me to do so.
What was that ruling that is so totally offensive to an independent Member of this House? Let me suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the chairman recognizes the right of the three Parties in this House to participate in the debate on the various amendments. But there is absolutely no way that an independent Member could come to that committee and participate in any way in a discussion on those amendments.
Second, the chairman ruled that a non-member of that committee, Mr. Allmand, could bring forth amendments in committee on this Bill. But no such privilege was given to an independant Member of the House. In fact, I was not even advised.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member has engaged in debate. At this stage the Chair wants to make it quite clear that the Chair is not bound by statements of a committee chairman. The Chair is not bound.
Second, the Hon. Member is claiming privilege, and the method of claiming privilege is to argue for a prima facie case, and an indication of a motion to be moved, and to that I direct the Hon. Member's attention.

June 13, 1984
Security Intelligence Service


William J. Yurko: Mr. Speaker, when I have finished what I have to say, that is exactly what I intend to do. I intend to do what the committee chairman suggested, that is, that perhaps the matter should be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. That is exactly what I intend to do. I have not finished my case, and I would like to be permitted to make it because I think it is extremely important. If I have no appeal to this place, to where do I appeal as a Member of Parliament when my privileges have been massively interfered with and indeed abridged? To where do I appeal if not to the House? That is what I am doing.
As I indicated, I feel very strongly that the ruling strips me totally as an independent Member of Parliament from active participation in dealing with clause by clause consideration of Bill C-9 in committee. Furthermore, I find it strange that when these amendments are brought before the House they should be grouped in such a way that no opportunity whatsoever is given to me to dwell on any specific amendment. In 10 minutes I cannot deal with 96 amendments or whatever the number is in terms of their grouping.


Mr. Speaker:: In fairness to the Hon. Member who has been in the House some time, there are 175 amendments. The grouping of the Chair related only to proposals which would have simply cancelled the clauses one by one. Would the Hon. Member please deal with the problem before him? The question of the grouping of the amendments before us is surely a different matter.


William J. Yurko: Mr. Speaker, that may be so, but in my view it is not. When amendments are grouped as you have indicated in your statement-


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is not prepared to hear argument on the grouping of amendments at this stage. The Chair has indicated that it will hear argument at a later point on a preliminary ruling. If the Hon. Member does not choose to deal with this matter of privilege, the Chair will have to pass on to someone else. For the last time, would the Hon. Member deal with the matter of privilege? The question of grouping can be dealt with later this day.


William J. Yurko: What I am trying to set before the House is that my privileges in committee were abridged and that those same privileges should not be abridged in this House. Those privileges were abridged in committee, and I am simply trying to suggest that on the basis of any ruling in dealing with amendments, one would think that you would give serious consideration to independent Members of the House. If their privileges were abridged in committee in dealing with amendments, surely the same procedure would not be used in the House.


Mr. Speaker:: If the Hon. Member thinks that he can force a clause by clause discussion in the House of Commons at report stage because he was not able to have it in committee, then he is mistaken. He does not have the right to force a clause by clause discussion in the House at this stage. If the Hon.
Member has a complaint about the conduct of a chairman of a committee, then the proper procedure is for him to put on the Order Paper a motion of censure against a chairman of a committee. This is not privilege.


William J. Yurko: Therefore, I move the following motion:
That the ruling of the chairman and the subsequent events of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs as a result of that ruling which abridged the privileges of a Member of Parliament in a very serious way be referred fully to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for consideration.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to speak to one very narrow point in respect of the Hon. Member's question of privilege. Certainly it must be obvious to the House that I hold no brief for the ideals, philosophy, affiliation or non-affiliation of the Hon. Member. However, I think there is one point which concerns me. I hope I am misinterpreting some of the words of the Chair. In rising at this time on this one very narrow point, I am really seeking clarification, obviously a correct clarification.
I would hope that the interpretation of what the Chair is saying now would not be misinterpreted in the future, to the extent where a Member of the House could not stand in his place in this House and raise a question of privilege about a committee hearing or the proceedings in a committee solely and simply because there was no reference of those particular circumstances in the report of the committee to the House.
Let me go to the one extreme here. For instance, suppose an Hon. Member, like the Hon. Member who has just resumed his seat, went to a committee hearing and the committee or its chairman ordered his removal from the committee. I would think, Your Honour, that there would be two courses of remedy which that particular Member would have. In my view, he would either be able to come back to the House to move a motion of censure against the chairman or against the committee collectively, or certainly it would be his option, when the debate took place on the report of the committee, even though there was no reference to the activity within the committee, to raise his question of privilege.
In many, many instances when we get to more minor offences relating to questions of privilege, I would think the occupant of the chair in the House of Commons would reach for the easy solution and say: "I have no way of knowing what occurred within the committee until the committee reports". That has been done. With all respect, Your Honour, that has been done by the present occupant of the chair many times in relation to Members of the House who wanted to raise a question or a point about what went on in committee. Surely the option, especially when we are dealing with a matter of privilege, should stay with the Member who felt he had a grievance in relation to his privileges to wait until report stage of the matter in the House is reached, and he would then still be able to raise the matter even though it was not contained in the report.
I am not too sure just what is the Hon. Member's point. I think his point was that he was unable to raise certain points
June 13, 1984

within the committee which he felt he had a perfect right to raise. Surely that is almost as serious a grievance as the physical removal of an Hon. Member from committee. If he is denied the opportunity to speak in committee, then he might as well not be there. If he is denied the opportunity to speak because he is physically thrown out by an abrupt or arbitrary chairman-and I am not saying that that was the case here- obviously he has a very real grievance and a very real question of privilege. However, I would think that in some cases, perhaps more minor cases, the Speaker of the House of Commons would be able to rely on the time worn excuse, quite rightfully, that he has no knowledge of what went on in committee and would have no knowledge of what went on in committee until report stage was reached. Simply because those circumstances are not referred to in a report should not deny the Hon. Member an opportunity of raising his question of privilege at the time when report stage is reached. Obviously in many cases these matters, as is the case before us, would not be dealt with in the report of the committee.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Durham-Northumber-land (Mr. Lawrence) has raised some very fundamental points. What is the right of a Member to participate when he is not, by a decision of this House, a member of the committee? It is the House which decides membership. It is not for the Chair to go behind that decision.
It is quite clear what the precedents are with relation to people who are not members of committees who raise questions of privilege. The precedents are abundantly clear. I have one decision of Mr. Speaker Jerome on May 20, 1975. Mr. Stevens, the then Hon. Member for York-Simcoe, rose on a question of privilege to allege that during a meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, convened to consider Estimates for the purchase of Canadair, the Chairman, the Hon. Member for York Centre, (Mr. Kaplan), now the Solicitor General, and certain other members of the committee were deliberately obstructive. Mr. Stevens moved that the matter be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections. The next day the Chairman of the Committee, the Minister now in the House, rose on a question of privilege to deny the allegations of the Hon. Member for York-Peel. He explained that the conduct described as obstruction involved his refusal to put the Estimates to a vote without a quorum. He then moved that this ruling, made in his capacity as chairman, be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. The issue: Does an apparent obstruction on the part of a committee chairman constitute a breach of privilege. Decision: The issue raised is not a breach of parliamentary privilege. Mr. Speaker Jerome made it very clear that there is a well established practice that the Chair "ought not to sit as a court of appeal in respect to the proceedings in the standing committee".
This is the position of the Chair. The other matter which was raised by Mr. Speaker Jerome was as a matter of principle. One committee of this House should not be asked to sit in
Security Intelligence Service
judgment of another committee. In this case the motion which is indicated is that if the Chair would find a prima facie case of privilege, the Hon. Member for Edmonton East would move that at once the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections should judge the conduct of another committee. That has been an unacceptable principle right from the beginning of our Parliament. Committees have not been placed in that position. Therefore, in the circumstances the Chair cannot find that there is a prima facie case of privilege for referral to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections and denies the point of privilege.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask you to reflect overnight, if you would, on the question of whether the Privileges and Elections Committee would be entitled to review a legitimate point of privilege in which it was established prima facie that a Member's privileges had been breached by the conduct of a committee of the House of Commons. If a Member's privileges have been breached, then they have been breached. If you can prove a prima facie case, then surely the only place-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is the reason why the practice of the House has been that a committee itself should report a matter and ask that a matter be decided. This is the reason for that procedure established within the House. There appears to be a misunderstanding about this. The Chair can only take note of matters of privilege in a committee when the committee reports to the House that there is a question of privilege to be examined.
This is the position in which the Chair finds itself, rightly or wrongly. The Chair cannot go behind the practice of the House, which is well established, with relation to committees. Behind it all is the question of how the House establishes its committee membership. When the House establishes committee members, what are the rights of other Members who are not members of committees? This is the issue which the Hon. Member for Edmonton East is raising. He is not a member of the committee and he is raising the question of his rights to participate in the proceedings of a committee of which he is not a member.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No, no.


Mr. Speaker:: Please. The Hon. Member for EdmontonWest (Mr. Lambert) has not been recognized. The Chair will now invite argument relating to the observations that were made.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some remarks, as I indicated in a preliminary way yesterday, and place certain observations on the record with respect to the preliminary ruling that you delivered yesterday morning. I do not propose to dwell on the question of the procedural acceptability of the motions filed by the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). I am sure that the Hon. Member for Burnaby will want to deal at length on that particular matter on his own.

June 13, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
Having said that, I would like to pause for a moment to review your remarks with respect to the motions that the Hon. Member for Burnaby filed for the purpose of deleting individual clauses of the Bill. In your remarks, you suggested that the cumulative effect of affirmative votes on these motions would be to kill the Bill. You went on to state that for that reason you proposed to group the motions, both for the purpose of debate and for the purpose of voting. If you take the position that motions standing on the Notice Paper should be considered not for the specific effect that they might have but for their cumulative effect, you could very easily determine that every motion moved by all Members should be placed in one group for debate and that a vote on one motion would be sufficient to dispose of all other motions.
The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) says "good". I find that an unfortunate and dangerous frame of mind in a free and democratic parliamentary institution. I am sorry that he takes that attitude. I hope it is not reflected by members of the Liberal Government because it would indicate a jackboot mentality, especially when we are talking in terms of this legislation, that I find unacceptable.
What your preliminary ruling suggests is that the traditional understanding of separate motions constituting separate questions is no longer valid; that it is the view of the Speaker that the occupant of the Chair should no longer be restricted to grouping relating or consequential amendments, but can group motions without regard to the specific thrust or purpose of each motion. This would be an unprecedented ruling and would, in my view, undermine the right of Members to move such motions and be heard in this place. It is simply not possible to make an argument in support of each of the motions that you propose to include in group one in the course of ten minutes which Members are given for debate on this grouping. The effect of your ruling, therefore, would be to restrict the right of debate unduly.
By grouping the motions in the manner proposed, you would not be serving the House by reducing repetition or enhancing relevance in debate. Instead, you would be introducing a form of time allocation, something better left to the Government, because it, at least, can be held responsible for its actions in causing legislation to be rushed through the House without proper consideration.
As the distinguished occupant of the Chair, I would hesitate to place you in the position where you would be involved in any suggestion of a political consideration with respect to time allocation. The Standing Orders provide the Government the opportunity to come forward and, if it sees fit and is prepared to take the political heat, move time allocation. There is no question. I am concerned that Your Honour may be put in a position, by virtue of denying full opportunity for debate on motions, or at least dealing with the groupings in such a way that they are related to topics of unnecessarily restricting debate on important legislation.
With respect to point number two in your preliminary ruling, Mr. Speaker, I submit that the suggestion that Motion No. 3 proposes to add to the Bill by way of a substantive
amendment to the interpretation clause, is founded on a misunderstanding of what is being attempted by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser). As you will be aware, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has filed a series of motions, the objective of which is to bring the security service under the control of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Motion No. 3 does not stand on its own but is consequential to these other amendments.
In other words, if the Hon. Member were to be successful in causing his proposal to be accepted, then it would be necessary to amend the interpretation clause to reflect that change. Thus, Motion No. 3 should be considered in context with Motion No. 11. Motion No. 11 is dealt with in point four of your preliminary ruling. You cite Beauchesne's Fifth Edition to the effect that motions which would reverse the principle of a Bill as agreed to at second reading are out of order, as I understand your preliminary ruling.
I think that it is important that the question of what constitutes the principle of a Bill be addressed at this point. I would point out that Citation 712 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition indicates that the principle of a Bill is not limited to these specific matters touched on in the Bill. Indeed, in Citation 712, Beauchesne notes the following:
The stage of second reading is primarily concerned with the principle of a measure. At this stage, debate is not strictly limited to the contents of a bill as other methods of attaining its proposed objective may be considered. This stage is coupled with an Order to commit the bill.
(3) In committee-In committee the details of a measure are the primary objects of consideration with alterations in its provisions being proposed. Amendments must be compatible with the principle of the bill which the House has affirmed on second reading.
It is clear that the principle of a Bill is not confined by the clauses contained therein while second reading is under way. Does that principle become more restrictive once the Bill has passed second reading? Reason suggests not. Our rules make no provision for amemdments to the clauses or schedules of a Bill during second reading debate. Therefore, it must be left to the committee stage to modify the clauses of the Bill to better reflect the broad principle of the Bill. If the committee is unsuccessful in this task, then this work must be undertaken in the House at report stage. That is the situation we are faced with today.
The principle of this Bill is not to create a civilian security service but to create a Canadian security service. What could be more clear in this respect than the title of the Bill? The title of Bill C-9 is as follows:
An Act to establish the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, to enact An Act respecting the enforcement in relation to certain security and related offences and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof or in relation thereto.
The broad principle of a Bill is established by its title. This fact is outlined in Citation 703(1) of Beauchesne's which, under the title. "Form of a Bill", reads as follows:
Although there is no specific set of rules or guidelines governing the content of a bill, there should be a theme of relevancy amongst the contents of a bill. They must be relevant to and subject to the umbrella which is raised by the terminology of the long title of the bill. Journals, May 6, 1971, p. 532.
June 13, 1984

(2)	Some of the constituent parts of a bill are essential; some are optional. The title is an essential part; the preamble is not.
By suggesting, as you do in your preliminary ruling, Mr. Speaker, that any amendment which would alter provisions contained in the Bill as introduced so as to cause the agency to be brought under the responsibility of the RCMP is out of order is to state that no amendment would be acceptable and that the principle of a Bill rests not with its broad objective but with its specific provisions. In my view, such an interpretation is not consistent with our practices.
The question that you must ask when attempting to apply Citation 773(5) of Beauchesne's is this: Will the RCMP control, negate or reverse the principle that a Canadian security intelligence service should be created? The obvious answer to that question is no. Indeed, the fact that the committee felt that it was within its competence to consider such an amendment should be a compelling argument in favour of the acceptability of the motion at this stage and at this time.
For the reasons that I have just outlined, therefore, I would ask you to reconsider your preliminary ruling that Motion No. 11 and the motions that are consequential to it are out of order. These amendments as proposed are, in the words of Citation 712(2), "other methods of attaining (the) proposed objective" of Bill C-9.
Within that grouping, Mr. Speaker, you have included Motion No. 53 as listed on the Notice Paper as being entirely consequential to Motion No. 11. However, the Hon. Member for Vancouver South filed three separate motions, which were rewritten by the Journals Branch and consolidated into one motion. The fact is that had the Hon. Member's original drafting been left untouched, only one of the proposed motions would have fallen into the category of motions which are consequential to Motion No. 11. The other two proposed motions dealt with quite separate issues and should be allowed even if you rule that Motion No. 11 is out of order.
With respect to Motion No. 49, which is also partially consequential to Motion No. 11,1 suggest with the greatest of deference, Sir, that your preliminary ruling is incorrectly based upon Citation 428(2). Citation 428(2) deals, as you know, with the question of the acceptability of amendments. What we have before us today, Mr. Speaker, are report stage motions-and I underline the word "motions"-which have the effect of amending a Bill but which are nonetheless separate questions laid before the House. Therefore, it would be more correct to cite Citation 424(5) which contains the same observations with respect to motions. However, Citation 424 also contains other important observations. Citation 424 reads as follows:
(1) When a Member hands a motion to the Speaker after having spoken in support of it, the Speaker may, before putting the question to the House, make such corrections as are necessary or advisable in order that it should conform with the usages of the House. Journals, April 28, 1924, pp. 186-8 ...
(3)	It is the Speaker's duty to call the attention of the mover and of the House to the irregularity of a motion; whereupon the motion is usually withdrawn or so modified as to be no longer objectionable. If the motion is of such a nature that objection cannot be removed, the Speaker may refuse to put the motion to the House. He treats it as a nullity.
Security Intelligence Service
(4) The Speaker has the unquestioned authority to modify motions with respect to form. Journals, April 28, 1924, p. 186.
Thus, Mr. Speaker, you would seem to have the opportunity to correct the problem that may exist in Motions Nos. 49 and 53 in the event that you rule Motion No. 11 out of order. It would be a fairly simple task for you to exercise your authority to make any such corrections as might be required to bring the non-consequential portions of those motions into conformity with the usages of the House. In any event, you have the authority to correct the editorial decision undertaken by the Table with respect to Motion No. 53.
I might add, Mr. Speaker, that the editorial changes made by the Table could have been caught in time had the decision not also been made to not print the motions of the Hon. Member for Vancouver South on the day on which they were received. I alluded to that earlier. This resulted in their appearing on the Notice Paper on the same day as they were to be taken up in the House.
In conclusion, I would like to say that Your Honour is of course bound by the precedents, but there is an element of reasonable discretion in terms of the application of these strict rules. You sit as the first commoner and, as you have often stated yourself, you are a servant of the House. We are faced with an unusual set of circumstances here. I comment only on matters of which you will have received notice of the proceedings.
The motions that have been put by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver South, have all received attention during the committee stage and were all addressed at some length in second reading debate. If I may be permitted to say so, these motions do not introduce any new or novel propositions which have heretofore not been the subject of the consideration of this Parliament and of this House of Commons. Indeed, these propositions have been matters of such enormous interest and controversy that they have been the items upon which the main lines of battle have been drawn between the government Party and the members of the Opposition and they have been debated vigorously. Your Honour is aware of these facts.
I simply say that these motions are responsible, germane and relevant. My colleague has included in his motions propositions, for example, with respect to the whole question of the review of the Canadian security agency.
In your preliminary ruling, Mr. Speaker, you put the proposition that a parliamentary committee should be established to perform an overview or oversight responsibility on the Canadian security agency. That is something which is a new and novel proposition, and therefore it is not acceptable. In looking at the Bill from my perspective, it is a Bill which creates a Canadian security agency. The Solicitor General, who is a Minister of the Crown, has carried this Bill, as is his responsibility. He has devoted about 75 per cent of his time talking about the review capacity within the legislation. He has argued that the proposals which he has put forward with respect to-

June 13, 1984
Security Intelligence Service


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Separation.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I am talking now about the amendment which was proposed by my colleague from Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) with respect to a parliamentary oversight committee.
The Minister has contended-and we disagree with him- that this Bill consists of the creation of a security agency over which there will be enormous powers of review. For our part, we had the temerity to suggest that a committee of the House of Commons should be involved in that review process. Mr. Speaker, to suggest such an amendment is a startling departure from the principle of review I think would be difficult to sustain. I think this is a method of review which, in a free and democratic society, should be available. We should have the ability, armed with special powers, to scrutinize the activities of the agency. It is not because it is a House of Commons committee, but rather because it adds another dimension to the review of the agency. It is another protection of the civil liberties of Canadians, another protection for the people of Canada.
I believe that the motions which have been put forward by my colleague from Vancouver South cannot be considered as specious. They are propositions which have been put forward seriously. The basis upon which they have been put forward is that they have been debated, proposed and discussed in the course of all stages of the Bill. We have not as yet been able to convince the Government of the rightness of what we have proposed, as being proper amendments to this legislation. To be denied the opportunity at report stage, having regard to the fact that there has been time allocation imposed, I believe would not be understood by the average Canadian citizen.
I am proposing to you, Mr. Speaker, on a very solid legal basis, what I hope is a strong argument for you to accept the motions of my colleague. This is a political institution. As Speaker, you have notice of the interest there is in this country with respect to these issues. I think the Chair should exercise its discretion in favour of a full and free discussion of the issues which are of concern to Canadians.
When I addressed my preliminary remarks, I indicated that I was concerned about the very restrictive nature of your ruling. All of us who have had the opportunity to practice in the courts of this land understand the concept of equity. It is on that basis which I appeal to Your Honour. Equity dictates the emotions and the proposals which were put forward by the Hon. Member for Vancouver South and they should be accepted. I think you will find that will expedite the consideration of this legislation as opposed to causing any undue delay.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will hear one representative of each of the Opposition Parties. Then the Chair will hear other Members. The Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson).


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have had an opportunity carefully to-


Mr. Fraser:: On a point of information, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) have a question which he wishes to put to the Chair?


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I understand the good sense of going to the other Party. However, I would hope the Chair is not suggesting that I will not be able to speak to this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: No. The Chair has indicated that it would first hear one representative of each Party and then it would hear other Members. There is no intention on the part of the Chair to deny Hon. Members an opportunity to be heard on a matter as fundamental as this. The Hon. Member for Burnaby.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, as you have indicated, we are dealing with a very fundamental question as to how we will approach debate at report stage on a most important piece of legislation, one which touches upon the most fundamental questions of civil liberties and the privacy of Canadians.
In prefacing my remarks with respect to the Speaker's preliminary ruling, the discussion on the legislation which we are dealing with today is attempting to arrive at an appropriate means of proceeding. I recognize that that is what the Chair has sought to accomplish as a means of facilitating orderly debate and ensuring that there will not be a repetition of the clause by clause debate which took place in committee. I fully understand that objective and it is one which is proper and appropriate at this stage of the proceedings. It is in that context that I will attempt to couch my remarks.
I must note, in determining how we will proceed at this stage of our deliberations, that I believe it to be appropriate that the Chair should take note of what took place in committee. I think it is proper for the Chair to consider that in determining what is a fair and equitable basis for proceeding in the House at report stage.
The Chair made a number of suggestions yesterday, I suppose out of frustration as much as anything else, to the effect that perhaps some Hon. Members were attempting to delay. I would like to assure the Chair that our objective in this Party is to have full and informed debate on the very fundamental issues which arise from this legislation. We are not attempting in any way to delay orderly debate on the legislation. I would note that it was only as a result of the introduction of a motion of closure, which would have denied any further debate in committee, and which was proposed by a member of the governing Party, that I felt it necessary, in order to preserve the democratic structure of the committee, to engage in what was unquestionably a dilatory tactic in committee. I would emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that that was following the tabling of the motion of closure by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General (Mr. Gourde).
We are prepared to approach this debate in a spirit of good faith and in the spirit of giving reasonable consideration to the very fundamental questions which are raised. In that light, as I have indicated, it is appropriate that the Chair consider the
June 13, 1984

proceedings which took place in committee. I know that the Speaker is aware of the fact that the chairman of the committee has felt it necessary to submit his resignation because of the unusual and, indeed, unprecedented circumstances which arose at that time. The chairman indicated that he felt he had no alternative but to effectively impose closure, despite the fact that Standing Order 82 makes provision for closure not just in the House but also in committee. Surely, that would have been the appropriate means of bringing debate to a conclusion at committee stage, rather than the chairman taking the law into his own hands.
I would remind the Chair of the length and nature of the consideration of clauses in this legislation. Consideration took place on Wednesday nights, Thursday mornings, afternoons and evenings, and again on Friday mornings. We considered the clauses of this Bill on a clause by clause basis as well as the amendments to the legislation.
With respect to the time constraints in that committee, the Speaker is very much aware of the fact that the mover of an amendment had two minutes to indicate the basis for that amendment, and other parties represented on the committee had one minute to respond, a total of five minutes with respect to most clauses, although there were some greater provisions of time for more controversial clauses. Nevertheless, I emphasize that by the time we arrived at eleven o'clock on Thursday night, after having sat all day, the chair-


Mr. Speaker:: With all due respect to the Hon. Member, the Chair is prepared generally to accept argument, or a recital of facts relating to committee, but the issue before us is a group of amendments and, with all due respect to the Hon. Member, the Chair would invite him to direct his remarks to the way in which the amendments should be grouped.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I was attempting to lay a foundation for my remarks with respect to the grouping of amendments by noting that the procedures in committee were most restrictive indeed, and where there is any question as to the full and adequate consideration of the merits of the clauses in question, the Chair should surely err on the side of full debate and not on the side of restriction.


Mr. Speaker:: With all due respect, again, to the Hon. Member, the Chair is hardly in the position of looking behind a committee report and passing judgment on proceedings within a committee. Committees are masters of their own fate. However, the Chair is very anxious to have the argument of the Hon. Member concerning matters relating to the preliminary ruling which the Chair made yesterday. Would the Hon. Member assist the Chair by indicating in what respects he agrees or disagrees with the preliminary ruling?


Svend Johannes Robinson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I believe I have made my point with respect to the unprecedented nature of the committee proceedings and the unfortunate denial of full debate in the context of the committee, a denial which led to
Security Intelligence Service
the chairman of that committee feeling he had no alternative but to resign.
With respect to the question of the grouping proposed, and the admissability of the motions which are dealt with, I propose to respond to the Chair's preliminary ruling in the order in which the Chair has in fact made suggestions to the House. I appreciate the time which we have had to consider this question. As the Chair is well aware, the matters are not capable of speedy resolution. However, we have had an opportunity to consult and consider and, Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to respond to the points in the order in which they have been submitted to the House.
I would, as a preliminary question, Mr. Speaker, just ask whether the Chair does at this point have a preliminary ruling with respect to the motions which are numbered in sub-paragraph (10), or whether the Chair intends to make a preliminary ruling on that at the conclusion of the proceedings?


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has indicated the procedure. Yesterday I indicated the matters in which I have come to preliminary conclusions. I am inviting argument on the matters mentioned yesterday. With respect to the remaining items in the Bill, all of them, again I will follow the same procedure.
I will give my preliminary findings and give Hon. Members an opportunity to consider them and make argument again. Then there will be the final decisions.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will then confine my remarks to paragraph 1 through paragraph 9 in the Speaker's preliminary ruling. First, with respect to paragraph 1 dealing with the motions to delete which I submitted, motions seeking to delete separate clauses of the Bill as well as the schedule, the Chair suggests that the cumulative effect of affirmative votes on those motions would be to kill the Bill. Thus, in the opinion of the Chair they must all be disposed of together. The Chair suggested they be grouped for debate with a vote on Motion No. 1 disposing of all the remaining motions to delete the clauses and schedule of the Bill.
1 would submit, Mr. Speaker, with respect, that this exceeds what would be appropriate in considering some separate elements of a complex piece of legislation. The Chair suggests that by virtue of the cumulative effect of these motions to delete, the Bill in fact would be "killed"-to use the words of the Chair-and that is good reason for lumping them together. However, Mr. Speaker, I suggest, with respect, that given the very stringent limitations on time at report stage-and that is understandable because we are not under the rules of committee where there is unlimited time for debate and we deal on a clause by clause basis-we do not want to rehash everything that has gone on in committee. Nevertheless, the purpose of submitting these motions of deletion was by no means to suggest that there should be a separate debate and separate vote on each and every motion of deletion. However, Mr. Speaker, what I was intending, having reviewed the provisions of Beauchesne and the Standing Orders carefully, which do clearly permit motions to delete, I felt it was appropriate to err

June 13, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
on the side of caution and to submit motions to delete in the full knowledge and understanding that such motions would in fact be grouped by subject matter.
That is what I understood the role of the Chair would be after having, of course, consulted with the officers at the Table. It would be to consider the broad subject matter which is dealt with by the motions to delete; then to group them accordingly for debate.
However, if your honour examines the subject matter of the motions to delete, it is virtually impossible, in fact entirely impossible, in the course of a ten-minute speech to deal with such disparate elements as the management of the service; the question of the nature of intrusive warrants under the Act; the role of the oversight committee; the question of the handling of complaints with respect to the service; an entirely separate part on security offences; a series of consequential amendments; and a provision with respect to collective bargaining rights for employees in the service. There are six, seven or more fundamentally different areas which can certainly not be disposed of by one vote and certainly not, Mr. Speaker, appropriately or adequately dealt with under the provisions of one motion to delete, that is, Motion No. 1.
I would note, and I would draw to the attention of the Chair, two rulings by former Speaker Jerome with respect to the question of motions to delete. I am sure the Chair has considered these. However, I believe in the context of this question of grouping that it is appropriate that they be brought to the attention of the House.
First, there was a ruling of May 11, 1977 by Mr. Speaker Jerome with respect to the question of demanding a division of a Bill. The Chair will recall the controversy surrounding the omnibus Bill on the Criminal Code. At that point there was some suggestion that the Bill should be divided. The Chair, in rejecting that suggestion, suggested that instead of dividing the Bill, the device which was open to Hon. Members for that purpose was a motion to delete pursuant to Standing Order 75(5), as it then was.
I would like to quote-I am sorry, Mr. Speaker; I just wanted to ensure I have the full attention of the Chair for this particular point. This is a quote from the ruling of-


Mr. Speaker:: In case the Hon. Member has any doubt, the occupant of the chair will carefully read the transcript. Will the Hon. Member please proceed?


Svend Johannes Robinson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the ruling of May 11, 1977 with respect to a motion to delete, Mr. Speaker Jerome said:
The motion allows a Member to isolate those sections of a bill which he feels ought not to be amended or ought to be voted separately, without offending the principle of the bill.
That was the purpose of what may have been an admittedly somewhat awkward decision to submit motions to delete to each clause. However, the purpose of that was to ensure that the separate sections of the Bill would be voted separately
pursuant to the ruling of Mr. Speaker Jerome on May 11, 1977-


Mr. Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member please indicate to the Chair just what he thinks the Chair should do, just exactly how they should be grouped, because the Chair is inviting specific comments? The Chair has listened patiently. The Hon. Member may have had some doubts as to whether the Chair is listening. The Chair wishes to assure the Hon. Member it is doing its very best to listen, but is waiting for very specific comments from the Hon. Member in terms of what should be done.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have just one final reference with respect to-


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Tell us how they should be grouped.


Ian Deans: He is going to tell you, if you will wait.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: He has been speaking for 15 minutes. He has not said anything.


Ian Deans: Are you going to bring in a security service and stop him?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) has the floor.


Ian Deans: Bring the Minister to order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) please be quiet. His colleague, the Hon. Member for Burnaby, has the floor.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, just one final reference with respect to the question of grouping.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) has the floor. Will the Hon Member for Hamilton Mountain please be quiet. His colleague, the Hon. Member for Burnaby, has the floor.


Svend Johannes Robinson: On June 29, 1976, Speaker Jerome dealt with the question of motions to delete. He said that even if the fundamental principle of the Bill appears to be contravened by a motion to delete, because the Standing Orders make provision for this it "appears to give them a sanctity that does not extend to other motions". The relevant provision is as follow:
It seems to be going far too extensively beyond the Standing Orders to suggest that, because the effect may be in some or in their collectivity-
And I emphasize that:
-or in their collectivity to change the principle of the Bill, every Member who wants to put down a motion to delete at this stage ought to be deprived of that right.
In this particular instance it was a one-clause Bill and the motion was to delete the clause from the Bill, which obviously
June 13, 1984

went to the heart of the Bill. It would have killed the Bill, yet that procedural opportunity was not denied the Member.
The purpose of proposing these motions to delete was to facilitate the work of the Chair in grouping relevant subject matters. The Chair has proposed instead that in one ten-minute speech Members should cover the whole range of subjects dealt with by the motions to delete. I note the contents of the Bill are set out at the back of Bill C-9 and I have used that as the basis for the broad subject matter to be dealt with. First, we are dealing with Clause 1, which has given us an opportunity for general discussion. I suggest that be disposed of at the conclusion of debate on that motion. Clause 2 is the interpretation clause which could either be dealt with separately or possibly lumped with Clauses 3 through 11.
The second major grouping would be Clauses 12 through 19 dealing with the duties and functions of the service.
Clause 20 stands on its own. It deals with the question of the protection in law of employees of the service. It is not in any way linked to other provisions in the Bill.
Then Clauses 21 through 28 deal with warrants. I was going to break that down, but I think we could deal with them.
Clauses 29 through 33 deal with the role of the Inspector General, and I suggest they should be dealt with and voted on separately.
Clauses 34 through 40 deal with the Security Intelligence Review Committee. They should be dealt with separately.
Clauses 41 through 55 deal with a process for complaints about the activities of the service, and they could be dealt with by way of a separate motion and vote.
Then there are Clauses 56 through 61. There were no amendments proposed to those clauses but it was certainly my understanding and that of other Members that there would be an opportunity to consider them as a separate package. They deal with the enforcement of security and related offences and surely we cannot be expected to do justice to those provisions in the course of a ten-minute debate on all other elements of the legislation.
There are a couple of other groupings and I think this would adequately respond to the need for debate. The question of Clauses 56 through 61 is illustrative of my point. They in fact constitute a separate Act. They were the subject of extensive debate in committee and under the Speaker's preliminary ruling they were to be lumped in with everything else.
I do not see any difficulty grouping virtually all of the consequential amendments in Clauses 62 through 71, 73 through 78, and 87 through 92.
I submit there are just three other areas which should be grouped separately. One is Clause 72 which deals with whether or not the new service should have the power to open first-class mail. That should be the focus of separate debate.
Clauses 79 through 86 deal with proposed amendments to the Immigration Act. These should not be lumped in with a discussion of the powers and duties of the Review Committee or the question of the warrants. These amendments touch on
Security Intelligence Service
the Immigration Act itself and I suggest they be dealt with separately.
Finally we have Clause 93 which would stand on its own. It deals with the very sensitive question of collective bargaining rights for employees of the service. I emphasize that that is not dealt with in any other provision. I suppose it might be grouped with those provisions in Clauses 3 through 11 dealing with the management of the service. However, I urge that it be dealt with and voted on separately.


Mr. Speaker:: Could the Chair ask the Hon. Member if he is prepared to withdraw any of these motions to delete? Does he consider that every single motion to delete should be considered by the House?


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, if it would facilitate debate on the broad subject matters referred to, I am certainly prepared to withdraw motions to delete, the purpose of the motion was to facilitate the grouping under broad subject matters by the Chair. If it would assist the Chair in permitting grouping of this nature, I would be quite prepared to attempt to review the provisions and remove motions to delete under each of those subject headings. I have no difficulty with that proposal whatsoever.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Member could communicate with the Table officers and at the appropriate time it might be considered. It appears to the Chair from a preliminary examination that many of the clauses are subject to amendment and also the Hon. Member's deleting. The Chair is simply calling the attention of the Hon. Member to whether it is necessary for the motion for deletion, for his purposes to be considered in every case. That is a matter for the Hon. Member to weigh.
The Hon. Member has not concluded his remarks?


Svend Johannes Robinson: No, Mr. Speaker, I was dealing with the first point. As I have indicated, I am quite prepared to be flexible with respect to the question of the motions to delete. My primary concern is that there must be an opportunity for reasonable debate on the broad subject matter referred to in the legislation.
I note that there are a couple of relevant citations. Section 787 of Beauchesne, which refers to report stage, reads as follows:
In general, the report stage of a public bill is one of reconsideration of events that have taken place in committee. The consideration of a bill is now a more formal repetition of the committee stage with the applicable rules of debate which are proper when the Speaker is in the Chair. Although amendments which were rejected in committee and amendments attempting to restore the original text of the bill may be proposed, the Speaker's power of selection of motions in amendment is a check upon the excessive repetition of debates-
That is precisely the point that we are attempting to address here. We do not want to repeat clause by clause study. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the grouping which I have put forward would facilitate the discussion of the board subject matter of the legislation, which is the purpose-

June 13, 1984
Security Intelligence Service


Mr. Speaker:: A number of the amendments would certainly permit that. Again the Chair invites the Hon. Member to consider whether, when a specific amendment is put forward, an amendment to delete is also required.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I certainly will consider that. I will review the motions which have amendments attached as well as motions to delete. I am quite prepared to do that. If the debate can be facilitated by a discussion on the amendment, I am certainly prepared to withdraw any motion to delete on that particular clause. I appeal to the Chair that there are a number of clauses which have no amendments attached whatsoever. The only means of dealing with those particular clauses and that particular subject matter would be by way of a motion to delete, precisely because there are no amendments which deal with the subject matter referred to in that particular grouping.
Those are my suggestions with respect to grouping the motions to delete. I certainly will review the motions in light of the Chair's suggestion. I note as well that the Bill itself is broken into four or five major parts. There is a clear recognition of the fundamental distinction of the different parts. I will attempt to deal with the motions to delete, particularly in the context of those motions which are made to clauses which are the subject of amendment.
That is the proposal which I would make with respect to the grouping of amendments. I strongly appeal to the Chair that there must be some systematic grouping by subject matter. To suggest that one 10-minute speech can deal with all of the diverse subjects which are touched upon in the groupings I have indicated does not do justice at all and is far too restrictive. The votes on those questions are separate elements.
The second paragraph of the Chair's preliminary ruling is with respect to Motions Nos. 3 and 4. The Chair notes that these motions propose to add new features to the Bill by means of a substantive amendment to the interpretation clause, which is out of order. I certainly recognize the citation in question. I suppose this relates to a difficulty which is referred to in Sub-paragraph (7) of the Speaker's preliminary ruling. If indeed the Speaker rules that one sub-paragraph of Motions Nos. 3 and 4 is defective, I appeal to the Chair as to whether that would in fact mean that all elements of that motion are defective.
We are dealing here with the definitions section. There are a number of provisions in Motion No. 3 in the name of the Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser), and in Motion No. 4 submitted in my name, which in no way expand the scope of the Bill beyond that which is permissible. There are a number of sub-paragraphs. As I say, given that this is a definition or interpretation section, I appeal to the Chair to show some latitude in permitting those paragraphs which do not, in the view of the Chair, exceed the bounds of relevance. Those particular paragraphs should be permitted under the scope of Motions Nos. 3 and 4 instead of striking them out entirely.
I will give just one example of what I am referring to. In Motion No. 4 submitted in my name, there is a provision for an expansion of the definition of security assessment which would simply require that the criteria for such security assessments be set out in regulations under the Act, which regulations shall be made public. Clearly that is within the scope of the Bill. I recognize that the Chair has some concern about the concept of the parliamentary oversight committee. However, I would appeal to the Chair, given that this is a definition section, to show some latitude. If the Chair feels it necessary to strike one or more of the paragraphs as attempting, in the words of the Chair, a substantive amendment to the interpretation clause, those other provisions included in other paragraphs should be permitted to stand.
Turning to the third paragraph of the Chair's preliminary ruling with respect to Motions Nos. 5 to 9 inclusive, the Chair is suggesting that these should be debated together. It is also suggesting that an affirmative vote on Motion 5 would dispose of the subsequent four motions, but that a negative vote on Motion No. 5 would necessitate separate votes on Motions Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9.
I would draw to the attention of the Chair that we are dealing with very different subject matters in Motions Nos. 5 through 9. Motion No. 5 is submitted by the Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand). Motions Nos. 6 through 9 were submitted in my name on behalf of the New Democratic Party. Motion No. 5 would substitute five different definitions of "threat to the security of Canada". There was some debate on that. Motions Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 deal with four distinct elements of the definition of threat to security.
Given that, I strongly urge the Chair to reconsider its decision with respect to the grouping of these amendments. At the very least, I suggest that Motion No. 5, which was submitted in the name of the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East, should be dealt with as a separate motion and that Motions Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 submitted in my name be dealt with. If the Chair insists they be dealt with together, so be it, thay can be dealt with together. However, I suggest that to lump Motion No. 5 with the subsequent four motions does not enable us to do justice to the very essential questions which are raised in these motions.
I note as well the suggestion that an affirmative vote on Motion No. 5 disposes of Motions Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9. With respect, if Motion No. 5 were to be adopted, that in no way disposes of Motions Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9. Motions Nos. 6 through 9 in fact delete specific elements of the definition of "threat to the security of Canada". These specific elements stand on their own. They are specific paragraphs. As I understand it, amendments can be proposed to Motion No. 5. I would seek some guidance from the Chair on that question because it affects my argument with respect to Paragraph No. 3. As I read the Standing Orders, that is permissible under Standing Order 79(8) which reads as follows:
June 13, 1984

When the Order of the Day for the consideration of a report stage is called, any amendment of which notice has been given in accordance with section (5) of this Standing Order shall be open to debate and amendment.
As I understand it, it would be entirely in order to propose amendments to the motions of which notice has been given under the provisions of Standing Order 79(8). I do not know whether it is appropriate for me to seek guidance at this point. I may ask the indulgence of the Chair on that point. If that is indeed possible, it would be possible to move amendments to Motion No. 5 which would achieve the objective set out in Motions Nos. 6 through 9.


Mr. Speaker:: The answer to the Hon. Member's query is yes, amendments are permitted.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, if that is the case, that would facilitate the discussion on Motion No. 5. I would still strongly argue that Motion No. 5 should be dealt with separate from Motions Nos. 6 through 9.
Turning then to Motion No. 11, which is-


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has at this point proposed a certain scheme of grouping. The Hon. Member is giving an argument for an alternative scheme of grouping. It would be possible, the Chair submits, for a number of schemes to be proposed. The difficulty the Chair has is, first, trying to do justice to the Hon. Member's argument, and every effort will be made, but there has to be a decision. There is a element of discretion in the decision. Can the Hon. Member give good reasons why these groupings are better than the suggested ones? Short of being corrected upon reading the transcript-it is not always easy to follow argument-the Chair has the impression that several schemes could be offered on about the same basis. The Chair is then left in a position to choose. If the Hon. Member can give me reasons why the groupings I have suggested are really not satisfactory, it would be helpful.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, with respect, that is precisely what I have attempted to do by dealing with the substance of the motions in question. As the mover of a number of motions which the Speaker has attempted to group, and having had an opportunity to re-examine the substance of those motions, I am trying to provide an alternate means of dealing with the grouping of the motions in question, bearing in mind the suggestion of the chair yesterday that Members should in fact review the Speaker's preliminary ruling in the context of the motions which they have submitted. If it is the Chair's opinion that I am not doing that, I apologize. My clear intention is to point out the distinctions with respect to substance on a number of these motions.
With respect to Motion No. 11 which stands in the name of the Hon. Member for Vancouver South, the transcript of the committee will record the fact that I myself did raise some question as to the procedural admissibility of a motion which would maintain the security service under the control of the RCMP. I note the Bill does propose to create an independent service which is not under RCMP control. I think that given
Security Intelligence Service
the fact there was considerable debate on the question whether or not a service within the scope of the RCMP, but subject to stricter guidelines, would in fact be an alternative acceptable to this House, and I have certainly made my views known on that subject-


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair does not wish to be disrespectful to the Hon. Member. I have in mind a citation in Beauchesne and the role of the Chair in the circumstances. From the Fifth Edition of Beauchesne, I quote again Citation 795 (1) and (2) which read:
(1)	At the commencement of the report stage of a bill, the Speaker by virtue of S.O. 75(10) may select or combine motions in amendment for debate as he may think fit. At this time, he may also give notice of those motions which are of procedural concern and ask for guidance on their procedural acceptability.
(2)	By practice, the Speaker will also decide whether the motions will be voted separately or in groups.
The concern the Chair has at this point is that the Hon. Member appears to be proposing a totally different scheme. The Chair stands to be corrected on reading the record. It would be helpful if the Hon. Member could give an indication that he has a difference of opinion regarding where the Chair has proposed that certain amendments are not acceptable. Would he focus on that? The Chair is anxious to be fair and just. The grouping obviously is at the discretion of the Chair. The Chair is not prepared to argue that the greatest of wisdom in the world resides in the Chair. There is going to be a certan arbitrariness in the grouping and in the decisions as to voting, but the Chair tries to reduce that element to the absolute minimum. But what appears to the Chair to be a totally different scheme at this point presents certain difficulties.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly not attempting to present a totally different scheme; I am attempting to respond on a point by point basis to the scheme which Your Honour has proposed. I am in no way proposing a scheme which is entirely separate from that.
I am not going to make any further representations with respect to Motion No. 11, other than to indicate clearly that if we are to have a full and informed debate with respect to the fundamental question whether the service should be included within the umbrella of the RCMP and subject to greater parliamentary safeguards and restrictions on powers, then certainly Motion No. 11 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Vancouver South would facilitate such a debate.
As to the procedural acceptability of that motion, certainly the Chair has made its views known. I believe it would facilitate that debate. I will leave it at that, Mr. Speaker.
With respect to Motions Nos. 13 and 14, paragraph 5 of the Speaker's preliminary ruling, the Chair is suggesting that Motions Nos. 13 and 14 should be grouped for debate, and that an affirmative vote on Motion No. 13 would obviate the need for a vote on Motion No. 14. If there were a negative vote on Motion No. 13, there must be a vote on Motion No. 14.
Briefly, I must note that Motion No. 13 deals with the question of the appointment of the Director of the service who, subject to a certain subsection, has operational responsibility

June 13, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
for the service. That is a motion standing in the name of the Member from Vancouver South.
Motion No. 14 has a fundamentally different objective. Motion No. 14 would require that the Prime Minister, after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons and the Leader of any Party which has at least 12 members, should appoint the Director and that the Director could only be appointed following such consultations.
Motions Nos. 13 and 14 are totally unrelated and in no way, Mr. Speaker, I submit, should Motion No. 13 be grouped for debate with Motion No. 14. Just to illustrate a somewhat surprising position in which we would be left under the suggestion that an affirmative vote on Motion No. 13 would obviate the need for a vote on Motion No. 14, let me say that an affirmative vote on Motion No. 13 would state that the Director has operational responsibility for the service. Let us assume there is an affirmative vote on that. That in no way, Mr. Speaker, deals with the scope and the objective of Motion No. 14, which calls for consultation before the Director of the service is appointed. I am not sure what the objective of the Chair was in grouping those motions. I hope the Speaker recognises that an affirmative vote on one would not dispose of the other. They are separate points and should be grouped separately and voted upon separately.
Turning to a paragraph 6 of the Speaker's preliminary ruling, which deals with Motions Nos. 15, 76, 84, 117 and 175 on the question of the introduction of the principle of a parliamentary oversight committee into the Bill, the Chair notes that this is a concept which is not in the Bill as introduced or as read a second time, and refers back to Motion No. 4. The Chair suggests it is a new idea which was not contemplated in the Bill as agreed to at second reading.
With respect, Mr. Speaker, this question of the possibility of a role for Parliament in the oversight of the operations of the new civilian security service is a question that was dealt with repeatedly by this House at second reading. It is a question which many Members of the House, including Members of the Opposition, view as being one of the central issues to be addressed in this Bill. Even the Solicitor General suggested that he was prepared to hear debate on the question of parliamentary oversight. He was prepared to hear representations by witnesses with respect to the amendment I was proposing on that question. Indeed, even Members of the Liberal Party were prepared to support the concept of parliamentary oversight.
To suggest that this concept or principle is one which is novel, or one being introduced for the first time, flies in the face of the debate itself. It flies in the face of the fact that this is a concept which was dealt with on many occasions by many speakers from all Parties-not just on the Opposition side of the House but on all sides-at second reading.
I will not take the time of the House to read some of the representations which were made by Hon. Members at second
reading on the question of a parliamentary oversight committee.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Go ahead, read them.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Unless the Solicitor General so insists.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: You want this to last forever. You might as well read them.


Svend Johannes Robinson: I will certainly note that many witnesses dealt explicitly, at the suggestion of the Solicitor General, with the question of parliamentary oversight.
What motions are referred to in paragaraph 6? First, there is a suggestion that before the Director of the new civilian security service is appointed, that appointment must be ratified by the parliamentary oversight committee. Surely that does not go beyond the scope of this legislation. Surely it is not unreasonable to suggest that Parliament should play a role in the appointment of the Director. That, I suggest with respect, flows directly from the Bill itself and from the principles underlined in it.
Similarly, Motion No. 76 suggests that the appointment of the Inspector General must only be made pursuant to ratification by the parliamentary oversight committee, again a function which is essential and which in no way derogates from the underlying principles of the legislation.
Motion No. 117 is the one which explicitly would establish this parliamentary oversight committee. This is the motion which the Speaker suggested went beyond the scope of the Bill. The motion suggests that the report prepared by the Security Intelligence Review Committee-and that Committee is already established in the Bill-on an annual basis, together with any special reports which are prepared, should be referred to a special committee of the House of Commons or a special joint committee which would be established by Parliament for the purpose of engaging in effective and comprehensive oversight of the administration and policies and operations of the service, and they would have access to the information.
That in no way transgresses the principles of this Bill. Indeed, the Solicitor General has argued on numerous occasions that there will be a role for Parliament to play pursuant to the provisions of the legislation. All this is doing is codifying the role that Parliament will play in this essential question of oversight by elected representatives. Therefore, I must take very strong exception to the suggestion that it is somehow beyond the scope of the Bill to include the concept of a parliamentary oversight committee.
There was never any suggestion at committee, either by the chairman of the committee or any member thereof-and I see a number of the members of the committee in the House today-that this concept of parliamentary oversight, which would help to ensure that the committee would not become a political tool in the hands of the government of the day, should not be included. This concept has indeed been adopted in other
June 13, 1984

jurisdictions such as the United States, West Germany and elsewhere. Certainly this concept is one that should be included. Indeed, Hon. Members of the House should be given an opportunity to debate it at this stage of our proceedings.
For the Chair to suggest, after having given lengthy consideration to this question of parliamentary oversight at second reading, after having invited witnesses to make representations with respect to the role that Parliament will play in oversight and after having had a comprehensive debate on that very question in committee, that somehow down comes the guillotine and we are no longer permitted to debate the question surely is unacceptable if we are to give the Bill adequate scrutiny.
Finally on this question, I would note that there appears to be at least a considerable inconsistency in the preliminary ruling of the Chair. Motion No. 123 which was submitted by the distinguished Hon. Member for Vancouver South reads:
The administration, provisions and operation of this Act shall be reviewed ona permanent basis by such committee of the House of Commons-
Or such joint committee, to paraphrase in the interests of time.
-as may be designated or established by Parliament for that purpose.
Motion No. 117 refers to a committee which would be responsible for engaging in effective and comprehensive oversight of the administration, policies and operations of the service. Motion No. 123 talks about a committee which deals with the administration, provisions and operation of this Act. How is it that my motions, which deal with the essential question of parliamentary oversight, are ruled out of order?


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Oh.


Svend Johannes Robinson: I would be prepared certainly to yield to the Hon. Member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson) if he wishes to speak at this point.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: I am going to the garden party.


Svend Johannes Robinson: I would submit that Motion No. 123, which is entirely in order, in effect is on the same point as the motions which have been ruled out by the Speaker.
Turning to subparagraph (7) of the Speaker's preliminary ruling-and I do not have very much more to say on this very important preliminary ruling-it deals specifically with my arguments with respect the procedural admissibility of Motion No. 49. First, I would note that the motions which are consequential to Motion No. 11-Motions Nos. 18, 21 and so on as set out in subparagraph (7)-proposed by the Hon. Member for Vancouver South with respect to the bringing of the service under the control of the RCMP should be considered by the House, just as those consequential motions should be considered by the House.
Motion No. 49, just to refresh the memory of Hon. Members, contains three or four subparagraphs. I would just ask that the Chair exercise some leniency, since it suggested in its ruling that subparagraphs (a) through to (c) are to be ruled out of order. I assume that is pursuant to the ruling on
Security Intelligence Service
subparagraph 4. Surely the Hon. Member for Vancouver South should be permitted to put the remaining subparagraph (d) of Motion No. 49. That is the paragraph which would require the Attorney General of Canada to report all relevant information to the Attorney General of the province in which the alleged unlawful activity occurred, unless the Attorney General of Canada certified a document. That motion of the Hon. Member for Vancouver South is clearly in order. If the Chair insists on ruling subparagraphs (a) through (c) out of order, certainly this House could proceed to consider subparagraph (d) with respect to the reporting of possible illegal activity.
Turning to the Final page of the Chair's preliminary ruling, I will now deal with paragraph 8. This paragraph deals with Motions Nos. 19, 23 and 24. It is suggested in the Chair's preliminary ruling that these motions be grouped for debate, but that they be voted on separately. I have no difficulty with voting on these motions separately, but surely even a cursory examination of the provisions of Motions Nos. 19, 23 and 24 makes it clear that the subject matter of these motions is fundamentally different and distinct. They should not be grouped for debate any more than they should be grouped for a vote.
There are two separate broad subject matters referred to in Motion No. 19 which have been lumped together in the interests of efficiency and time. Motion No. 19 refers to the proposed power on the part of the Minister and requires the Minister to issue policies with respect to the use of undercover operatives by the service, policies with respect to the use of physical surveillance, the training of employees and minimization procedures for warrants issued under the Act.
Second, it would require that a clause be added that the Director shall keep the Minister fully and currently informed of the operations of the service. That clause stands on its own in terms of some requirements for reporting on the part of the service. That is an amendment which was proposed to Clause 6.
Motion No. 23 proposes an amendment to an entirely separate clause on an entirely separate question. How on earth the Chair, with the advice of the Table, saw fit to group a motion which deals with directions that can be given to the service with a motion which sets out various prohibited grounds for discrimination in hiring members of the service remains a mystery. I can only assume that that was done by inadvertence. There is clearly not the slightest shred of linkage between Motion No. 19 on the issuance of directions and Motion No. 23 on a separate clause entirely which deals with the suggestion that there must not be discrimination in the service on the basis of race, colour, national or ethnic origin, religion, sex, marital status, family status, sexual orientation, disability, political belief or conviction for which a pardon is being granted.
With respect to Motion No. 24, which is lumped with these two entirely separate motions, that motion is totally unrelated

June 13, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
to Motions Nos. 23 or 19. Motion No. 24 deals with the collective bargaining rights of employees of the service. How on earth can it be argued that there is any connection whatsoever between a bar on discrimination in the hiring of employees and denial of collective bargaining rights of employees and the kind of directive which can be issued, or the requirement that the Director of the service keep the Minister fully and currently informed of all operations of the service? There is patently no connection whatsoever. I submit those motions should be dealt with separately and voted on separately.
Coming to the penultimate paragraph in the Speaker's preliminary ruling, this paragraph deals with Motions Nos. 31, 32 and 34. The suggestion is that they be debated together but voted on separately. Once again it is important to note-I am not sure if my privileges are being affected by the attire of the Hon. Member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson), but I will attempt to carry on despite the obvious distraction. Motions Nos. 31, 32 and 34 are to be debated together and voted on separately.
Looking at the contents of Motions Nos. 31 and 32, I have no difficulty with the suggestion of the Chair that they be grouped for debate, although I believe they should be voted on separately. Motions Nos. 31 and 32 both deal with Clause 12.
I would have preferred that Motion No. 31 stand on its own, particularly because it would include an amendment that would ensure that the new security service would not be engaging in some of the dirty tricks that unfortunately brought such discredit to the RCMP security service. That amendment states that it shall not be a function of the service to carry out measures to enforce security. That is a very important amendment which should be debated and voted on separately. In the interest of time, I am prepared to agree with the Speaker's suggestion that it be voted on and debated together with Motion No. 31.
The suggestion that Motion No. 34 be lumped with Motions Nos. 31 and 32 must surely be unacceptable. I see the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) nodding his head in agreement. Motion No. 34 deals with an entirely separate question. There is a suggestion at page seven that Clause 13(3) be dealt with separately. That clause permits the new civilian security service to enter into agreements or arrangements with governments of foreign states. The Solicitor General admits that the present RCMP security service enters into arrangements with countries that do not even acknowledge the existence of their own security agents.
The suggestion in Motion No. 34 is that we not permit that kind of co-operation with banana republics that the Solicitor General might want to have a cosy relationship with. Motion No. 34 is fundamentally distinct and separate. Indeed, it relates to a separate clause from Motions Nos. 31 and 32. On that basis, I submit that Motion No. 34 should not only be voted upon separately but debated separately as well.
Finally with respect to paragraphs 10 and 11 of the preliminary ruling, I note that the Speaker will be making another
preliminary ruling on the motions referred to in those paragraphs.
I have tried to keep these remarks brief. I will have some remarks of similar brevity with respect to the Speaker's preliminary ruling on the other motions. I underline the fact that we are dealing with a Bill which fundamentally affects the rights and freedoms of Canadians. If there is to be full and informed debate on the sensitive questions which have been the subject of such intense public discussion over the years, we as Members of Parliament must have an opportunity to debate them fully in the context of report stage. It is on that basis and in the interest of time that I will take my seat. I hope the Speaker will carefully consider the representations I have made with respect to this preliminary ruling.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I realize that it is not possible for the same individual to occupy the Chair perpetually throughout a long day and it is no slight to you, Sir, when I say that I regret that Mr. Speaker is unable to hear this argument. However, I am sure that you will pass my comments on to your senior colleague.


An Hon. Member:: Have no doubt.


John Allen Fraser: I hear from my colleagues on the Government side that I should have no doubt that my comments will be passed on. I have no doubt about that at all, because of course it will all be recorded. Whether it will all be read is something else again.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Let me assure the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) that the Chair has many ears and that it is all ears.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: He got a haircut!


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, your comment has brought forth ribald comment here in the Chamber. I hope for your own dignity, Your Honour, that you did not hear some of the comments that have been made which, of course, have been made in jest.
I would first like to point out that there are about 24 motions which have been put forward in my name on behalf of this Party, all of which propose amendments to Bill C-9. The important thing to remember is that of those 24 motions, only approximately 11 of them are separate motions or motions that stand on their own. It must be clearly understood that a number of the motions which have been put forward are consequential upon another main motion. The motions which are consequential motions are the following ones: Motions Nos. 3, except for paragraphs (f), (g), (h) and (i). At this time I wonder if I could give to the Table a copy of my own amendments with comments. I think this would assist the Table in taking notes throughout this argument.
June 13, 1984

If the Clerks at the Table will look at Motion No. 3, they will notice that Motion No. 3 contains Paragraphs (a) to (i) inclusive. Paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) are paragraphs which are consequential, as are all of the motions to which I shall refer, to Motion No. 11, the motion directed toward retaining the security service under the aegis of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Now that the Table has the documentation before it, I shall continue to list the motions which are consequential, and they are as follows: Motions Nos. 3, 13, 18, 21, 27, 29, 44, 49, 53 which is a motion which is part consequential and part substantive, 65, 74, 81, 83, 91 and 115. The motions which stand on their own are the following: part of Motion No. 3, as has already been explained, Motions Nos. 11, 32, 49, 53, 62, 68, 79, 94, 123 and 130.
I wanted to list those motions so that I could put this matter into some perspective.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order in the House, please. Will the Hon. Member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson) resume his seat. Order in the House, please. The Hon. Member for Vancouver South has the floor.


John Allen Fraser: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If you will allow me to continue, I would like to deal with the preliminary ruling made yesterday by the Speaker. I shall turn to page 2 of that ruling and to paragraph 2 thereon. I am not concerned with the reference therein to Motion No. 4, but I am concerned with the reference to Motion No. 3. That paragraphe of the preliminary ruling reads as follows:
Motions numbered 3 and 4 propose to add new features to the Bill by means of a substantive amendment to the interpretation clause, which is out of order. I refer honourable Members to Beauchesne's 5th edition, Citation 773(10), which states:
"A substantive amendment may not be introduced by way of a modification to the interpretation clause of a bill. Journals, May 21, 1970, p. 835."
Let me put my proposition before you, Mr. Speaker, which deals with Motion No. 3, paragraphs (f), (g), (h) and (i).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I appeal to Hon. Members to resume their seats if they wish to have private conversations? The Hon. Member for Vancouver South was recognized.


John Allen Fraser: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Motion No. 3 purports to amend Clause 2 of the Bill. Clause 2 of the Bill begins with the words "In this Act," and then sets out a number of words which are then defined. It is an interpretation clause. On page 2 of the Bill, still within Clause 2, the words "threats to the security of Canada" appear and then certain things are set out in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d). Those paragraphs are very central to this piece of legislation. When I say central, I mean central because the Bill mandates rules of behaviour and guidelines for a security service. These paragraphs set out the kinds of things that can be investigated by the security force.
Security Intelligence Service
Paragraph (a) is fairly simple. It deals with espionage or sabotage that is against Canada or is detrimental to the interests of Canada, et cetera.
Paragraph (b) reads:
-foreign influenced activities within or relating to Canada that are detrimental to the interests of Canada-
Paragraph (c):
-activities within or relating to Canada directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political objective within Canada or a foreign state-
Paragraph (d):
-activities directed toward undermining by ocvert unlawful acts, or directed toward or intended ultimately to lead to the destruction or overthrow by violence of, the constitutionally established system of government in Canada-
It is extrememly important to this House that those four paragraphs were the subject of more comment and debate in committee than any other single part of the legislation. As you know, Mr. Speaker, a number of witnesses appeared before the committee and discussed those clauses. Their concern was that the wording was inadequate for two reasons. First, the wording was unclear in some cases. The consequence of unclear wording would be that those who must operate a security service would not know exactly what it was they were to investigate. They would not know what information to seek out. To the degree that it was unclear, they might go beyond the intended mandate.
The other criticism was that, whether the wording was clear or not, it gave too broad a mandate in some circumstances. I refer especially to Paragraph (d) which has been referred to over and over again as the paragraph which will have the effect of giving to the security service the right and power to have intrusive surveillance-wiretap, searches, et cetera-of Canadians operating in this country and operating in a way which is lawful.
Citation 773 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, paragraph 10, was cited by Mr. Speaker to indicate that the amendments which I have moved to the four paragraphs are substantive amendments to an interpretation clause. The citation provides:
A substantive amendment may not be introduced by way of a modification to the interpretation clause of a bill.
Beauchesne's goes on to cite Journals of May 21, 1970, page 835. Mr. Speaker will know that the citations in Beauchesne's are extremely helpful, but they are like the headnotes of a law report; they do not tell the whole story. As every law professor has told every law student, "Don't count on passing if all you can remember is the headnote".
I have taken the trouble to look at the ruling which is supposed to have been made on the basis of the citation from Beauchesne's. That is from Journals of May 21, 1970, page 835. If, Mr. Speaker, you look carefully at that ruling, you will find that that case dealt with the report stage of that Bill. It happened to be Bill C-144 on that day, which was to provide for the management of the water resources of Canada, including research, planning and the implementation of programs

June 13, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
relating to the conservation, development and utilization of water resources. Certain amendments were attempted, which the Chair eventually ruled out of order. Some of those motions were related to the question of the financial initiative of the Crown. They were ruled out of order. The Speaker of that day said:
I might also add that in the opinion of the Chair amendments of a substantive or declaratory nature should not be proposed to an interpretation clause.
We see clearly what the Speaker then had in front of him. He had what amounted to amendments which had nothing to do with the interpretation clauses themselves which were in the Bill. In other words, someone was trying to get around the rules by trying to work those amendments into the interpretation part of the Bill at report stage.
Let us look carefully at what is contained in the Journals'.
It must be recognized in the first instance that motion No. 2 purports to amend the interpretation clause of the bill. Accordingly, the form and content of the motion must be consistent with the purposes sought to be effected by the interpretation clause. Although the preliminary sentence of motion No. 2 appears to be in the form of an interpretation provision, what follows is a list of prohibitions and objectives to be observed in the administration of the Act. In other words, motion No. 2 is but a substantive proposition of a declaratory nature. It neither defines nor interprets any provision of the bill.
The point is that in the case which forms the basis of Beauchesne's ruling, in the Speaker's preliminary ruling of yesterday the reasons that the motions were not allowed was that they neither defined nor interpreted any provision of the Bill. That is quite clearly the basis of Beauchesne's ruling. I have no quarrel with that.
If you looked at Beauchesne's quotation which Mr. Speaker included in his preliminary ruling yesterday, and then examined the facts of the case which led to it, there would be an opportunity to say: "Are the circumstances here today the same?" My argument, Mr. Speaker, is that clearly they are not, because each of the motions which I am putting is not foreign to the interpretation clause of the Bill. They are, in fact, very much a part of the interpretation clause itself. Therefore, there is a fundamental distinction between the circumstances before us today and the facts upon which the ruling by Beauchesne was made.
Perhaps I could call it six o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until 11 a.m. tomorrow pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, June 14, 1984