1984-06-12

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the 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.
Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We have been handed by the Clerk copies of notes which seem to indicate that this paper amounts to a ruling by Your Honour with respect to the admissibility at this stage of certain amendments that were dealt with in committee.


Mr. Speaker:: I anticipate what the Hon. Member is saying. This is a preliminary expression from the Chair on the basis of which I hope the House could proceed today. The Chair would be prepared to hear argument with regard to these matters and to render a final decision. Also, the notes do not relate to all the amendments; they relate only to part of them.


John Allen Fraser: I take it then that Your Honour will be speaking to the House with respect to these notes, at which time Your Honour would ask for a response, if any response was forthcoming. Is that the procedure?


Mr. Speaker:: The normal procedure has been for an indication of what is the intention of the Chair-and I am trying to give my intention-then to hear argument, if there is argument concerning it, and to make a final decision later. This is the procedure the Chair has followed when faced with a situation such as this.
As Hon. Members are aware, there are a large number of report stage motions on the Notice Paper relating to 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. I have had an
opportunity to examine a number of the motions, and I am prepared to make a preliminary statement at this time.
First, Motions Nos. 1, 2, 10, 12, 16, 17, 20, 22, 25, 26, 28, 30, 33, 35, 36, 38, 40, 42, 45, 48, 52, 60, 64, 66, 69 to 73 inclusive, 75, 77, 80, 82, 85, 87, 88, 90, 92, 95, 98, 99, 101, 103 to 108 inclusive, 110 to 113 inclusive, 116, 119, 121, 124 to 129 inclusive, 131 to 138 inclusive, 140, 142 to 151 inclusive, 156 to 159 inclusive, 161 to 166 inclusive and 168 to 174 inclusive, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), each seek to delete a separate clause of the Bill as well as the schedule. The cumulative effect of affirmative votes on these motions would be to kill the Bill and thus, in the opinion of the Chair, they must all be disposed of together. Therefore these motions will be grouped for debate with a vote on Motion No. 1 disposing of all of the remaining motions to delete the clauses and schedule of the Bill.
Second, Motions Nos. 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 Hon. Members to Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 773 (10), which reads:
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.
Third, Motions Nos. 5 to 9 inclusive should be debated together. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 5 will dispose of Motions Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9. However, a negative vote on Motion No. 5 will necessitate separate votes on Motions Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9.
Fourth, Motion No. 11 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) seeks to change the purpose and principle of the Bill as agreed to at second reading by bringing the service under the control of the RCMP. Since the Bill is proposing to create an independent service not under RCMP control, such an amendment would be irregular. Motion No. 11 is out of order because it is contrary to the principle of the Bill. I refer the Hon. Member to Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 773(5), which is as follows:
An amendment which is equivalent to a negative of the bill, or which would reverse the principle of the bill as agreed to at the second reading stage is not admissible.
Fifth, Motions Nos. 13 and 14 should be grouped for debate, and an affirmative vote on Motion No. 13 will obviate the need for a vote on Motion No. 14. A negative vote on Motion No. 13 will necessitate a vote on Motion No. 14.
Sixth, Motions Nos. 15, 76, 84, 117 and 175 attempt to introduce an entirely new concept and principle into the Bill

4560

Security Intelligence Service
a parliamentary oversight committee-a concept not in the Bill as introduced or read a second time. Such a committee was also mentioned in Motion No. 4, previously ruled out of order, and is a new idea which was not contemplated in the Bill as agreed to at second reading. Thus it is clearly beyond the scope of the Bill and I must rule each of these motions out of order.
Seventh, Motions Nos. 18, 21, 27, 29, 44, 53, 65, 74, 81, 83, 91 and 115, all standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Vancouver South, are consequential to Motion No. 11 and, since Motion No. 11 is out of order, I must find each of these motions similarly out of order.
I regret to rule out Motion No. 49 on the same grounds. The motion combines two distinct and separate ideas: the first parts are consequential to Motion No. 11, while part (d) provides for a mechanism for reporting unlawful activities of employees of the service to the attorneys general of the provinces. Parts (a) through (c) must be ruled out of order. Unfortunately, since it is part of the same motion, part (d), which itself would have been in order, must also be ruled out of order. In such circumstances, the Chair must be guided by the principle that if any part of a motion is faulty, the entire motion is out of order. May I refer the Hon. Member to Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 428(2), to that effect.
[DOT] (U15)
Eighth, Motions Nos. 19, 23 and 24 are to be grouped for debate but voted on separately.
Ninth, Motions Nos. 31, 32 and 34 should be debated together but voted on separately.
The Chair will rule on the remaining 42 motions as soon as possible.


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Mr. Speaker, so that there is absolutely no question with respect to the statement you have just made, I should say at the outset, without having consulted with my colleagues, that my initial reaction to your ruling is that it is very, very restrictive indeed and I think it casts serious questions on the ability of the Chamber to operate in a free and democratic way because of its very narrow interpretation. I simply want to give notice that I would like the opportunity to make a full presentation to you, Mr. Speaker, and I understand that I may do so.
I would simply say that we will be questioning vigorously and in depth some of the propositions that have been put forward by you in your preliminary statement. If we are to follow the procedure set out in this statement, particularly when debating a Bill which affects the civil liberties of Canadians as this Bill does, there would be serious consequences in that we would be restricted in our ability to present reasonable amendments. I make that preliminary statement so that there will be no question at all about the concern that we in this Party feel with respect to this legislation and particularly with respect to our ability to have a free and unfettered debate on a matter which is of such serious consequence to Canadians generally.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I first want to say that the preliminary ruling does in fact cover a substantial portion of the Bill. As you can appreciate, Sir, the ruling is difficult to digest at the moment. It must be cross-referenced and studied before we will be able to make any kind of reasonable response.
With that in mind, I am sure you can appreciate that it would be extremely difficult to proceed with any kind of reasonable or intelligent debate, Sir. For example, the rulings on the motions cover so many of the clauses of the Bill as to make it extremely difficult to find where one could legitimately make any intelligent proposals. I would therefore move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), that the House do now adjourn.


Mr. Speaker:: A concern that I have with regard to this is that I made a preliminary statement which is a matter of order and the Hon. Member was recognized on a point of order. I cannot accept a motion to adjourn on a point of order. There will be apportunities for the Hon. Member to move his motion but he was recognized on a point of order. Therefore, I cannot accept a motion to adjourn on a point of order.


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, my fellow Parliamentary House Leaders have had a chance to express their immediate reaction to your statement on the admissibility of the amendments. The reaction on this side of the House differs from that of my hon. colleagues. First of all, it should be understood that the Standing Orders of the House apply at all times and must always be applied in the same way. The same principles shall apply, whatever the subject of the Bill before the House.
I noticed that my colleague, the Parliamentary House Leader for the Progressive Conservative Party, was upset because the subject is national security and involves imposing certain restrictions on freedoms which would otherwise not be restricted. This is irrelevant. His objection has no legal grounds. We have Standing Orders. We have a body of parliamentary jurisprudence. We have parliamentary principles that must be applied, whatever the subject of the legislation before the House.
In the circumstances, our immediate reaction is very positive, because we find that the Chair has strictly applied the rule of relevance and the basic principles of parliamentary procedure. The point was to find out whether the content of the amendments in question corresponds to the principles you have mentioned, and I have no reason to doubt the results of the thorough study that was made by the Chair, with the help of House officials.
I heard the Parliamentary House Leader for the New Democratic Party say he found it difficult to digest, because in its preliminary ruling, the Chair set aside a number of items. It
June 12, 1984

is not a matter of volume. It is not a matter of numbers. If the Opposition had proposed 5,000 amendments, and 4,900 were ruled out of order for one of the reasons or on the basis of one of the principles the Chair mentioned just now, the fact that 4,900 amendments were ruled out of order would not have been any more difficult to digest.
Basically, what the Chair is doing is to apply the principles of parliamentary procedure. Because the Opposition, and more specifically the New Democratic Party, decided to propose a series of amendments that are so obviously meant to be dilatory, and I am thinking more specifically of the amendments the Chair regrouped under item 1, which I think was an excellent idea and a very good thing for Parliament, since they were proposing to eliminate every clause from the Bill, one by one, thus requiring 93 amendments and 93 votes- This is childish! This is ridiculous. It contradicts the very philosophy of Parliament. It is certainly evidence of systematic obstruction by the New Democratic Party at the report stage of Bill C-9. I think the public is intelligent. I think Hon. Members generally are as well, and from the notices that have been given for amendments to Bill C-9, it is clear that the New Democratic Party prefers obstruction to making tangible improvements to the Bill. We have just witnessed that this is so. The Parliamentary House Leader of the New Democratic Party is trying to take advantage of the first opportunity that comes along, even if it is unlawful, irregular and against Standing Orders, to prevent Parliament from sitting. A stroke of genius! The New Democratic Party, a third party, wants to prevent Parliament from sitting!
It seems to me that the very basis for intelligent behaviour in an institution like ours is to allow debate. It is not to gag Parliament by letting the bells ring, by preventing us from trying to improve a Bill that has been given very thorough consideration for a very long time by Hon. Members and by the Senate. I shall not elaborate, since the House is aware of the considerable time and effort spent by Hon. Members on both sides of the House, especially by Members on the Government side and Members of the Official Opposition, in trying to improve this Bill. However, when we see the purely obstructionist approach being taken by the New Democratic Party at this time, when we read the amendments it is proposing, and in view of what the Parliamentary House Leader of that Party has said he intends to do, which is to prevent the House from sitting by moving that the House adjourn, personnally, I must say it is ridiculous and an insult to the intelligence of this House, and furthermore, at this particular time in Parliament, it is an insult to the Canadian people. I hope they will reconsider.
My hon. friend is smiling! I think if he had heard the nonsense his hon. friend the Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) said on the Standing Committee, he would be laughing at his hon. friend and not at the parliamentary system. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the Chair be firm in its application of
Security Intelligence Service
parliamentary principles, and that it should not let itself be unduly influenced by the dilatory tactics of a third party that is looking for a bone to pick just before the election, and I also suggest that the Chair apply its ruling as it deems appropriate here in the House, in accordance with parliamentary procedure.
Mr. Speaker, you are aware that the Standing Orders of the House give the Chair full discretion at this stage. The Chair is not obliged to call on the Hon. Member-It is not the first time I have raised this point. I have also raised the matter before your predecessor. The Standing Orders that deal with the report stage give the Chair full discretion to determine the order of amendments, how they are regrouped, and which amendments are admissible or not. It is in a spirit of generosity. I presume, that the Chair is allowing the Hon. Members concerned to express their views during a limited but reasonable period of time, whereupon I assume the Chair will make a final ruling.
I only wish-Since the issue is so straightforward, it is not a matter of volume and it should surprise no one, whether the Chair rules fifty or 100 amendments out of order, when we know how easy it is to overload a Notice Paper and to give notice of vast numbers of amendments that are not admissible. I hope the Chair will hand down a final ruling later today on all items and for all amendments, so that we can proceed as soon as possible with the debate on this Bill.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that as far as the Government is concerned, we want the House to have a reasonable period of time for consideration of the report stage and third reading of this Bill, provided the Opposition, and particularly the New Democratic Party, does not abuse its rights during the debate. Up to now we have had the impression that, because of the number and nature of the proposed amendments which the Chair is about to re-group for the purpose of debate, purely dilatory tactics were involved. Considering the intention of the Parliamentary House Leader of the New Democratic Party to propose the adjournment of the House to prevent the House from sitting, we must assume that it is indeed their intention to prevent Parliament from sitting, to prevent intelligent consideration of this Bill and to indulge in all kinds of obstructionist tactics to prevent consideration of a Bill they do not support, but which is supported by the majority in this House.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that at an appropriate time today there will be some detailed discussion of your ruling-or your preliminary ruling, as I understand it. I note you are nodding, Mr. Speaker. However, I must say, Sir, first of all, that during committee there was never an allegation made by the other Opposition Party, by the Government or by those of the media who were observing, that the Progressive

June 12, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
Conservative Party was using any kind of delaying tactic in the committee.


Yvon Pinard: I did not say that.


John Allen Fraser: The House Leader for the Government calls across that he did not say that, but I believe it is important that that be placed on the record. I take the Hon. House Leader as indicating he is not saying that, and he is not saying that on behalf of the Government.


Yvon Pinard: That is right.


John Allen Fraser: During committee, Mr. Speaker, a number of amendments were brought forward by this Party. All of them were very much related to the submissions which were made to the committee by the number of witnesses who appeared in front of the committee. At the time those amendments were made there was no ruling that they were out of order or that they should not be considered.
I am not going to pre-argue the case. However, I do want to draw the attention of the House, for instance, to Motion No. 3, which is a motion in my name. I will just deal very briefly with the amendment in Motion No. 3 to paragraph (d) of the main Bill. Paragraph (d) of the main Bill-so that the public listening to this can understand it-concerns the power of the security service to use intrusive surveillance, that is, wire tapping, search, and so on, to survey Canadians who have not committed any crime at all. This particular clause probably engaged as much time with respect to the remarks of witnesses who came in front of us as any other clause. I know the House Leader for the Government did not have the opportunity of studying completely the discussions which took place at committee. If amendments of that importance cannot be put at this stage, then one has to wonder what we were doing in committee.
I could go on, and I do not want to stretch your patience-


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair hesitates to interrupt the Hon. Member, but what the Chair has suggested is that the motions deleting one clause after another and the schedule could all be grouped as the first item for debate. This would give the Hon. Member for Vancouver South an opportunity to examine what I have said and make detailed argument later. I hope that would suit his convenience and that of other Hon. Members.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I want to correct a misunderstanding. I accept, of course, that it could not have been moved at that precise moment, but my attempt to seek a short adjournment had nothing at all to do with delaying the Bill. In fact, it was an effort to expedite proper consideration of the Bill.
I do not want to go into the groupings themselves, but given that you have suggested there are some 30 to 35 different amendments which could be grouped together and disposed of at the same time, and because in each instance the hope of this Party would be to have each of them deleted, it is entirely possible that the force of the argument in each individual case
would be sufficient to justify consideration of the deletion of a particular clause without affecting the remaining clauses. The reason I raise this is because it requires some time to look at whether or not there is an interrelationship between one clause and the other. We just do not have that kind of time right now; the debate has to start at some point. Presumably it would start on the amendment to Clause 1, or the proposal to delete Clause 1.


Yvon Pinard: He just made a suggestion.


Ian Deans: Presumably it would start on one of the clauses put forward for consideration during report stage. You can appreciate that for us to be able fully to understand, cross-reference and interrelate each of the clauses and determine the full force and effect of your preliminary ruling right now would be virtually impossible. I know the Table officers were not able to do that within ten minutes of having received the various clauses we proposed should be amended. I am asking only that the House not sit until two o'clock in order that we can sit down and consider carefully the effect of the proposals. Otherwise you will be seeking submissions later in the day, I hope, perhaps in the morning, on your preliminary ruling and we still will not have time to consider the preliminary ruling.
Given the importance of this legislation and that it will have such profound effect on the lives of Canadians now and in the future, given that it is far reaching in its implications, it is surely not too much to ask that an hour be allocated to all Members concerned for the purpose of reviewing the preliminary ruling in order to determine where the debate might start today, so that we can proceed. As it now stands, if one was to accept the Government House Leader's proposal, you are left with very little alternative but to stall the Bill in order to gain time to make sure the arguments being put forward are real, sensible and intelligent. What we are asking for, and we ask the Government House Leader to consider it carefully, is, would it not make more sense in the over-all scheme of things for us to have an hour and 25 minutes, as I read it now, to consider the Bill, the proposed amendments and the preliminary ruling, and then come back and make our brief submissions? Then we will perhaps have decided collectively where the debate on the Bill can reasonably begin this afternoon.


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to put in your mind one thought which has not been covered this morning, your point number four dealing with Motion No. 11 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser), which you say seeks to change the purpose and principle of the Bill by retaining it within the RCMP. You have to remember that if that had all been debated fully and voted on at second reading, your ruling might be more in order. The fact of the matter is that it was closed off at second reading. Those principles were not discussed and voted on by the House as amendments at that stage. Therefore, it would seem proper to do it at this stage because Parliament is the place where these things are to be debated.
June 12, 1984


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is, of course, guided by strictly procedural considerations at this point. The Chair is faced with the fact that one Hon. Member of this House has moved in his own name at report stage the deletion of every single clause and the schedule. It appeared reasonable for the Chair to commence with grouping these motions, bearing in mind that the clauses have been considered clause by clause in committee and we are now at report stage. That might be the starting point of debate. But the Chair is, of course, the servant of the House. The Chair would be disposed to call a motion in the name of the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) deleting Clauses 1 to 96 inclusive and the schedule as the basis for debate. It could commence on that basis. This appeared the most reasonable way of proceeding in the view of the Chair. What is the wish of Hon. Members? Any further comments?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, your preliminary ruling was handed to myself and my colleagues as I entered the Chamber. There is no question that we will want to make full and complete representations with respect to this preliminary statement you have made. Rather than prejudge the matter and see what happens, I would prefer to move along in what would be the normal way if there had been no preliminary statement made by Your Honour. That is to say, it seems to me that we can discuss Clause 1, which, in the tradition of both the House and committee concepts, means a rather wide-ranging and full debate with respect to the principles of the total Bill. If that met with approval, I think we can make some progress in the debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Can the Chair make an observation in response? The motion as proposed by the Chair would certainly permit that. Grouping all the clauses of the Bill would permit the most broad general debate on any clause or any aspects.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Of course, Mr. Speaker, but you will know that we are severely limited in our interventions to ten minutes per Member on each amendment proposed at report stage. If you were to make a final determination of grouping all those motions for debate, we would find ourselves in the position of having a ten-minute speech. I will let the NDP defend their own tactics but it seems to me that in order to have this matter dealt with on a fair and equitable basis we should not prejudge anything. If we have to deal with ten-minute speeches, we should deal with Clause 1 and Clause 2, and so on, and we will have our chance to make representations to the Chair later in the day. At that time you will have to make the decision and we will have to see what we do about that.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 will recognize the Hon. Member for Burnaby in just a moment. I just want to say that the Chair is proposing this to start debate. If there is good and sufficient argument that the motions should not be grouped, that individual clauses should be considered, the Chair would be prepared to reconsider. For purposes of procedure the Chair is proposing at this point that all the motions which relate to deletion should be grouped. This would permit a very general
Security Intelligence Service
opening debate. The Chair would be prepared to accept argument with regard to the specific sections or combinations.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with care to the remarks of the Hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) and those of the House Leader for the Official Opposition. The difficulty with proceeding, as has been suggested by the President of the Privy Council and his colleague, the House Leader for the Official Opposition, is that, as the House Leader for the Opposition has noted, if the Speaker's preliminary ruling with respect to Sub-paragraph (1) is to stand, we are then precluded from any further comment on the over-all thrust of the legislation.
The purpose for moving a series of motions to delete various clauses was certainly not that there should necessarily be debate on each individual motion to delete. I would draw to the attention of the Chair that a number of these clauses deal with specific, broad elements of the legislation. The amendments to delete encompass a variety of different subject matters. They deal with the structure of the review process, the powers which are accorded to the new agency, and a series of other broad areas. Each individual motion to delete should not be voted upon or discussed separately, but rather they should be grouped under the broad subject matter to which they refer.
When we come back at two o'clock to make comments with respect to the Chair's preliminary ruling, I will be pleased to make some suggestions with respect to that. That was the purpose of the motions. We were somewhat limited in terms of the time within which we had to submit amendments, as is always the case. Rather than erring on the side of not having submitted sufficient amendments to cover the broad subject matters, I think it makes more sense to consider grouping the motions to delete which are referred to sub-paragraph (1) under the broad subject matters to which they refer. There may be six or seven broad subject matters.
The difficulty with proceeding now on the basis of the Speaker's preliminary ruling on Motion No. 1 is that we still do not know whether that will indeed be the case. I would also note some very serious concerns which have already been expressed with respect to the restrictive nature of the Speaker's preliminary ruling. With respect to the substance of the Speaker's ruling, the suggestion that an affirmative vote on Motion No. 5 would dispose of Motions Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 flies in the face of the substance of Motions Nos. 6 through 9. Motion No. 5 is a motion proposed by the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) which would restrict, to a certain extent, the definition of "threats to security" in the Bill. The subsequent motions, which were moved by a different Member, would deal with an entirely separate question. Even if Motion No. 5 was to be adopted, that would not in any way dispose of Motions Nos. 6 through 9. Similarly in the case of Motions Nos. 13 and 14 where we have unrelated subject matters-


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair would be prepared to hear detailed argument later and invites Hon. Members to consider the

June 12, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
specific groupings before commenting in detail on them. At this stage the Chair is suggesting that for the purpose of opening debate there be a general grouping of all the clauses which are moved for deletion. The Hon. Member for Burnaby appears to be suggesting that some of these clauses are more important than others. I invite him to make his comment. I invite him to spell it out. I invite him to indicate to us exactly which, in his opinion, have greater priority than others.
Certainly on the face of it, when one individual Member of the House, having participated in committee and having voted clause by clause in committee, presents amendments at report stage dealing with the deletion of every single clause and the schedule, the Chair has to bear in mind the time of the House and certain priorities. The Chair is suggesting that we could begin the debate by grouping all of these. If the Hon. Member has suggestions for further refinements or further groupings and reasons for that, the Chair is quite prepared to hear him.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, our dilemma is simply this. You indicated clearly at the outset of the proceedings today that this was a preliminary statement. I am not standing here to defend the amendments put in by the NDP. The difficulty we face is that this is a matter which is going to require some study and preparation for us to be able to present a reasoned argument to you. With respect to the amendments put in by my colleague from Vancouver South, we will be wanting to make some specific presentations to you.
With all respect to you, Mr. Speaker, if we are going to proceed with this debate this morning, I would think that we should not rush into any grouping at this point in time. We are going to discuss this whole question and allow the NDP an opportunity to make representations as to the way they view their amendments. Let us not presume anything at this point in time. I think that is counter-productive. We should go ahead as we would normally and debate Motion No. 1 until whatever time is satisfactory to you. We can each make our representations. In the meantime some of us will give attention to your preliminary ruling. After you have had the benefit of our representations you may decide to make a final ruling. That would be the appropriate time to consider the question of groupings.
I think it is counter-productive to decide now to debate Motion Nos. 1 through 96 as if they were one motion. I suggest to you that we should proceed in the normal fashion which will allow us a little time to prepare our arguments. After hearing us you will have an opportunity to make your final decision with respect to any grouping. It seems to me we would make more progress if we followed my suggestion of proceeding in the normal fashion this morning.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the sole purpose of my intervention at this stage is to reiterate that the Speaker's ruling does have very serious consequences in terms of how we approach this legislation and the substance of the legislation. Rather than proceeding as my colleague, the House Leader for the Opposition, has suggested, it would be appropriate to take the time to study the Speaker's preliminary ruling. As I have
indicated, I have some very serious concerns with respect to the suggestion that any references to a parliamentary review would be out of order. That flies directly in the face of what has been discussed, both in the House at second reading in principle when it was ruled in order, and in committee. We will certainly have something to say about that.
I suggest that we be given an opportunity to consider the ramifications of this ruling. We received it as we entered the House. At whatever time the Speaker considers appropriate we may make more intelligent representations with respect to the question of groupings rather than, as I suggested, dealing with all of the motions to delete and grouping them under the broad subject matter to which the motions to delete refer.


Mr. Speaker:: It would be helpful to the Chair if there could be argument against the first proposal. The proposal is that all the motions for simple deletion be grouped for debate at this point. In the course of that debate the Chair would be quite prepared to hear argument as to why the groupings should be different. So far the argument has not been persuasive to the Chair. I think it is almost unprecedented for one Member of the House to move at report stage the deletion of every single clause and schedule of the Bill.


Yvon Pinard: Stupidity.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has not been able to find any precedent on the matter. The Chair is very much concerned to proceed on the basis of a clause by clause debate at report stage. Section 79(10) of the Standing Orders reads as follows:
The Speaker shall have power to select or combine amendments or clauses to be proposed at the report stage and may, if he or she thinks fit, call upon any Member who has given notice of an amendment to give such explanation of the subject of the amendment-
At this stage, for the purpose of commencing the debate on a preliminary basis, the Chair proposes to call all of the clauses as proposed for deletion by the Hon. Member for Burnaby and the Schedule, Clauses 1 -96 inclusive, and to hear argument.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, briefly, without in any prejudicing what may well follow, given that in fact the clauses starting with Clause No. 1 running with some intervals to Clause 96 deal with somewhat different subject matters, and given that the argument for deletion would be different in each case-in other words, the argument for deletion may well be sustained by a vote of the House in some instances and may well not be supported by the House in other instances-and given, as I have indicated earlier, that we need some time to resolve it, may I ask whether you might consider a further split? Call Clause 1 separately, leaving the others grouped as they are now so we can look at them and consider them. All that we have then done is added another round of debate. We are not, therefore, asking that you open up the whole matter for debate on every single clause, but that you call Clause 1. We will proceed with the debate on Clause 1 presumably and then look
June 12, 1984

at the appropriateness of the relationship between the other clauses.
If that were to be done, then we will not have jeopardized the possibility of reasoned argument and the validity of the move to delete the other clauses up to and including Clause 96. In that way we would not have to debate in a ten-minute period why each and every clause is an inappropriate inclusion in this Bill. If that were done, I do not think that you would in any way have undermined your preliminary ruling. I do not think that, with the exception of one additional round in the sense of debate, you would have added significantly to the length of time that will be taken in consideration of the Bill. And you would have bought some time for those of us who want to be able to review the other clauses to see whether or not the preliminary ruling is a ruling that can be supportable either in whole or in part.
I think that is not an unreasonable request to make, Mr. Speaker, and it might at least facilitate getting us off the discussion on the preliminary ruling. It might facilitate our getting off this discussion. We might get on to another one. It might not be a very satisfactory discussion but nevertheless we will no longer be discussing your preliminary ruling and we will come back to that discussion at another time.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the preliminary ruling on the motions to delete, I want to indicate once again the difficulty of debating at this stage the suggestion that the motions to delete all be dealt with as a package and in fact voted on as a package with the suggestion that a vote on one would dispose of all remaining motions. I point out to the Chair once again that the purpose of proposing-and I recognize the somewhat unprecedented nature of the proposal-the motions to delete the clauses in question was to ensure that there would be an opportunity for full and adequate debate with respect to the different areas of principle in the Bill itself and with respect to the different major areas of a structural nature in the Bill itself.
I recognize the suggestion is a preliminary one, and that each Member has in effect ten minutes to discuss all the major structural elements. I would note, however, that a deletion of one element of the legislation does not necessarily mean that the whole of the legislation falls, by any stretch of the imagination. There is, for example, the initial section which includes motions to delete with respect to the structure and establishment of the service itself. There is another section which is entirely separate with respect to certain duties and functions of the service after having established the nature of the powers and the responsibilities of the Director. There was yet another provision with respect to the role of the judiciary, Mr. Speaker.
I had thought the officers of the Speaker might have grouped the motions to delete. I certainly did not expect that they would be dealt with seriatim but that they would be grouped in a manner which would facilitate debate on the broad subject matter, to which the several headings of subject matter refer. I am quite prepared to assist the Chair by coming back with a suggestion with respect to grouping the motions to delete under the major heads of the Bill. As I have
Security Intelligence Service
indicated, Mr. Speaker, to suggest that all 96 clauses can effectively be dealt with as a package, I say with respect, is not doing justice to the nature of this Bill.
I will certainly undertake, as I have indicated, to attempt to prepare a grouping of the motions to delete under the broad subject matter to which they refer. Pending that, we will proceed in the normal course of events with Motion No. 1, as is generally the case, the broad principle of the legislation at report stage. Certainly at three o'clock, 3:30 p.m., or four o'clock, whenever Your Honour deems it appropriate, I will be pleased to make representations with respect to grouping the motions to delete as well as with respect to some very serious reservations on the proposals concerning other elements in the preliminary ruling.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, very briefly I want to raise one other point I should have raised earlier. You have made reference on a number of occasions to the fact that all of the motions to delete stand in the name of the Hon. Member for Burnaby. The reason for that is, of course, because he is this Party's critic for this particular Ministry. It was at our request that all the amendments stand in his name.
I hope by virtue of placing the amendments on the Notice Paper in the name of one Member that we are not jeopardized from having the appropriateness or correctness of the motion considered independently. We could have filed them under 31 names if that would have made it any easier for the over-all consideration of the Chair; but we felt it was appropriate for the critic to do that, just as the Minister would probably feel it appropriate that he should move the amendments he would like to see made.


Yvon Pinard: I just want to say that I see there is not just one member of the New Democratic Party whose intelligence has been put on hold-they are all in it together, if they approve this kind of obstruction. The Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) is making a big thing of the fact that different principles are involved in requesting the withdrawal of a clause or group of clauses. He seems to forget that the report stage is not the only stage at which the Bill is debated. This legislation was debated in the House of Commons for weeks on second reading, which is the most important stage of the Bill, when the principles are discussed. The Bill was examined, clause by clause, for weeks in Committee. There will be the report stage, and then third reading as well. The Hon. Member is giving the impression that the report stage will be his only chance to take the Bill apart and to speak to the Bill. This is absolutely ridiculous. This is not what parliamentary procedure is all about, and it is not what is meant by the report stage of a Bill. It is a very recent development, to have Hon. Members proposing a host of amendments at the report stage in the House.
Traditionally, the debate on the report stage of a Bill was very brief. Today, what we are seeing is simply that the House is being given notice of systematic obstruction. It is just that.

June 12, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
In any case, I feel the suggestion that we start immediately with Clause 1 is very practical, and I have no objection to the House proceeding with consideration of the Bill, if the Chair agrees.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair wishes to express its concern with what we are facing at this stage. Second reading is debate in principle. It is not for the Chair to pass judgment on how effective, thorough or complete such a debate was. Committee stage is where clause by clause analysis takes place. It appears that the intention of the mover of these amendments is to bring about clause by clause discussion by the full House at this stage. He has said so. He wants the principle of every clause discussed; that is why he moved deletion. That apparently is what he said, from the Chair's understanding of his remarks.
It appears as far as the Chair is concerned that this is a violation of the basic principle of legislative process. Why do we have referral to committee, if clause by clause discussion is not done in committee? Why bother with referral to committee, if the intent is to force a full clause by clause discussion in the House at report stage? Nevertheless, in the interests of proceeding, the Chair is prepared to call Motion No. 1. However, the Chair will serve notice that it will do its duty in grouping. The Chair will not stand by and have a full clause by clause review at report stage.


Svend Johannes Robinson: That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 1.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Robinson (Burnaby), seconded by Mr. Heap, moves that Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 1. I am calling this for the convenience of Hon. Members. I serve notice on the House that there will be a grouping of these deletion proposals at a later stage; but for purposes of debate now, the Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Burnaby.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I should make it very clear that I have no objection whatsoever to a grouping of the deletion motions as is appropriate. At no time in the course of my intervention this morning did I suggest that we repeat clause by clause study at report stage. I suggested that there were a number of broad subject matters which are appropriately grouped together. That does not mean, by any stretch of the imagination, that each clause would be dealt with as a separate unit.
At this stage we are embarking upon our study at report stage of what is one of the most important pieces of legislation to come before the House in many decades. The implications of this Bill with respect to the fundamental civil liberties and privacy of Canadians are grave indeed.
Having had an opportunity to review the amendments which have been dealt with at committee stage I suggest the Government has indicated through its response at committee stage to a series of amendments proposed on matters of fundamental principle to strengthen this legislation that it would make legal
what heretofore has been illegal. It could be in terms of narrowing the mandate, a mandate which is certainly excessively broad and would permit targetting the use of intrusive techniques against literally hundreds of thousands of Canadians who have engaged in no violation of the law whatsoever. It could be in respect of amendments to narrow the sweeping range of intrusive powers which can be used under the terms of the Bill, new and unprecedented powers which in essence say to the new security service that, despite the findings of the McDonald Commission on a whole series of laws, be they federal or provincial, breaking and entry, fraud, arson, kidnapping, breach of the Income Tax Act or the Post Office Act, and having clearly documented the abuses which unfortunately occurred in the past and despite the institutionalized contempt for the law which the McDonald Commission found, the Government's response is that it would simply make legal what has heretofore been illegal.
In the area of the powers, amendments which were proposed by Members of this Party significantly narrowing the scope of intrusive powers under the Bill were rejected one after another by Government Members. The new security service would still have the power, as this legislation is presently drafted, to use all the most intrusive techniques imaginable, whether it be breaking and entry into a private home, removing any document or indeed anything from that home, accessing confidential income tax records, breaking into a doctor's office to look at confidential medical or psychiatric records or accessing the mail. First-class mail for the first time would be legally subject to being opened. The only exemption provided in the Bill are census records. I have noted more than once the irony of the fact that even a church confessional will be fair game under the terms of the legislation. The only thing which will be sacred in the country if the Bill is passed will be the offices of the Chief Statistician of Canada.
We gave the Government an opportunity to narrow the terms of the legislation with respect to the powers accorded to the new service, powers which go far beyond those recommended by the McDonald Commission. Indeed, they go far beyond those recommended and in place today for the FBI, which in the case of so-called domestic subversives must utilize a criminal standard.
In the other major area of the type of scrutiny or the nature of the oversight of operations of the new service, once again the Government has rejected out of hand suggestions for strengthening this review process. Indeed, one major area of improvement in the Bill would have permitted access to all documents in the possession of the security service by the Security Intelligence Review Committee. That amendment was passed on the casting vote of the chairperson of the committee. The Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) says that he does not accept that amendment. He intends to bring forward an amendment in the House to restore that clause, a clause which would effectively gut the minimal review process in the Bill of any meaning or substance whatsoever.
There are three broad heads to this legislation. In each area we have attempted to strengthen the Bill. We have proposed
June 12, 1984

amendments in committee that would narrow the effective scope of the mandate that would ensure that law-abiding Canadians engaged, for example, in the support of liberation movements in Central America, or a church group which chooses to send money to the African National Congress in South Africa, would not potentially be the subject of the intrusive techniques under the Bill.
We tried in committee to narrow the powers which would be available to the service. Certainly, as we proceed with report stage and the amendments which I have tabled on behalf of my Party, we will be indicating the extent to which we believe the powers proposed in this legislation constitute any serious threat to the fundamental civil liberties of all Canadians.
We have proposed that there must be a role for Members of Parliament to play in the oversight process. It must be an effective role to ensure that the new civilian security service, which is shrouded in such secrecy, does not in fact become a political instrument in the hands of the government of the day.
Those are the fundamental areas of concern with respect to the legislation. I should indicate that in raising these questions we are reflecting the deeply-held apprehensions, indeed the fears, of a broad cross section of Canadian society. It could be the Canadian Council of Churches representing 12 major church groups across the country. It could be the Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Canadian Labour Congress, environmental groups or peace groups. It could be civil liberties groups, such as the Canadian Civil Liberties Associations which has made very strong representations on this legislation. Its general counsel as late as this morning indicated that the Bill in its present form, as adopted by the committee, poses a very profound threat to the civil liberties of all Canadians. It could be la ligue des droits et libertes in the Province of Quebec, a broadly-based group of men and women concerned about the threat which this legislation poses. I see Quebec back-benchers laughing at that suggestion, indicating that the concerns of la ligue des droits with respect to this legislation should not be taken seriously. Certainly I know that it has members throughout that province. Indeed, as recently as last Friday it held a press conference in the City of Montreal to express its anger at the manner in which the Government is attempting to proceed with this legislation.
It flies in the face of the sensibilities of Canadians who insist that we do not want a new secret agency that would have unprecedented powers, powers unprecedented in any western industrialized country. It would spy on the lives of innocent Canadians. As I indicated earlier, it would spy on Canadians by looking at their income tax records, by examining their medical records and by breaking into their homes, businesses and offices.
During the course of report stage and certainly during third reading, we intend to set out very clearly for the record our profound reservations with respect to this Bill. We have seen abuses historically of civil liberties. In 1970 we saw the proclamation of the War Measures Act in this country by the
Security Intelligence Service
same Government which now comes before us and asks us to trust it with the powers it is seeking in this Bill once it passes. Its record does not warrant the trust it is seeking from Canadians. In the course of continued debate over the next few weeks and months, we will certainly be making clear our reasons for fundamentally rejecting the premises of this Bill.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I have to say first that I am disturbed at the implications of the preliminary ruling of the Chair. I am concerned that amendments that this Party put forward at committee will not be allowed to come before the House. I want it very clear on the record exactly what some of these proposed amendments are that we would bring in and which were brought in at committee stage.
The first amendment deals with whether it is appropriate under the circumstances to remove the security service from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. If we have the chance, that will be argued in some detail. At committee stage, one thing that was argued as a consequence of questions which were asked of the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) was whether a case had been made by the Government for the removal of the security service from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It was pointed out in committee that both the Mackenzie Commission and the McDonald Commission looked backwards to events of many years ago, events in the late sixties and early seventies. If Hon. Members care to look at the record of the committee hearings, they will see that I put this question to the Solicitor General at that time, and I quote:
The fact is, Mr. Minister, that for many months now-for many years in fact-since the revelations in the House of Commons in 1977 and the action which was taken consequently, the Security Service has been working as part of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The Commissioner has been reporting to the Solicitor General effectively, competently and in a manner in which I am sure you would agree meets with your approval. You testify that this has been done in a manner which meets the appropriate sensibilities of the Canadian public. Is that not so?
That is the question I asked of the Solicitor General. The negative of all that was the reason that it was proposed that the security service be removed from the aegis of the RCMP. I asked the Solicitor General whether the security service under the RCMP for many years has been reporting effectively, competently and "in a manner in which I am sure you would agree meets with your approval". I said "You testified that this has been done in a manner which meets the appropriate sensibilities of the Canadian public. Is that not so?" That was my question. The Solicitor General replied:
Yes, that is so.
The indication of the preliminary ruling of Mr. Speaker means that we could not vote on that issue, the argument being that it is somehow foreign to the main principle of the Bill. It is very curious that that is not what the Solicitor General spoke about as being the main purpose of the Bill at second reading. If I get a chance later, I will refer to that.
The motion to amend Clause 4 put forward by myself on behalf of my Party deals directly with whether or not the Director of the security service should be appointed at pleasure. That means that he is appointed by the Government.

June 12, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
Surely the Government should have the authority and the right to remove the Director for whatever cause the Government thinks is essential in the security interests of Canada.
Our amendment in committee to Clause 6, one of the amendments my friend from Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) has in front of the House at the moment, will be supported by us because our own is not there. That was an oversight. It is exactly the same. It involves the necessity for the Minister, not in a permissive way but in a direct and mandatory way, to issue directives directly to the Director. That would be an improvement to the Bill.
The amendment that we have moved to Clause 12 would make it necessary that when the duties and functions of the service are being considered, they would be those strictly necessary for the security of Canada. With regard to Clause 19, on the question of the release of private information we moved an amendment that only private disclosure should be made on the discretion of the Minister, not just the Director.
On Clause 20, we have moved that the federal Attorney General should report to the provincial Attorneys General with respect to relevant illegal activity as a consequence of knowledge gained by the security service.
On Clause 21, we moved in committee and will want to move again that warrants not be issued unless on reasonable and probable grounds. It is a better definition for the onus required on the part of the security service to obtain a warrant than merely on reasonable grounds.
We have also moved amendments to limit the warrants with respect to Canadians who have not yet committed any crime. That refers to sub-paragraph (d) of the definition section. We have further moved amendments that warrants should only last for 60 days before renewal, which is the amount of time specified in the Criminal Code, not a year as set out in this Bill. We have moved amendments to tighten requirements in the affidavit.
With regard to Clause 22, we have moved an amendment with respect to the renewal of warrants and eliminating renewal of warrants in cases coming under Sub-clause (d), which is the domestic clause covering legal activities of Canadians.
On Clause 24, we have moved an amendment to clarify the role of innocent third persons who are ordered to do things by somebody who has a warrant, thereby clarifying the liability that innocent third persons might otherwise incur.
On Clause 31, we have moved that the Inspector General have access to Cabinet documents relevant to directions to the security service. That is absolutely essential if the Inspector General is to have any overview.
On Clause 38, we have moved that all security agencies in Canada should come under the review committee established by this legislation.
On Clause 39, we again made the amendment that would allow the review committee to see Cabinet documents, because it is quite incredible that a review committee would not have
access to documents that may actually change policy or give specific orders to the security service.
Regarding Clause 55, we moved to establish a parliamentary review committee which, if the preliminary ruling is to hold, is an amendment with which somehow the House of Commons cannot deal.
With regard to Clause 61 of Part IV, we moved an amendment which would give the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, acting under the direction of the federal Attorney General, the duty to consult with municipal and provincial police forces. That seems to us to be only common sense.
With regard to Motion No. 2 which the preliminary ruling would rule out, we made a number of amendments which deal with that area of the Bill that has created the most concern for the witnesses who came before us. Those amendments are designed to clarify the language of Clause 2 in order to make it quite certain that those activities which are to be investigated are activities which are against the security interests of Canada and not simply the interests of Canada. We dealt specifically with Sub-paragraph (d) of Clause 2 in order to make that clause much more acceptable to those Canadians who are concerned about the intrusion of surveillance on Canadians who have not committed any crime and who are operating only within this country.
I know that my time is limited at this stage of the debate. However, I would like to put this on the record because the amendments which we are putting forward are important amendments, particularly when taking into account the words of Mr. Alan Borovoy, the general counsel to the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. He spoke about this legislation as it was reported out of committee because it was not amended in committee. The Government did not want any amendments. As reported in yesterday's Globe and Mail, Mr. Borovoy said that the legislation creating a new civilian spy force is "one of the greatest threats to civil liberties Canada has seen in many years". As a consequence, we think these amendments are important. They are not too excessive and I would hope that they would be heard.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I rise with some sadness at report stage of this Bill because we are again faced with a situation in which NDP members are helping the Government achieve one of its goals while loudly protesting what the Government is doing. NDP members are actually helping the Government because they are going to force the Government to put time allocation on report stage and third reading stage and we will not have the opportunity to debate the great issues raised by this Bill. Once again the Liberal Party West is helping the Liberal Party East to bear down on the Canadian people and oppress them under their thumb, which is exactly what they want. They want an all-powerful central state that will press down upon the people and turn them into serfs.
Without a shadow of a doubt, Bill C-9 is the second most important Bill we shall debate in this Thirty-second Parliament. I believe the Bill that was most important was, of
June 12, 1984

course, the Constitution Act of 1982. That Act implemented fundamental changes in our country, the effects of which will be felt, generations and generations. Bill C-9 does exactly the same thing. It is creating a change to our culture.
1 speak as a westerner, and westerners have a very deep attachment to the RCMP. That is true not only of westerners. In my travels through Ontario and the Atlantic provinces, I found that the people there also have a very deep attachment to the RCMP. The force has a long tradition of stability, of discipline and of fraternity and loyalty to the country. The big danger that many people fear is that a new civilian agency may not be able to achieve those qualities. That is a very honest and legitimate point about which people are concerned and that is what we should be debating. However, the tactics of members of the NDP end up blocking that proper debate and consideration of the Bill by the citizens.
Let us not forget that at second reading of this Bill it should have been appropriate for Opposition Parties to put in amendments so that some of these grand issues could have been discussed. That was not done because the Government moved closure. We have not had the opportunity to let the citizens witness a full discussion of this matter. The same was true in committee as well. We were faced with closure and attempts to block us off.
At the committee stage of this Bill in which several Members participated, we heard from some 24 or 25 witnesses. Over 50 briefs were presented to us and were read and considered. We sat day after day. We had long debates on these clauses. It became clear to us that there is no broad consensus across this country as to whether this Bill is totally good or whether it is totally bad. The witnesses raised some very honest and legitimate points to which they recommended changes. We put those changes forward and the Government rejected them.
Surely committee stage exists so that a small group of Members of Parliament may hear witnesses give hard evidence and come up with changes that reflect that evidence. The amendments put forward by the Progressive Conservative Party reflect the hard evidence given by well meaning, educated, intelligent Canadians who gave us the benefit of their views. On one occasion, even Government Members accepted one such amendment after having heard the evidence.
Government Members accepted the amendment which proposed that the review committee would have access to Cabinet documents. The amendment was accepted at committee but we find that the Cabinet will not accept what the citizens want and is not prepared to accept the wisdom of a committee on which a majority of Government Members sat. Those Government Members indicated that the review committee should have access to Cabinet documents. Never having heard any of the witnesses, the Cabinet will not accept that and will force an amendment through at report stage that will delete that important change that was brought about as a result of hearing the evidence. Why do we have a committee stage, Mr. Speaker, if Cabinet members are not prepared to accept the
Security Intelligence Service
evidence that is brought forward and the changes that are recommended?
My colleague has described our amendments to the House. Our first amendment would have the effect of leaving the security service with the RCMP. That is a very legitimate amendment. We looked at the Mackenzie report in some detail. The Mackenzie report of 1969 recommended the creation of a civilian security agency because it felt that the RCMP would not be able to adapt to the modern technologies required to become an intelligence service. In actual fact, since 1969 the RCMP has become a very sophisticated agency. In terms of intelligence, it has done a very excellent job for this country by intercepting KGB agents. As well, when looking at its commercial crime operation, its handling of drug cases and its handling of the Mafia, one sees that the RCMP is capable of being just as sophisticated as any civilian agency could ever be. Therefore, the report of the Mackenzie Commission falls. It carries no weight or evidence and would be rejected in a court of law because the subsequent history of the RCMP has discounted it.
The same is true of the McDonald Commission. All of its reasons for taking the security service away from the RCMP fall under the weight of the hard evidence that we heard from the people. The last reason the McDonald Commission gave for separating the agencies was that it would enhance the image of the RCMP if it was not involved in security. That is nonsense, Mr. Speaker. Members of the RCMP were not the ones who were to blame for the incidents surrounding the 1970 FLQ crisis. They received instructions from the highest office of the land to find out what was going on. It is true that they burned barns and that was wrong. It is true that they broke into offices and opened mail and that was wrong. However, they were doing those things on the instructions of the highest political office of this land. Where were the politicians when the situation blew up? They were running and hiding behind fences and barns themselves. They were not prepared to take the heat.


Mr. Kaplan:: There were no such instructions.


Blaine Allen Thacker: There sure were. Canadians do not believe for a moment that the RCMP was doing that on its own. Yet it was left out to hang on the clothes line and it took all the heat. We do not accept that. The amendments that we have put forward would provide a proper chain of accountability so that the RCMP and the security agency would follow the political masters and the political masters would take the heat if something was done wrong. It is a fraud and a cover-up of which I will not be a part.
Other amendments which were put forward by our Party dealt with domestic subversion. In particular, under the new definition in Clause 2(d), the description of domestic subversion is cast so widely that it can honestly and truly be abused. If one sits down with ordinary citizens at their kitchen table and asks them what they think a security service should be

June 12, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
able to do, they have no trouble at all dealing with foreign KGB agents, foreign espionage, foreign countries and people who come into Canada to subvert our country. However, when we are talking about our own citizens who want to support groups in other countries through their church groups, and who want to be able to join marches, whether it is anti-Cruise or whatever, or speak out against the Crow legislation, they want to be able to do that without feeling intimidated. Clause 2(d) is written so widely that even church groups will be very nervous in what they do. The effect of that is to cast a chilling climate of fear and apprehension. It is a form of intimidation.
When I spoke with the Western Canada Concept group and tried to convince them that this country was worth saving, that in itself would have been sufficient to be classified as domestic subversion. Under the wording "intended ultimately" to hurt this country, the security service could target me and put on extra special surveillance. They could intercept my mail, telephone conversations and put tails on me. Those are intimidating acts for Members of Parliament. We all speak with groups every day. We were trying to narrow the definition of that clause in order to eliminate the chilling effect and the potential intimidation.
I will speak to each of these clauses individually as they arise. However, over-all I would say that I am concerned. I hope that as a result of the mindless obstructionism and opposition of the NDP, the Government does not over-react and move time allocation before there has been an opportunity to discuss half a dozen of the major issues upon which Canadians want to express their views. I also hope that Canadians will receive a response.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry that this legislation is before us in such a destructive form. However, I am happy to speak against Bill C-9. I notice that the previous speaker was frightened that, by some magic he did not explain, a few NDP speakers would prevent the Conservative speakers, who have three times as many chances as we do to speak, from making their points. I notice that they have not fully used their opportunity this morning, so I will proceed instead of one of them.
The previous speaker also made a very sensible point.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not know why the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) would say that the Conservative Party has not fully used its opportunity this morning. We have spoken just as much as, if not more than, any other Party in the House. The fact that we extend to the NDP the courtesy to speak after two Conservative speakers in a row does not warrant his comment. The innuendo is that we are not seriously taking part in this debate. I do not think it advances his cause or anyone else's cause and I resent it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: May I suggest that the remarks which have been made by both hon. gentlemen have little to do with procedure or manner of debate. Of
course, what one Member says may not please another Member, but there is little the Chair can do in that case.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I will continue with debate as I was doing legitimately, not illegitimately as was the previous speaker under the pretence of a point of order. The point which I was making when I was cut off by that frivolous point of order was that the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) made a good and valid point when he spoke about the great uneasiness of the churches in Canada over the likely effects of this Bill in its present form.
One of the major church congregations in the riding of Spadina, which I represent, has in fact commented on this very forcefully through a publication entitled Bloor Street Leap. It is a publication of the Outreach Committee of the Bloor Street United Church. They are very, very gravely concerned about the affect of the Bill. They suggest a possible scenario which could perhaps take place any time after this week if the Government succeeds in driving this Bill through the House.
For example, they suggest that if the World Outreach Committee of the Bloor Street United Church was pursuing its normal concern for refugees from Latin America, it might find the following scenario. The committee votes to give a sum of money to a relief organization in El Salvador. Suddenly one day it is visited by people who identify themselves as agents of the CSIS, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. Its representatives are quizzed about why the organization is sending money to El Salvador. They are asked if it is sympathetic to rebels who are against the Government of El Salvador. They are also asked if it is perhaps opposed to the democratic process, which some members of the Canadian Government and some members of the Official Opposition think is represented by the present Government of El Salvador.
The term "political subversion" is thrown around. The Outreach Committee could be told by an agent "We've been watching you". As the previous speaker implied, that would be quite a shock to members of any church congregation in Canada. Under the circumstances, the Outreach Committee would assume that it was engaged in a lawful and humanitarian action. However, now that action may well be judged as being a threat against the security of Canada.
What the Committee is saying on the basis of its study of the Bill, which has been guided by a brief prepared and presented by the Canadian Council of Churches to the parliamentary committee and which was made available throughout the church, is that it considers that to be a realistic scenario which the Bill could possibly effect upon the religious activities of its congregation.
The Outreach Committee pointed out the vagueness of the definition of a security threat as follows:
Foreign-influenced activities within or relating to Canada that are detrimental to the interests of Canada and are clandestine or deceptive or involve a threat to any person-
It is very, very concerned about the vague wording of that clause. The United Church of Canada has activities in many
June 12, 1984

parts of the world, not only in countries which are controlled directly by NATO.
In the Bloor Street Leap the Committee suggests:
Suppose a visiting foreign government minister, whose country has for many years been the recipient of Canadian church mission work, requests a private meeting with Canadian church officials.
That might be interpreted as meaning that the church was thereby being influenced by a foreign power. Inasmuch as the meeting was private, it could be interpreted as being clandestine. The Committee is speaking of the kind of activity which happens from time to time in Canada and is carried on by churches for purposes about which they are quite open, but which might under this legislation be viewed as worthy of intrusion, phone bugging, mail opening, the planting of informers, or even an agent provocateur. The proposed surveillance of lawful activities has the Bloor Street United Church and other churches worried. The Bloor Street United Church quotes from the Canadian Council of Churches' brief, which reads:
-how much of the day-to-day life and work of the church could be held to be foreign-influenced?
The church was an international organization before Europeans ever heard of Canada or North America. For 2,000 years the church has been sending messengers and representatives to every country it could, keeping up contact and mutual influence with the people of those countries. This legislation could be taken as grounds for attacking the very foundation of the historical growth of the Christian church.
The Bloor Street group says further on, and I quote:
Even a partial increase in surveillance could do harm to the network of voluntary participation that Canadian churches have established throughout the world.
The group points out, on the basis of the brief of the Canadian Council of Churches and its own study, that there is no definition in the Bill, not event a listing or even any mention, of possible limits to surveillance. In other words, it is saying, what is to stop this new force from carrying on, and even extending, the kind of illegal activities which were the subject of the McDonald Commission?
The religion of which I am a representative, ordained as such, was founded by a person who was executed for treason. He was also accused of blasphemy, but that was not the charge for which he was executed. He was executed for being, in effect, a threat to the security of the Roman state, the most militarized power on earth. The United Church of Canada is seriously concerned, nationally and in its congregations, that the militarized thinking of this Government is now being turned into a threat to the basic liberty of Canadians. The alternative of the United Church, Mr. Speaker, is that Christians must respond against this militarized thinking with the assertion that freedom, not war, is the chief condition of humankind, and I quote:
To this end, a critique of national security doctrine, based on the Gospel, has been developed.
Security Intelligence Service
"Whereas national security doctrine urges the individual to renounce freedom by seeking security from an evil world under the protection of lords and tyrants ... the Christian Gospel urges love of enemy, refusing to give absolute value to security and finding the only absolute value in love."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. The Hon. Member's time has elapsed. Debate.


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on this particular Bill and on this clause. The points which have been raised have been interesting. The purpose of legislation in a democracy, as I understand it, is to endeavour to reflect the thinking of the greatest possible number of people, both in the legislation and in the administration. When that is done, there is more than one thing accomplished. When the legislation is in line with what the mass of the people of a country think, then it is going to have the support of that mass of people. When legislation is not supported by the majority of a population, then there are difficulties. Things then go under cover and things are done because people feel that the law is stupid or, as someone once said, that "the law is an ass". I do not believe we should put our people in that position. When we pass legislation which is contrary to the thinking of a vast number of our people then we are really looking for some difficulties.
I believe that is what we are doing with regard to this legislation, particularly if the ruling of the Speaker is confirmed-and I hope it will not be-and we are unable to discuss security under the RCMP at the report stage of this Bill. The Bill deals with security, and the fact that it does deal with security, I believe, should leave open all types of security for discussion, not just the particular one recommended in the Bill. Otherwise it is useless discussing principles on second reading of a Bill. If you cannot change any of the principles, you might just as well save your time and energy. Surely things can be changed in a Bill. If it cannot be changed after second reading, then we are introducing a new scenario in which I feel every parliament would have to be very careful of what it passes in second reading. Every second reading might have to be opposed. Even then there would be no chance of making changes.
Surely, we have to be sensible in our legislation. When legislation is passed in principle on second reading, it does not mean that the important parts of the Bill cannot be changed. That is the way I understand the making of legislation. In every legislature in the country, and probably in every Parliament in the British Empire, Bills are passed in second reading and then a very important principle of that Bill is changed by the majority of the people. If that cannot be done, we are not
As my seatmate, the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker), mentioned earlier, my people very strongly want the RCMP retained as the security force in this country. It will be a blow indeed to democracy if we are unable even to discuss that at report stage of this Bill, as was suggested this morning in the interim or temporary ruling of the Speaker of the House.
I would like to advance two or three reasons why I believe the legislation should deal with every type of security, includ-

June 12, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
ing the RCMP. It should be the consensus of this House, by a majority, as to which one is the best for the country. If there are only two security services, which one is better for the country? That is the proper approach to take, not to say we cannot discuss an item as important as the RCMP being the security and intelligence service of this country. It would be a sad day indeed if that were the decision.
I would like to talk first about the point I have already mentioned, that under our democracy a government should reflect in its legislation the thinking of the people to the greatest possible degree. I am convinced-perhaps others are not-that the majority of the people of Canada want to retain the RCMP as their security force. That statement, I feel, is the strongest argument, if it cannot be challenged, and I do not believe it can be. The rank and file of our people in Canada are not illiterate. They come to conclusions because of what they see and what they hear and on what happens. They have watched this matter of security over the years and they are satisfied with what the RCMP have been doing.
Another reason, though, which is probably almost as valid, is that the RCMP is noted for protecting the rights of Canadians against undue interference with their civil liberties. If I find my civil liberties are being attacked, I can go to the RCMP and I know I will find a friendly officer who is going to make sure that, to the greatest possible degree, those civil liberties are going to be protected. That is their life. The RCMP came into being to fight unlawfulness, not lawfulness. They fight against those things that are unfair, whether it was for the Indians in the early days, new immigrants, or Canadian women and children. Those who are doing things that are wrong are the ones who are afraid of the RCMP because they stand for doing the right thing, things in accordance with the law. Therefore, when we change our security service we are saying in effect that the RCMP has not been doing its job. But that is not the case.
The Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) paid tribute to the work that the RCMP have done and are doing in the security service. If they are doing well, why do we want to throw out the known for the unknown? We do not know how this new body is going to react to various things in the country, how it will fit in. What is it going to do in regard to civil liberties? That is the worry of many of the speakers in this House today. When we say we should keep the RCMP in this area, we are basing that on the confidence the people have in the RCMP.
I wanted to deal with another point, Mr. Speaker, concerning the spy situation but I see that my time is running out. However, I want to urge Members of the House to realize what we are doing. We can build on the force we have. Surely we do not want to throw that out and start building something brand-new which may be built on a faulty foundation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Debate.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure everyone that the Opposition have as
much time as possible to make their points. As indignant as I am about some of the things I have heard today, because they are simply not valid criticisms of the Bill, I will not take the time required to deal with each of them. Let me just say in summary that, having sat and listened to the far-fetched concerns and fears, all of which were raised on second reading when we heard 57 speeches on the subject of this Bill, and in committee where we spent dozens of hours and hundreds of briefs were received and dozens of witnesses heard, I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the Government feels there are good answers to all of the suggestions made.
The suggestions are that this Bill goes further in the direction of violation of the privacy and civil liberties of Canadians. Far from it. We are dealing at the moment with an area of activity presently within the security service of the RCMP. We are moving it into an organization which can be put under much better controls and safeguards than is appropriate for a police force under the Canadian system of government. I know some Hon. Members opposite recognize that. I note that the Calgary Herald urged the Conservative Party, in its editorial of June 2, to stop the long bid to keep national security under the wing of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and get on with the task of scrutinizing the Bill to ensure that Canada gets the most efficient security service consistent with the maintenance of civil liberties.
The Calgary Herald, for one, backs separation and it is not alone. There are many, many observers across the country who have studied the Bill. They are not saying the Bill is perfect, and that is not the Government's case. The purpose of report stage is to try and improve the Bill. But we recognize that this Bill represents a step forward in further securing the privacy and civil liberties of Canadians. We are subjecting our security service to a more careful and effective outside scrutiny and control than it has ever had before. I am delighted that we have reached report stage and are talking about clauses rather than seeing the spectacle that we have had in the past of delay for its own sake by an Opposition Party, the NDP, which has firmly declared, apart from what they are saying about clauses and due debate, that they are going to be doing everything-to quote the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson):
-going to be doing everything within our power, using all of the parliamentary devices at our disposal, to ensure that this does not in fact become enacted before the end of the session.
That is what we are witnessing and we might as well recognize it.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan), in his usual way, tells just part of the story. Of course, we have said we are going to oppose this Bill, that we are going to try and stop its passage. But we have said it for very good reasons, reasons which are supported by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, most of the major churches, by organizations such as Operation Dismantle, and by the provincial Attorneys General. We are in very good company.
The reason we are opposing this Bill is not because we are opposed to legislation which would give Canada the security
June 12, 1984


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21
[Stage Direction]
service it needs and must have; we are opposed to the Bill because it does not do that. This Bill gives the security service the kind of power it had in the past. It legalizes the security service doing things which the McDonald Commission proved so conclusively it should not have done. It will permit the security service to continue to keep files on hundreds of thousands of Canadians, which it has done. The McDonald Commission told the people of Canada that the security service had files on 700,000 people. Would the Solicitor General, as conservative and as ready as he is to accept every fairytale told to him by the security service, say to this House that there was ever any need for the security service to get information and have files on 700,000 Canadians? Has anything changed?
Let me tell the Solicitor General what my own proposal experience has been. I have been an elected representative in one forum or another for 40 years. The things I have said and done are on the public record. After we passed the Access to Information Act I made a request to the Solicitor General and the RCMP to see my file and the things I supposedly have done which they have in their records. I was turned down because that kind of information is excluded under the Act. I made the same request to the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation and I got what they had in their records about me. Therefore, if we are suspicious about this legislation, of what the Solicitor General will try to get through the House, I think we have every right to be.
Let us remember that we Canadians are pretty self-satisfied, we are pretty arrogant; we look at things which have happened in the U.S. and we say they are terrible. "Look what the FBI did! Look what the CIA did! Is it not terrible? It could not happen in Canada." It was not until a former corporal in the RCMP, a member of the security service, got involved, for reasons which have never been explained, in an attempt-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. I regret having to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but it being one o'clock I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, once again the Liberal Government has proven that it is not to be trusted and that its solemn declaration of intention is without substance or meaning. In his past Budget speeches the Minister of Finance stated categorically that prices charged by Government agencies would be subject to the 6 and 5 per cent guidelines. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development confirmed this with respect to the Northern Canada Power Commission, the federal Crown agency which has a monopoly on electrical energy in much of northern Canada. From January, 1983, to January, 1984, electrical consumers in Fort Simpson were subjected to price increases in excess of 40 per cent, far exceeding the stated guidelines.
If the Minister's words are to be honoured, NCPC must reduce its rates in Fort Simpson and rebate its customers. Otherwise, we will all know that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, who would aspire to the leadership of his discredited Party, is a man who says one thing and does something entirely different.


D-DAY REFLECTIONS ON ALLIES' SACRIFICES
Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, on June 6, 1944, with the command "O.K. We'll go", General Eisenhower unleashed the most massive, hazardous, and bloody seaborne military operation in history, the allied invasion of Normandy. The intensity of the struggle against the Nazis was described in 1941 by Watson Kirkconnel, a McMaster University author and professor, who wrote as follows:
Hitler's Germany is an atavistic return to barbarism, has renounced the ethic of Christianity, the scientific pursuit of truth, and civilized insistance on law and has subjected all of these to tribal violence for its own savage sake.
With the D-Day invasion of Normandy the allied forces began the attacks which, combined with the Eastern Front offensive of our wartime ally, the Soviet Union, finally did succeed in defeating the fascist system of Hitler.
Now, forty years later, the question arises-did the sacrifice of life, limb, and material goods restore world order and bring about peace? However, the gallant men who gave their lives in Normandy for the cause of freedom, if alive today, might well wonder if their sacrifice was in vain. The lack of freedom behind the Iron Curtain would, I am sure, be a source of great sorrow for them.
We had a common goal during World War II-to defeat the forces of fascism. We now have another common goal-

June 12, 1984
mutual survival, a goal which I hope one day will improve relations between East and West so as to reduce the threat of another world conflict.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, in expressing my very serious complaint about the Post Office, may I take this opportunity, on behalf of all Members, to wish Canada Post's President, Mr. Michael Warren, a comfortable and complete recovery from his unfortunate mishap during the weekend.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Perhaps Mr. Warren's officials will take note of the imminent damage about to be done to a constituent of mine, Mr. Allan Beattie, who is Post Master of sub Post Office 41 at the Westcliffe Mall on Hamilton Mountain. This thriving little post office has been operating out of Westcliffe Home Hardware for approximately 12 years with no complaints. Mr. Beattie feels he has provided an excellent service for his many loyal customers in the area. Suddenly Canada Post is shutting him down, effective June 30.
The Post Office has an agreement with the sub post offices that Ottawa can close them down on 30 days' notice without explanation. Mr. Beattie was given 60 days' notice without explanation.
To make matters worse, Canada Post wants to locate its full Post Office in the same Westcliffe Mall in larger quarters at expense to the Canadian taxpayer. There is no space available in the Mall anyway.
I have learned that the reason Allan Beattie is being hit is because the union feels these small stations are competition for it. I have real sympathy with organized labour in many cases. Indeed, I am a union member myself. However, I draw the line when a loyal and hard working entrepreneur is pressured out of a valuable community service because of a militant postal union. Mr. Warren and Canada Post officials, please take note, and rescind this ridiculous closing.


HOUSING
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, recently the Cooperative Housing Federal of Toronto, in co-operation with three other non profit developers of co-operative housing and the Co-operative Housing Foundation of Canada, held a public meeting to discuss the future of co-operative housing in metro Toronto and the Government of Canada's proposed reduction
in funding for co-op development. Approximately 800 people attended the meeting, hoping to hear an explanation of the federal Government's reasons for reducing its support to co-ops. Unfortunately, although he had been invited three weeks earlier, the Minister did not attend the meeting and chose not to send anyone in his place. His telegram expressing his regrets arrived the day after the meeting.
Members of the audience were left wondering what the Liberal Government's position is on co-operative housing. In the face of the Minister's failure to explain why he has cut the co-op housing budget by 65 per cent locally and 45 per cent nationally, I have to question whether this sector enjoys the Minister's support.
In the House the Minister stated that co-ops are not serving the Government's target groups as well as other forms of non profit housing. I find this an extraordinary and unfounded claim. It is deeply insulting to co-ops in Metro Toronto and across Canada which have a proud record of serving the disadvantaged alongside moderate income members. The Minister ought to know that Toronto and Canada need more co-operative housing units this year. If the Minister has concerns about the effectiveness of the co-op program relative to other-


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


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, many rural high unemployment areas are being discriminated against by what I call an urban bias in federal and provincial government job-creation programs. Under the program for summer jobs sponsored by government Departments, students are hired mainly where the government Departments exist, in urban ridings. I suppose that is the only way it can be. However, Summer Canada or community group sponsored projects are funded to the same degree in urban and rural ridings. This means that urban areas, as a rule, receive twice the allocation of summer student jobs funded by government. Private enterprise summer jobs are also heavily concentrated in urban areas.
This despicable, clear as the nose on your face, outright discrimination against high unemployment rural areas is prevalent as well in Canada Works allocations because of a $3 million cap on riding allocations. If your unemployment rate is 15 per cent you are treated the same as if it were 50 per cent, and you only receive $3 million.
It is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that although this system has operated for years in the federal and provincial Governments, those in a position of authority appear not to have the interest to do something about it.
June 12, 1984


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, a Canada Post press release dated April 19, 1984, says in part:
-Canada Post has introduced a series of service improvement programs that dramatically improved the speed of delivery between major cities-
Yesterday 1 received a letter from Canada Post, Ottawa, dated June 6. It took five days for the letter to reach my office. What did the letter say? The letter said that:
Canada Post has decided to begin selling sports pool tickets on a trial basis in approximately 300 post offices in Alberta.
What will Canada Post be doing next? It is already experimenting with the mail order service with Consumers Distributing which it plans to evaluate thoroughly. Now it plans to go into the gambling business by selling sports pool tickets.
The reason we have the Canada Post Corporation is to deliver the mail, not to compete with businesses that pay taxes, or to sell lottery tickets. Why can't we have the type of mail delivery we had a few years ago? It takes eight to 10 days, and sometimes as long as 12 days, for a letter from my constituency to reach me.

At some post offices in Alberta, Canadians have to stand in line for lengthy periods to get their mail. Now the post office staff is to be given another chore, namely, to sell lottery tickets. Canada Post should be told to improve its mail delivery service.
The odds on winning a lottery are about a million to one. Will the odds on getting our mail be the same? The people of Canada have a big enough gamble now to get their mail without starting another gamble in our post offices.


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I join my colleague in protesting CMHC cutbacks for co-operative and non-profit housing. There has been a 45 per cent over-all reduction in the number of units compared to last year. In B.C. units are down from an inadequate 2,200 to 1,800. Only a very small percentage of this allocation will go to co-op housing. I have also had complaints that allocations are based on favouritism since allocations are now made by staff in the Minister's office rather than by CMHC professionals.
There are thousands of low income people in my riding alone who are living in downtown Vancouver rooms or cheap hotels who urgently need decent, affordable housing. Profit making developers are renovating or replacing older accommodation in preparation for Expo '86. Few units are being allocated from CMHC for those being displaced.
Oral Questions
Despite the very favourable federal land deal which was given to B.C. Place development, the Board of B.C. Place refused to include affordable housing, which was to have been part of this deal. The Minister should intervene to insist that such housing must be included, and CMHC should have extra allocations to replace downtown housing. This was done in Montreal, and Vancouver deserves similar treatment.
Finally, I want to register our Party's complaint again that the Minister responsible for CMHC refuses to adhere to the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act of Canada for co-op housing. This, in effect, is a union busting policy-


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


CANADA SPORTS POOL CORPORATION-CONDEMNATION OF GOVERNMENT POLICY
Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to use this opportunity to express my utter disgust at the way the Government of Canada is treating Canadians through the sports pool.
I have reached the point where I do not believe there is any misuse of public funds below which the Liberal Party would not sink.
We now know reliably that sports pool ticket sales have fallen to less than 200,000 from the original 500,000. The point that has to be made in this House of Commons to Members opposite, and to those who stand to lose, those the Government was told would be affected in medical research in amateur sports, throughout this country-because the Government was told this pool would fail at the beginning-is that decent thinking Canadians believe the Government of Canada set up the sports pool entirely to break its arrangement with the provinces, entirely to put all Liberals on the payroll of the Government of Canada, in full awareness that the sports pool would fail, and that Canadians would have to shell out funds to people who have two-year severance contracts.
I believe that the House of Commons has an obligation to express to the Government its utter, utter disgust at the way the Government has treated people through the sports pool.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. It is most important at

June 12, 1984
Oral Questions
this time that farmers receive increased prices for their grain. They are facing very difficult cash flow problems. The Wheat Board tells us that grain exports from the West Coast since the beginning of the crop year have totalled ten million tonnes, up a million tonnes from the same time last year. And the asking price for grain at Vancouver and at Thunder Bay has increased considerably. Will the Minister consider increasing the initial price of grain to help out farmers with the very severe cash flow problems which they face at this time?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I think first the Hon. Member should acknowledge the very major achievement in being able to move a record volume of grain this year which is in part due to the initiatives we have taken to expand the capacity. It is an achievement which his Party objected to and fought against in this House. I think the fact that we are able to sell and move more grain in an efficient way is testimony to the wisdom of that course.
As far as the question of further advance payments is concerned, as the Hon. Member knows, this House is presently seized with a number of initiatives to improve the financial position of the western farmer, in particular the question of the western grain stabilization payments, which I hope we will have an opportunity to dispose of within a matter of a few days. I think we are responding very much to the cash position which the farmers face. We hope the House will co-operate in allowing us to complete that motion within the matter of this week.


Leonard J. Gustafson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister will know that when it comes to western grain stabilization payments, initial or interim, this Government continues to play politics with the farmers' money.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leonard J. Gustafson: And I want to emphasize the farmers' money.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT MINISTER TAKE ACTION
Leonard J. Gustafson: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister reconsider the answer he has given the farmers, consider the difficult situation in which they find themselves, and return to the farmers their own money by increasing the initial price of grain, when it is within the Minister's jurisdiction to do so?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I am quite surprised at the question raised by the Hon. Member. Up to this point in time he was generally recognized as knowing something about the way the grain industry works. The tone of his question shows that he is not paying attention to what is going on.
The farmer is receiving and will be receiving, Parliament willing, a substantial increase in the payments from the western grain stabilization fund. This will go a substantial way to meeting some of the cash problems.
As far as any initial payment is concerned, we would have to take into account the recommendations and findings of the Wheat Board and the other bodies to determine what the level of that would be. I think what the Hon. Member should recognize first is that we are selling and moving record volumes of grain because of the expansion of the grain handling system in western Canada, which his Party opposed and fought against, and which this Government had the wisdom to promote.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You are a joke. All you know about is pork.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leonard J. Gustafson: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious the Minister does not understand what is happening and he is confusing the western grain stabilization payments with the initial price of grain.


CASH FLOW SITUATION OF FARMERS
Leonard J. Gustafson: Mr. Speaker, the level of the grain price since January has been considerably higher than the initial payments paid to farmers have been. We are asking the Minister to consider the very serious cash problems which farmerrs have, and either make an interim payment or raise the level of the initial price so farmers can receive a greater portion of their own money with which to pay their bills and to meet their obligations. Will the Minister of Transport show some confidence in the farmers of this country, Mr. Speaker?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, we have shown that confidence by going ahead with major plans to promote the expansion of farming activity in western Canada, unlike Members of the Opposition who show a total lack of confidence by not being prepared to support those kinds of initiatives that would allow us to expand the system.
As far as the initial price is concerned, as the Hon. Member knows, that is not an income protection plan. That must reflect market conditions. In the Board's judgment it is far too early to make any determination of those market conditions until there is further reporting, perhaps into the mid-July period. That is the kind of judgment we have to make without putting at risk the kind of pool situation which the Wheat Board must face. I do not think anybody in this House would want to jeopardize in any way the financial stability or accountability of the Wheat Board, which is what the Hon. Member seems to be recommending.
June 12, 1984


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. It is further to the question asked by the Hon. Member for St. John's East yesterday when the Minister answered that Special Recovery Capital Projects funds "have never been in the purview of regional", or political, "Ministers to withhold." We know that regional Ministers have been holding up many of these Special Recovery Capital Projects in anticipation of an election. Does the Minister still stand by his statement of yesterday that these SRCP funds have never been in the purview of regional Ministers to withhold?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Definitely, Mr. Speaker.


USE OF FUNDS
Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I have a Cabinet document which indicates the contrary, that regional Ministers are responsible for delays in the Halifax Federal Building, the Nova Scotia Nautical Institute, and the Maritime Forestry Institute. The most despicable example is the one in Gaspe, which has a very serious unemployment problem. The document indicates that there have been excessive delays on behalf of Ministers and concludes by indicating that projects in New Brunswick are still untouched because "the regional Minister for New Brunswick has yet to advance proposals". Would the Minister confirm, now that the evidence is before him, that the Government is using this very large porkbarrel fund merely to hand out patronage in advance of an election?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to say that the Hon. Member is all wet.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday he agreed to look into some of the alleged abuses associated with the corporate tax credit scheme which is in place for R and D. Today I want to ask him a question concerning abuses of the personal tax system.
The Minister will know that in 1970 there were only three people with incomes over $100,000 who paid no income tax. As a result of the loopholes introduced over the years, in 1981 that increased to 1,500 people with incomes over $100,000 paying no income tax. However, as if that was not enough, in 1981 the Government reduced the tax rate to upper income
Oral Questions
earners across the board. How does the Minister justify decreasing the tax being paid by upper income earners at a time when it is being raised for low income earners?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I invite my friend to take note of all the measures which we have taken in the last few years, in the last few Budgets, including the most recent one, to help low income people. The latest one was the $50 increase in the Guaranteed Income Supplement for the single elderly. I refer him also to the increases which we have provided in terms of the Child Tax Credit, as well as the very significant increases in the amounts of money provided for direct employment and direct employment support for those who are unemployed. It is by billions of dollars that we have come to the support of low income people in the last couple of years.
As far as his question is concerned, he knows-and I have explained it to him or to his colleagues several times-that it is not correct to refer to people earning $100,000 per year paying no income tax as if it were a permanent feature. It may very well happen that in a particular year an individual with a high income would not pay taxes because indeed he would be entitled to claim, like anyone else, losses in previous years. The Hon. Member knows the rules provided under the Income Tax Act in that respect. There is a law which applies in the same way to all citizens. He knows that if one has losses in a particular year, one can claim those losses against income in another year.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I do not think the Minister answered my question directly. He will know that reducing the tax rate to upper income earners cost Canadian taxpayers about $1.5 billion each year.


REQUEST THAT 1981 TAX RATE BE RESTORED
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister have any plans to restore the tax rate to what it was back in 1981, and therefore collect $1.5 billion more? Or, does he expect low and middle income Canadians to pick up the balance? Does he plan to restore it? If he does not, why not?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to challenge the assumption of $1.5 billion being collectable in this particular way. The marginal rate was reduced in 1981, but the Hon. Member should remember that a number of loopholes were closed at the time, increasing the taxes on higher income people. Indeed, a number of these measures are still in effect, and the Hon. Member knows it.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Yes, I am well aware, as the Minister has indicated, that tax loopholes were closed in 1981, only to be reopened by the present Minister of Finance.

June 12, 1984
Oral Questions


TAX PAID BY LOW INCOME EARNERS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, since 1981, not many years ago, more than a million Canadians have been added to the poverty level in terms of income. Because of the Minister's Budget last year, the poor of Canada, those with incomes at the poverty line, will see an increase in tax payable next year of $100. With more and more Canadians finding themselves at the poverty level, why on earth would the Minister increase the taxes which these people are expected to pay, making the poor people of Canada poorer at the same time as making the wealthy wealthier?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my friend that a number of the adjustments made to the 1981 Budget were made following representations by the Hon. Member's Party. Does he want me to introduce, for instance, a taxation on health benefits and dental benefits of workers, which I have maintained to benefit workers, and which represent hundreds of millions of dollars? Is that what the NDP is asking for, that we tax workers more? That is not the view of this Party. As far as the poor are concerned, I remind him that the measure before the House on which the NDP is still dragging will provide $600 per year more to elderly citizens.


Ian Deans: Which one are we dragging on?


Marc Lalonde: That is only one example among many.


Ian Deans: That is a lie; that is a lie.


Mr. Nielsen:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I heard unparliamentary language, Mr. Speaker.


THE CANADA COUNCIL
Hon. David Crombie (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, last week the Director of the Canada Council, Mr. Tim Porteous, testified that the Deputy Minister of Communications, Mr. Rabinovitch, had instructed him that public criticism of Bill C-24 by him or his staff, or even board members of the Canada Council, would not be tolerated. When I raised the matter with the Acting Prime Minister last week he advised the House that the Deputy Minister was acting with the consent and, indeed, at the request of the Minister of Communications. Why did the Minister of Communications embark upon this policy of intimidation which has so infected the freedom of speech of the arts and cultural communities in the country?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member simply cannot be serious. He has asked me to comment upon the question of instructions. He alleged that instructions were given by my Deputy Minister to
the Canada Council. I have discussed it with my Deputy Minister and he has confirmed that he did not in any case give any instructions of the kind to which the Hon. Member just referred, to the Canada Council. As a matter of fact I am on the record, and another Minister is on the record, Senator Austin, to the effect that we thought the Canada Council ought to appear before the parliamentary committee.
It seems to me that we have said, time and time again on this side of the House, that we are indeed interested in seeing that the traditional arms length relationship between the Government and cultural agencies be maintained, that if for some reason or other the legislative drafting of Bill C-24 did not meet this, we very much hoped that the Canada Council and other agencies of a cultural nature would appear before a committee of the House to make their case known to Members. I very much believe that legislation, by going through this process, can indeed be improved.
On the questions of instructions, once again no instructions of the kind referred to by the Hon. Member were given by my Deputy Minister.


MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY
David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, surely the Minister knows that the damage was already done. Indeed, Mr. Brian Anthony of the Canadian Conference of the Arts representing arts and cultural communities, said in his testimony last week:
We have certainly been led to believe that it would be inappropriate for any agency to risk its good standing and well-being at this moment by speaking out against Bill C-24.
Why is the Minister hiding behind his Deputy Minister and hanging him out to dry? Why will he not take the responsibility and dispel the atmosphere of intimidation for which he, not his Deputy Minister, is clearly responsible?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I am on the record, not only in this House in previous replies to questions from my hon. friend, but also in the newspapers of the land. I refer to The Globe and Mail where I indicated quite clearly that the Canada Council was welcome to appear before the House of Commons Committee examining Bill C-24. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. They have done so. It was indicated in the same article in The Globe and Mail on the part of the official critic of the Opposition on matters of culture and communications that the only thing he could reproach this Government for, in the field of culture and communications over the past four years, was for having done too much for the cultural community.


TESTIMONY GIVEN BY COUNCIL DIRECTOR
David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, clearly what those of us who have been involved in the committee know, because of the testimony, is that the Minister is saying that the
June 12, 1984

Director of the Canada Council, when he answered yes to the question of intimidation, was wrong and that that telephone call did not take place. From all the testimony, surely what has happened is that the arts and cultural communities believe that the Deputy Minister acted in that fashion. Will the Minister at least take responsibility to take steps to dispel that atmosphere of intimidation so that they can come forward to the committee?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I am saying that it is indeed an erroneous interpretation to say that instructions were given. No instructions were given. I indicated that two Ministers of the Crown, myself and another Minister, in public statements, one of which is included in a release by the Canada Council-let's get back to the Hon. Member's question. He has asked whether there is a climate of intimidation. There is no climate of intimidation. The Canada Council appeared before the committee, of which the Hon. Member is a member, last week and gave testimony. Once again, it was invited by two Ministers of the Crown to appear before the committee to give its testimony and its point of view. We on this side of the House believe that the House of Commons is part of the legislative process. We on this side believe that legislation can be improved by going through that process. If it comes out of that process improved, so much the better.


MUSEUMS AND ART GALLERIES
Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications. I hope I get more straightforward answers than those he just gave to my colleague from Rosedale. I want to follow up on a question that I asked the Minister on April 11 when he described the $24 million federal fund raising campaign for adornments to the Museum of Man and the National Gallery as a once-in-a-lifetime project. That spells the end of a lifetime for many private museums and little historical societies in Canada. Quite apart from the principle of the federal Government going after private funds, why are these things costing $24 million more than the Government stated in February, 1982?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat my answer once again. I hope this time the Hon. Member will listen. What I indicated last time was that in making an appropriation of approximately $190 million to build two fine museums in the national capital region of Canada, the new National Gallery and the new Museum of Man, the federal Government had indeed made available to the Canada Museums Construction Corporation sufficient funds to build these museums. However, over a period of time, it was thought that these museums should have an outward appearance befitting their position in the national capital of the country. To improve part of the facade and the appearance
Oral Questions
of that museum, it was estimated that an additional $24 million would be required. The Hon. Member is most welcome to ask those questions of the Chairman of the Canada Museums Construction Corporation during the course of the Estimates or at other appropriate times.
As to the Hon. Member's comments on the effect on fund raising in Canada, obviously this type of fund raising will not affect the small regional museums because we are not approaching the same type of clientele that is being approached by the small regional museums to which he refers.


MINISTER'S CORRESPONDENCE
Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Mr. Speaker, I do not have to go to the President of the Canada Museums Corporation to ask the Minister to explain comments in two letters, one in 1981 and one in 1984.1 quote:
-the federal Government recognizes that providing improved facilities for the National Gallery of Canada is its financial responsibility and there are no plans to solicit funds from the private sector for this project.
In a letter written in 1984, signed by the Minister's own hand, he stated:
The federal Government has made a substantial contribution toward the cost of building new facilities for the National Gallery and the National Museum of Man. Adequate structures could be built with these funds.
Why does the Minister not live up to his responsibilities, reorganize those budgets, make use of the funds that the taxpayers are already spending for this upgrading and these adornments of the National Gallery and the Museum of Man, and stop robbing the private sector of vitally needed funds?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is just repeating what I said. I stated quite clearly that adequate structures could indeed be put up with the funds that had been made available to the Canada Museums Construction Corporation by the Government. However, we thought that these buildings should have an appearance befitting their presence in the national capital of our country, that they be buildings of which all Canadians can be proud. To do so, we thought it would be a good idea to have a partnership with the private sector, that Canadians from various parts of the country, by making a financial contribution to the building of that museum, would identify more closely with it and not see it as a government museum but as a museum that belonged to the people of Canada.


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. I am sure the Minister will remember the many speeches he made during the long and acrimonious debate on the Crow freight rates. On many occasions the Minister said the passage of the Bill would lead to increased employment. On March 25 the Minister said:

June 12, 1984
Oral Questions
"The change in the Crow rate .. . will create employment", giving the impression that it would create thousands of jobs.
The railway union which acts for workers of the CPR have been told, and I understand they have been in communication with the Minister, that in the next few years the CPR proposes to reduce its work force by something in the neighbourhood of
4,000	workers. This will have a very serious effect on workers in Moncton, Montreal, Winnipeg, and Calgary. Has the Minister discussed this fact with officials of CPR? If so, can he explain how his promise that there would be increased employment will likely lead to a very sharp reduction in the number of people working for the CPR?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the predictions that we made concerning the economic impact of the Western Grain Transportation Bill are bearing out. This year alone over $1 billion worth of new capital will be invested in this country, with a substantially large and major impact and the development of jobs in a wide variety of occupations. I draw to the Hon. Member's attention the tendering a few weeks back of major contracts for the Rogers Pass tunnel, which will be a S600 million project and have very major economic impact on the construction trades and others. When we talked about employment we were covering a broad base of employment in a wide variety of occupations.
On the particular matter of the proposed changes in the structuring of some of the workforces in the railroad, it is my understanding that those are caused primarily by new changes in technology in the attempts to gain productivity improvements. Certain practices become obsolescent and, therefore, savings can be occasioned. That is not something that has in any way been decided. It is my understanding that this is a matter that the railroads want to introduce as part of their labour negotiations, to work out agreements over a period of time with the unions. That is what collective bargaining is about, to sit down and look at a problem that jointly affects the operation of a corporation, in this case, and to have management and labour work out what would be a mutually satisfactory way of doing that. That is the kind of practice this Government deals in, to allow those problems to be properly addressed through the collective bargaining process.


David Orlikow: When the Minister was making those rousing speeches about what the Crow rate changes would do, he certainly did not imply to the railway workers that part of the package would be a very substantial reduction in the number of people employed. I would point out that building the Rogers Pass tunnel will only create very temporary jobs.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER CONVENE MEETING OF INTERESTED PARTIES
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the President of the CPR Machinists' Union sent a telegram to the Minister asking him to convene a meeting between the officials of CPR, the railway unions, the Minister, and his Department, to discuss this threatened major lay-off. Has the Minister responded yet? Is he making arrangements for that kind of a
meeting, or is it something which he will leave to the tender mercies of his friends in the CPR?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that the Hon. Member is trying to shade the point. I have met on a couple of occasions with members of the railway unions to discuss the matter. I had intended to meet with them yesterday in Winnipeg but my presence was required back here for a vote that members of the NDP intended to have held but never got around to holding. As a result, I was not able to fulfil that responsibility and meet with the unions.


Ian Deans: What are you talking about? That's not true.


Lloyd Axworthy: However, we will be meeting with them at the first opportunity, and will also be meeting with the railway management to discuss the matter.
The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain seems to be growling in his chair in an irrelevant manner.


Ian Deans: Damned right I am!


Lloyd Axworthy: If he would permit me, I would like to answer his colleague's question. If he would have the courtesy to allow me to answer his colleague, I would appreciate it.


Ian Deans: Why would I have courtesy for you? You're not telling the truth.


Lloyd Axworthy: The fact of the matter is that we are concerned about these matters. We will meet with the unions and the management to make sure that the employment is there.


Ian Deans: Sit down!


Lloyd Axworthy: I would hope that members of the NDP would not have such an obsolete point of view that they would be prepared to say that no company at any time should be allowed to look at how it can improve the productivity of its workforce and therefore be able to provide a more competitive and lower cost service to the shippers of the country so that we may compete economically around the world.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Hon. Bud Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. Under what, I am sure, was a well intentioned but seemingly misguided policy of the Manitoba Government, young Indian children were sent to the United States for adoption. One Cameron Kerley was allowed to be adopted by a single male who, as it later turned out, was a homosexual. After repeated attempts to escape, and
June 12, 1984

after much provocation, Cameron Kerley killed his adoptive parent. This situation was described on CTV's television program, IV-5.
Having killed this person, Cameron Kerley is now serving a sentence in the United States. Has the Solicitor General been contacted by counsel for Cameron Kerley with a request to move this young man back to Canada?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago the Hon. Member brought this case to my attention. I would like to thank him for doing so.
Today, I was in touch with a lawyer in Winnipeg who is acting for Mr. Kerley. Since Kansas is one of the few American states with which we do have a transfer of offenders agreement, I agreed on behalf of the government to approve that transfer if a request for it is made by Mr. Kerley and by the State of Kansas. I was told that Mr. Kerley still has rights of appeal and, of course, the transfer option does not arise until his rights of appeal are used or abandoned.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. He will know that the National Energy Program killed oil sands mining in northeastern Alberta, that the Syncrude expansion was tabled, and that the Alsands mining operation folded completely, at a cost of
100,000	to 150,000 jobs to Canadians across the country. As well, it killed Canada's chances for achieving oil self-sufficiency by 1990. What is the Minister doing to create incentives for oil sands mining in northeastern Alberta?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member forgot to add to his list the decision that was made by Exxon in the United States to cancel a $1 billion investment that it had already made in oil shales in the United States at the same time as some multinationals and other companies in Canada decided not to proceed with oil sands development projects. This happened because, as in the United States, the price of oil was not increasing as fast as had been expected, and because of the high cost of constructing those plants. The Hon. Member should know about those decisions which were made in the United States. This is something that the Hon. Member forgot to mention.
Second, I invite the Hon. Member to pay a visit to northern Alberta. If he did, he would find that at Wolf Lake and Cold Lake, for instance, investments are taking place at this time that are in the hundreds of millions of dollars. I believe that these investments are being made in his riding. He might be interested in paying a visit to those projects so that he may realize what is happening in his own back yard.
Third, our goal was to achieve self-sufficiency by 1990. The Hon. Member should know that, since last August, Canada has been a net exporter of oil. We have been self-sufficient to
Oral Questions
the tune of about 25,000 barrels a day. This is a record that my friend should indeed find very difficult to match.
Finally, the Hon. Member knows about the letter of intent that was signed last week between the federal Government, Husky, the Government of Alberta and the Government of Saskatchewan, whereby a heavy oil upgrader will be built at a cost of over $3 billion. This is not something that is bad.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I would like to recommend to the Minister that he look into the difference between oil shales and oil sands. Oil shales involve a very high cost of recovery. The in situ investments in northeastern Alberta to which the Minister referred, being the Imperial Oil project at Cold Lake and the BP project at Wolf Lake, are going ahead because the National Energy Program was changed. I am talking about the mining operations in northeastern Alberta and I am talking about things like the Alsands and the Syncrude expansion. The Minister spoke of net export. We are importing high grade crude oil and we are exporting bunker fuel. That is what the Minister has failed to tell us.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT CHANGE PROGRAM
Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister when he will allow 150,000 to 200,000 jobs to be created across the country by changing the National Energy Program. The President of Petro-Canada, Bill Hopper, has suggested that if the Government will put the proper incentives in place, those mining operations will go ahead. Perhaps the Minister could answer the question and stop evading it.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member referred to oil shales as being too costly in the United States, and to Exxon having to abandon a $1-billion investment. The same thing is happening in Canada. If the cost of building a tar sands plant is excessive compared to the cost of enhanced oil recovery and the cost of the recuperation and the upgrading of heavy oil, those plants will, of course, not be able to compete.
The Hon. Member knows that adjustments have been made to the National Energy Program. For instance, the Wolf Lake and Cold Lake projects, as the Hon. Member himself has said, are being realized because such adjustments have been made. We have always been ready to consider making adjustments. We have negotiated these adjustments with the Government of Alberta in particular, and both Governments have come to the conclusion that there is a limit to the level of government support that can be provided for any kind of project. The fact is that Canada is oil self-sufficient today. The Hon. Member should know that. That has been achieved thanks to the policies that have been followed by the Government over the years.

June 12, 1984
Oral Questions THE CANADA COUNCIL


TELEPHONE CALL MADE BY DEPUTY MINISTER
John William Bosley: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications and is supplementary to the questions asked by the Hon. Member for Rosedale. The Minister knows that Mr. Porteous of the Canada Council testified in committee that he received a telephone call from the Minister's Deputy Minister. The Minister also knows that last week in the House the Acting Prime Minister said that the phone call was made at the request of the Minister of Communications and with the consent of the Minister of Communications.
Does the Minister want the House to understand that the phone call was made, that it was made with his consent, and that he gave instructions with regard to that phone call? Further, since the Minister says that he did not give the instructions to which the Hon. Member for Rosedale referred, would he therefore tell us precisely what instructions he did give his Deputy Minister?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, a number of phone calls are made on a daily basis between officials of my Department and the Canada Council. I think it is quite obvious that there must be a working relationship between them. A number of issues, including ongoing issues, are indeed discussed during the course of these conversations.
After having reviewed the matter with my Deputy Minister, he informs me that there were indeed no instructions given to the Director of the Canada Council along the lines suggested by the Hon. Member. These may have been interpreted as instructions, and this is probably what Mr. Porteous is suggesting. But I have informed the House that there were indeed no instructions of that kind, and that perhaps the conversation was misunderstood.
To make it even clearer than that, I am referring to two earlier statements on the part of two Ministers of the Crown indicating that the Canada Council was welcome to appear before that committee. As a matter of fact, I personally told Mr. Porteous that the Canada Council ought to appear in front of that committee if it felt there were points which ought to be discussed and clarified.


REQUEST THAT DEPUTY MINISTER APPEAR AS COMMITTEE WITNESS
John William Bosley: Mr. Speaker, the Minister will particularly know how important the credibility of the Canada Council is in the arts community. Since the Minister seems to be implying that either Mr. Porteous misunderstood the conversation or has misrepresented it, will the Minister instruct his Deputy Minister to appear before the Standing Committee as a witness, now that the Canada Council has appeared before it, so that the Standing Committee
may ask his Deputy Minister, as it asked the Canada Council, direct questions with regard to this matter, in order that the committee may determine whether in fact the Minister is hanging his Deputy Minister out to dry to protect himself?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I am indeed indicating on behalf of my Deputy Minister, as the Minister does-the Minister responds to questions in this House on behalf of his officials-that my Deputy Minister did not give any instructions to the Canada Council along the lines suggested by the Hon. Member. I am indicating that if the executive Director of the Council thought these to be instructions, he did not understand the conversation properly.
There were no instructions given to the Canada Council telling it not to appear in front of that committee. If you will allow me to repeat myself once more this afternoon-I said it four times, perhaps five times-I will say it a sixth time. 1 personally invited the Canada Council to appear in front of the committee. My colleague, Mr. Austin, did the same thing. The proof, once again, is in the pudding. The Council appeared. It appeared with members of the Council, members appointed by this Government, and it made its point of view known very clearly indeed.
As I indicated to the Hon. Member for Rosedale previously, we believe that perhaps as a result of this interaction by the Council and the committee, some good ideas may be generated on the other side of the House. If there are none generated on that side of the House, I am fully confident they will be generated on this side of the House and that this question will indeed be resolved to the satisfaction of all concerned.


INDUSTRIAL AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. On Friday the Minister claimed that no formula could be more fair or equitable than the present formula used to determine the tier designations for benefits under the Industrial and Regional Development Program.
Does the Minister know that for the last six months the unemployment rate in Victoria, British Columbia, has averaged more than 3 per cent above the national average? What does the Minister think is fair or equitable about a formula which designates Victoria for the lowest level of benefits, when its unemployment rate has fluctuated between 13.5 per cent and 17.6 per cent, which in February was the second highest unemployment rate for any city in Canada? What is fair or equitable about a formula which leaves Victoria at the lowest level of benefits?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, a full answer would be so long that I
June 12, 1984

would not want to take the valuable time of this House to respond. Perhaps the Hon. Member can come to the committee when we discuss the program and the computation of the formula, and I will give him all the details. The fact is that the formula applies to every single census area in Canada. It is re-evaluated once a year. If, by the statistics indicated by the Hon. Member, Victoria is in worse shape than all of the other cities, that will affect the formula. Obviously, in that case, the census area of Victoria will change automatically.


APPEAL TO MINISTER TO REVIEW REGULATIONS
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. If the Minister cannot tell me what is fair about the formula, I would like to tell him what is unfair about it. It is based on a ratio of unemployment insurance beneficiaries to the general population of working age. In Victoria, not only are there a large number of unemployed people whose benefits have expired, but there are also many people who have taken early retirement and moved there. Both of these factors distort this ratio. I would like to make a personal appeal to the Minister. Will he himself look into the Victoria situation, will he look at the hardship faced by that community, and determine whether some changes have to be made to the regulations so that people and businesses in Victoria can receive the benefits they need and deserve?


Edward C. Lumley: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Hon. Member is trying to make some political points. However, I would hope he would go back and read the committee minutes with respect to the development of that formula. As a matter of fact, I believe one of the Hon. Member's own colleagues was applauding my response to the Hon. Member for Victoria last week when I indicated that the formula applies equally to all census areas across the country. It also happens to be, Mr. Speaker, the first time that a formula for regional development incentives to industry and tourism coincides with the job-creation program formulae conducted by the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The formula we use is exactly the same, Mr. Speaker.


FISHERIES
Hon. Janies A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The Minister knows that as a result of marketing difficulties there are now high inventories in eastern Canada, especially in Newfoundland, of cod blocks. This will create problems for inshore fishermen as we get into the season. Will the Minister tell the House what steps the Government intends to take to alleviate the situation, either directly or through the Fisheries Prices Support Board?
Oral Questions


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member, who is a former Minister of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I am happy to report to him that Cabinet will be making a decision very shortly.


MARKETING SYSTEM
James Aloysius McGrath: Time is of the essence, Mr. Speaker, because this situation is creating problems for inshore fishermen in terms of disposing of their fish. Has the Minister taken any steps with regard to single desk marketing, setting up some kind of cafe kind of system so that cod blocks as a commodity can be sold through a single desk?


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, I believe that, first the Hon. Member will not have to wait very long for the announcement of the Government's policy. Second, I will be expecting some initiative from the industry itself which will suggest an orderly marketing organization structure.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. John Gamble (York North):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Justice I will direct my question to the Prime Minister, who will know that the Supreme Court of Canada has been urged by counsel representing the federal Government to disallow some 4,500 laws passed by the Province of Manitoba since 1890. The issue with respect to the legality or lack of it in connection with the laws of Manitoba was referred to the Supreme Court of Canada by the federal Government, for an opinion of the Court, within six weeks of the decision by the Government of Manitoba to abandon its plan to amend its constitution to extend constitutional language rights to the Franco-Manitobans.
Today a group from the Province of Quebec, representing the Quebec Federation of Home and School Associations, is in Ottawa for the purpose of urging upon the federal Government a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada of the constitutionality of some 31 provisions of Bill 101.
These people have waited some five and a half years to get on the regular Supreme Court docket in Quebec regarding the issues with which they are concerned. Is the Government of the Prime Minister concerned with protecting only certain kinds of minority rights in this country, that is to say, minority rights as they affect French-speaking Canadians? If it is not, why will the Government not take the step of referring the offensive provisions of Bill 101-which offends some 800,000 English-speaking Canadians in the Province of Quebec-to the Supreme Court of Canada?

June 12, 1984
Oral Questions


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I personally have some concern that it is taking so long to get this matter before the courts of Quebec, where the matter should properly be dealt with. As the Hon. Member would know, I have no authority over the administration of justice in the running of the rolls in the courts of Quebec, nor does this Government. However, I do hope some way will be found to have these cases brought to trial much sooner.
This being said, Mr. Speaker, I believe there is a difference between the two situations. The Hon. Member tries to draw a parallel between the actions of the Government in both cases. I would point out to him that when the courts in Quebec and in Canada decided that certain Sections of Bill 101 were ultra vires, the day after the decision the Government of Quebec righted those wrongs by rendering official the laws in both languages which had been proclaimed only in one language. In other words, when the courts rendered a decision the Quebec Government-for all my disagreement with it-acted immediately to conform with the courts. Therefore I think the people of Quebec who have wrongs and can have them righted by the courts will see a Government which respects the courts. Unfortunately, that is not what happened in Manitoba, as the Hon. Member knows.
The Supreme Court in 1979 declared ultra vires the laws adopted in one language only by Manitoba since 1890. The Government of that province did not do what the Government of Quebec did; it did not right that wrong, it let it live on.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S POWERS
John Albert Gamble: Mr. Speaker, that sounds very nice, with the exception of a couple of matters. To begin with, in asking what the Government might do, I provided the solution to that in my original question. What the Government might do is refer immediately the issue of the offensive provisions of Bill 101 to the Supreme Court of Canada.
With respect to the issues which are of concern to many people, the language of business in the Province of Quebec is an issue which directly conflicts with the trade and commerce power of the federal Government under the 1867 Constitution. If the Prime Minister wants grounds for dealing with that issue, they lie directly in the federal sphere of influence, as does, indeed, the power of extending English language education rights which his Government brought through by way of constitutional amendment. Bill 101 is in direct conflict with these provisions. For that reason I submit that he has the very best of reasons for referring these matters to the Supreme Court.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this Government has always taken the position that it was better and easier for the courts to judge the law in particular cases-and I have been saying that for 10 or 20 years-rather
than submitting a theoretical proposition to them. When things can be brought to justice by applying to the courts by the public sector, or by individual litigants, in many cases, as the Hon. Member knows, we assist them with funds. When that is possible, that is the preferred course. That is the course preferred not only by the lawyers but by the courts themselves. They are judging on specific cases.
The Hon. Member should know that in the case of Bill 101 we have assisted many litigants in Quebec in seeking justice, and they obtained justice and redress all the way through the courts. The one exception is this case which has taken five years. I have already said that I regret that, and that I did not see an immediate redress to it. However, when you have the contra case, when litigants in Manitoba obtained, as Mr. Forest did in 1979, a favourable judgment and when the Legislature does not act to redress the injustice because its Members want to drag it out, or act in particular cases and so on, then this is indeed a case for reference.
I would point out to the Hon. Member that in our reference on Manitoba we referred not only Section 23 but Section 133, which is the Section which applies to Quebec and Canada. Since there seems to be some doubt in the minds of the Manitoba Government-I should say the Manitoba Opposition-which prevented the redress from being granted by the Manitoba Government, which Government attempted to grant redress and correct the injustice which the courts had recognized and this was prevented by the bell-ringing incidents of the Tory Opposition in Manitoba. Since this appeared to be the attitude, we said that we needed a more general decision, not a decision for each specific case.
The Hon. Member should understand that Mr. Forest won his case and nothing came of it. Then there was the Bilodeau case. If this is won, presumably nothing would be done with it either. What could happen is that a hundred cases would come forward and nothing would ever happen. Therefore, we want a general statement on the law in Manitoba. That statement is the one which we are now pleading for in the courts.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SERVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier today I noticed, for the first time since I have been in this House, a group of hearing impaired individuals in the public galleries who also had available to them a sign interpreter provided through the good offices of the Speaker. I would like to congratulate you on that, Mr. Speaker.
I would also like to take this opportunity to suggest that you give consideration to the installation in the House of a loop system which would help those individuals who are required to wear a hearing aid device in order to listen to the proceedings
June 12, 1984

in the House. I would hope that the Speaker would take that under consideration.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Robert Daudlin (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the second report of the Special Committee on Visible Minorities in both official languages. If the House would give its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the report later this day.


HEALTH, WELFARE AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS-SECOND AND THIRD REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. David Weatherhead (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the second and third reports of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs in both official languages.


AGRICULTURE-FOURTH AND FIFTH REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Claude Tessier (Megantic-Compton-Stanstead):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the Fourth and Fifth Reports of the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
[Editor's Note: For above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


BILINGUALISM
Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table under the provisions of Standing Order 46(2) copies in both official languages of a letter which I have sent to Premier Davis of Ontario concerning minority language rights in the province. Given the nature of the correspondence, I wonder if I could ask for the consent of the House to have this letter printed as an appendix to this day's Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the usual practice and tradition with respect to these matters is that there is prior consultation. I would be glad to take the
Petitions
matter under advisement and we could possibly deal with it later. I have not been apprised of any suggestions.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I am quite happy to have the request of the Prime Minister accommodated, but the courtesies of the House, regardless of whether the matter is a serious one or a trivial one, should be observed. If this House is to perform its function properly, I would appreciate having the House Leader consult with me.


PETITIONS
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of citizens who are expressing serious concern in their petition with respect to the fact that the Government has refused to allow for broad public input into the drafting of security legislation by denying cross-country hearings. They express their concern for the fact that the proposed legislation would allow the new security service to target thousands of individuals who have broken no law whatsoever but fall within the sweeping scope of the definition of a threat to the security of Canada. They call for full and extensive public hearings across Canada and that the Bill not be proceeded with before such hearings have taken place. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from a number of constituents of mine. The petition states that the family is essential to the well-being of society and it urges on the Government that any amendment to Bill C-10 consider very carefully the implications of obtaining an easy divorce by not allowing enough time for a cooling off period. This would detrimentally affect the family unit and any children which may be involved.


Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 71 I have the honour to present a petition of 1,197 residents of the constituency of Parkdale-High Park and other regions 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, which humbly sheweth that the undersigned citizens strongly support the hunger strike staged by three Polish Canadians, and urges the Canadian Government to help the spouses and children of the strikers to join them in Canada. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

June 12, 1984
Petitions


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions to present to the House today. The first petition to the honourable the House of Commons in Parliament assembled relates to the proposed security legislation. The petitioner, a resident of Ottawa, indicates that the proposed Bill poses a profound threat to the civil liberties and privacy of all Canadians. It grants sweeping new powers to the security service, including the power to open first-class mail, target foreign visitors, break and enter and steal, to examine income tax records, medical records, and all other confidential materials.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to demand full and extensive public hearings across Canada on the proposed Bill to establish a civilian security service and that the Bill not be proceeded with before such hearings have taken place. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
I have another petition signed by a resident of Ottawa with respect to the proposed security legislation, expressing concern about the unreasonable closure of debate in committee and at second reading. It notes that the Bill poses a profound threat to the civil liberties and privacy of all Canadians in that, despite the strong recommendation of the McDonald Commission, the committee refused to provide for any parliamentary oversight committee to prevent the service from becoming a political weapon in the hands of the government of the day.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call on Parliament to demand full and extensive public hearings across Canada on the proposed Bill to establish a civilian security service,and that the Bill not be proceeded with before such hearings have taken place. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
I have the honour to present a petition signed by a resident of Ottawa who is expressing concern, as have the previous petitioners, with respect to the-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the Hon. Member tabling a petition signed by a single individual?


An Hon. Member:: That is what he said.


Mr. Speaker:: If the Hon. Member intends to proceed with a series of petitions signed by single individuals, I suggest he might be able to indicate the general nature of such communications and provide them in summary form to the House.


Svend Johannes Robinson: My understanding of the rules is that the petition need not be signed by more than one individual. Certainly I am proceeding in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House.


Mr. Evans:: Who was it signed by? Svend Robinson?


Mr. Speaker:: If the Hon. Member has a series of petitions dealing with the same subject matter, he might be able to indicate the general nature of the subject matter.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I know that the Chair would not in any way want to impair the right of citizens of this country to petition the House of Commons. In accordance with long-standing precedent, which I certainly would be pleased to cite if the Speaker is in any doubt as to procedural acceptability, I am proposing to present a petition to the honourable the House of Commons in Parliament assembled which, as do the previous petitions and others, Mr. Speaker-because there is a great deal of public concern with respect to the subject matter of the petitions I am presenting-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member cannot make a speech. I have invited him to indicate the general subject matter and file his documents. I am well aware that if the Hon. Member is going through the device of presenting documents signed by individuals and citing at great length the nature of the communication, this can be a very time-consuming procedure indeed, if that is his objective. But I invite the Hon. Member to indicate the nature of the communications, summarize them, and file them with the Clerk.


Svend Johannes Robinson: I know the Speaker would not want to impute motives to any Member of this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Svend Johannes Robinson: I am presenting a petition to the honourable the House of Commons in Parliament assembled. The petitioner in question is expressing grave concern with respect to the proposed security legislation, in particular that it would deny access by the proposed Security Intelligence Review Committee and the Inspector General to Cabinet documents in possession of the security service, making this-


Mr. Speaker:: If the Hon. Member has a series of petitions dealing with the security legislation, he might indicate the general subject matter without repeating or reading essentially the same material time afer time to the House.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I certainly was not repeating the material. This was a petition relating to one particular concern of the petitioner with respect to the process of review which is contemplated. I certainly had not dealt with that prior to this time. I will summarize, however. The petitioner, in light of the concern expressed, is calling for full and extensive hearings to deal with that concern. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
I have the honour to present a petition from a concerned resident of the Ottawa area with respect to the long-established, ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance. This individual wishes this grievance to be brought to the attention of this House with respect to the proposed security legislation. The petitioner notes that despite the fact the security service opened files on almost one million Canadians, the Bill would allow the new service to target thousands of individuals who have broken no law whatsoever but who fall within the sweeping scope of the definitions in the Bill. It also
June 12, 1984

refers to some of the sweeping new powers proposed in the legislation.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioner, humbly prays and calls upon Parliament to demand full and extensive public hearings with respect to the concerns raised in the petition and asks that the Bill not be proceeded with before such proceedings have taken place and these concerns are addressed. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Blaine Allen Thacker: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Was the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Footh-ills (Mr. Thacker) rising on a point of order?


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that you ought not to be fooled under the rules. The Liberal Party West is forcing the Government to bring in time allocation, thereby giving the Government the out. That is how the NDP, the Liberal Party West, is going to hurt the people in the west through this obnoxious strategy.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, because the Conservative Party was hand in glove with the Liberal Party in committee on this legislation, I can understand why the-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Just a minute. You go too far.


Svend Johannes Robinson: -Hon. Member is somewhat sensitive on this question. The fact that the Conservative Party stood idly by while the Government attempted to ram this Bill through committee is good reason for the sensitivity, Mr. Speaker.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saskatoon West rises on a point of order.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I do not mind the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) reading petitions, but when he tells untruths in the House I think you should be interceding. It is not argument now. We are dealing with petitions. He is making a dissertation about what happened in the committee which he knows is patently false.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member for Burnaby, who seeks to be recognized on petitions, confine himself to petitions?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Precisely. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I was responding to my colleague from Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker).
I have the honour to present a petition to the honourable the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled with respect to the concern on the part of the petitioner about the proposed security legislation. The Government has refused to allow for broad public output by denying cross-country hear-
Petitions
ings and has raised concerns with respect to the scope of the potential targeting of the legislation.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member obviously has a series of petitions all requesting public hearings. Could he indicate the number of petitions and file them with the Clerk?


Svend Johannes Robinson: He cannot deny the right for a petition, for Heaven's sake.


Mr. Speaker:: I invite the Hon. Member to indicate the number of petitions in his hand and to file them with the Clerk. They all appear to deal with the security legislation. They all appear to have the object of asking for public hearings on the Bill. The Hon. Member may have the intention to consume a considerable amount of the time of the House on this matter. In the interest of saving time, which I am sure is his concern as it is everyone else's, I invite him simply to indicate the number of petitions he has and to file them. Is the Hon. Member prepared to do so?


Ian Deans: No. Point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) rises on a point of order.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I am rather puzzled by your request. I am assuming that you are asking the Member if he would care to do that. I can appreciate, as you do, that within the rules he is entitled, in fact honour bound, to present petitions in one of two ways. He can present them, as you have indicated, by filing them with the Clerk. However, he can also rise in his place and present the petitions orally from his place in the House of Commons. He has the choice. It is not the choice of anyone else; it is his choice which way he chooses to present the petitions. I am sure Your Honour is not suggesting to him that he must accede to a request to do it in either of the two ways. He is entitled to do it either way he pleases.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point. It is true that you also have the responsibility of making sure that there is order in the House. I submit very respectfully that it is the duty of the Speaker to make sure that no one wastes the time of the House and makes a joke out of Parliament the way the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) is trying to do now.
Standing Order 71(1) reads:
A petition to the House may be presented by a Member at any time during the sitting of the House by filing the same with the Clerk of the House.
Of course the Hon. Member has this option. However, since he seems to prefer to delay, obstruct and waste the time of the House, he takes advantages of the paragraph to read the same type of petition, to use the time of the House and to prevent us from reaching Orders of the Day and debating a most important Bill. There are a lot of people here in the galleries who are witnessing this childish tactic and lack of respect for Parliament. There are even more people watching on television the dilatory tactics of the NDP on this legislation.

Petitions
We have spent months debating this Bill on second reading. We have spent weeks debating this Bill clause by clause in committee. We are now willing to devote a reasonable length of time to debate this Bill at its final stages. The NDP have chosen to obstruct. The way that they have done it this morning and are trying to do it now is simply unacceptable and disrespectful of Parliament. I submit that you are absolutely right, Mr. Speaker, to intervene at this stage, to plead for order of the House, and to assume your responsibilities and ask that the Hon. Member do the honourable thing, and that is table his petitions according to Standing Order 71(1).


Ian Deans: Point of Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I will cite to the House Citation 339 of Beauchesne:
While a member may, if he desires, present a petition in his place in the House during routine proceedings and before the introduction of Bills, the general practice is to present petitions by filing the same with the Clerk of the House.
That is the general practice. It has been the general practice of the House. At this stage I am inviting the Hon. Member to file the remaining petitions with the Clerk of the House.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, what was the citation to which you referred? I have Beauchesne's Citation 339 in front of me. It does not relate to petitions.


Mr. Speaker:: I am citing from the Fourth Edition of Beauchesne.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you would be kind enough to refer me to the section in the Fifth Edition of Beauchesne in order that I can follow it. I do not have the Fourth Edition.


Yvon Pinard: It is on the Table.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is under no obligation to cite another edition. The Chair is citing the Fourth Edition of Beauchesne, Citation 339, page 259, which is a practice observed in the House for a long time. In the circumstances, the Chair is calling Introduction of Bills.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Introduction of Bills.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Point of order.


Mr. Hovdebo:: Point of order.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I invite the Hon. Member for Burnaby to resume his seat.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I invite the Hon. Member for Burnaby to resume his seat.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Point of order. I have a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I have heard the Hon. Member on points of order and I have heard his House Leader on points of order.


Svend Johannes Robinson: This is a new point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I will hear him for the last time on a point of order relating to this matter.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, thank you for letting me present the point of order. I cite Beauchesne's Citation 692 which refers to petitions. Citation 692 has in fact superseded Beauchesne's Citation 339 which was referred to by the Speaker previously. Beauchesne's Citation 692 is different in substance from Citation 339 and reads as follows:
While a Member may, if he desires, present a petition from his place in the House during Routine Proceedings and before the Introduction of Bills, he may also present his petition by filing it with the Clerk of the House.
I emphasize "may". Mr. Speaker, that is fundamentally different from the citation which the Speaker referred to previously, that is, Citation 339 which refers to some alleged general practice which clearly had fallen into disuse.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member cannot reflect on a ruling of the Chair.


Ian Deans: Point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Standing Orders have not changed-


Ian Deans: Point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain resume his seat, please?


Ian Deans: Point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member please resume his seat? The Standing Orders of the House of Commons have not changed in this matter since the Fourth and Fifth Editions of Beauchesne's.


Svend Johannes Robinson: They have so. It reads differently.


Mr. Speaker:: The Standing Orders of the House of Commons have not changed on this matter since the Fourth and Fifth Editions of Beauchesne's.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Beauchesne's has changed.


Mr. Speaker:: The fact remains that the wording may have changed a little bit. In the circumstances there is still an obligation on the Chair to preserve the orderly conduct of House business. In the circumstances, the Chair now calls for introduction of Bills.
June 12, 1984


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister of State (Finance)) moved: the first reading of Bill S-14 (from the Senate), an Act to implement a convention between Canada and the United States with respect to taxes on income and on capital.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read a second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



VISIBLE MINORITIES


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent and without debate, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Verdun-Saint Paul (Mr. Savard), that the second report of the Special Committee on Visible Minorities presented to the House earlier this day be concurred in.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has consulted with us with respect to what is in essence an extension of the life of the Committee on Visible Minorities until the end of June or until the next election, whichever should occur first. Naturally we would not want to stand in the way of that kind of motion. Therefore, we give unanimous consent.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the antagonistic attitude of the House Leader for the Government, we will also give unanimous consent.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 414, 437, 469, 476, and 539.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Howie: 1.	Will tenders be called for the construction of the Combat Arms School Training Centre at CFB Gagetown, Oromocto, New Brunswick and, if so, on what date?
2.	What is the present status of planning for the project?
3.	Were outside consultants, architects, or planners engaged and, if so, what (a) are their names (b) amount was allocated for their services?


Stanley Hudecki: 1. Subject to Treasury Board approval it is planned that tenders be called in July, 1985.
2.	A functional program of the space usage relative to the Centre's curriculum, has been completed. A master implementation plan is now being prepared which will govern further design and construction.
3.	(a) Architects Four Limited of Moncton, N.B. (b) Estimated cost-$795,000.


Mr. Howie: On January 1, 1984 were any Department of National Defence construction or development projects in New Brunswick and, if so, what were they?


Stanley Hudecki: Yes. (a) CFB Gagetown-small arms range, (b) CFB Gagetown-combat training centre, (c) CFB Chatham-directorate of pay services relocation, (d) CFB Gagetown-tank wash facility.


Mr. Howie: On December 31, 1983 were any Class C and Class B Reserve Force personnel employed by the Department of National Defence at CFB Gagetown and, if so, how many?


Stanley Hudecki: Yes. (a) Class "C" employment-11,
(b)	Class "B" employment-22.


Mr. Howie: Are any United States military personnel expected to train at Canadian Forces Base Gagetown in the summer and fall of 1984 and, if so (a) how many (b) how many civilian personnel will be employed, during the same period, to accommodate any increased demand on facilities?


Stanley Hudecki: Yes, (a) 3,700, (b) None.

June 12, 1984
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Howie: Are renovations contemplated or under way at the new Combat Arms Training Centre at Canadian Forces Base Gagetown and, if so (a) on what date will they be completed (b) at what estimated cost?


Stanley Hudecki: Yes. (a) Subject to Treasury Board approval, the construction completion date is estimated to be late 1987. (b) Preliminary cost estimate is $49M.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred question No. 702?


Mr. Hopkins: 1.	Did the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation assign additional equipment and personnel to be available for special reporting of events anticipated to occur on or about February 22, 1984, in Ottawa and, if so, (a) for what reason (b) at what cost (c) in making its decision, did the Corporation consult any person in a position to give advice as to the possibility of the anticipated events taking place and, if so, whom (d) who authorized the assignment?
2.	Will the Corporation consider making available to its news services an amount equal to that mentioned in part I?


Mr. Jack Burghardt (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1.	(a) Those responsible for CBC television News and Current Affairs on both the English and French Networks made special arrangements; including, where necessary, the assignment of additional equipment and personnel, in order to be prepared in the event of a major story such as the resignation of the Prime Minister.
(b)	With regard to the costs involved, it has not been customary for Parliament to require the Corporation to provide such details of its internal management and administration as specific program costs. The background to this custom is explained in detail in the reply to question No. 2530, tabled November 6, 1975.
(c)	Yes, several sources were consulted, and, as well, patterns and scheduling of public events and appearances were analyzed. Editorial sources are confidential.
(d)	The executive producers of the programs involved.
2.	Coverage of the events was handled from existing program budgets and, in the case of the major news specials, from network contingency funds.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



POINT OF ORDER


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I rise with some trepidation, but I rise nevertheless to ask you to consider a matter that I think is of vital importance for the orderly conduct of the House of Commons.
I draw to your attention, Sir, the Fifth Edition of Beau-chesne. In the Preface we find the following:
Twenty years have now lapsed since Arthur Beauchesne published his Fourth Edition. With the extensive amendments to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons in 1968, the procedural advice offered by his book soon became outdated. In this regard, we decided to update and revise Beauchesne's work.
You are aware, Sir, as I am that the Fifth Edition of Beauchesne was written in 1978, which would now make it some six years old. That means it is 26 years since the Fourth Edition of Beauchesne's was written. It was written to reflect both the Standing Orders and the practices of the time preceding 26 years ago.
In the Fifth Edition of Beauchesne, written some 20 years later, changes were made. It has been the practice in this House, at least since 1980, to refer, when making rulings or when providing background for rulings, to the Fifth Edition of Beauchesne the reason being that the Fifth Edition dealt with until now, and continues to deal with, the most up to date Standing Orders and procedures.
I find it passing strange that on this occasion we should make use of an edition of Beauchesne which is clearly out of date and which has fallen into disuse I would ask, Mr. Speaker, without questioning the motive or without in any way questioning the right of the Speaker to make rulings, that the Speaker review the proceedings which brought about the reference to the Fourth Edition of Beauchesne and note the difference in interpretation contained in the Fourth Edition from that contained in the Fifth Edition. In addition, I ask that you recognize that under normal practice in the House of Commons reference has been only to the Fifth Edition, except in cases where there was no clear indication in the Fifth Edition of the matter which was in dispute before the House, and that we get an understanding as to which edition of Beauchesne we are supposed to use for reference purposes.
Concerning the House Leader for the Government and his participation in the proceedings, I would urge upon you to consider that he took more time to make his argument against what we were doing than we took in doing what we were doing.


John Leslie Evans: Nonsense.
June 12, 1984


Ian Deans: The fact that the Government is up-tight and the Table is giving bad advice to the Chair ought not to put the Chair in an embarrassing position.


Mr. Speaker:: In reply to the Hon. Member, the Chair would state that we have changed neither the Standing Orders nor the practice relating-


Ian Deans: We have changed the book.


Mr. Speaker:: We have not changed as far as petitions are concerned. We often use earlier editions of procedural manuals, including Bourinot published in 1916. As far as the Chair is concerned, the practice relating to petitions in this House has not changed in the period between the Fourth and the Fifth Editions of Beauchesne.
The Chair quoted the Fourth Edition of Beauchesne, being, in the opinion of the Chair, a more careful and considered statement of the practice of the House and more relevant to the issue before us.
In the circumstances, the Chair has made a decision regarding the presentation of petitions and procedures that, in the judgment of the Chair, bordered upon a threat to the orderly conduct of the business of this House.
Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed 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).
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, when we adjourned at one o'clock I was pointing out that Canadians knew very little about the activities of the security service until the then Corporal Samson of the Security Section of the RCMP was involved in an attempted bombing during which he injured himself. When he was brought to trial he blurted out that what he had done was something that was done quite frequently by the security service in conducting its operations.


Mr. Lambert:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In the past I have drawn to the attention of the Chair that report stage debate or even third reading debate, when there have been no amendments put in committee which are being changed by the Government or when there are no notices of amendments on the Order Paper, starts within 48 hours after
Security Intelligence Service
the presentation of the Chairman's report. However, there is no proper printed record of the evidence as put forward before the committee, of the discussions which took place therein, available to Hon. Members of the House. If there is one thing which has to be done, if committee work is to mean anything, it is that Hon. Members have the full evidence of what went on before the committee.
The Chair has allowed the debate to start and, with the greatest respect, the Chair is responsible for the administration and the services to Members. It is the Chair's responsibility to ensure, through the administration, that all Hon. Members of the House have copies of the printed evidence of any committee hearing which forms part of a chairman's report. Unless that is done it is an abuse, and I say a transgression, of the privileges of Hon. Members of the House.
As a matter of fact, upon reflection, I would think that I am speaking more on a point of privilege than on a point of order because I am prevented from participating in this debate as are all Hon. Members unless they happen to be the chairman of the committee who has a copy of the rough "blues" of the evidence as taken before the committee. Therefore, we cannot do our work properly. I do not know what went on in that committee. Even the press does not know what went on in that committee. Therefore, I suggest that it is improper at this stage to take part in this debate without the administration of the House bringing forward the record of the evidence before the committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The Chair has well received the point made by the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and appreciates it. Of course, the Chair is in no position at this stage to ascertain whether the allegation is true or false. The Chair has every intention of investigating it. Debate at the present time is continuing, and while it continues the Chair will take the matter under advisement and report as quickly as possible.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I should not question the Chair-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The Hon. Member must have an additional point of order. On an additional point of order, the Hon. Member for Edmonton West.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, the additional point is that if this is an abuse of privileges and the debate continues while a routine administrative inquiry, shall we say, is made, then that is a further abuse of the privilege of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: It should be abundantly apparent to the Hon. Member that the Chair at the present time has no way of telling whether his allegations are true or false. When a debate such as this is continuing, there is no way that the Chair can stop debate in order to find out whether what the Member said is true or false. The matter will be taken under advisement and we will let the House know as quickly as possible what has been found out by the Chair.
4592

June 12, 1984
Security Intelligence Service


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, following the testimony given by Corporal Samson, a large number of questions were directed by all Parties in the House to the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) and to the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan), questions which they were unable to answer. This led to the appointment of the McDonald Commission. The commission took four years to travel across the country and take evidence from scores of people. It cost the people of Canada several million dollars. It found, and so reported, that members of the security service had been guilty of wrongdoing and breaking the law. There has been instances of barn burning, break and entry, theft of dynamite, opening of mail, and theft of a membership list of a legitimate political Party, the Parti Quebecois.
I would just like to discuss that for a moment. I am opposed to separatism, whether it be in Alberta, Quebec or any other province. As long as we live in a democratic society, people will have the right to advocate separatism or anything else. What happened is that that Party, which believed in separatism, won an election, but not because of separatism. It held a very soft referendum which could not carry. According to the polls, it is now facing virtual extinction. The democratic process is working very well. Is there any reason for the security service or anyone else having the right to steal the membership list of any political Party? That is what was done.
This Bill legitimizes and makes legal all kinds of violations of the law which took place before the McDonald Commission held its hearings, violations which were planned at the highest level of the security service. They were probably-at least I hope so-hidden from the Ministers who were then in office. They are now condoned and even made acceptable and legal by the Bill.
I indicated when I began my remarks that I accepted the reality that Canada like any other country must have a security service. However, the powers given to a security service should be those which are necessary to meet the real security needs of the country. There need to be safeguards in the legislation to reduce and if necessary to permit the redress of any abuses of these powers.
It is being implied, because we are opposing this Bill, that somehow we are all alone, that somehow we are wrong and that we are just a bunch of kooks. As I indicated earlier, a host of organizations, churches, community groups, the attorneys general of the provinces and civil liberties associations have pointed out what is wrong with the Bill as it is today. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association believes that the powers the Bill would create are excessive and that the safeguards which it would adopt are inadequate. It pointed out that there was little or no attempt to gear the investigative response to the magnitude of the threat, and that virtually anything which falls within the wide definitions could justify virtually any surveillance techniques. It went on to indicate:
Under Bill C-157, the new security and intelligence agency will have far too much intrusive snooping power-electronic bugging, surreptitious searches, mail opening, and invasion of confidential records.
In common with the Official Secrets Act and the 1975 mandate, Bill C-157 would permit such intrusive surveillance techniques to be used for "activities directed toward" certain types of security related misconduct.
What is the scope of these words? Mr. Borovoy, general counsel to the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, indicated just yesterday that Canadians who raise money for the rebels in El Salvador, South Africa or Afghanistan could find their conversations bugged and homes surreptitiously searched under Canada's proposed federal security legislation. We could add to that list. I am sure some of the activities of the Sikh communities in Canada in opposition to recent happenings in India could be misinterpreted by our security service. It has demonstated again and again little sophistication or real understanding of legitimate protest movements. A group of Canadians of Jewish descent who support the Government of Israel or a group of Canadians of Lebanese descent who support some of the activities in Lebanon could be included in this list.
In my remaining time I should like to point out to the Minister that the Canadian Civil Liberties Association put before the committee which dealt with the Bill 21 concrete proposals or amendments that it thought the Bill would need before it would be acceptable. As far as I know, not one of those was accepted by the Minister. As usual, he demonstrated his completely slavish, unthinking support of the bureaucrats in his Department. For that reason I have no hesitation in opposing this Bill.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative Party apparently supports this Bill. It is not willing to put up speakers. In fact, there are very few Members of that Party here to debate or to listen. In view of the long debate on the two Bills, Bill C-157 and this Bill, this debate is particularly important. Those of us who were not involved in the committee structure appreciate the opportunity to put this Bill in its historical perspective. I therefore ask your indulgence for a moment.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) just said that the Progressive Conservative Party supports this Bill. She knows well that we have had speakers up since eleven o'clock this morning. She also knows that we voted against every part of this Bill in committee. For her to continue saying this is a flagrant disregard of the truth. That should be considered a question of privilege of all Members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: I would very much like to, but I am afraid I do not, consider it a question of privilege. Rather, it is a point of debate. The point has been made.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope that the Hon. Member who just spoke will see that the Conservative Members will speak to these points.


John Allen Fraser: Where were you this morning?
June 12, 1984


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Only one Member of our Party is allowed to sit on the Justice Committee which considered this Bill. The rest of us would like to hear what points the Progressive Conservatives wish to make. I do not know because-


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member continues to ask where the Conservative Party is on this. Apparently she was not here this morning and has had no reports from the committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Once again that is not a point of order but a point of debate.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Surely the point is that the Tories have the right to speak this afternoon and they are not putting up any speakers. For them to suggest that somehow the proceedings-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: It is entirely within the rights of any Member to speak or to stay silent as he or she wishes.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I think your remarks indicate that the Progressive Conservatives have chosen not to speak. I would point out to the previous speaker that I was in the Chamber this morning. I did not hear any of the speakers seriously state their objections.


John Allen Fraser: I dealt with all the amendments, Margaret. Get the cotton out of your ears.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, I would like to summarize the historical context which led up to the present irresponsible and deplorable Bill. It is really important that we look at the history of RCMP wrongdoings, the McDonald Commission recommendations, and Bill C-157, which was even worse than the present Bill, Bill C-9.
In 1976, the RCMP criminal wrongdoings in Quebec became a matter of national concern. These were documented in 1977 by the McDonald Commission which criticized severely the illegal acts undertaken by members of the security force of the RCMP. The McDonald Commission concluded that there had been widespread institutional law breaking by members of the security service. Most Canadians had been really proud of our national police force, the RCMP. They were shocked at that time to learn of these undercover activities, which we never dreamed would ever take place in Canada.
Even worse is the fact that once the McDonald Commission had revealed these wrongdoings, the Government did not take disciplinary action except in a few minor cases. It appeared that the Government was protecting the RCMP and even condoning such acts. Canadian laws, which must apply to all Canadians, including members of the RCMP, were ignored.
The McDonald Commission recommended that a civilian security service be established. However, it was clear that it did not intend a security service similar to that proposed in Bill C-9. I am sure the commission would be very concerned that Bill C-9 proposes a private spy agency which can do almost
Security Intelligence Service
anything. It will have inadequate safeguards with respect to oversight. There will be no control over its powers.
The first attempt by the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) was a very negative attempt to do something about a separate security service. That was Bill C-157, which was totally inadequate. It was a complete embarrassment to the Government and should have been to that Minister. I do not see why he was not forced to resign. The Minister did not bring this back to Parliament. He allowed the Senate to revise it. The Senate Liberal appointees disregarded much of what was in that Bill and went back to the McDonald Commission recommendations.
In developing both Bills, the Government completely disregarded the reports and criticisms of experts in the whole field of civil liberties, as mentioned repeatedly by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). Bill C-9 gives sweeping powers to interfere in civil liberties. It lacks proper oversight and accountability. We strongly object to the establishment of such a new civilian spy agency which has special powers to open mail, wiretap, and make surreptious entry into homes and offices of Canadians, even those who have not broken the law. The proposed agency will have the power to use confidential personal information, government records, doctor's records and so on. As my colleague said this morning, the only exemption will be Stats Canada.
I am opposed to this Bill personally as well as in my capacity as a member of the New Democratic Party. I am opposed as a professional social worker as well as a Member of Parliament. I wish to take a moment to give some examples from this profession. The application of this Bill respecting the security police service such as this Bill proposes is completely in conflict with professional ethics and the democratic concepts of confidentiality as espoused by the Canadian Association of Social Workers and by professional social workers.
All too often poor people are victims of government institutions. Many times they feel intimidated and not protected in their rights. However, this Bill will go much further. Innocent people, particularly those registered with social service agencies because they are required to seek social assistance, who have the guts and the courage to oppose some of what they are experiencing, those who fight for welfare rights, for example, are likely to be photographed, if they are not already, by the RCMP. They will likely be victimized even more as a result of this Bill.
We know that unemployed people who are on social assistance and who, for example, are involved in protesting poverty, unemployment and the cutbacks that are being experienced, particularly in British Columbia, are likely to be suspect. If they organize welfare rights groups and advocacy groups and become more militant in demanding decent incomes, their activities are likely to be documented. If they dared to question the reasons for poverty, reasons which definitely involve the Government, and perhaps even use violent language, they will indeed be suspect even further. If they become militant enough

June 12, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
to get involved in civil disobedience as a form of protest against injustices, we know that their activities will be documented.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but her time has expired.


Mr.   de Jong@: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if you could report to the House whether or not your investigation concerning the point of order raised by the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has been completed and whether or not the transcripts are available to Members of the House. I was not a member of the committee, and in preparing my notes and thoughts for the debate, the transcripts would certainly be helpful to me.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please. Order. The Chair has taken the necessary steps to verify the question. The initial indications may be that the material is available. We must wait a few more minutes for verification before I can make a ruling on that point of order.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Two members of the New Democratic Party have now been heard. We would certainly welcome the participation of members of the Conservative Party in this debate if they wish to rise at this point.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The Chair has already indicated that it is entirely up to the individual Members to decide whether or not they wish to speak. Is there anyone else who wishes to participate in the debate?


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, if the Tories are really serious about their opposition to this Bill, I think that they should be making the public aware of their position. I am the third member of the New Democratic Party in a row who has risen to make a speech. Although we welcome the opportunity to get our point across, we would like to make this a serious debate by having someone from the Government and someone from the Opposition make their views on this Bill known.
The foundation of the Canadian judicial system is the rule of law. The bottom line of this system is that the law must apply to all Canadians, whether or not they are members of a security service. I consider myself to be a layman in the area addressed by this particular piece of legislation, so my point of view is really the point of view of a layman. Perhaps that view from the street is the approach we need to take when dealing with this particular legislation.
The first concern of most citizens is that we protect ourselves from an insurrection. When hearing of insurrections in other parts of the world, many of us have said that such a thing could not happen in Canada. I spent a number of years living in an African country that had been through a civil war and a couple of coups. I must say that the people who lived in that country had the tendency to say: "It cannot happen here". But it did happen there and it can happen here. In fact, it happened in that particular country more than once.
The country to which I just referred considered itself to be a democracy. Democracy can be undermined by the very institutions which are intended to protect it. Therefore, it becomes exceedingly important that we as parliamentarians control the forces that are necessary to protect our democracy. If we do not make the kind of laws that will protect our democracy, not only from without but from within, we will be entering into an unacceptable situation. We must carefully structure the security service of which we are speaking today in such a way that it will protect us not only from insurrection from outside the country but also from the kind of tyranny which is possible from within the country.
I do not think anyone disputes the need to be watchful. However, we must be sure that the structure we put in place does not itself create the circumstances under which there may be a possible insurgence. Over thousands of years, history has told us that there is such a danger. For instance, I wonder if the German SS did not begin as a secret service which was considered necessary and in fact good. I know that people say that Germany was a fascist country at the time but it did not start out that way. In 1933, Hitler was elected and later became a dictator. Germany was a democracy in 1933.
Power can very easily be institutionalized. The secret service or the security force can become a tyrant that thinks what it does is right and thinks that it has the power to do whatever it wishes. Back a few years ago, we were worried about the involvement of the RCMP security force in a number of criminal wrongdoings. It seems that the McDonald Commission report put forward some recommendations to solve the problem for us. However, the problem was not solved.
After the McDonald Commission report, the Government brought forward Bill C-157, a Bill which was intended to put in place a civilian security force which would not have the powers we thought the RCMP had and which would not do the kind of things that the RCMP had been doing. As my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell), has said, that Bill was so bad that even the most lamb-like Liberal was aghast. The Bill died after receiving a devastating critique from the committee in the other place.
The Government then brought forward Bill C-9, a Bill which might possibly be a little bit better than Bill C-157. However, it still gives police state powers to the civilian security force. Under those circumstances, we are better off with the RCMP because the RCMP has a reputation across the country and has a contact with the public that a civilian force will never have. Consequently, it operates as a police force which is widely respected and loved across the country. If we are going to put into the hands of the civilian force powers which are unacceptable, without control or oversight by Parliament, then we are much better off with the RCMP security force. That is not to say that a civilian force is not what we really need, but at least under the old structure we were dealing with a group about which we knew.
June 12, 1984

When we look at the Bill, we must measure it against an objective standard. That standard can be explained in two very simple statements: First, does the Bill protect the individual rights and liberties of citizens? Second, in the process of operation, does the Bill have some kind of accountability to the political forces of this country-to the Parliament of Canada? In both cases, unfortunately, we must say no.
Bill C-9 was introduced in the House last January and has been discussed off and on since that time. In the next week, as we discuss the Bill we must look at the provisions in the Bill which are unacceptable. We must either eliminate them, or entirely eliminate the Bill. Consequently, our position is that we will not support the Bill as it stands. We will support a civilian force if there are safeguards in the Bill which we think are necessary and, incidentally, which many groups of people across Canada think are necessary. These are groups which have spent a lot more time thinking about and discussing this particular kind of protection than we have in this House.
In conclusion, I would say that it is very necessary that any threat to the security of Canada be balanced with threats to the civil liberties of the citizens of Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: For continuing debate, the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald).


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Before the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) takes the floor, I wonder if there might be a Conservative Member who wishes to take her place. There have been four speakers from the New Democratic Party and we would welcome the intervention of at least one member of the Official Opposition on this important Bill. Perhaps, they are going to let it slide through the House the way they did in committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: On that point of order, which is not a point of order, it is entirely up to Members to decide whether they want to debate that point. The Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) on a point of order.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, on that point of order, you will note that we are dealing with the first motion of the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) which would delete the title of the Bill. They are blocking our right to discuss Clause 2 which deals with definitions; Clause 12 which deals with powers; Clause 16 which deals with the collection of information; Clause 21 which deals with warrants; Clause 30 which deals with the Inspector General; Clause 34-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please. That also is a point of debate. The Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald).


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have watched the debate on Bill C-9 for the last number
Security Intelligence Service
of months with some concern. As well, I am very concerned with the way in which the Government is pushing the legislation through and the extreme reluctance which it has shown in accepting the necessary amendments to curb the unprecedented powers which would be given to the security service if Bill C-9 is passed.

The powers given the Canadian Security Intelligence Service in this legislation are too vast and are unprecedented in our system. The Government will have access to all governmental and private documents, excepting the data of Statistics Canada. For instance, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service will, if this Bill is adopted, be able to enter the offices of doctors, lawyers, priests and ministers, psychologists and private homes. A judge may issue a warrant authorizing the persons to whom it is directed, and I am quoting from the Bill:
(a)	to enter any place or open or obtain access to any thing;
(b)	to search for, remove or return, or examine, take extracts from or make copies of or record in any other manner the information, record, document or thing; or
(c)	to install, maintain or remove any thing.
Perhaps I may note that among all these measures, there is a lack of any sense of proportion.
A person applying for a warrant for instance, to intercept and open mail or install bugging devices, is not obliged to establish the probability that a crime will be committed or the threat of a crime or a real or serious threat to the security of Canada!
Another serious shortcoming of Bill C-9 is the lack of any process of accountability.
The MacDonald Commission proposed that the Service's activities should be controlled by a parliamentary committee. The Bill before the House today gives the appearance of such controls but the powers granted to the parliamentary committee are inadequate. The proposed committee will have no right of access to Cabinet documents. As a result, it will be unable to judge whether or not activities undertaken by the Service are indeed necessary. The Government can always say that the committee does not have the necessary information to understand why interception procedures were carried out.
In other countries, including countries with security problems that are far worse than ours, these parliamentary committees do exist. In the United States and West Germany, parliamentary committees oversee security services, and have access to all information in the possession of these services. [English]
The powers proposed in Bill C-9 are sweeping and unprecedented. Access to all private and government records, with the exception of the census documents of Statistics Canada, is a very modest amendment which was accepted. It was accepted probably for the reason that census records would not be very useful for security purposes. What would be useful are medical and psychological records, income tax returns, legal files,

June 12, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
journalists' notes-the security service could break into any place, home, or doctor's office with a warrant.
The procedures for safeguarding the abuse of warrants are not adequate.
There were over 800 applications last year and not one rejection for a search warrant. The applications allowed the opening of first-class mail.
Despite the McDonald Commission's recommendation that these powers not be used against Canadians who are not engaged in espionage or terrorism, this recommendation was not accepted. The existing security service does not have those powers. When it acted as if it had those powers, it acted illegally. We have the situation that, instead of the Government bringing the security service into line with what is lawful, what it wants to do is to make lawful a whole lot of things which are simply immoral, currently unlawful and contrary to what decent Canadians think we should have as principles for the operation of our security service.
One of the recommendations made by the Pitfield committee, which was rejected by the Government, was that before granting a warrant for intrusive powers, the security service would have to convince a judge that the invasion of privacy was outweighed by the nature of the material to be gained. In other words, there would have to be some proportion. Intrusive measures could only be used for a very serious threat. It could not be used idly. It could not be used for all kinds of activities such as fishing trips and so on which are permitted in Bill C-9 as it is currently drafted.
A judge can authorize the interception of any communication or the obtaining of any information, record, document or thing. The security service may enter any place or open or obtain access to anything; may search for, remove or return, or examine, take extracts from or make copies of or record in any other manner the information; may install, maintain or remove anything. These are enormous powers. They are scandalous powers and totally unacceptable powers. Our Party has fought against these powers initially in the House and then in committee. Voluntary organizations have spoken out against them. Churches are speaking up. We all continue to receive mail from concerned citizens saying that these powers are excessive and that what we are going to end up with is a security service with powers which are totally inappropriate for the task at hand. The irony of it all is that this is a security service which is supposed to protect Canadians, to protect the values we stand for, and it is now to be given powers which will themselves undermine the very things we treasure about Canada, the freedoms we have and the high standard of civil liberties we enjoy in Canada and we want to see protected.
The provisions in Bill C-9 for controls through an Inspector General are really very weak indeed. The Inspector General would be appointed by the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan), so that does not bode very well. The Opposition would be consulted, but that does not necessarily mean there would be any acceptance of any of the advice given. The Inspector General
would be bound by an oath of secrecy. In other words, this is a very internal appointment bound by secrecy and there is absolutely no manner of control over the operations of the security service through the Inspector General.
What we need to have is a parliamentary committee which would be given adequate access to information, with safeguards of course. This is indeed possible. Other countries have shown they can use parliamentary committees and have done so without any threats to their national security. I believe that is a reasonable level of control which we could expect from Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but her time has expired.


Lynn McDonald: Could I have unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, to continue my remarks?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The Hon. Member has requested unanimous consent to continue her remarks. It would require the unanimous consent of all Members present in the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Yvon Pinard: I understand the Hon. Member was about to conclude her remarks, so if it is a matter not exceeding five more minutes, we agree. It is conditional on the fact that it should not exceed five more minutes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: There would appear to be unanimous consent of the House to allow the Hon. Member up to five minutes to conclude her remarks.


Lynn McDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I believe I can conclude in less than five minutes.

Bill C-9 will mark a milestone in our history. For the first time in Canada, the mandate, powers and controls governing the operations of the new Service, with the conditions to which it would be subject, will be established through legislation. It is a laudable step, at least on paper. Unfortunately, the Government cannot be congratulated on the contents of this Bill. If measures to control the Service are inadequate, the principle of legislative controls will not suffice. Principle alone can do nothing. We must have both the principle of legislated controls and adequate measures in the Act.

This is a monstrous piece of legislation. It goes beyond all proportion. The controls for which we have argued and for which concerned citizens of this country have argued, are simply not there. It is very important that the Government listen and accept amendments. It should listen to the wisdom of people who are concerned and who know something about the issue and who are making these points constructively.
We have a number of amendments to bring to this legislation. We very much hope that the Government will accept these amendments. We cannot realistically expect the Govern-
June 12, 1984

ment at this late date to change its mind. However, let us hope that, with the building of public concern, perhaps it will listen. It has certainly been very slow and unresponsive at committee stage, and I can only urge people in the community to speak up forcefully and try to stop this monstrous piece of legislation before it is too late.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap)-Trade (a) Effect of clothing and textile imports. (b) Request that Minister meet industry representatives; the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo)-Regional Development (a) Workers' cooperatives-Request for government support. (b) Housing cooperatives; the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orli-kow)-Labour Relations (a) Increases in corporation executives' salaries. (b) Dome Petroleum-Executives' remuneration.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed 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. Dick:: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: On a point of order, the Hon. Member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick).


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, in looking at page 7 of the Order Paper for Tuesday, June 12, Motion No. 19, which is included in a number of motions listed, does not have the name of the mover behind it, which would be on the next page, page 8. I am wondering whether we could be informed as to who, in fact, is moving Motion No. 19? Or is it printed in error in the Order Paper?
Security Intelligence Service


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The Chair will take the point of order of the Hon. Member under advisement. Continuing debate.


Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, we are at the report stage of Bill C-9. I just want to take a few moments to indicate one aspect of the committee's work which is now being reported to the House. Motion No. 1 with respect to Bill C-9 before the House is a motion put forward by the NDP critic of the Department of Justice, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), that Clause 1 of Bill C-9 be deleted. I believe no further example need be shown of the rather destructive, negative, obstructionist point of view of members of the New Democratic Party in respect of this whole matter. After all, Clause 1 of the Bill is merely the title clause. I notice that there will be some discussion later, and perhaps a ruling from the Chair, as to whether or not that particular clause is in order. However, in any event I want to take advantage of the fact that Motion No. 1 is before us to indicate that one aspect of the committee's work has been a disappointment to me.
In committee, I believe a number of Hon. Members from all sides of the House were disturbed by the impression the public is receiving that this Bill is going to deal with an agency which is going to be all-inclusive and quite comprehensive in respect of security intelligence matters in this country. In actual fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Not only, of course, will this particular agency have jurisdiction in the security intelligence field, but within the Government itself there is authority, sometimes statutory, sometimes non-statutory and merely by Cabinet delegation for a number of different ministries, other agencies and other organizations within the Government to be involved also in the security intelligence-gathering field. This, basically, is the nature of my complaint.
The Department of National Defence, for instance, has some very large areas of jurisdiction respecting the gathering of intelligence. During the committee hearings I, for one, was instrumental in focusing the attention of the committee on some work being done by another agency within the Department of National Defence which has the jurisdiction to intercept, monitor and interpret long distance telephone calls within North America which happen to be sent over various microwave systems. As well, the Department of External Affairs is obviously quite heavily involved in security intelligence gathering. This is outside the country, but nevertheless they do it. One of the most important agencies for gathering interpreting security intelligence in the Government has not really been discussed in public, either before the Pitfield committee or before the House of Commons committee, that is, the work and functions of the Privy Council Office in respect of security intelligence gathering.
Having been a Solicitor General, I have reason to know that there have been occasions in the past when the right hand of Government in the security field did not know what the left hand was doing. On several occasions prior to 1979, the
June 12, 1984

Security Intelligence Service
Solicitor General and the RCMP were bypassed as far as certain security intelligence was concerned. The repository for this information and the action which was initiated to counter certain unfriendly acts within Canada by other nations was solely and exclusively the Privy Council Office. Over the last 15 or 20 years there have been occasions when very important policy decisions in the security field were taken strictly at the behest and initiative of officials in the Privy Council Office. The Solicitor General of the day-not me but my predecessors-knew absolutely nothing about the circumstances or the action taken.
The jurisdiction of the Department of External Affairs is obvious when it concerns the expulsion of diplomats and others, citizens of other countries, who engage in espionage activities in this country. On occasion there have been very real missteps taken regarding communications and information in the hands of the security service of the RCMP and the Department of External Affairs. I would go so far as to suggest that on occasion the wrong people have been expelled from this country by the Department of External Affairs because they misread signals, information or communications from the security service of the RCMP.
Why do I make this allegation before you today, Sir? The people of this country, if they have been studying what has been going on concerning this Bill, will believe that almost all the security intelligence gathering by the federal Government in this country will be centered in this particular agency. A lot of people are being reassured these days, especially by government spokesmen, that the monitoring, auditing and inspection powers of, first, the Inspector General and, second, the review committee under this Act, will result in a comprehensive review and inspection by independent people in respect of activities by the Canadian Government and its officials in the gathering of security intelligence. My point, and I make the same point in committee on at least one occasion, is that this is simply not true. If we really wanted to have an independent monitoring group, such as the review committee which will have the jurisdiction not only to look at the whole security intelligence-gathering apparatus of the Government but also to correlate it, then I suggest that this Bill fails miserably in that attempt. By the Minister's own admission, indeed his insistence in committee, the review committee will only have the jurisdiction to review the activities of the servants of the agency and the policy of the Government in respect of the agency.
My plea to you on the first motion, because I do not know where else we are going to have the opportunity to talk about it, is simply this. If this Government does not do it, another government will have to do it, otherwise we are going to get into the same mess that led to the Mackenzie Commission and the McDonald Commission. Future governments are going to continue to get into this same mess, simply because there is no area of correlation in this whole matter. The only group which correlates information at the moment is the Prime Minister's Cabinet Commission on Security and Intelligence. Believe it or not, and I believe it, that committee, chaired by the Prime
Minister (Mr. Trudeau), did not meet for three and a half years prior to 1979. That same situation could happen again. My plea to the House, through you, Mr. Speaker, is to make sure that the provisions of this Bill are widened so that all of the accounting, monitoring, auditing, inspecting and reporting provisions of the review committee are widened in turn so that these other areas of security intelligence gathering are included in its jurisdiction and purview.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please. Following on the point of order raised by the Hon. Member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick), the Chair has had an opportunity to look at the Order Paper. The point was raised in connection with Motion No. 19 that the name of the mover of the motion was not printed on the Order Paper. However, on looking at page VIII, I find that the version in the right hand column in the French language clearly indicates that the motion is moved by the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). Obviously the error on the part of the printers in not putting the name of the mover of Motion No. 19 in the English version will be corrected in tomorrow's edition.
For continuing debate, the Hon. Member for Dauphin-Swan River.


Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin-Swan River):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to speak on Motion No. 1 amending 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. The short title of the Bill is the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act. It would be fairly safe to say that in western Canada the role of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police has been a bit different from the role they have played in the rest of Canada, and so has the history of Security. For the edification of the House I will mention that the Northwest Mounted Police Force started in Swan River, some 110 miles northwest of Dauphin, which is now a part of my riding. In the prairie provinces, and specifically in Manitoba, we do not have a provincial police force. That little thumbnail sketch perhaps indicates some of the differences that Members from the west may bring to bear in this discussion.
In recounting this history and in looking at some of the proposals which our Party has made, it is important to consider the fact that we have called for public hearings on this Bill, a Bill which would have such widespread implications. The reason I gave the thumbnail sketch is that as far as the west is concerned, this Bill would have profound implications in terms of Canadian security. It would be important to have such hearings, as the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) has stated many times before.
I will draw an analogy. I sat on the Special Parliamentary Committee on the Participation of Visible Minorities in Canadian society. As we travelled across Canada we discovered that all the ethno-cultural and various race relations
June 12, 1984

groups appreciated the opportunity to present their briefs and concerns to the special committee of Parliament. That firsthand experience which I gained very recently on a very important issue in Canadian society gives me an experiential feeling as to the value that having such hearings would bring to Bill C-9 which is under discussion.
We in the New Democratic Party have a number of concerns, as has been mentioned. The defintion of the "threats to the security" of Canada in Clause 2 gives us great concern. We feel that this definition should be significantly narrowed in scope so as to ensure that this new service does not engage in surveillance of what could be lawful dissenting activity. We have had good representations. I listened to some of the debate earlier this day. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap), expressed the concerns that various churches have raised with regard to subparagraphs (c) and (d). The Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) of the Conservative Party was very concerned that if he spoke to the Western Canadian Concept party he may become a target of surveillance. I will not comment on whether he should be a target of surveillance. He expressed that concern very cogently in his representations.
We feel that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police should have a mandate to deal with domestic surveillance according to the criminal standard, as is the case in the United States. This would of course involve the deletion of subparagraphs (c) and (d) in the proposed mandate of this proposed agency. We are very concerned about this very broad, general, vague and threatening defintion of the threats to the security of Canada as contained in Clause 2.
One of the elements of concern which we have expresed has been in conjunction with the criteria for the various security assessments. In 1982, some 75,000 people in the federal Public Service had to get security clearance. There is not an adequate set of criteria to examine the security assessments which it is proposed should be conducted by this new civilian security service. We feel that any criteria which may be imposed should be put in a statute or that there should be some sort of regulation which would be made public and gazetted. In that way the public would have an opportunity to examine the criteria. In addition to that, the agency should be subject to some sort of review by a parliamentary oversight committee. We feel that these criteria for security assessments must be looked at very carefully. Furthermore, we feel that the security assessments should be made either by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or by a branch of the Public Service Commi-sion, as was recommended by the McDonald Commission.
In addition, we are concerned about some of the broad implications of this Bill. Clause 16 of this Bill confers a new and unprecedented power on this new civilian security service which would target individuals who, we feel, pose no threat to the security of Canada. We feel that this clause would include political refugees, professors who are visiting lecturers at universities or even business or labour leaders. This power does not exist at present and we feel there is no justification for including it in the statutes at this time. I would remind
Security Intelligence Service
Members of the House that the Canadian Association of University Teachers expressed itself on this particular matter. It has expressed concern that the security force may impinge on the activities of any visiting foreign professor or any foreign student at a Canadian university. We deinitely want to underline that particular concern.
Finally, I would like to discuss the review process. In his submission before the McDonald Commission, the Leader of the New Democratic Party said that there should be a small parliamentary oversight committee. The suggestion was made that this parliamentary oversight committee could be modelled after the American congressional oversight committee. That structure seems to be effective in monitoring these types of activities.
Given these considerations, we feel that our proposal for a series of public hearings across Canada is justified. We think that the proposal has merit since there is going to be such a great impact on the public. We feel that people deserve an opportunity to express their concerns, an opportunity to voice how they feel and an opportunity to give their suggestions to see what needs to be done in this area.
I notice, Sir, that you are nodding your head after signalling that my time has expired. I thank Hon. Members of the House of Commons for giving me this chance to express my concerns on Bill C-9.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Lanark-Ren-frew-Carleton.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, an hour and twenty minutes ago a point of order was raised by the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). The Speaker said he was doing a quick search of the premises to find out whether, at report stage, the committee minutes giving the evidence were available. There was some doubt as to whether or not debate could continue when the evidence itself was not in printed form and available to all Members, because all Members do not serve on the committee. The time of one hour and 20 minutes is more than sufficient. I walked downstairs to General Distribution a few moments ago-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Is the Hon. Member speaking on a point of order or making a contribution to the debate? The Chair would like to know.


Paul Wyatt Dick: I was rising on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I recognized the Hon. Member for debate.


Paul Wyatt Dick: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can the Chair advise us whether or not it is in a position, an hour and 20 minutes afterwards, to make a ruling?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for his question. I am aware of the point of order raised by the Hon. Member for Edmonton West but the Chair is not in a position

June 12, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
at this time to make a ruling on that point. It is my understanding that a ruling may not be available before the end of debate today. It certainly will be in the Speaker's hands by tomorrow.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I then reserve my position possibly to address additional arguments to Mr. Speaker. I am aware of additional arguments. I raised the matter initially. I find frankly that the whole situation is unsatisfactory.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair makes good note of the Hon. Member's comments. The Hon. Member for Lanark-Renfrew Carleton (Mr. Dick) is rising on the same point of order?


Paul Wyatt Dick: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It is unreasonable to take an hour and 20 minutes to find out whether something has been printed. I went to General Distribution, which is the place at which all things printed are dispersed, and I found out that the minutes of the three sittings, sitting No. 38 of June 7, sitting No. 39 of June 7, sitting No. 40 of June 7, and sitting No. 41 of June 8, 1984, have not been printed. The evidence is not available. There is some discussion as to whether the evidence may be in rough draft form. I want to point out, Mr. Speaker, that if it is in rough draft form, it will appear in the language spoken in the committee. It will not be translated and, not being translated, it will not be acceptable in this House. Therefore, it is clear that the evidence given before the committee is not available and I cannot see how we can proceed.
An hour and twenty minutes is more than adequate. Could you make a ruling on that, Sir?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would not, of course, want to comment on the specifics of the Hon. Member's point at this time except to say that I accept as a fact the statement he has just made. But out of that there is still left the matter of preparing or writing and editing a ruling, and that is the matter pending at this time, as I understand it.
The Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) is rising on the same point of order?


Mr.   de Jong@: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to reiterate what the two previous speakers, who brought up this point of order, have said about the Government's being remiss in introducing legislation when all the records are not available. I was not a member of the committee. I certainly want to participate in this debate. I wish to have the opportunity to review the records of the committee, the testimony, the questions and the reasoning why the Government is in favour of some clauses and against other clauses in order to prepare my submission. We certainly have not heard from any government Members. I am very anxious to know what their reasoning is. Without having the transcripts available to me, I cannot prepare myself in an intelligent way to participate in this debate. I would urge you, Sir, to ensure that those transcripts are made available to all Members as soon as possible.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I think there is an additional difficulty which
has not yet been noted. The committee was sitting, in effect, morning, noon and night under very strict time guidelines. It has dealt with a very large number of clauses during the days for which proceedings are not yet printed. As I understand it, this would seriously impair the ability of Members to address the issues that arise adequately. As I indicated, there may very well be the raw proceedings. They have not been translated. The Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Gourde) was sleeping during much of the proceedings. I know he would want to have an opportunity to review those proceedings. I would hope that in the very, very near future we might have an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to have these very important minutes of the proceedings translated and properly transcribed.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make one or two observations with respect to the matter raised by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), a former Speaker of the House of Commons and a distinguished parliamentarian of long standing. He is held in high regard by all of us. He has made, I think, a very valid point of order with respect to the ability of this House to carry out its responsibilities and a matter of privilege to him to carry out his responsibilities as a Member of Parliament.
I simply want to lend my support to the position the Hon. Member for Edmonton West has taken, particularly in light of the fact that, as we will learn by reading the transcript, there was an unusual precedent established, which I do not accept, in the arbitrary ruling of the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs in which he unilaterally imposed time allocation on the deliberations and debate. In order for us to discuss this matter of such serious consequence to Canadians generally on the floor of the House of Commons we should not have closure. It underlines the fact that, under whatever guise-and I do not speak of the motivation of the Chairman, who is an honourable and distinguished Member of this House-closure under any name is regrettable. It is an attempt to thwart free and unfettered discussion on a Bill, particularly one relating to national security. This is unacceptable in a free and democratic society. These matters have occurred during the course of debate, and my colleague from Edmonton West has rightly demanded that we have in our possession all records so that we may address this subject in terms of the legislation itself and with respect to some of the amendments proposed by way of motion by members of both opposition Parties.
I do not want to take up any more time of the House except to say that I firmly and unequivocally support the very germane point raised by my colleague from Edmonton West. I hope this matter will be rectified before the debate resumes on this legislation sometime tomorrow.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please, it being 5 p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on the Order Paper.
June 12, 1984



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS

["Order. The hour provided for consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired."]
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall all orders and items preceding No. 15 stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



Lynn McDonald: That, in the opinion of this House, the rate of incarceration of native persons at six times the national average is to be condemned as a serious indictment of the criminal justice system; and
That the House urges the government to collaborate with other governments in Canada, native and other voluntary organizations in order to take constructive steps to reduce the rate of incarceration of native persons; and that such steps include (a) changes in police training and practice to reduce the frequency of charges (6) development of informal community-based responses to non-violent offences (c) commencement of work on the revival of customary law and practice in criminal justice matters.
She said: Mr. Speaker, the facts are that Canada is not a very violent or criminal society. We would wish for much less violence and much less criminality, but compared with many other countries, we are very fortunate. Yet we have a very high rate of incarceration, even though we do not have a high rate of crime in general or of violent and serious crime.
Canada's rate of incarceration is 134 per 100,000. Let us compare this with Britain and France, the two countries from which the majority of our population has come. Britain's rate of incarceration is 85.1 per 100,000 and France's is 66.7. If we go to the Netherlands, the rate goes down further, to 24.6, which is considerably lower than what we have in Canada. If we go to another Commonwealth country with a frontier and which is more like Canada, according to some people's thinking at least, Australia also has a much smaller rate of 67.4 per 100,000.
In the northern territories, the rates of incarceration are higher still. They are three to four times the Canadian average. In the Northwest Territories, the majority of inhabitants are native people. In the Yukon they are about a third of the population. It is the over-representation of native people, especially in our prisons, about which I want to talk. When we break down the rates for the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, we see that a far greater number of native peoples are being put in jail. In the Northwest Territories, the non-native population in jails is 195 per 100,000. In other words, it is higher than the Canadian average. However, the native rate is 836, or 6.2 times the rate for Canada as a whole. When we look at the Yukon, for non-natives it is 248, or roughly twice the Canadian average. For native peoples it is 873, or 6.5 times
Incarceration of Native Persons
the Canadian average. These are shocking and disgraceful statistics.
There is a similar over-representation of native peoples in the provinces of Canada. However, I suggest that is no excuse for those of us in Parliament concerned with the territories, which fall under the responsibility of the Solicitor General's Department and the Department of Justice. Yes, it is disgraceful what is happening in the provinces too, but it does not get us off the hook. We have responsibilities and we should be acting to reduce these drastic statistics of over-representation.
Instead, what have we had from the Government? We have had excuses that in fact native peoples are very violent and that society has to respond by using prisons. Let me point out that these statistics themselves are an underestimate of the over-representation because there are no federal institutions or penitentiaries in the federal territories. Any person native or non-native who commits an offence for which the penalty is two years or more, in other words the most serious offenders, go to southern prisons and are not even counted in the statistics. When we talk about these figures that are more than six times the national average, we are talking about people who are in prison for less serious offences.
We hear statements about leniency of treatment from the Assistant Deputy Minister of the Department of Justice before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs in response to the issue I have raised who said:
In the North great attempts are made, perhaps on a scale that outdoes that of any other place in Canada, to deal with crime in a non-prosecutorial mode.
What is he talking about? We have an enormous number of prosecutions. The Chief Superintendent of the RCMP in the Northwest Territories, Mr. Feagan, said at the same hearing:
From my experience as the commanding officer in Prince Edward Island and in Nova Scotia, I feel safe in saying that we tend to treat offenders in the territories more leniently, in particular with respect to minor criminal offences and regulatory offences.
What does he mean by "more leniently"? The incarceration rates for native peoples in the territories are eight times those in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Islands, eight times more severe. If he really means it when he says that this is more lenient treatment, he must have an idea that native peoples perhaps commit 10 times or 20 times more crimes and, because they are treated more leniently, they go to jail only six times or eight times more often. This is a disgraceful thing to suggest, yet that is the only logical conclusion we could reach from his statement about leniency.
Further, we obtain responses from the Ministers and their Departments about all the good intentions in terms of diversion programs. The facts are that we have higher proportions of northerners on probation, doing community service orders, paying fines and experiencing all these non-prison sentences. There are so-called diversion programs in place, but in fact the number of offences rises year by year. Informal fine option programs were started in the Yukon, and the Department of Justice put an end to them. On diversion itself, we get gob-bledegook from the Department of Justice and the Department of the Solicitor General that diversion is being used. If that

June 12, 1984
Incarceration of Native Persons
were so, the rates would be declining. I should like to quote from a letter which I received from the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan). It reads:
Specific information on the number of charges, convictions and prison sentences before and after the introduction of specific diversion methods are not available. While the common aim of crime prevention and diversion methods is to reduce crime, it is very difficult to show actual reduction in crime rates especially in the short term. Prison population normally fluctuates and this is caused by socio-economic and other conditions and not only as a result of law enforcement.
Or course, there are fluctuations, but there is a very simple way of dealing with them. In a diversion program we should look at the rates for the two or three years preceding, average them, and then look at the rates for the two or three years after the program has been introduced. If there is diversion, the rates will go down. If the rates are not going down, we do not have diversion.
I should like to refer to the following quotation from the Department of Justice:
The existing data on diversion programs is sketchy and firm conclusions cannot be drawn as to the effectiveness of such initiatives in terms of reduced numbers of charges.
Utter nonsense. Diversion programs have not been given priority in Canada. They have not been serious.

The excuses of the two departments are pitiful. Either those diversion programs have worked out as expected, or they have not. If a diversion program works out, the number of people sentenced, condemned and jailed will go down. If there is no decrease in the statistics, we must conclude that the program has failed.
We can now understand very readily how it is that our jails contain six times as many native people as other Canadians.
First of all, the number of policemen per capita in the north is twice as high as in the south. Communities, particularly native people communities, are small. Everybody knows everybody else. Whenever an offence is committed, everybody knows who is responsible. The neighbours know the guilty party and so do the police. The police tell us that it is very easy to get a confession when they make an investigation. Indeed, native people are generally more honest than non-native people. Their culture encourages them to tell the truth. They have no idea that it is up to the police or the Crown to prove that a crime or an offence has been committed, that the accused does not have to admit anything. The police tell us that when they ask a native person if he has done something, he answers yes. According to their culture, that answer is not a confession but only a way of admitting what one has done while waiting for an investigation into the circumstances. However, in the non-native culture, the culture of the majority, it is nothing less than a confession, an admission of one's guilt. Property rights are not interpreted the same way in both cultures. In the culture of the majority, the emphasis is on individual rights, the rights of owners of private property. In the native culture, private property is less important. The land
belonged to society as a whole. The sharing of property was more widely acknowledged, and that is a source of difficulties in enforcing the Criminal Code. Now then, there are more policemen in the north than in the south and communities are smaller, with the result that the number of crimes and offences reported to the police is much higher in the north than in the south of Canada. In major cities, most crimes and offences are not reported to the police. People tell us that it is a waste of time because the police will not find the criminal or because the police station is too far. Besides, they do not want to lose a day's work to testify in court. None of those excuses is valid in northern regions. Like everybody else, the police know who is responsible and that person admits his guilt. The police are there on the spot.
I have to point out that we have a veritable caste system in the enforcement of law, a system run by non-native people. Overwhelmingly, the judges, prosecutors and police are southerners of white European origin and not particularly familiar with native customs. We have the participation of native peoples largely as court workers and special constables. That means they are paid less, do not have full status, or are justices of the peace and not real judges. While we deplore this caste system, let me make very clear I am not arguing simply for the replacement of native people in the white southern system where we would have a native person sent to jail by a native judge with a native prosecutor. That is hardly the answer to the question.
The Ontario Native Council on Justice pointed out the broader social and economic questions involved. We must be mindful of these. If talks about a meaningful redistribution of income, wealth, economic opportunity and political power from those who have to those who have not. In other words, it concludes that there will be a change in the ratio of natives and non-natives inside the prisons when there is a fundamental change in their relationship outside. Yes, but let us not wait and do nothing about the criminal justice system while we are waiting for economic and social change. We must work to change the system. Clearly we must understand that broader social and economic context, but we must not wait for a hundred reforms to be made before we work on one, which is our responsibility, which we could be working on very directly.
What I propose is very simple, direct, frontal action. We do not need more conferences. A major conference was held on this subject, organized by the then Solicitor General in 1975 with participation from the territories and provinces. A whole list of recommendations came out of that conference. Some have been implemented, some have not. The ones that have been implemented tended to be those which make the system more heavy. Since that documentation of the problem, the problem has become worse. In the Yukon, the increase in the incarceration rate from 1972 to 1982 was in the order of 9 per cent. In the Northwest Territories, the increase in that same period was a disgraceful 57 per cent.
June 12, 1984

We have had a major conference and we have had proposals, but the problem seems to get worse. People are not monitoring the answers. They are not looking. They are not trying. They are using excuses. They are accepting excuses. My proposals are to begin with the premise that native people are not more criminal than anybody else. It is urgent that we get those figures down. Any figures that show a greater representation of native peoples in jail are an indictment of the system that shows that in the end there has been some discrimination. That is not to document where it occurs precisely along the way. Unless we believe that native people are more criminal, we cannot accept that they should be in our jails in those numbers.
The federal Government should work with the provincial and territorial governments to set up concrete plans to look at the figures, monitor them, publish the information yearly, change the methods of training of police officers, review the procedures, and monitor all this annually to see that the rates go down. We do not want a conference ten years hence to find that the rates have again gone up. It has to be looked at. It has to get into the system. People have to report. They have to be held accountable.
People make annual reports, but what is in them? What should be in the annual report is the rate of incarceration, the rate of charge and the rate of prosecution for that year compared to the previous year. If the area has not managed a diminution, you fire the staff, demote them or do something. There have to be implications for those involved in the system. They need some incentive to deal with the problem and not make pious speeches about how lenient they are and how many diversion programs there are, when there is no real leniency, not that is demonstrable, and no diversion programs.
I wonder what the response of the Government will be. If it is simply going to be more pious words about its intentions, if we are simply going to hear about all its good plans and how it is working on this, that is not enough. We have plenty in the Justice Committee. I have been receiving replies from people. They are not facing up to the real problem before us.
The over-representation of native peoples in our jails is an indictment of the criminal justice system. If the Government is serious about correcting this injustice, it will speak up and give its agreement. My motion before the House today is a motion. It states a principle. It gives direction to the Government. If the Government really wants to see this terrible over-representation of native peoples in our jails, it will welcome this motion and act on it constructively. Merely to talk the motion out with all kinds of other possibilities, fiddling with the statistics, blaming the provinces, talking about programs in place or stating that statistics are difficult to get, is not enough. We have plenty of years. Since the conference in 1975, nearly ten years have passed. We know what needs to be done. We do not need another conference. We do not need more time. Injustice is staring us in the face. We must act promptly and constructively. I ask Hon. Members to support my motion this afternoon.
Incarceration of Native Persons
[ Translation]


Mr. Raymond Dupont (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased with this opportunity to speak to the motion moved by the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald), concerning the incarceration of native persons.
The rate of incarceration of native persons is, quite rightly, a matter of concern to the Government. This concern has led to a number of initiatives aimed at establishing why so many native persons are incarcerated. Measures are being taken that should lead to a drop in the incarceration rate.
The Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood has emphasized three particular steps. Changes in police practice, informal community-based responses to non-violent offences and the revival of customary law and practice in criminal justice matters. I shall elaborate only on the last two points, since my hon. colleagues will probably be commenting on changes in police practice.
The concept of native government, in other words, a form of political autonomy for Canada's native peoples, is not a new one. Native peoples had their own governments before the Europeans arrived. Over the last ten years, native peoples have shown a renewed interest in controlling their own system of government, native peoples also had their own way of resolving conflicts. In some cases, the Indian nations had developed procedures for judgment and sentencing very similar to our present system. However, although some customs have continued to exist, their role in society has been almost entirely replaced by the Canadian legal system. To find out whether both customary law and our own legal system can co-exist will require a great deal of research and consultation by federal and provincial governments and native peoples. We have learned a lot from native customary law. For instance, the concept of mediation and reconciliation of the victim with the offender and the community is gradually becoming accepted in our present legal system.
I believe we are getting away from a system of government paternalism which will give way to a system in which native peoples will have the legal and real power to govern their own lives and their own institutions. The Department of Justice is trying to translate these objectives in concrete terms. The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada (Mr. MacGuigan) announced in Calgary last September, at the Conference on Native Rights, that he was considering specific proposals by native governments, models of band government, alternatives to court proceedings and a vast range of specific issues. The Minister also indicated that he was seeking ways to ensure that the Canadian legal system would take into consideration the concept of native justice. This plan has already been realized in a number of provisions of Bill C-19 on criminal law reform, which I shall refer to later on.

June 12, 1984
Incarceration of Native Persons
The Department of Justice plays an active role in many initiatives designed to take into account the concepts and concerns of the native people and improve the way they are served by the judicial system. For instance:
The development and maintenance of a program to provide assistance to native persons outside the courts, the cost of which is shared with the Provinces;
A program of grants to encourage native persons to enter the legal profession;
Attempts to improve the provision of legal services to the native people through the fund called "Special Projects-Legal Aid Fund";
Legal information projects for both native and non-native communities;
A pilot project in Frobisher Bay concerned with providing legal services for the native people;
The financing of a survival law manual for native children in Saskatchewan high schools;
The Native Law Centre at the University of Saskatchewan; and finally:
The financing of a conference on Indian tribes which will be organized by the Saddle Lake Band in Alberta.
As I have already said, considerable work is underway to prepare the next First Ministers' Conference on constitutional issues of interest to the native peoples. One of the items on the agenda, Mr. Speaker, will be native self-government. This question touches on many legal areas, such as criminal law, family law, administrative law, the administration of justice, the courts, constitutional review and land claims. I am convinced that the work under way takes into account all these related issues.
The Hon. Member's motion also recommends the application of informal community-inspired sanctions for non-violent offences to reduce the number of native persons imprisoned. The Government has already proposed steps to reduce the rate of incarceration generally with the penalty reforms provided for in Bill C-19 on the reform of criminal law.
Mr. Speaker, these proposed amendments establish uniform principles and practices to guide the judges all across Canada by providing an official declaration of purpose and principles.
It is stated that the fundamental purpose of imposing a sentence is the protection of the public. The reform of sanctions is based on the principle that there are other methods besides imprisonment to protect the public. The proposed amendments reaffirm and encourage recourse to these non-carceral sanctions. The declaration of purpose and principles lists a number of ways of protecting society through sentencing, such as the imposition of just sentences, neutralization, deterrence, compensation and reintegration into society. The concept that the punishment must be suited to the crime
reflects the objective of justice in sentencing. Fair sentences strengthen and promote respect for the law.
Certain serious offences require that the offender be cut off from society through imprisonment in order to guarantee the protection of the public. The amendments provide substantial assistance to the sentencing judge by stating the principles which determine whether it is appropriate to impose incarceration.
The first principle identifies the three main reasons which justify a prison sentence. First of all, to put away an offender who could threaten the life and security of others. Second, to put a stigma on a behaviour so reprehensible that any lighter sentence would be inappropriate. And third, to punish offenders who deliberately refuse to submit to other sanctions.
Another principle emphasizes the practical problems and the unfairness of imposing a prison sentence upon someone because of the supposedly positive effect it might have on that person's rehabilitation. When rehabilitation is the main objective of sentencing, the bill suggests other penalties which would be more appropriate.
The government's policy concerning the objective and principles of criminal law made public the Minister of Justice in 1982 in a document entitled Criminal law and the Canadian society. The purpose of criminal law is to ensure law and order within a society through prohibitions, sanctions and procedures meant to respond in a fair and equitable way to inacceptable forms of behaviour which cause or are likely to cause serious harm to individuals or groups of individuals. One of the principles to apply in order to achieve this goal is that, when sentencing, the judge should select the measure which is the least restrictive, while remaining sufficient and adequate in the circumstances. This basic principle inspired the provisions of the criminal law reform bill which deal with sentencing.
The consequences of the amendments are that for all offences, except the most serious ones, the judge should consider community service and non-prison sentences before imposing a prison sentence, and also, he should choose among a series of options ranging from light to very severe.
In addition to a variety of penalties, the legislation provides for a code of procedure concerning evidence heard in court to determine the penalty. That code ensures that the courts have complete and precise information available on the violator before chosing the adequate penalty. Under the proposals, the court must ask both parties for their comments and arguments on the facts relevant to the penalty, including the existence, availability and efficiency of various options applicable to the case. Mr. Speaker, the judge must also hear evidence on disputed facts. Further, the court must ask the culprit whether he has anything to say before sentence is passed. These provisions ensure that the court has all relevant evidence available. The court may hear or summon any witness other than the offender, whenever it deems necessary. For instance,
June 12, 1984

the court could hear representations from the potential beneficiary of a compensation order.
As a general rule, the court must consider a pre-sentence report before passing a prison sentence on a violator who has never been detained. The contents of the pre-sentence report has been widened to include more complete information from all relevant sources, including the violator's school, his employer or other community groups. When imposing a prison sentence, the court must state its reasons, which are noted in the record or put down in writing.
Those proposals ensure that the judge has all relevant information available on the violator and on the potential non-prison penalties before considering the whole gamut of relevant penalties in the circumstances.
As I said, one of the principles that the court must follow before meting out a sentence is that it must consider the range of penalties as a hierarchy, from the least to the most severe one. The scale of penalties proposed by the Criminal Law Reform Act widens the existing penalties and introduces new, efficient and creative ones without prison terms. Each proposed penalty can be imposed alone, or with another one. The least serious penalty under the new proposals is release, with or without parole. That penalty could apply to all the accused, excepting business corporations and persons pleading guilty or found guilty of a crime for which the law provides a minimum penalty or a 14-year or more prison term.
Mr. Speaker, the second option would be a conditional penalty. The offender would take a commitment to good conduct or adhere to other relevant conditions. The conditional penalty would be a regular one, but could only apply to violations for which the law provides no minimum penalty for offenders other than business corporations.
The third option would be probation. Under the proposed amendments, probation would be a regular penalty with mandatory surveillance, and could be imposed in addition to any other penalty.
The proposed amendments widen and encourage the use of compensation as a penalty. Compensation includes both the replacement of property and financial restitution to the victim by the offender. Penalties also include special and exemplary damages for property losses and other financial losses and damages for bodily harm. In addition, the victim or the victim's representative can appeal to the court respecting the loss or damage sustained.
Those proposals require the court to consider factors affecting the offender's ability to pay. This would prevent useless compensation orders.
Moreover, fines would be more frequently used. The current restrictions would be removed to enable the court to impose a fine for any offence, except in causes where minimum penal-
Incarceration of Native Persons ties are provided. The maximum fine for a summary conviction offence would be raised from $500 to $2,000 for an individual and to $25,000 for a business. The maximum fine for criminal acts would be set by the court.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, the court should be advised about the ability to pay of the offender before imposing a fine. In addition, jail terms for default of payment would be restricted to cases where default is voluntary and without any valid reason. Nobody would be jailed because he is unable to pay. The same would apply in the case of compensation. In the past, it has been suggested that most native people were jailed for default of payment. In any case, those proposals will guarantee that nobody will be jailed for being truly unable to pay a fine or to comply with a compensation order.
The proposals also officially recognize the alternative solutions to the fine for those who are unable to pay. Another possible penalty would be an order of compensatory work. Those orders would be an important alternative to incarceration which could be useful to the community in two ways. First, the community would save money on jail costs and secondly, the offender would take part in an activity of immediate benefit to the community. Such orders could be imposed for punishable offences on summary conviction as well as for crimes subject to a maximum of 400 hours. Voluntary default could entail a jail term of up to two years for criminal acts and a minimum of six months for offences punishable on summary conviction.
To ensure the effectiveness of penalties other than prison terms, the legislation provides a detailed mechanism of amendment and enforcement. The offender should give a satisfactory excuse in case of non compliance. If the court decides that there is voluntary default, it can alter the terms and conditions of the first penalty and in the case of fines and compensation, it can seize the salary or the property of the offender or, as a last resort, impose a jail term.
The combinations being offered provide an incredibly wide range of sanctions. There is nothing to prevent a creative judge from imposing sentences appropriate both to the offence and to the offender. Resorting to incarceration will be discouraged, but this sanction will always be available when circumstances justify.
The Government shares the concerns of the Hon. Member with respect to native persons and the traditional system, and it has taken steps to improve the situation. The Government is to be congratulated on the proposals contained in Bill C-19 on criminal law reform, which restate the law on sentencing, expand the range of sanctions and reflect the basic principle of our criminal law, namely, that we should always resort to the minimum amount of intervention required and justified by the circumstances.


Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Mr. Speaker, thank you for recognizing me. Although I am not the

June 12, 1984
Incarceration of Native Persons
justice critic, I am the spokesman for the Progressive Conservative Party on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I felt it incumbent upon me to address the motion which is before us today. I congratulate the Hon. Member for bringing this forward, but I am concerned that both she and the Government are again talking about band-aid approaches to a much larger problem. It is a problem which we do not have the opportunity to talk about very often in the House. It is a major, if not the major, social problem which we are experiencing in our country today.
The Hon. Member alluded to a number of statistics. I would be interested in finding out exactly when those statistics were published. I have found it most difficult to obtain up-to-date statistics. In fact, the latest statistics which I have been able to obtain are already seven years out of date. The last statistics which I have been able to obtain were published in 1977. However, the report, which was nick-named the Penner report-the official name of that report is: Indian SelfGovernment in Canada: Report of the Special Committee- has listed some startling statistics about which we should be concerned and which are pertinent to this debate. I do not think that we can overlook those startling statistics when talking about the justice system and the 280 Indians per
100,000	population who are penitentiary inmates as compared with the national figure of 40 penitentiary inmates per 100,000 population. We must ask ourselves as a society: Why is the number so high?
The Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) alludes to the reason and says that it is an indictment of our criminal justice system. I would say that it goes far beyond that. In fact, it is not only the criminal justice system which is at fault; it is the society in which our aboriginal people find themselves. I think it is very important to outline some of these facts. For example, let us consider child welfare. The proportion of Indian children in care has risen steadily to more than five times the national rate. In education, only 20 per cent of Indian children stay in school to the end of the secondary level. The comparable national rate is 75 per cent. When we talk about housing, nearly 19 per cent of on-reserve homes have two or more families living in them. These conditions affect 40 per cent of all status Indian families. We can talk about facilities. Again we must go back to 1977, and I condemn the Government for not having more up-to-date statistics and information on this very important social problem. It is ridiculous that we have to work on statistics which are seven years old. However, in 1977, fewer than 40 per cent of Indian houses had running water, sewage disposal or indoor plumbing facilities. The national level of properly serviced housing is well over 90 per cent. The average income of Indian people is one-half to two-thirds of the national average. Their unemployment rate is about 35 per cent of the working age population. In some areas it is as high as 90 per cent unemployment. Despite improvements over the last ten years, the death rate among Indian people is two to four times the death rate of non-Indians. Causes of death from accidents, poisoning and violence account for over 33 per cent of the death among
Indian people, compared with 9 per cent for the Canadian population as a whole. Indian people die from fire at a rate which is seven times that for the rest of the Canadian population. That speaks to the condition under which they have to live. The over-all rate of violent deaths among Indian people is more than three times the national average. Indian deaths due to suicide is almost three times the national rate. Suicide is especially prevalent among the age group of 15 years to 24 years. That says an awful lot in itself, that one statistic.
The infant mortality rate among Indian children is 60 per cent higher than the national rate. The life expectancy is much lower. The number of hospital admissions are much greater. And to get back to the problem which is being addressed in this motion today, native people are over-represented in proportion to their population in federal and provincial penitentiaries. In Manitoba, Saskatchewan and the north, native people represent more than 40 per cent of the prison population. The proportion of Indian juveniles who are considered delinquent is three times the national average. That is a pretty sorry and bleak picture I paint today of the position in which our aboriginal people find themselves. Because of those social conditions, I believe it is clear to anyone who would take a look at those statistics that in fact turning to crime is something which many native people, I suppose out of necessity in many cases, engage in. Therefore, to just condemn our criminal justice system and to suggest improvements to the criminal justice system-and heaven knows we need them. And I agree with the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood on that matter. It is not enough. I just do not believe it can be addressed in isolation. I believe we have to look at the much broader picture.
Why are our aboriginal people involved to such a great extent in crime and charges which involve incarceration? Something at which I did take a look was the major offences, just to make the comparison between native and non-native people. It is interesting to note that, in violent offences, our native people have a higher percentage than non-natives. However, the rate of offences against property is higher for non-native than for native people. The rate of offences against the Narcotic Control Act and the Food and Drugs Act is much higher for non-native than it is for native people. In other offences the rate is approximately the same.
With respect to the sentences to federal penitentiaries-and again the statistics are seven and eight years old, which is very frustrating-the number of less than two-year sentences is greater for native than for non-native people. However, the number of sentences over three years, on a percentage basis, is higher for native than for non-native people. The juvenile delinquency rate, as I mentioned earlier, is three times the national average. I suppose that when we look at these statistics we have to admit that the high Indian representation in our jails suggests there is a conflict between Indian and nonIndian values.
June 12, 1984

I believe Indian offences, as I mentioned before, mirror poor social and health conditions on the reserves. I do not believe there is any question about that. The high level of Indian juvenile delinquency, of young suicides, and the large number of children in care, suggest that deteriorated family and social conditions are having the greatest effect on Indian youth. The high representation of native people in jails and juvenile court also reflects the scarcity of preventive services and support systems for Indians as alternatives to jail.
A study was undertaken in 1979 regarding the issues affecting the total justice system, and the recommendations which were made were many and, I believe, very realistic. But those recommendations have not in fact been implemented. As I gathered from what the Parliamentary Secretary said earlier, the Government is still having conferences and debating what should be done and how it should be done. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that confidence has to be given back to the Indian people. The paternalism of the federal Government over hundreds of years must come to an end. In fact, our aboriginal people must take control of their own lives. As recently as Friday, a Bill was passed in this House, referred to as the Cree-Naskapi Act, which in fact gave the responsibilities for local government back to the Cree bands of northern Quebec and the Naskapi of Schefferville, where they belong. This came out of the James Bay Agreement which was reached in 1975. It has only taken the Cree, Naskapi and the federal Government eight years to negotiate the agreement which was passed through the House on Friday. Hopefully, it will receive Senate approval in the not too distant future and be proclaimed so that the Crees and the Naskapi can get on with governing their own affairs.
One of the things we discussed with respect to this Bill was the policing which would go on in these municipalities, these band areas, this 1300 square miles of land in northern Quebec. The Crees have their own police forces which have proved very successful. Of course I would like to see this type of selfgovernment, and I am not suggesting for a moment that the particular model used by the Cree-Naskapi would be the model to be used elsewhere in Canada, but there are some very positive points in that legislation which could pertain to other areas of jurisdiction across this country. We have to encourage the Indian First Nations to assume the responsibility for administration of their own affairs. They should decide their own future rather than have to come cap in hand to Ottawa for every nickel and dime. They should not have to have some faceless bureaucrat in that tower in Hull tell them what they can do, when they can do it and where they can do it. We have taken away the pride of a very proud people. We have taken away their hope. We have taken away the glory that was once theirs. It must be returned, and when it is I am very confident that these horrifying statistics we read out today will change, and fairly dramatically so. We are going to see some very positive results. Indian political leadership today is as mature and capable as any leadership in this country, be it municipal, provincial or federal. Indian people are more than capable of administering their affairs. Of course I encourage the Government to come forward with enabling legislation to allow what
Incarceration of Native Persons
is referred to as Indian self-government, and to do it quickly. The Indian people are ready for it.
The Canadian people realize that something has to be done. After looking at these statistics no Canadian can fail to say that this should not happen. There should be more involvement by native people in our justice system. Some services should be specifically designed for native people. There should be more native para-professionals within the justice system to serve in a liaison capacity. We talked about understanding the traditions of the native way of life. The best way of doing that is by involving Indian people in the justice system.
I will conclude by thanking the Hon. Member for Broad-view-Greenwood for bringing this motion forward. It allows us an opportunity to discuss some of the concerns we have about the aboriginal peoples in this country. Rather than condemn our justice system, which is a part of the problem, we should look at the broader problem of what is causing the people to turn to crime. That is the number one problem to be solved. We cannot do it piecemeal because it will not work piecemeal. For far too long this Government has done things on a band-aid basis. It keeps sticking one band-aid here, one there and another one over there. Well, it is not going to work any more. You cannot throw money at the problem, you have to solve it. We must show these people that we are not paying lip service to the problems, that in fact we mean business, and that we want the lot of the aboriginal peoples in this country improved.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I have spent most of my life working for and with natives in northern Saskatchewan and northern Canada. I know that as these statistics we have seen today grow more and more ridiculous, there is less and less respect for the law among the native community. There is a need for the natives to make their own decisions. I want to read into the record a news release from the Native Council of Canada which talks about this question directly. It says:
We believe the time is ripe to adopt pro-active and positive policies now that will go beyond the negative social control policies of the past to establish a momentum for social growth. It is our contention that, if as much effort and vision were expended in preparing people for social, economic and employment opportunity as has been traditionally expended on singing out for punishment victims of deplorable social conditions, much could be done to correct this totally unacceptable situation.
It goes on to say much more, but it concludes with this:
One of the excuses given for inaction by responsible authorities is that these problems will work themselves out through the mechanisms of constitutional discussions and the advent of First Nations self-government. To date, most provinces have refused to consider a set principles upon which native people can build any sense of confidence in resolving any issue, including those in the area of the administration of justice.
It goes on to support this particular motion and says:
We want, however, to be assured of a commitment to change and to justice. Mere token involvement in a meaningless dialogue will not satisfy native people, nor we believe, Canadians in general.
I just wanted to put that on the record, Mr. Speaker.

June 12, 1984
Adjournment Debate


Mr. Ralph Ferguson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, in the very limited time I have I want to indicate that in my particular constituency we have instilled a sense of pride in our native people. Last Friday we opened a new cultural administration centre built by the native peoples themselves through the Government of Canada NEED Program. We opened a new community centre a little over a year ago, again built by the native peoples. Part of the furniture in this building was supplied by a native peoples woodworking factory established in yet another reserve close by. I look at the progress made by the band counsels in my particular constituency and their involvement in every-day decisions that affect their life. They have indeed come a very long way. They have acquired a sense of pride so necessary in today's world.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hour provided for consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, the answer given by the Minister in response to the question which I asked in the House a couple of weeks ago completely missed the point. He indicated that information about the importation of beef would do instead of information about the importation of clothing. This is how seriously the Cabinet seems to take the very grave situation in Canada's clothing industry.
About three years ago the slogan of the Government was to let industries like clothing, textiles and footwear go because they are losers, and instead to boost the winners, the megaprojects and the high tech industries. The megaprojects flopped a few months later when the price of oil dropped and high tech industries have mostly evaporated and never would have provided any serious quantity of jobs in any case. The Government policy seemed then one of rising permanent unemployment. If that was the policy, it has been a resounding success for the Government and those who like high unemployment as a means of holding or driving wages down.
In the clothing industry the Government's policy has been to increase imports. In fact, imports have been increasing during the past three years at the rate of 20 or 25 per cent per year. The main increase comes from countries where wages are often less than $1 an hour. The Government chooses to blame
Canadian workers for wanting more than $1 an hour in wages. There is no evidence to support the Government's assurance that these products from very low wage countries are a benefit to Canadian consumers. Apart from that fact, a Canadian worker has very little chance to consume when he or she is unemployed, especially after running out of UIC benefits; apart from that fact, the prices are not substantially lower than Canadian made goods.
Three years ago the Government adopted a new plan. It established the CIRB, the Canadian Industrial Renewal Board, which was supposed to renovate the clothing and textile industry. It is very difficult to see what it has done for employment. In fact, the board has no manufacturers in the clothing, textiles or footwear industries on it. It is predominantly a group of financiers, civil servants, some with backgrounds in banking, two or three manufacturers in the metals industries, a couple of trade union representatives and one former consumer association representative. It is very unclear what this is doing for the clothing and textile industries because there have been only piecemeal reports of the grants they have made to various industries and no progress reports about what was achieved through those grants.
Almost a year ago a task force was promised. It was finally appointed in February. There is still no word from this task force as to what it will recommend. Presumably the task force is meant to keep a lid on the question until after the next election.
In May the Minister of International Trade (Mr. Regan), being questioned by the Hon. Member for Welland (Mr. Parent), admitted the problem is that in the last couple of years there has been a great proliferation in the number of sources from which various types of textiles have been coming. He assured us that "our staff is establishing agreements with all these countries that", according to him, "are satisfactory". I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that according to the manufacturers in Spadina and in other places, some of whom have gone out of business because of the uncertainty engendered by this Government's policy, those agreements are not satisfactory, nor are they satisfactory to the unions.
Two weeks ago the whole question was laughed off by the acting Prime Minister who undertook not to make any difference between clothing and meat. What we need is a completely new start on our policy. We need to consider the value of producing as far as possible the things we need here in Canada, such as clothing, and providing work for the people of this country at jobs they are capable of doing. We used to have at least 200,000 capable workers in the clothing and textile industry. That number is now down to 150,000 or less. We still have many of those skilled workers on layoff. We have a capable workforce. We have the raw materials and the market. We ought to be developing that industry positively rather than following the Government's policy of undermining it and causing it to disappear.
June 12, 1984


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, Canada's policy for the textile and clothing sectors is based on the complementary elements of industrial adjustment and trade policy. With respect to adjustment, the policy seeks to establish viable and competitive textile and clothing firms through a variety of measures including the allocation of some $350 million over the 1982-86 period to be managed by the Canadian Industrial Renewal Board.
Regarding trade policy, as you are aware, Canada is a signatory to the multi-fibre agreement, which recognizes that developed countries may require temporary relief for their textile and clothing industries to allow them time to adjust and to increase their competitiveness with respect to disruptive imports from low-cost exporting countries. Accordingly, bilateral restraint arrangements for the period to the end of 1986 have been concluded with 21 low-cost suppliers of textiles and clothing to Canada with these having been concluded in the current year.
The Canadian textile and clothing sector is facing an increasingly serious situation as a result of low-cost imports. In this regard, imports increased by 25 per cent in 1983 and another 20 per cent in the first five months of 1984.
As a result of the import problem in the clothing sector, Canada has made several recent efforts at negotiating intended to address the problem within the framework of the multifibre agreement and the bilateral restraint arrangements.
One of a series of new initiatives was announced on July 21, 1983. These measures included seeking a more controlled flow of import shipments throughout the year, stricter customs inspections at ports of entry and examination of duty drawback and remission schemes.
Since that time, negotiations for new restraint arrangements with several sources, and expanded coverage under existing arrangements, have also been negotiated. Only last month, notifications were also made on nine additional low-cost sources for further restraint negotiations.
A Textiles and Clothing Advisory Committee has also been established by the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Regan), representing a range of private sector interests, that is, producers, consumers, retailers, importers and labour et cetera. The Committee' was formed to advise the Minister on international trade issues having a bearing on the domestic textile and clothing sector. The Committee has had several meetings and recently submitted a set of consensus recommendations to the Minister. These proposals, which focus on the unilateral imposition by Canada of global import quotas for clothing rather than the current bilaterally negotiated restraint regime, will be the subject of careful consideration by the Government.
In addition, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Lumley), has established a private sector task force to review the development, competitive environment and position of the Canadian textile and clothing industries and to make recommendations to the Government aimed at assisting the
Adjournment Debate
industry's restructuring and modernization plans and enhancing their international competitiveness. A report by this task force is expected around the end of September.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT-WORKERS' CO-OPERATIVES- REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT SUPPORT. (B) HOUSING CO-OPERATIVES
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, co-op housing is being attacked in Canada. During the last three months the Government has moved to eliminate non-profit co-op housing, and it has done so very surreptitiously by cutting down on its allocation. The infrastructure which has made the co-op housing program work well during the last few years is dependent upon this allocation. Having reduced the funds to co-op housing, the Government has devastated the regional infrastructure for co-op housing so that one third of the association will die, one third will be unable to provide service and one third will basically reduce their service. The Government therefore is in the process of eliminating co-op housing.
Co-op housing is one area of the co-operative community which has the greatest social impact. The Government has been devastating co-op housing even as it has pretended to be very supportive of co-ops. it mentioned co-ops in the Speech from the Throne and in the Budget. It paid for a co-op task force and appointed a Minister responsible for the interface with co-ops. However, its first move has been to devastate co-op housing.
I dwell upon this subject a little more than necessary because when I asked a question on co-operative development on May 29,1 received a brush-off. Obviously the Minister had no idea what I was talking about when I suggested that we needed to establish a parallel infrastructure for workers' co-ops. The Minister's answer indicated acceptance of all proposals.
I wish to reiterate today the need for support. There is a Spanish model which would work well. Also there is a French legislative approach to which we could look as a model. Will the Government put in place a support system which will assist the co-operative movement to develop? Will it put in place a financial structure to help workers' co-ops to develop the necessary expertise and to conduct the necessary research to develop workers' co-ops? Will it do what is necessary, not approach it in the same way as it has approached co-op housing? Will it allow the development of an infrastructure by keeping in place the financing which has gone to housing co-ops, not devastating the possibility of workers' co-ops by removing any support which might be available?
Housing co-ops could use more support. They are losing it as a result of the reallocation of money. If that is the Government's approach to assistance to co-operatives, it will do more harm than good to the co-operative movement.

June 12, 1984
Adjournment Debate


Mr. Rolland Dion (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take the floor to answer the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) who expresses concern about federal Government support for the co-operative movement.
After last December's Speech from the Throne, Mr. Speaker, a task force on the co-operative sector was established to study new ways in which that sector might improve its contribution to the economy. The Government has just received the task force report and will take it into consideration very soon, as it should.
With that in mind, Mr. Speaker, Senator Hazen Argue will set up an interdepartmental study group within a few weeks. This group will be chaired by a senior official responsible to Senator Argue and, through him, to the Cabinet. It would therefore be difficult and inappropriate to say more about the policy the Government might follow after considering the recommendations of the study group.
Mr. Speaker, I can state clearly that the Government has always been committed to promote the co-operative movement and contributed to make co-operatives play a larger role in the economy. In the early eighties, the Cabinet did realize that the objectives of the co-operative movement-fair prices, Canadian control and widespread participation-were at one with our own objectives in the energy sector. The Cabinet therefore began discussing the possibility of creating businesses jointly with the co-operative sector. Those discussions led to the creation of a joint energy venture, Co-Enerco.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I believe it can be said that this Government is truly a keen supporter of the co-operative movement. I believe this has been demonstrated on many occasions and in many fields, including housing co-operatives, with which the Hon. Member for Prince Albert seems to be concerned. Of course, the co-operative movement in the field of housing is constantly evolving. Regular checking is needed to determine whether the various organizations or groups actually play their rote well. Mr. Speaker, this is the reply I wanted to make.


LABOUR RELATIONS-INCREASES IN CORPORATE EXECUTIVES' SALARIES. (B) DOME PETROLEUM-EXECUTIVES' REMUNERATION
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, some weeks ago it was reported that executive salaries in Canadian industry and business rose by 12.5 per cent last year. This was at a time when the Government was urging restraint on ordinary working Canadians. The average increase for those who received wages or salaries was less than the increase in the cost of living last year. That is why I directed questions to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde). I questioned the difference
in attitude of the Government to the ordinary Canadians and senior executives.
In 1975 this Government implemented so-called wage and price controls. As it turned out, it was actually only wage controls. The Government had fought and won an election by promising never to implement wage and price controls. In more recent times the Government implemented its so-called six and five program for federal public servants. It urged other governments and the private sector to follow suit, and many did. Last year wages and salaries increased by less than the increase in the cost of living. At the same time there have been tremendous executive salary increases in many corporations.
A good illustration of how not to do things can be found in Dome Petroleum. That corporation exists today because of the tremendous tax concessions and write-offs permitted by this Government to the oil and gas industry. Dome Petroleum has been tremendously successful in using each and every facet of the tax laws as they have been changed. This has permitted it to keep operating. It has been able to keep going as well because it has borrowed many billions of dollars from the banks. The loans are now guaranteed by the federal Government. It has reached the point where the bank cannot permit Dome Petroleum to go bankrupt. That would create a catastrophe for the banks. I am reminded of Lord Keynes' famous observation, that if one borrowed one hundred pounds from a bank and could not repay it that person would be in trouble. However, if that person had borrowed a million pounds and could not repay it the bank would be in big trouble.
United States laws and regulations, unlike ours, require corporations which sell their shares on the stock market to file a great deal of information with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.
Thanks to the information which Dome Petroleum was required to file in the United States we have learned that the new chief executive officer of Dome Petroleum, John MacDonald, has an employment agreement for the next five years which will pay him a yearly salary of $500,000 in U.S. funds, plus annual increases equal at least to the rate of inflation, plus merit raises when the directors believe he is entitled to such increases, plus a moving allowance for moving from Calgary of $100,000. As well, he will have a guaranteed pension which will give him over $120,000 a year. According to the Financial Times of Canada, he received a total compensation of $687,000 in the last three months of 1983.
It is not surprising that Dome Petroleum has done that for the new chief executive officer because, according to the Toronto Star, the former Chairman of Dome Petroleum, Jack Gallagher, received $3,457,000 in 1983. Bill Richards, the former President of Dome Petroleum, received $1,408,000 in 1983. Those are exorbitant figures but they have been matched by many other corporations in Canada which have paid anywhere from $500,000 to $1.5 million to their chief executive officers.
June 12, 1984

Given the way in which the Government has called on ordinary Canadians to lower their expectations and to ask for less, given the lectures that Canadians have heard telling them that they cannot afford the kind of lifestyle they have had in the past and that they cannot expect to get, nor will they be able to get the kind of wage and salary increases they received in earlier years, and given the fact that the Government has used all its powers, moral and otherwise, to get ordinary Canadians to scale down their expectations, it seems to me that it would be at least fair and equitable for the Government to call upon the senior executives of Canadian corporations to show the same kind of restraint. Instead, it lets them run amuck and take whatever the traffic will bear. Often the amount the traffic will bear is not the amount the company can afford. That is what has happened to Dome Petroleum.
These directors take what the traffic will bear despite the fact that the companies have not been profitable and successful and despite the fact that what they are getting is being taken at the expense of ordinary Canadians. I say to the Government that that is not good enough. If the Government really believes that we should expect to get by on less than we have in the past, it should apply that belief to all Canadians and not just to the ordinary Canadians who are trying to live on their wages and salaries.


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, the available data indicates that in recent years the increase in average incomes for most Canadians exceeded the increase in prices. Although there are a number of comprehensive measures of average wages and salaries and of average incomes, these generally tend to move similarly over a longer period of time but can show different rates of change over a shorter period of time. The same can be said of prices. Consequently, average wages and salaries and average incomes rose less rapidly in 1983 than in preceding years, reflecting both the impact of the recession and slower inflation.
Nevertheless, over the first four years of the 1980s average personal income and average personal disposable income, the most comprehensive measures of income, rose more rapidly than prices, while average wages, salaries and supplemental incomes rose only slightly less and at about the same rate as price increases. The relevant average compound rates of change over the four years from 1980 to 1983 are these. The Consumer Price Index rose by an average of 9.8 per cent; the gross national expenditure deflator rose by 9.4 per cent; the GNE deflator rose by 9.7 per cent; wages, salaries and supple-
Adjournment Debate
mental income per employed rose by 9.5 per cent; personal income per employed person rose by 10.8 per cent and the personal disposable income per employed person rose by 10.3 per cent.
The rates of increase in executive compensation which have been cited are indeed high. I these increases are general and widespread then they are of extreme concern. However, the cited increases must be put in perspective. These increases came from a recent survey which was carried out by the Financial Times of Canada. It included only 29 major companies. Moreover, the report did not point out that there were declines at six of the enterprises, and at another five increases were in the 6 per cent range or less. Thus, the reported average increase of 12.5 per cent is based on a very small number of companies. Certainly, we cannot jump to the conclusion that Canadian executive salaries jumped last year by 12.5 per cent. Much more information is needed.
Of course, the fact remains that large pay increases, whether to executives or to workers, which contribute to higher prices and inflation are detrimental to the economic recovery which is under way and the longer term growth and development of the Canadian economy. In general, pay increases in excess of productivity growth cannot be sustained without price increases. It may well be that market forces will at times necessitate higher than average pay increases to attract and/or to maintain first-rate executives and/or high-skilled workers. Equally important in such instances, similar market forces should likewise be operating to restrain any consequent price increases.
In summary, responsible actions by all the major participants in the economy, including management and labour, must continue if the current recovery is to be sustained and the Canadian economy in the longer term is to grow and develop further. Additional jobs and a higher standard of living will result. But, this will not occur if pay increases to either executives or workers are inflationary. In particular, there is the danger that substantial increases in executive compensation will serve as examples to workers as they negotiate new collective agreements. Consequently, responsible action continues to be needed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6.27 p.m., the House adjourned.

Wednesday, June 13, 1984