1984-06-14

Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to move a motion with the unanimous consent of the House. I have had consultations with both House Leaders on the other side regarding the extension of hours for the last ten sitting days, and we have reached an agreement. Therefore I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) and the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans):
That, commencing Monday, June 18, 1984 until Friday, June 29, 1984 inclusive, the House shall, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 9, continue to sit beyond six o'clock p.m. and shall adjourn at nine o'clock p.m. on every sitting day provided for in the Standing Orders with the exception of Fridays;
That during this period the sittings of the House shall not be suspended between one o'clock p.m. and two o'clock p.m.;
That these sitting hours shall not affect the hours set aside for Private Members' Business on Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays;
That for the purposes of Standing Order 45(1) the adjournment motion shall be debatable from nine o'clock p.m. to 9:30 o'clock p.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays;
That during the additional hours provided herein, the only business to be considered shall be Government Orders; and
That following the adoption of this motion, no motion under Standing Order 9 shall be receivable on Monday, June 18, 1984.
Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek unanimous consent for the presentation and adoption of this motion, I have no reason to believe that it would be denied.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) have unanimous consent to move the motion?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader is correct in that there have been discussions and consultations among the House Leaders. Accordingly, through our respective caucuses, we have considered the proposal put forward by the Government House Leader and we are prepared to give our unanimous consent for the motion to be presented now and adopted.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, as was mentioned by the House Leader for the Government and the House Leader for the Official Opposition, we did engage in discussions on this matter and we came to an agreement that these hours would be satisfactory. We recognize that there is substantial legislation which still has to be dealt with by the House of Commons and we would very much like to see those
priority pieces of legislation passed before the House rises for the summer.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. Members have heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, June 13, consideration of Bill C-9, an Act to establish the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, to enact an Act respecting enforcement in relation to certain security and related offences and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof or in relation thereto, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs; and Motion No. 1 (Mr. Robinson (Burnaby)).
Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has heard comments concerning a point of order flowing out of the preliminary remarks of the Chair.


Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, when I stopped speaking at six o'clock last evening Your Honour was not in the Chair but your colleague was. You will have had a chance to look at the transcript of my remarks. I was referring then specifically to paragraph 2 of your preliminary ruling in which you cited Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 773(10), which states:
A substantive amendment may not be introduced by way of a modification to the interpretation clause of a bill.
I had been showing, Mr. Speaker, that in the Journals of May 21, 1970, at page 835, which was cited as the basis of that Beauchesne citation, the situation there was clearly different from the situation before us. To sum up what I said yesterday, and I do not believe it is necessary to go over it, I would ask that Your Honour look very carefully at the Journals themselves which form the basis of the Beauchesne citation. I believe you will see that yesterday I distinguished quite clearly the factual situation. My proposition is that what

June 14, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
we are trying to do here is not to bring in an amendment which does not properly belong in the interpretation section of the Act. What we are trying to do is improve the wording of the interpretation section of the Act and adjust that wording to limit the possibility of a greater invasion of privacy and liberties than would generally be desired with the mandate.
I know Your Honour will consider very carefully the remarks which were made and I would, therefore, feel it appropriate to move on to the next stage of my argument. You will know, Mr. Speaker, that yesterday I was able to give to the Table a package of motions which are being proposed in my name on behalf of our Party, in order to assist the Table and Your Honour. It is headed: "The Report Stage of Bill C-9, Canadian Security Intelligence Service. Notes on Proposed Amendments of the Official Opposition. June, 1984".
Before leaving Motion No. 3, which I was discussing yesterday, with respect to Clause 2 of the Bill, I want to make the record clear. What we propose in our Motion No. 3 would be to narrow Paragraph (a) of the Bill before us. Specifically it would narrow the definition of "threats to the security of Canada" by making it clear that the espionage or sabotage must be against Canada, or detrimental to the security interests of Canada. This amendment would narrow the definition to preclude economic or commercial espionage from being included in the service's mandate. I remind Members of the House that the Attorney General of Saskatchewan, in a brief filed with the committee, said that the phrase "detrimental to the interests of Canada" is wide enough to include economic espionage and any other espionage that could be construed as detrimental to our interests and should be limited to the national security interests of Canada. The offensive aspect of economic espionage should be dealt with by the criminal law.
Further, our amendment would narrow Paragraph (b) of the Bill; that is, narrow the definition of "threats to the security of Canada" by making it clear that the foreign-influenced activities within or relating to Canada must be detrimental to the security interests of Canada in order to come within the mandate of the security service.
Another amendment under our Motion No. 3 would significantly narrow Paragraph (c) of the Bill as it is presently before us relating to the definition of threats to the security of Canada by restricting the mandate of the service. Activities would not only have to have as their purpose the achieving of a political objective within Canada or a foreign state, but as well would need to be detrimental to the security interests of our own country, Canada.
The other amendment under Motion No. 3 would narrow Paragraph (d) of the definition of threats to the security of Canada by removing from the mandate of the service the investigation of activities directed toward undermining the system of government in Canada. It would instead deal with what the McDonald Commission termed "revolutionary subversion". The wording at page 441 of that Commission's report states that "revolutionary subversion" means activities directed toward or intended ultimately to lead to the destruction or overthrow of the democratic system of government in Canada.
It is important to note that the Canadian Bar Association said that the words "undermining" and "intended ultimately" should be removed as they are too vague and broader than necessary. Also, the Attorney General of Saskatchewan, at page 5 of his brief, stated that the word "ultimately" in the definition is "not particularly definitive". Our amendment also removes the reference to the "ultimate" intentions and the amendment would also ensure that lawful advocacy, protest or dissent are not the subject of investigation by the service. In relation to this matter the Attorney General of Saskatchewan called the closing words of the "threats" definition as presently before us "an empty guarantee".
I think it can be shown that our Motion No. 3 does not come within the stricture of the Beauchesne's section which Your Honour asked us to consider yesterday. However, there is another aspect to this. It is not just a procedural matter at all. These four paragraphs in the Bill, Subclause (2), (a), (b), (c) and (d), are of utmost importance in the working of the mandate set out in the remainder of the Act. Your Honour will remember that yesterday I pointed out that these definition sections caused very great concern to the many people who brought briefs and suggestions to the committee. These amendments are aimed at improving the wording of these definitions. They have nothing to do with anything else in the Act. They direct themselves entirely, completely and exclusively to the definitions which are presently before us in the Bill. I think they are in order. I do not know how we would explain to the public of Canada if, when we got to report stage of this Bill, after weeks of listening to witnesses, some of them with quite significant credentials in terms of the law and civil rights, we could not follow up on any of the suggestions they made by moving amendments to these very vital definition sections.
In your ruling you also said that Motion No. 11 seems to change the purpose and principle of the Bill as agreed to at second reading by bringing the service under the control of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Your Honour has, of course, cited the traditional rules which say that an amendment cannot be contrary to the principle of the Bill. With that proposition I have no quarrel. The difficulty lies in deciding what the principle of a Bill is. The difficulty also lies in deciding what is meant by "approval in principle" in terms of the second reading debate.
With respect, the real purpose of Bill C-9 is to establish a lawful framework within which the security service of Canada will operate. The word which is being used all the time is a "mandate" for the security service. It really means that rather than having the present security service, which has been physically in place with its personnel and activities for many years, subject only to government guidelines, this Bill properly seeks to set out a mandate. To put it in simple terms that a
June 14, 1984

child could understand, the Bill seeks to set out rules within which the security service must operate.
When the second reading debate was held and there were comments made about the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, there was no suggestion that that was irrelevant or something which could not be discussed. During the committee hearings there were representations reviewed by the committee which dealt directly with whether the security service should become completely a civilian service or whether it should stay under the aegis of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. When this question was being discussed in committee by witnesses who put forward their propositions and submissions from briefs that were filed by other witnesses, it did not seem to be such a bizarre notion to be discussing whether it was appropriate to remove the security service entirely from the aegis of the RCMP. It is important that people understand that this security service which is receiving this set of rules and regulations as set out in this Bill is not something that will suddenly take effect the day after the Bill receives Royal Assent. It has been in existence for many years. The security service has been a mix of many things. While it is under the aegis of the RCMP, not everyone in it is a member of the RCMP.
The Commissioner has been operating the service and has been responsible to the Solicitor General for its operation. All that this present Bill does is replace the Commissioner with a Director. That is one of the simplest effects of the Bill. The essential purpose of the Bill is to place the rules by which the security service will operate into law. This Bill would still stand if it were amended to read "Commissioner" of the RCMP instead of "Director" except for some consequential amendments. We have made it quite clear which of our amendments would be consequential. The mandate would still exist.
The mandate can apply easily to a service under the aegis of the RCMP or a service under the civilian Director. In other words, the purpose of this Bill is not to create a new security service. It simply sets down some rules for a security service that already exists. All of this talk about a new security service, especially in the media, is, with great respect, inaccurate. There is nothing new about it.
I think it is appropriate at this time to put on the record what the Minister said in committee to support the fact that this security service has been in place for many years and will continue to exist with the same people. This Bill will make many of the present regulations and rules that have been applied by the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) mandatory after the unfortunate troubles of over a decade ago. I put this question to the Minister in committee:
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 a 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?
Security Intelligence Service
The Solicitor General replied:
Yes, that is so.
It is important that we understand what we are doing here and that the Canadian public realizes that this exercise is not to create anything new at all. We are laying down the set of rules into law under which the security service, which has been in existence for these many years, will have to operate. In fact, we are putting rules into statute form that are already in place. The passage of this Bill is, to a remarkable degree, a firming of the rules that were established after the revelations of the wrong-doing in the early 1970s that were brought to the attention of the House in 1977. I point out that it has been seven years since the matter was raised in the House of Commons and 14 years or more since some of these wrongdoings that were complained about took place.
I also want to refer to some of the comments of the Solicitor General during second reading debate. This is what the Hon. Solicitor General said in the House about the principle of the Bill at second reading:
Mr. Speaker, the proposed legislation before us today represents a major turning point for Canada's security intelligence system. We are asking Parliament to provide for the first time in Canada's history a legal framework more comprehensive and more detailed than that of any other security system in the world.
Notice that he says "We are asking Parliament to provide a legal framework". I agree completely with what the Hon. Solicitor General said because I suggest that that is the basis of this legislation. He went on to say:
The purpose of this bill is, therefore, to a large extent, to provide a new set of guarantees and controls that do not exist at the present time in order to protect the rights of Canadians against undue interference.
The Solicitor General was explaining at second reading stage what this Bill is all about. It does not take much imagination to realize that all of that is just as applicable to a security service that reports through the Commissioner of the RCMP as it is to a security service that reports through a civilian director.
There has been much talk about great change. However, the fact is that all those who have been in the security service all of this time will still be there when this Bill is passed. This Bill will set out the legislative mandate, through the rules that have been passed by the House of Commons of Canada, which they must apply. That is the purpose of this Bill. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to take that into account when you consider your preliminary ruling.
I am trying as best I can not to deal in this discussion with your preliminary comments which do not affect my motions. There are others who seem to be quite able to argue their own case and I do not want to stray into that area, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, and I am sorry to have to advise your Honour of this, I had made some careful notes on my own copy of your ruling of yesterday which would have enabled me to get through my submission more quickly this morning than I am going to be able to because somehow that copy has been

June 14, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
mislaid. I am at a bit of a disadvantage, but I will try to move on as rapidly as possible.
My argument has dealt with your paragraph 2 and my Motion No. 3. It has dealt with Motion No. 11, which is the motion to retain the service under the aegis of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I think in the interest of cohesiveness, I want to discuss for a moment paragraph 6 of Your Honour's preliminary ruling. Paragraph 6 reads, "Motions Nos. 15, 76, 84, 117 and 175 attempt to introduce an entirely new concept and principle into the Bill of a parliamentary oversight committee, a concept not in the Bill as introduced or as 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."
Those particular motions which are set out in paragraph 6 are basically motions which have been introduced by other Members. What Your Worship may not have noticed is our Motion No. 123-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) is rising on what basis?


Mr. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have a question as to the practice with respect to the appellation of the Chair. I have heard reference to "Your Worship". I know "Your Worship" is not a mayor. I do not know whether this is an appropriate-


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest there might be a little latitude permitted. The Hon. Member is not being disrespectful to the Chair. The Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser).


John Allen Fraser: Your Honour, I have spent a good deal of the life I led before I came here in various courtrooms and places of significance.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Allen Fraser: I have been in the habit of having to think through carefully just how I address the august and esteemed persons before whom I appeared. I want Your Honour to know that I was concentrating so hard on the pith and substance of my submission to you, as I know you were, that I did not notice having said that. The interesting thing is that you were listening so carefully to me that you did not notice either!


Svend Johannes Robinson: I was listening.


John Allen Fraser: But my hon. friend from Burnaby was not listening to the pith and substance at all, Your Honour. He was just listening to these little details. I have, however, refrained from addressing Your Honour as "Your Lordship" or "Your Grace", knowing that even if I-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the Hon. Member to get on with his argument. I am sure the mood of the House is to extend a
certain latitude because courtesy is obviously being extended to the Chair. Under such circumstances, the Chair could not care less.


John Allen Fraser: Your Honour, if raising your dignity will advance my argument any, I would cheerfully do it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Allen Fraser: Back to the pith and substance of this cogent argument that I am making, motion No. 23, which is our motion, deals with a parliamentary oversight committee. It is not mentioned in your paragraph 6, which I suppose was an oversight, but I want to discuss it. I think I am duty bound to bring this to your attention. Unless it is dealt with in the context of your paragraph 6, it will just have to be dealt with at another time because I am sure Your Honour would notice it.
Motion No. 123 is not mentioned in paragraph 6. I hope your Table officers are following carefully the point I am making because I think Your Honour would have wished that it be included, so I will address it now. The purpose of Motion No. 123 is to introduce a new Clause 56. Motion No. 123 reads:
That Bill C-9 be amended by adding immediately after line 20 at page 24 the following:
"56. The administration, provisions and operation of this Act shall be reviewed
on a permanent basis by such committee of the House of Commons or of the
House of Commons and Senate as may be designated or established by
Parliament for that purpose."
What that does, Your Honour, is enable the government of the day from time to time, according to what it wishes to do under this section, to create a review committee made up of Members of the House of Commons, or of the House of Commons and Senate. Your Honour has indicated, at least in your first view of this, that this would be an entirely new concept, and as a consequence it would be beyond the scope of the Bill. The Bill does include a review committee. It is an appointed committee and it could include Members of Parliament. I think the general intention was that it would be aimed at people not in the House of Commons or Senate. To bring in an amendment to this Bill that would also establish a parliamentary overview committee in my view does not seem to break with the principle or add some new principle to the main theme of the Bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The point is the process by which committees of this House are established. There is an amendment which says it should be reviewed by a parliamentary committee. The initial reaction of the Chair is that Parliament can always decide that a review should take place, but to establish a special committee by this process gives the Chair concern. There is a method through the Standing Orders. Sometimes the statutes may expressly provide. However, to establish a special committee through this process is what gives the Chair concern.
June 14, 1984


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I can understand the point that you are making. The fact that this is particularly aimed at a parliamentary overview committee made up of parliamentarians to overview the security service may take it out of the general proposition which you have advanced to me for my consideration. I have to argue that that would be my reply to the proposition which you have raised.
We also have to look at the common sense of it. There was a great deal of discussion in committee about whether there should be a parliamentary overview committee and what its powers should be. In fact, the committee went to the trouble of bringing two distinguished public servants from Washington to give us extensive testimony on how the United States Senate overview committee on security matters operates and is supported and staffed and, although not in as great detail, some interesting information with respect to a similar committee of the House of Representatives.
Nobody suggested at that time that to organize it, to go to the trouble of bringing them here and hearing these witnesses, would somehow be discussing a matter which was outside the principle of the Bill. I would argue and I would urge upon Your Honour that, to the degree possible, you would view this amendment and other amendments seeking the same objective which have been filed by my learned friends as not being something that is foreign to the Bill but is very much part and parcel of a principle which is in the Bill, and that is the principle of a review.
The other thing that is important is that the basis of the acceptance of the security service in the mind of the Canadian public is trust. To our great dismay and to the dismay of all decent Canadians, revelations were made in 1977 concerning things that were done that ought not to have been done over a decade ago. When they were made public, there was dismay. Apart from the detailed acts, what hurt us all, including a great institution as well as the institution of this Parliament, was that it was clear that there had been an absence of adequate control by political Solicitors General and perhaps even the Prime Minister. What hurt most was the sense that our trust had been betrayed.
As Your Honour, we in this House and the public of Canada know, notwithstanding all the laws we pass, that we run a civil community, with decency and fairness under the rule of law, to a great degree on trust. In the context of trust, it would be beneficial to have an overview, oversight or review committee consisting of Members of Parliament. Members of Parliament, whatever their faults or their occasional indiscretions-


Yvon Pinard: That is not a point of order. You are debating the Bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I invited comment by the Hon. Member concerning the proposal that this motion is inadmissible. In fairness to Hon. Members, the Chair is giving a fair amount of latitude, as was the case of the previous speaker, in hearing argument. Following the argument, the Chair proposes to deal with the matter as the Chair is obliged to do.
Security Intelligence Service


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I will not be overly long. I will sum it up by saying this. There is an overview committee provided for in the Bill. All this amendment is doing is making a special arrangement whereby this House can appoint Members of Parliament to review our security service. I am suggesting that that is not outside the spirit of the Bill. Members of Parliament are in contact with the public at all times. As I was saying, despite whatever sins of commission or omission they commit, or whatever their frailties, on a daily basis they have to respect that relationship of trust between the public and those they send here to pass the laws and govern the country. I do not need to overstate the case, but that is the position I am trying to make.
I will deal briefly with the various motions which we are introducing. As I indicated to the Table yesterday, when you take away the consequential motions which would only pass if our Motion No. 11, the retention of the security service under the aegis of the RCMP, were passed, we have before Your Honour only nine motions and part of two others. That is not hundreds. I want to get them on the record very quickly so that we understand what they are.
I have dealt with Motion No. 3 to amend Clause 2, which deals with the very important amendments in the definition section. I dealt with Motion No. 11 which amends Clause 3. If it were passed, the security service which presently reports through the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police would continue to do so. Motion No. 32 amends Clause 12. The purpose is to make it abundantly clear in the legislation that the collection of information and intelligence by the security service should be limited to "strictly necessary for the purpose of protecting the security of Canada". I do not think Your Honour would find that motion out of place.
Motion No. 49 to amend Clause 20 would require the Attorney General of a province in which alleged unlawful acts occurred to be informed by the federal Attorney General unless it would not be in the public interest. In that case the Attorney General of Canada would have to certify his reasons and forward them to the review committee. The reason for that motion was that there was ample testimony before us indicating that the relationship between the federal Government, the provinces and the other police forces is one which must be respected and dealt with appropriately.
Motion No. 53 amends Clause 21 which deals with warrants. Again, very briefly, the effect of this amendment would be that warrants would not be granted for ordinary domestic activities on the basis that the need for warrants for these matters had not been demonstrated. That is consistent with what Commissioner Simmonds of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police said when he appeared before the Justice Committee. He said that the intrusive powers envisioned by the Bill which is presently before us would be of only marginal use to such investigations.
The other part of that same amendment provides that warrants should only be granted where there are reasonable

June 14, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
and probable grounds for such warrants. The clause in the Bill presently reads only "reasonable grounds". We would like to change that clause. The words "and probable" tighten it up because the phrase "reasonable and probable" has been defined by many judges and courts across the land. There is plenty of law regarding the exact definition of that phrase. As well, the amendment would see that warrants for intrusive techniques should only be available for a maximum of 60 days rather than the one year that is presently provided for in the Bill. That change is consistent with the Criminal Code.
Motion No. 62 amends Clause 22. This clause as well applies to search warrants and warrants for intrusive surveillance. The purpose of our amemdment would be to limit the maximum length of a renewal of 60 days, which is again consistent with our original position that the first warrant for intrusive surveillance should only last for 60 days, as is provided in the Criminal Code of Canada.
Motion No. 68 amends Clause 24. Again, this clause deals with warrants. The present wording of Clause 24 contained an awkward part which make it unclear as to what would happen to an innocent third party who was told to do something by a security service person operating under the authority of a warrant if it turned out that what the third party was asked to do was unlawful. As Bill C-9 presently stands, an innocent third person is expected to believe that the official person giving him the orders does in fact have a warrant. I must ask Your Honour to consider how often a janitor, a person working in a store or a taxi driver who is told to do something quickly by an official who says he is in the security service would cross-examine the official on the spot and ask whether he in fact has a warrant.
Motion No. 79 amends Clause 31. This clause deals with Cabinet documents. Our position is quite clear and it is that the Inspector General ought to be able to see Cabinet documents that relate to the work of the security service, because if he does not have that ability, he is clearly not in a position to know exactly what is going on.
Motion No. 94 amends Clause 38. This would have the effect of allowing the review committee which is established under this Bill to review and have oversight on other security and intelligence agencies or arrangements in Canada. Motion No. 123 amends Clause 56. This is the motion I have discussed at length which would establish a parliamentary oversight committee. Motion No. 130 amends Clause 61. The effect of our amendment would be to establish a positive duty on the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to consult with other police forces when investigating national security offences, even though the Royal Canadian Mounted Police would have primary responsibility.
I do not think it is necessary for me to argue the rationale behind those motions. That is our basic package, Your Honour. We think it would be hard to explain to the Canadian public why those amendments ought not to be put to this House at report stage. The substance of all of those amendments has been the subject of much debate in the committee and the subject of many briefs that were submitted to the
committee. The substance of those amendments has been spoken to by witnesses who have appeared before the committee at great expense.
1 would urge that when considering your preliminary ruling, Mr. Speaker, you reconsider your view that some of these amendments are not in order. As well, I would urge you to interpret the rules as broadly as possible, as I know you will, so that the work that has been done in committee will actually be reflected in the amendments that are brought forward at report stage.
This Bill went through second reading, and at that time the Government indicated that when the Bill went to committee, it could be improved. It indicated that we were to bring forward our amendments at that time. The fact of the matter is that the Government has not accepted any significant amendments. One must ask oneself what this was all about. It is not that some very significant matters were not brought to the attention of the Government in committee because they were. However, the Government did not accept anything. There seems to be very little indication that the Government will accept anything now. One of these days, people will look back at this Parliament and say: "In view of what that committee was told by eminent Canadians on the question of civil rights, why did the Government not budge, why did it not adjust, why did it not pay attention to some of the matters that were brought before it?" Someone might say: "Well, there are only a few Government Members in committee and they do not reflect the entire government caucus".
I think it is important that these amendments be put to the House because we know that there are Government Members who think that there is considerable merit to a number of these amendments. They feel there is merit to the amendments on parliamentary oversight, on the review committee's right to have access to Cabinet documents that relate directly to the security service, on the definition clause which is Clause 2, Paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d), and on many other matters. We know that there are Members on the Government side who think that these amendments which we are trying to put before the House have merit. As a matter of fact, some of the amendments are being moved by a former Solicitor General of that Government.
If these amendments are blocked here, then one of these days someone is going to look back on this Parliament and ask: "What in the name of heaven went on?" Some of these Government Members will respond to that by saying: "Gosh, I did not realize that that was happening. I would have supported that adjustment to Paragraph (d). I do not think that Cabinet documents directly related to the security service should be kept from the Inspector General and the review committee. How could this have ever happened?" It will happen. They will be able to get away with that kind of falderal if these amendments are not put at report stage.
There is the question of process and procedure. There is also the question of the substance of these amendments fitting into
June 14, 1984

the mandate of the legislation which will set the rules under which the security service has existed these many years and will still exist. It will not be born anew with this legislation.
We also have to address a sense of fitness. Is it appropriate that this House would take these amendments coming from committee-all of which have been discussed extensively and are the subject of briefs which were prepared by Canadians of eminent learning and experience-and decide that it would not accept any of the amendments? Worse than that, it will not even let those amendments be put.
I know that Your Honour will consider my remarks carefully. I know that the Table officers have been listening closely. I have tried to put my argument in such a way that it is clear, concise and flows in some proper order. I have some hon. friends in this Chamber who do not believe that anyone here could ever say anything which is clear, concise and in the proper order. Perhaps they are seeing the rest of us through eyes that know themselves only too well. I shall rest my remarks and trust in the wisdom and judgment of the Chair, which is assisted, of course, by able Table Officers. Depending on the ruling, I do not know whether I will have the chance to be as approving later as I am now. However, faith and trust are important matters. We should call upon them at times like this and wring every ounce of goodness which we can from them.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I find it almost a challenge, of which I may not be worthy, to follow the Hon. Member who has just sat down. He covered almost everything that one could ever expect to be covered with regard to the ruling. I look forward to reading Hansard in order to garner even more wisdom from his comments.
I would like to deal with three matters and I would like to deal with them very quickly. The first matter is the appropriate groupings, as we interpret them, from the point of view of the amendments which we have put forward. I would like to reply to a question which was asked by the Speaker when he was in the chair yesterday. I would also like to deal with the question of admissibility of the clause which will put into place parliamentary oversight.
To begin with, I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you will know that Mr. Speaker Francis, on page 4639 of Hansard, when referring to my hon. colleague from Burnaby, said:
-but the issue before us is a group of amendments and, with all due respect to the Hon. Member, the Chair would invite him to direct his remarks to the way in which the amendments should be grouped.
At a later point in the proceedings yesterday, Mr. Speaker Francis indicated that the question of grouping was the responsibility of the Chair and that there were many ways in which amendments could be grouped. Of course, he is absolutely right. It is the responsibility of the Chair. Not only that, there are a number of different ways in which amendments could be grouped, given that he specifically requested us to
Security Intelligence Service
suggest for his consideration how we thought they should be grouped.
I would like to draw your attention to the comments of the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) who, having probably as much knowledge of the content of this legislation as any single Member in the House of Commons, and I suspect having as much knowledge of the content of the legislation as any member of the public in Canada, as reported on page 4641 of Hansard proposed a way of grouping the amendments which were put forward by the New Democratic Party. His suggestion would allow us not to have to deal with each and every single one that was filed for the purpose of report stage debate. He has reduced from some 90 or more amendments the total number of votes to something in the order of 12 to 14 votes. In doing that, I think he met the challenge of the Chair. The Chair quite rightly requested that proposal.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that if the amendments which we proposed were to be grouped in the way in which the Hon. Member for Burnaby suggested, they would be grouped according to subject matter. I think that that is a practical way in which to apply groupings. They would also be grouped in such a way as to allow a vote to take place which would dispose of the amendments without the necessity of going through each one individually. I commend to the Chair that particular series of groupings. I would expedite the business of the House in dealing with the Bill. It would improve the mood of the House, which I think we are all trying to do at all times. It would make it possible for the House to deal in a fair and reasonable way with this very difficult subject matter.
It was said by the Hon. Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) yesterday that this is perhaps one of two pieces of legislation which have been paramount importance to the country. He is absolutely right. I think for the benefit of hindsight historians will reflect upon this legislation and the constitutional changes which took place two or three years ago. They will analyze the work of this Parliament and come to the same conclusion: that those two pieces of legislation will probably turn out to be the most significant legislation which has been dealt with during the history of this particular Parliament. There will be tremendous force and effect felt as the result of the changes which we now have before us. Therefore, we ought not to deal with it frivolously. Neither should we allow the possibility of taking an extra day or two to interfere with doing a good job.
The second point which was raised by the Chair can be found on page 4641 of Hansard. Again, Mr. Speaker Francis rose and asked the Hon. Member for Burnaby the following question:
Could the Chair ask the Hon. Member if he is prepared to withdraw any of these motions to delete? Does he consider that every single motion to delete should be considered by the House?
You will perhaps be aware, or you will be made aware, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon. Member for Burnaby, in his response, said that we did not in fact intend that every single motion to delete ought to be or need be dealt with by the House. He has, after a very careful analysis of each of the motions, offered to
4656

June 14, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
the Chair a large number of amendments which we believe can be withdrawn and need not be dealt with. We hope, in taking into account those two actions, on the one hand our proposal for grouping, and on the other hand our offer to withdraw a significant number of motions, that that will find favour with the Chair and that the Chair will in its final ruling reflect that gesture of goodwill on our part which is intended to facilitate the business of the House.
I believe, therefore, we have met the two challenges given by the Chair to the Hon. Member for Burnaby, who was speaking on behalf of this Party. We believe on those two questions the action of the Hon. Member for Burnaby will help to improve the orderly disposal of this legislation.
I would now like to come to what I believe is perhaps the most important matter left to be dealt with. On page 3 of the preliminary ruling, the sixth point states:
Motions Nos. 15, 76, 84, 117, and 175 attempt to introduce an entirely new concept and principle into the Bill-a parliamentary oversight committee-a concept not in the Bill as introduced or read a second time.
The paragraph continues and the relevant ruling, if you will, preliminary though it is, is as follows:
Thus it is clearly beyond the scope of the Bill and I must rule each of these motions out of order.
I do not have to explain the Bill to you, Mr. Speaker, as you are probably just as familiar with it and all of its clauses as I am. However, the bill is for the purpose of setting up a Canadian Security Intelligence Service. That is the main principle of the Bill. Within the Bill itself there are a number of proposals which deal with how the security service should be set up; who should constitute the security service; how the security service should be administered; and how oversight, if you will, should be provided. There are at least two sections in the Bill which deal with the question of oversight, which deal with the very important question of who is to be responsible for ensuring that the actions of this security service, if, as and when it becomes law, will be adequately judged and reviewed by an appropriate body.
We are not proposing to remove the review committees which are presently provided for within the Bill. What we are proposing is that they do not go far enough. We are proposing to extend the oversight provision. What we are saying is that there can be no group anywhere in the country more suitable than Members of Parliament in determining the appropriateness of the actions of the security service. We are the only people in Canada who are directly accountable. The decision to accept unto ourselves the resonsibility, onerous though it is, of answering for the actions of the security service is a decision, I believe, which shows both intestinal fortitude and a sense of the importance of the service and of Parliament. It surely is the responsibility of Parliament to make that kind of decision. That cannot be beyond the scope of the Bill. Surely there can be no one who could argue that the Parliament of Canada does not have the right to set up a committee for the purpose of ensuring that the security service of Canada operates within the legal framework established by the Act under which it is constituted. If we do not have the right to make that decision, then who does? If we do not have the right to establish a committee-


Mr. Kaplan:: But not at report stage. That is on second reading.


Ian Deans: The Minister interjects-and I am not being critical of the interjection-and says that we should have made this-


Robert Phillip Kaplan: You did make it.


Ian Deans: Wait a moment-we should have brought this to a vote at second reading. But we cannot make the amendment at second reading.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: No, at committee stage.


Ian Deans: But we did take it to the committee stage.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: That is right.


Ian Deans: And the committee decided not to approve it. I do not want to give a lesson on parliamentary procedure, but the reason for the report stage is to allow Parliament as a whole to consider those matters which were placed before the committee, if it so desires. That is what the report stage is all about. We have a report stage so that all Members of Parliament will be given the opportunity to exercise their responsibility by voting for or against matters which the committee- being representative of Parliament but not in fact involving everyone in its deliberations-had placed before it and decided upon.
Let me suggest, for example, that it is my understanding that the Minister is going to attempt to put back before Parliament a clause which the committee decided it did not want in the Bill. The Minister is going to do that. Would he argue that since he lost it in committee he is not entitled to ask that the House vote on it? Of course not. Why, then, would he argue that an amendment moved by the Opposition which was defeated in the committee is inappropriate to place before the House at report stage? One cannot have it both ways.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: But one was out of order.


Ian Deans: notice at second reading that that was our intent. The Minister in response said, "Bring it up at committee". And we did. It was not ruled out of order at committee; it was voted down by the Government majority.
It is therefore appropriate, given that it was considered in order at the committee, given that it is clearly within the scope of the Bill, given that it is simply an extension of the review structure which already exists within the Bill and given that it is intended to place in the hands of Parliament and parliamentarians the responsibility for ensuring that the actions of the security service are indeed actions which it is legally entitled to undertake within the broad scope of the legislation, given all of those things it surely cannot be argued that the Parliament of Canada does not have the right to vote upon that and to make the decision, yes or no, whether we want to assume that responsibility.
I put it to you, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that it would be wrong to deny Parliament the opportunity to assume a responsibility that, at least in part, it believes it would like to assume. It would be wrong to rule out of order an attempt by Members of Parliament to assume their responsibilities. I therefore cannot agree that it is beyond the scope of the Bill. It is not beyond the scope of the Bill. The Bill clearly encompasses the question of review. The method of review is up to Parliament. The Government said there should be a review and the Opposition said the review offered by the Government is inadequate. We are simply asking that the review be expanded to allow parliamentarians to do their job.
I therefore urge upon you, Sir, after careful consideration, that you come to the conclusion that while perhaps at first glance it would have appeared to be out of order, with the benefit of a more careful review, in fact the principle that Members of Parliament be part of the process of review in no way deviates from the main principle of the Bill or, for that matter, in no way takes us outside the scope of the Bill.
Having said that, I leave to your good judgment the appropriateness of the suggestions we have made. We have responded properly to the questions the Chair placed before us. We have attempted throughout this discussion to provide the Chair with an alternative which we believe is both practical in its use of the time of the House as well as ensuring that adequate debate is allowed to take place. Equally importantly, we consider that it would ensure a proper vote on the various clauses of the Bill.
As I said earlier, we will withdraw certain of the motions to delete and we will have provided today a substantial list to the Chair for consideration for withdrawal. I ask in all fairness, since we are prepared to do that, that we not be abused by the process and that that portion of our submission not be the only one given proper consideration. I would find it offensive, quite frankly, if all other arguments we placed before the Chair fell on deaf ears and only our willingness to withdraw certain of the amendments in the interest of the orderly proceedings of
Security Intelligence Service
the House of Commons was accepted. I am sure that will not happen but I say it so it is on the record.
I appreciate your patience in hearing me out, and if we could get a favourable ruling along those lines it would expedite the orderly disposition, through passage or otherwise, of this legislation and enable us to get on with the business of Parliament.


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Mr. Speaker, I sat throughout those many days of committee hearings and I watched this whole process. The first observation any partial or impartial person outside would have to make is that the whole process was handled very badly, indeed incompetently, by the Government and its advisers. Here we are into a procedural wrangle and it would not have been necessary at all had the Government had its wits about it and had the Government's advisers simply followed the rule of law.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, we are here because the Cabinet made a decision many months ago to have a civilian security intelligence agency. Out of that process came Bill C-157, which was so badly drafted and such a disaster that the Government, even before it came to the House for second reading, had to pull it out and sterilize it by putting it into a Senate committee. They heard dozens and dozens of witnesses and made over 40 changes. Had the Government been competent in the first place, Bill C-157 would have come to the House, had a proper debate with amendments, and it could now be the law.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I invite the Hon. Member to limit his remarks to the suggestion of Mr. Speaker that comments should relate to the grouping itself and not to the relative merits or substance of the Bill, if I may suggest.


Blaine Allen Thacker: I appreciate what you are saying, Mr. Speaker, but you will see as I get into my argument that it will deal with equity in this highest court of the land. It will deal with how the Speaker in his equitable jurisdiction should be dealing with this as compared to the strict rule of law or the statutory rules, although I have an argument on that subject as well.
Bill C-9 comes in, closure is applied on second reading, and the Government now seems to be saying that because something was not dealt with at second reading stage it cannot be dealt with at committee stage. The Government did not give us a chance at second reading. We could not put amendments in when the Government brought in closure, so we have to do it at committee stage. They were deemed acceptable by the chairman at committee stage, fully debated, some were passed and some were defeated. Now we are back at report stage and everyone has the right to put in as many amendments as they want. That is exactly what has happened. Had the Government been able to foresee, as it should have, what would happen in committee, we would not be involved in this huge debate with the loss of all sorts of time.
I would rather be debating the substance of the Bill than a procedural wrangle. In committee Government Members themselves came to realize that much of what the witnesses

June 14, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
were saying, along with the amendments we were putting forward, was reasonable. Indeed, they accepted one of the amendments. One Member abstained, and the chairman, having sat through this for months and months, voted with the Opposition on one of our amendments which resulted in its getting through. Government Members have strong feelings on this themselves and they would like to see some changes.
We have our little green book, Mr. Speaker, which gives us the process for resolving conflicts. When the Government decided that the NDP had put in too many amendments or that it was stalling, there was a mechanism to deal with that. Standing Order 80 provides that the Government can try to reach an agreement which can be filed in this House and put time limits on the committee stage. But even if it cannot get agreement from all three Parties, it could have used Standing Order 81, which states:
When a Minister of the Crown, from his or her place in the House, states that a majority of the representatives of the several Parties have come to an agreement in respect of a proposed allotment of days or hours-
That can be filed in the House as well, but no one approached us.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I really apologize to the Hon. Member for interrupting him again. However, I feel he is not addressing the very specific matter of groupings and the Speaker's comments. The Hon. Member is now referring to events which occurred in committee. I appreciate his earlier remarks, that he is attempting to lay the foundation for argument on some point which he plans to raise later on in his remarks. But I would invite the Hon. Member, for the sake of orderly debate and strict relevancy to what is now exercising the House, that is commenting on the Speaker's proposed ruling, to reach that point as soon as possible so that I can have a better understanding of what he is arguing.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that in your equitable jurisdiction you would agree that the court should never be put in the position of having to rescue someone as a result of one of the people appealing to you not having followed the rules. If the Government would have followed Standing Order 81, wherein it could have dealt with us and the two Parties could have struck an agreement, it would not have mattered what the NDP wanted. Failing that, it could have acted under Standing Order 82 wherein the Minister can simply and say there is no agreement. Therefore, they could have brought debate to a close, not only in the House but in the committee. That is the point. There was a mechanism to resolve the conflict in the committee. Standing Order 82 states "at which a public bill was under consideration either in the House or in any committee". That is my point. They are calling upon the Chair to extricate them from a situation which the Government itself caused. I do not think the highest court in the land, and the Speaker of that court, should have to rescue the Government as a result of its own incompetence.
Referring to what you were calling upon in terms of motions, Motion No. 11 is one of the PC motions which is
really the heart and core of what we are saying in the sense that the existing service should continue, that the statute which is going to codify the existing practice should simply apply to the existing organization which is there. We should, as a Parliament, be able to make a division on that. It would be quite appropriate for you to say that Motion No. 11, being the substantial element of it, has a lot of consequentials, so that if Motion No. 11 is deleted all of these consequential motions fail. That would be a reasonable grouping right there. It is not crystal clear from the preliminary ruling that that is the case. I think that should be one of the chapters. That would be fair and reasonable.
My hon. colleague from Vancouver South laid out very well the case as to the other groupings and the other nine motions, all of which I believe should be found in order. The House should be able to divide on those. The proposal of the Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) is truly a reasonable proposition for the grouping of the NDP amendments as well.
I would like to make one brief comment with regard to some of the remarks that were made in the House about the conduct of the chairman of the committee. I believe he was put in an impossible situation, just as you are, Mr. Speaker. In that impossible situation he had to act, and he acted to the very best of his ability. As a result he did the honourable thing: he resigned at the end of it. He said that he had been put in such a terrible position by the actions of the Government that he felt he had no choice as chairman of the committee but to make a resolution and resign. The Government should have gotten him off the hook by coming to the House and seeking an order under Standing Order 82. That was the proper and lawful mechanism to resolve it, but the Government allowed the chairman of the committee to hang out on the line. He had to save their bacon two or three times. Indeed, when he felt it was proper he voted with the Opposition Members. Now the Government is bringing in motions to change around the amendments that were accepted and voted on by some of their own Members. It is an absurd situation. I take exception to the chairman being hung out to dry for the incompetence of the Government.
I want briefly to reiterate the argument put by my hon. colleague from Vancouver South. I too went back and looked at the Journals. I believe this is one of those cases where the quote in Beauchesne does not adequately reflect the actual wording of the Journals. I can remember the Chief Justice of the trial division of the Supreme Court of Alberta speaking to us when we were graduating as young law students. He told us how we would go before the court and be psyched out by senior lawyers who have had 20 years' practice and seem to know everything. He told us not to be fooled by it. He said that if a young lawyer goes behind the headnote and reads the cases, he will often find that the case does not actually bear out what the senior counsel, going on long-term memory and flying by the seat of his pants, is saying. He told us we would win several cases on that. That is true. This is an example of that, Mr. Speaker. I would encourage you strongly to read the
June 14, 1984

actual Journals. I do not think it is a sound basis for the quote from Beauchesne.


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into the debate at report stage. In other words, I want to address Motion No. 1.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is quite in order. The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn) for that purpose on Motion No. 1.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I had the opportunity of speaking on Bill C-9 at second reading although I was limited to 10 minutes then as I am now. This is one of the most important Bills ever to come before the House in my time. I am in my fourteenth year in this Chamber. In some respects it is also one of the most odious pieces of legislation which we have had to deal with because of the intransigence of the Government and its refusal to, what I call, democratize, or I might even use the word "liberalize", the framework of this very important piece of legislation.
I can recall a few weeks ago speaking before the county council of Brant, the riding which I represent. That council is dominated by Conservatives and Liberals. They informally expressed very grave concerns about the arbitrariness of Bill C-9. Intrusive powers have always been looked upon with a tremendous amount of concern by Canadians. We are not essentially a criminal nation by any stretch of the imagination. There may be evidence, and no doubt there is, of terrorist or potential terrorist activities in our country as well as subversive or potential subversive activities. I would like to pay tribute to the work that the RCMP have done over the years in keeping our country relatively free of these most objectionable and heinous individuals who have from time to time arrived on our shores or may have been born here.
I ask myself why we must pass a Bill such as C-9 which would give a civilian security agency so much more power to legitimize the dirty tricks that the RCMP security division were guilty of back in the late 1960s and early 1970s and which brought this whole matter to the surface. I suggest that the dirty tricks were perpetrated primarily because there was not a chain of responsibility from the head of the security branch of the RCMP through to the Solicitor General and from the Solicitor General to the Cabinet and from the Cabinet to the Prime Minister.
There is nothing in this Bill which sets up that direct chain of responsibility. In a democracy it seems absolutely incredible that we, the people's duly elected representatives, would allow a secret police force to have such power that it is not directly responsible to any of the people's representatives. If you look at the Bill carefully you will see that the Director General is not obligated to report on every aspect of all the activities which are going on at any given time within the security force. Even if he is asked by the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) or ordered by the Cabinet or the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), he is not obligated to present all the information that he has at his disposal. He can be very selective. In other words, the Bill
Security Intelligence Service
gives arbitrary, virtually dictatorial and indeed authoritarian power to the Director General of this proposed security agency. That is anathema to me, as one who believes in democracy. I do not believe for a moment that the Solicitor General can argue that to protect ourselves, our country, our laws and our institutions, we need that kind of authoritarian power. I went through the intrusive powers, as we all have, at second reading and committee stage.
The other point I want to speak on very briefly is the oversight committee. In West Germany there is a parliamentary oversight committee. We in this country often tend to think that the American police forces, such as the FBI and CIA, have such untrammelled and unlimited power that it is dangerous. We are talking about a security agency in this country that is somewhat analogous to the FBI. We have the impression that the FBI has tremendous power. However, in the United States, because the FBI abused that power which it developed by hook or by crook since I believe the early 1930s, the U.S. Congress in its wisdom set up an oversight committee.
Let me quote from an article in The Globe and Mail of February 11, 1984, written by Mr. Jeff Sallot, in which he refers to that oversight committee and what the chairman of that committee of the House of Representatives had to say about the laws and powers that we are about to give to this civilian security agency in Canada. He says:
Congressman Donald Edwards-
He is an elected representative of the people, as we are here as Members of Parliament.
-the chairman of the House of Representatives committee which scrutinizes FBI activities, said that the 'loose' definitions of threats to national security in the Canadian bill would never be tolerated in the United States.
He is referring there to an oversight committee, not some ancient Privy Councillors who may have sat in the House 25 years ago or indeed never run for public office but were somehow appointed to the Privy Council of Canada as friends of a Prime Minister. He was referring to a committee of Congressmen who represent congressional districts and are elected directly by the people. They are on that oversight committee in the United States to ensure that the FBI does not break the law and is not guilty of dirty tricks.
That is what the New Democratic Party is asking for. We are asking for an oversight committee composed of parliamentarians. What does the Solicitor General have against parliamentarians? What does the Cabinet have against parliamentarians? Are we not trustworthy? Can we not be expected to do an honourable job in making sure that the civilian security agency operates according to the regulations and laws that we gave it in the first place? That is what is important and what is at stake. That is a fundamental democratic principle on which we base our arguments with respect to the oversight committee.
The third point I want to make concerns the powers that the RCMP already have through the criminal justice system. As I read the Bill, the civilian agency would take over many of

June 14, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
those simple and sometimes not so simple police activities which the RCMP is presently charged with carrying out. These include to cause an investigation, secret or otherwise, to effect arrests, to lay charges and, through the Crown, bring the suspects to trial.
In the United Kingdom there is what is called the MI-5, which is somewhat similar to what we are proposing with the secret service here and the FBI in the United States. However, in the United Kingdom MI-5 officers do not carry guns, do not effect arrests and do not even lay charges. Their job is counterintelligence. Their job is to gather information within the law. It is a special branch of Scotland Yard that does the police work.
I suggest that that is the way it should be here in Canada. The RCMP, which is a police force, should be charged with the normal application of the criminal justice system in effecting arrests and laying charges, and this new civilian security force should have no right whatever to act as policemen. They are not, in fact, trained as police officers. That is why I would like to see a considerable amount of the authority that is provided in this Bill remain within the hands of the RCMP.
Finally, I do not know why the Solicitor General has ignored many of the basic recommendations of the McDonald Royal Commission which led to Bill C-9 in the first place. I do not know why he insists on refusing to follow the advice of the Pitfield Committee in the other place. In both those instances, they warned against too much power, too much authority and too much secrecy vested in this proposed civilian agency.
That is why, at the outset of my remarks, I said it was odious. It is anathema to those of us who truly believe in democracy in a country such as Canada. Canada is not a hive of subversion and subversive activity. It is not a mecca of terrorism. It is true that we no doubt have some persons in this country who harbour terrorist aspirations and who may in fact be directly involved in terrorist activity. There are others who would no doubt like to undermine our democratic institutions by force. But in a country such as Canada, these conditions are to the best of my knowledge, and looking back over the years historically, an absolute minimum. While I agree that we desperately need a much more effective security force in Canada and, if need be, a civilian security force, as a believer in democracy I refuse in principle to grant those authoritarian powers to the secret little club that the Prime Minister and the Solicitor General want to establish.
I would like to call it one o'clock, if I may.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House disposed to call it one o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
[ Translation]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, on this forty-third anniversary of a terrible event I would like to draw to the attention of the House a moving event which took place last night in downtown Montreal. Several hundred people gathered together to remember something. They were members of the Baltic Federation of Montreal and they were taking time to remember the terrible events of June 14, 1941, in Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia.
What took place was a brutal round-up and deportation to Soviet hard labour camps of thousands upon thousands of citizens of the three Baltic States. They were rounded up between 1 a.m. and 5 a.m. that night, given only a short time to gather a few personal possessions, put in trucks, and taken to railway stations. There they were herded into boxcars, each one of which was hopelessly overcrowded. Slits in the sides were all that let in some air and some light. A hole in the floor served as a toilet. Throughout a journey lasting several days and nights, they were given no food or water. The doors were barred and were opened only at the destination, by which time, starvation, illness, and death had all taken their toll.
No wonder so many Canadians of origin in the Baltic States took time last night to lay their wreaths and to say "je me souviens". I should also add that representatives of the following Montreal organizations were in attendance: the Canadian Polish Congress, the Canadian Hungarian Committee of Montreal, the Canadian Ukrainian Committee, the Czechoslovakian National Association, the Afghan Association, and the anti-Bolshevik Association.



RADIO-CANADA REQUEST THAT VILLAGE OF KEGASKA, P.Q., BE GIVEN ACCESS TO TELEVISION PROGRAMS

Mr. Andre Maltais (Manicouagan):: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken a number of times in the House about the television problem in Kegaska, a small village on the middle and lower North Shore. A few weeks ago, Radio-Canada informed me that it would be possible to use equipment formerly used in Gaspe to set up a transmitter for Kegaska. Mr. Speaker, at the present time, this small village with a population of 200 does not receive either French or English television. Every time, the
June 14, 1984

CRTC has turned down requests for cable because the village does not have the required minimum population of 500. I would ask the Minister responsible to take the necessary action to give this community access to television broadcasts. Canadians ought to realize that before setting up a second network, the CBC should make sure that everyone in Canada can at least receive the first network. I think it is very sad that after four years of repeated requests, the CBC has yet to find a solution to a minor problem that might cost them about $250,000. Mr. Speaker, I am repeating my request and I want to make sure that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation takes the appropriate action so that the community of Kegaska can receive television broadcasts in 1984.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I have it on good authority that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation producers of this weekend's Liberal leadership extravaganza are praying that the race will go to four or five ballots. That is the only way the CBC will have time to roll all the credits for participating commentators, most of them Liberals. Heaven help them if this thing only goes to one ballot. Quite apart from the amount of money these well known Liberals are being paid for their transportation and expertise, our government owned network cannot deny its long-time friends due recognition at this Liberal-CBC love in.
Seriously, a few of these high powered Grits will be worth hearing. From Newfoundland, representing Atlantic Canada, we will have the Hon. Joey Smallwood, a distinguished Father of Confederation. From the West Coast we bring you such famous names as Senator Ray Perrault, Senator Jack Austin, and former Vancouver mayor and defeated candidate, Art Phillips; from Edmonton, Alberta's only surviving Liberal, Mayor Laurence Decore; from Saskatchewan, former Liberal leader and now a Senator, Davie Steuart another impartial observer and survivor of Liberal fortunes in Western Canada; from Manitoba-are you ready for this, Mr. Speaker?-Izzy Asper, once a rumoured Liberal leader in that province. And so it goes.
We have a distinguished former broadcaster, the Hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. Erola), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), all lending their impartial expertise this weekend. It beats me, when we have some 5,000 journalists and independent analysts in town-


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



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Two hundred immigrants, mostly Portuguese women, have for several years cleaned the offices and stores in First Canadian Place, Toronto's biggest and snazziest office tower. Although the owners, Olympia and York, are worth $3.5 billion, the cleaners are expected to support families on $5.83 an hour. Therefore they went on strike on June 4, led by their union, the Food And Service Workers of Canada.
Support for the strike is strong among the union members and within the Portuguese community in Toronto, many of whom have joined the picket line. However, the strikers are shocked to find the Government of Canada trying to help the employer break the strike.
Canada Employment Centres are sending unemployed workers to cross the picket line. Not only does the Government use poor people against poor people, but it uses the workers' own unemployment insurance payments to defeat the workers. It is intimidating the unemployed by suggesting that if they do not cross the picket line they may lose their entitlement to unemployment insurance.
The Portuguese cleaning women on strike, and all other workers, are angry at what is called "being kicked with their own boot."
I demand that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts), when he returns from his paid vacation with the leadership campaign, immediately make a public declaration assuring unemployed workers that they will not lose their entitlement to unemployment insurance by respecting and refusing to cross a legal picket line.



THE PRIME MINISTER


Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: This day the Liberal Party of Canada bids a special farewell and thank you to one of its most illustrious leaders and a most eminent parliamentarian. It is my concern that at this time we should reflect on the principles that have guided our Leader in Parliament.
His irrepressible debating skills will not soon be forgotten, especially by the opposition Parties. His arguments inevitably were based on rational thinking and logic, rather than on emotion. They were motivated by an intense love of country and a respect for all Canadians. His goal was unity of the country and a federal Government that spoke for all of Canada.
His statements were always tempered by respect for the rule of law and the judgments of the courts of this land. His decisions took into account the historic perspective of Canada.

June 14, 1984
The parliamentary process itself was enriched by his introduction of the innovative use of committees and task forces, by making available, to Government and Opposition, improved research facilities and manpower.
Outside the House he acquired the respect of members of the press, even if he did not capture their affection. His thinking crossed Canadian borders, making him a citizen of the world. He was an internationalist, with the intense desire to overcome the gap between the rich and the poor.
Though he will be missed as a Leader of the Liberal Party, I sincerely hope that in his future endeavours the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) will continue in his role that has been so meaningful to Canada and to the world as a whole, and that is as a respected, informed, and articulate ambassador of peace.

O)



CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, a very important loans program appears to be suffering greatly at the hands of the Canada Housing and Mortgage Corporation. The Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program, known more commonly as RRAP, is under funded to the point that it is nearly ineffectual. The CMHC office in North Bay, which is responsible for the riding I represent, received only two-thirds of the funding it sought for this calendar year. Consequently there is a waiting list of roughly 70 applications from persons in dire need of home repairs. We are not talking about people who want financial assistance for swimming pools and hot tubs. We are talking about people who need new heating systems, plumbing, fire safety systems, and whose house structural foundations are crumbling beneath them. RRAP loans also make homes more livable for the disabled.
More funding is needed for more delivery agents to assess the work on behalf of CMHC. Organized areas with municipal representation have the advantage of agents supplied by the councils, but what may be done for those persons who are not represented at the municipal level, those who live in unorganized territories? I appeal to the Minister responsible for CMHC to approach Treasury Board for increased funding for this important program.



CANADIAN ARMED FORCES


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, Nova Scotians in Halifax West are proud of the presence in the community of the Canadian Armed Forces, particularly Maritime Command. Respect for the naval tradition was evident in the massive response to the parade of sail in Halifax harbour
involving 50 tall ships and sailors from all over the world. However, while the Armed Forces are welcome in Nova Scotia, the Government must make appropriate amends for damage or loss resulting from military activity.
On June 10, 1984, a Seaking helicopter operating from CFB Shearwater caused an unfortunate accident not justifiable on grounds of military authority or emergency. The Seaking damaged a power line, resulting in a lengthy interruption of electrical services to thousands of homes and business premises in Halifax West. Damage ranged from spoiled foods in households to substantial injury to food products held in storage. Liability should be accepted by the Government as a public responsibility. Those incurring losses should not be subjected to technical legal defences, nor incur the expense of protracted legal action. I urge the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Blais) to accept responsibility and proceed to settle claims on a fair and reasonable basis.



DISASTERS


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, on June 1 of this year the town of Foam Lake suffered the worst fire in its history. I had the opportunity to survey the damage last week, with Mayor Velma Johnson of the town of Foam Lake. Part of the main street was destroyed, including a large hardware store, a grocery store, home care offices, and a large grain annex. The damage is around $2 million. In addition, there were a lot of firefighting costs. The fire was still smouldering in the grain annex four or five days after June 1. Therefore the damages have been quite extensive for the town.
I was shocked to find out that the provincial Government has denied any emergency assistance to the town of Foam Lake, despite the tremendous cost. The Mayor and the townspeople are very disappointed with this. My purpose in rising this afternoon is to ask the federal Government whether there might be some emergency assistance it can give to the town of Foam Lake. Perhaps the Government could help me to negotiate with the provincial Government in an attempt to try to persuade it to fulfil the obligation it has to the people of Foam Lake. This is a very expensive burden for the people of that town. They deserve help.



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Fred King (Okanagan-Similkameen):: Mr. Speaker, some months ago the shame of the Special Employment Initiatives Program of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts) was revealed to the nation. In a secretive manner, funding was provided to Liberal MPs only for
June 14, 1984

distribution of grants in the ridings they represent, for the obvious purpose of buying favour with the electorate. The Minister said then: "Golly, I am sorry I forgot to tell opposition Members about the grants". Therefore I submitted a number of applications on behalf of constituents in Okanagan-Similkameen, and pursued the matter through numerous conversations and correspondence with the Minister, but did not get so much as an acknowledgement of receipt of the applications.
Last week the Minister of Employment and Immigration and B.C. Senator Jack Austin announced, with great fanfare, a grant of $40,000 to the Penticton Triathlon Society, one of the applications I had submitted to the Minister for approval. Here we have it, $500,000 or more distributed to Liberal held ridings, $40,000 provided to Okanagan-Similkameen in a manner which suggests that grateful constituents should kiss the Liberal hands that opened the purse just enough to give a peek at what is going on in Liberal Canada. Imagine being expected to show gratitude to those responsible for this blant-antly partisan, corrupt, unfair, unethical, irresponsible, unacceptable way of dealing with the citizens of Canada.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance, who undoubtedly knows that the bank rate has again today jumped. Our dollar has been taking a pounding, forced down to the lowest level it has been since 1855, yet we find this morning that plant utilization in the manufacturing sector is actually down. Will the Minister explain to the House why the Canadian dollar is taking the pounding it is now taking, and why interest rates are rising at a time when plant utilization is actually falling off?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the latest information I have is that the dollar at noon was at 76.88, which is not the lowest level it has ever been, as the Hon. Member was suggesting. Second, as far as interest rates are concerned, he knows the bank's rate went up 7/100 of 1 per cent, which is a very small increase. It is not expected to have any direct impact on loans to individuals or on mortgages.
As the Hon. Member knows, the prime rate in Canada is lower by half a point than in the United States. Conventional mortgage rates in Canada are still generally lower than in the United States. As far as the Canadian consumer and borrower is concerned, he can still get a better deal in Canada than he can get in the United States.
However, the Hon. Member knows that in the open market we are learning that interest rates in the United States have a
Oral Questions
major influence, not only in Canada but in all other industrialized countries. If he looks at other currencies, European currencies for example, he will see that those currencies have been under pressure because of the particular strength of the United States dollar. I could go on with a longer explanation and a longer discourse on the subject, but I am sure the Hon. Member knows all these facts already.


SIZE OF DEFICIT-STATEMENT PUBLISHED BY HON. JOHN TURNER, LIBERAL LEADERSHIP CANDIDATE
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my question is very simple. Does the Minister of Finance agree with the statement of John Turner that is now hitting the streets of Ottawa, called "John Turner Speaks Out"? I quote:
Without getting into what the deficits do to us in terms of impeding investment, keeping interest rates high, jeopardizing the exchange rate-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair has some concern on two points, first the displaying of a document and, second, concerning the request for an opinion. These have been traditional- will the Hon. Member please let the Chair speak? This is a concern that I only wish to express at this point.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The quote continues:
-what they are really doing to us, if we do not get them under control, is forcing us to pay 20 cents on every tax dollar to pay the interest on our debts, and a good deal of that is being paid to foreigners.
Is that a fair statement of Canada's position today? If the Minister agrees with that statement, why has he allowed that to happen?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will know that I made a very similar statement in the last two Budgets and that we have taken steps to reduce the Canadian deficit gradually. The Hon. Member will also know that at the present time in Canada the budget deficit has no impact on the level of interest rates for the good reason that there is indeed a considerable supply of funds on the market. The banks and financial institutions have an ample supply of funds for both the private and public sector. There is no domestic reason why the interest rates are under pressure at the present time. The pressures are being created by the situation in the United States. This is a view that was expressed most strongly by the other six major industrialized countries at the recent summit in London.
The American administration has been repeatedly told that the evolution of interest rates in the United States was a source of great concern for all industrialized nations, for the developing countries and particularly for the debtor countries which are facing very substantial increases in payments for every 1 per cent increase in the value of the American dollar. A 1 per cent increase in interest rates means that these countries will have to pay $4 billion more in interest every year. These facts have been drawn to the attention of the United States administration repeatedly, and we have urged

June 14, 1984
Oral Questions
that administration to take steps to reduce the pressure on United States rates of interest, steps which would have a beneficial effect on all other industrialized countries.


FORECAST OF INCREASE IN UNITED STATES INTEREST RATES
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my question is again directed to the Minister of Finance who has just stated that our interest rates are being influenced to a major extent by American rates. He undoubtedly knows that this week Goldman Sachs has stated that a large rise in short-term interest rates in the United States of 3 per cent to 5 per cent lies ahead, and that the yield on 30-year treasury bonds will probably exceed the previous historic peak of 15.25 per cent. Does the Minister agree that there may be such a spiralling of American interest rates? If he does agree with that, will he allow Canada to be crucified on the cross of those American rates without stopping this nonsensical tracking of the American rates that he has been doing?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I would only say that I will not speculate on the evolution of American interest rates, except to say to the Hon. Member that the view he attributes to Goldman Sachs is certainly not shared by the United States administration, Treasury, and President. We will see who is right and who is wrong.
As far as the rest of his question is concerned, I notice that my friend, the finance critic for the Opposition, the Hon. Member for St. John's West, is not in the House today. If he were, he would certainly dispute the argument of the Hon. Member that we could somehow have a totally independent of interest determined rate in this country alone. That is certainly not the view of the Hon. Member for St. John's West, and I would hope that the Conservatives would stop trying to speak from both sides of their mouths.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Finance. His colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, has recently stated:
The last decade has taken a profound toll on individuals, families and communities.
Continuing levels of unemployment unknown since the Great Depression- unemployment that has been particularly hard on the young and the less educated-
In his brochure which can be obtained across the street, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has indicated:
With youth unemployment at almost 20 per cent, the major priority must be to create jobs. Youth unemployment is a serious social and economic problem. I am deeply concerned about the scars that might be left on an entire generation.
All these, Mr. Speaker, are the words of one of the members of Cabinet who has been a part of the Government for many, many years. These words amount to an outright condemnation of the policies of the Minister of Finance. Does the Minister of Finance accept this outright criticism of the policies of his Government that is being made by candidates who seek to replace the Prime Minister?


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair wishes to repeat its reservation. The introduction of literature relating to events taking place outside this House and clearly identifying the candidate-


An Hon. Member:: Who says that?


Mr. Speaker:: Suppose a Liberal back-bencher were to introduce such literature? There must be some impartiality. I plead with Hon. Members not to introduce documents or displays which are identified with individual candidates.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I may remind my hon. friend that instead of poring over material published in connection with the Liberal leadership race which is on at the present time, he ought to read the Budgets I brought down, in which I have stressed the importance of the unemployment question in this country. The last two Budgets I brought down set a very high priority on the unemployment issue and job creation in this country. I am not going to repeat all the measures these Budgets contain, but I may remind my hon. friend that, for instance, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has often stressed the positive and job creating factors we have introduced starting in the energy sector thanks to a set of measures we have implemented.
As for youth unemployment, I may remind the Hon. Member once more that for 1983-84, this Government allocated the sum of $1,113 billion for young people alone. The services thus funded will benefit more than 2,146,000 young people in our country in 1983-84. This is the largest amount ever earmarked for youth unemployment in the history of this country. The Government has made a commitment to reduce youth unemployment. We have done everything we could, and we shall continue to do so.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I prefer the honest assessment that the Minister's colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, has made of the disastrous state of our economy, to the fluffed-up, pontificating of the Minister of Finance, who has obviously failed the country miserably.


CONFERENCE BOARD OF CANADA STATEMENT ON INTEREST RATES
Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, in its recent report the Conference Board of Canada states that high interest rates continue to inhibit business investment
June 14, 1984

and consumer spending in Canada. In a recent statement, John Turner, another candidate who proposes to become the next Prime Minister, makes it clear that he has no solution to the high interest rate problem.
Would the Minister of Finance admit that consumer spending is more buoyant in the United States than in Canada, as pointed out by the Conference Board because in Canada, unlike in the U.S., households cannot deduct mortgage interest costs from taxable income, thereby maximizing disposable income. Is the Minister of Finance in favour of giving Canadian home owners a break on their mortgage interest payments by allowing deductibility of these costs, or does he really propose to offer himself to John Turner as Canada's next Finance Minister, given his disastrous record of failure to date?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, quite clearly the Conservatives are running scared.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: I will only say that they have good reason to be running scared. I can say that either of the two gentlemen to whom he has referred will run them into the ground at the time of the election.
My friend was quoting a particular institution. I will quote Carl Beigie to him, one of the outstanding economists in the private sector of the country, who said that the Canadian economy is in better shape at the present time than it has been in the last 15 years, for making further progress.


EFFECT ON INTEREST RATES-GOVERNMENT POLICY
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Finance who has already been reminded today of the potential impact of increasing interest rates. He knows that with interest rates at their present level, without allowing for the increases that we are now seeing, economic recovery will likely be aborted.
The Minister has come out very strongly against the American position on interest rates, saying that President Reagan has taken an "I'm all right, Jack" position. As reflected by his interest rate policy, it is obvious that President Reagan does not care about Canadians. Paul Volcker does not care about the economic plight faced by Canadians. Does the Minister of Finance care about the plight that is faced by Canadians because of the high interest rate policies which the Government is pursuing? If he does care, why does he not do something about it? Why does he not begin to take some independent action on interest rates here in Canada?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question, Mr. Speaker, is yes. As far as the second question is concerned, I need only tell my friend that in the last two years interest rates in Canada have gone from 3.5 per cent higher than interest rates in the United States to half a point below them. This shows that we care and
Oral Questions
that we are doing everything we can to bring interest rates down to the lowest possible level.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to question the statement of the Minister that he does care. As a result of his high interest rate policies and of his reluctance to take independent action, there has been a social consequence in the country. Many hospital psychiatric wards are filled with young people who are depressed and young people who have attempted suicide as a result of being unable to find employment. The Minister knows that alcohol and drug abuse and family violence have increased, and that is partly because of the Minister's high interest rate policy, the lack of economic activity and the resulting economic growth, and the fact that so many Canadians are jobless.
Does the Minister have a conscience? Can he sit there today, knowing interest rates are again moving upward, and legitimately say that there is nothing he is prepared to do? He is just wringing his hands and saying he, in fact, does care, but the social consequences of his interest rate policy would indicate quite the contrary.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member refers to "my" high interest rate policy. I do not know where the Hon. Member has been in the last two years. I have just answered in the previous question that indeed we have succeeded for the first time in a very long time in getting interest rates in Canada to a lower level than in the United States. This required some imagination, some work, and some good co-operation from Canadians in this country, which was more than we received from the New Democratic Party, I must say. It is more interested in moaning and complaining than in trying to look at issues and trying to address them in an objective and positive way.
I can only say to the Hon. Member that if his Party has policy proposals, put them forward and let them be examined and criticized. Let those Hon. Members spell out what they would propose for this country. Let them say whether they want exchange controls. Let them say whether they want to have a policy which is going to be made in Canada only, as if the rest of the world did not exist, as if 30 per cent of our income as Canadians did not depend on our exports, as if we were not very much interdependent with the rest of the industrialized world. We are, for better and for worse, very closely tied to what happens in the American economy. Overall Canada has benefited more than suffered from its geographical and economic situation vis-a-vis the United States. We should bear that in mind.


REFORESTATION INVESTMENT
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance will know that one of the reasons why the

June 14, 1984
Oral Questions
United States has shown some economic activity is because it has been investing heavily in its war industry in preparation for war. As a result of that, money is circulating in many of its communities and economic growth is taking place.
The Minister asked for some suggestions. Would the Minister consider declaring war on our number one problem in Canada, that is, unemployment? Would the Minister take some independent action right now to provide jobs for Canadians in an effort to get money circulating in our Canadian communities by investing, let us say, in reforestation projects and in fishery enhancement programs?


An Hon. Member:: We have done that.


Nelson Andrew Riis: You have not done that. Where it has taken place is on a very measly level. If the Minister is serious about getting people back to work, why does he not show some leadership and get on with it? Will he declare war on unemployment in this country and get money circulating in the communities of Canada?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I was asking for positive proposals-


Nelson Andrew Riis: Reforestation. I just gave it to you.


Marc Lalonde: -and I received rhetoric. Unfortunately that is what we are accustomed to receiving from the New Democratic Party. I suggest to the Hon. Member that if he looks at the federal programs he will find, for instance, that we have signed agreements with a number of provinces which include reforestation programs. The Hon. Member knows, or he should know, coming from the Province of British Columbia, that those resources belong to the province and to the provincial Government. We cannot just walk in and tell the provincial government: "We are going to plant trees in your forests". It requires the co-operation of the provinces for this. Some provinces have co-operated. Others are dragging their feet. If the Hon. Member has something to complain about, he should go to his own provincial Government-


Nelson Andrew Riis: That is hopeless.


Marc Lalonde: -which has been dragging its feet in that regard.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The Socreds are hopeless.


Marc Lalonde: The Hon. Member says it is hopeless. Well, he should not blame the federal Government for the situation which exists because of the action or inaction of his own provincial Government. That is the situation.
I invite my friend to realize what this federal Government has done in federal-provincial agreements on forestry. I invite him to look at the hundreds of millions of dollars which we have put into helping the fishing industry, and at the measures which the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is due to introduce in the next few days to help the fishing industry in British Columbia. I will look forward to seeing what the New Democratic Party is going to do when we bring forward those proposals to help the British Columbia fishing industry.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CORRECTIONAL SERVICE
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General, and I have given him notice of it. The Minister has known for 11 months about a case alleging harassment by a senior official of the Correctional Service's parole office in Victoria. That case, aided and abetted by the outrageous procrastination demonstrated by his Department, has resulted in serious morale problems for all staff members. Can the Minister now, after 11 months, advise the House when we may see an end to this matter? When will he stop postponing the full disciplinary inquiry which has been called for?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I want the Hon. Member to know that I also very much regret the length of time it has taken to reach a hearing on this matter. The Hon. Member will know that a large part of the delay, in fact, the delay presently being experienced, is the result of a court order that no hearing occur until the fall. Therefore at present my hands are tied. However, I have indicated to the Correctional Service of Canada that I would like the matter to be proceeded with as quickly as possible. I have its assurance that it will be proceeded with by the middle of October. I hope that is satisfactory to the Hon. Member.
In the meanwhile, so far as disruptions of the office are concerned, I have taken steps to ensure that the office continues to be run and is running in an orderly way and that business as usual continues as much as possible under the circumstances.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: I point out to the Minister that there were four postponements of the disciplinary inquiry before the court order.


DELAY IN CONVENING INQUIRY
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. The terms of reference for the preliminary inquiry included: "It has been alleged that Mr. Murray Gaw, the Director of the Victoria District Parole Office, has been involved in activities related to: (1) harassment; (2) sexual harassment; (3) police harassment; (4) public mischief; (5) discrimination against union members; (6) counselling the commission of unlawful acts; and, (7) improper staffing activities." This stonewalling has made a farce out of the Human Rights Act and clearly demonstrates we either have a weak-kneed Solicitor General or that his Department is completely out of control in its stonewalling activities in this case.
June 14, 1984


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I feel it is very regrettable that the Hon. Member would rehearse a set of allegations in the House of Commons. I hope that the statements he has made do not damage the possibility of seeing justice achieved in this case.


TOURISM
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The Minister knows that the Canadian tourist deficit has increased from a record $2.1 billion last year. It is projected to increase to a staggering $3 billion this year. According to Statistics Canada that will result in the loss of 150,000 jobs. One of the reasons for these alarming statistics is because of the reluctance of the Liberal Government to co-operate with the provinces. Specifically, I would like to ask the Minister why he is dragging his heels in signing the tourism development sub-agreement with the Province of Ontario. This is an agreement that has been in the works for four years. It is an agreement which, if signed, would enhance the tourist industry in Ontario. Why has the Minister not made a decision on this very important matter? And when will he?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, with respect to the preamble to the Hon. Member's question, I would indicate that my colleague, the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism, I believe, in the past year has done a fantastic job with the industry. For example, he has increased the budget for advertising. He has introduced a special advertising program, for example, throughout the whole northern part of the United States in order to increase traffic back and forth in terms of tourist development.


Otto John Jelinek: What about the deficit?


Edward C. Lumley: In terms of the co-operation with the provinces, Mr. Speaker, up until this point in time I believe we had-going back as far as five years and six years ago-about nine or ten sub-agreements on tourism. Therefore the Hon. Member's comment with respect to co-operation with the province is not accurate.
With respect to a possible new sub-agreement between the Province of Ontario and Canada, we are considering it. It was most unfortunate that the Treasurer of Ontario would mention that in his Budget before we had made a decision to have a sub-agreement. However, it is still a possibility.
Oral Questions


BANKS AND BANKING
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Ministr of Finance. He may or may not know that the Bank of Nova Scotia has just foreclosed on a loan to Winde Pacific Forest Products in British Columbia. There was no warning, no notice, and no compensation. More than 100 people now have no jobs. Will the Minister not agree that this foreclosure in a province suffering the second highest unemployment rate in Canada, by a fat bank whose profits went up 66 per cent last year, is yet another prime example of the insensitivity and irresponsibility of the banks?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I might just ask my hon. friend which Party in this House has been holding up the adoption of improvements to the Bankruptcy Act which are in committee at the present time?


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL ACTION
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is just dodging the issue. He knows perfectly well that he could take action, and I ask him what specific action he is prepared to take when that bank's profits go up 66 per cent and it is investing $7 billion in the United States, 13 per cent of its assets? When is he going to say to the banks, through regulation, that they must lend a substantial portion of their investment capital to Canadian small business to help Canadians and help keep Canadian jobs?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, fundamentally what the Hon. Member is asking is not that the banks invest more in Canadian businesses. She is suggesting that the banks should not collect their loans. That is a strange approach to running a business, even a bank.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Not for a socialist.


TOURISM
Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Further to the questions of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Halton, I would like to ask the Minister is it not true that you have no intention of signing that $30 million agreement-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.

June 14, 1984
Oral Questions


Ronald Alexander Stewart: Through you, Mr. Speaker-the agreement with the Province of Ontario. You are a Minister from that province.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Ronald Alexander Stewart: Sixty-nine per cent of all American tourists and 53 per cent of all overseas tourists come through the Province of Ontario. That agreement has been sitting on the Minister's desk for four years. I asked his colleague, the Minister of Tourism, who, we know, obviously has no clout in Cabinet, why the agreement could not be signed. Ontario is the most important province for tourism in this country, and I say again that the Minister is sitting on his fanny, talking about cars and watching thousands of jobs disappear.


Edward C. Lumley: Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy answering the questions of Members who are so negative. They give you a great opportunity to respond. We have not been talking about cars, Mr. Speaker; we have been actively involved in obtaining over $1 billion invested in the automotive industry in the Province of Ontario.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Edward C. Lumley: I am sure that the Premier of the Province of Ontario will look very seriously at the comments of the Hon. Member which demean the importance of the automotive industry in Ontario.
Also, Mr. Speaker, for the first time in Canadian history the tourist industry has been added as a major sector for industrial assistance under the new program called IRDP which was | approved unanimously in this House almost a year ago this month.


Mr. Bussieres:: He was not here. He was sleeping.


Edward C. Lumley: A substantial number of applications have already been approved. If the Hon. Member would just look at matters a little more positively I think he might see what is going on, instead of closing his mind to what is actually happening.


REQUEST THAT AGREEMENT BE SIGNED
Ronald Alexander Stewart: Mr. Speaker, the new Honda automotive plant is in my riding, of which I am justifiably proud.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ronald Alexander Stewart: But I hate to see a Minister hiding under IRDP which in my vocabulary answers to CRAP. He talks about billions of dollars-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The first indication was that the Hon. Member did not want a supplementary. If it is a short supplementary, can he put it?


Ronald Alexander Stewart: I did. There is a $3 billion deficit in tourism. Will the Minister sign that subagreement with the Province of Ontario tomorrow?


Edward C. Lumley: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Hon. Member's preamble, the first he heard of the Honda announcement was when he saw it in the paper, unlike a lot of House colleagues. I will even give credit to his side of the House. A lot of his colleagues, when they heard about the possibility of having a Honda plant come to Canada, wrote and asked if we could put it in their constituencies. That Hon. Member did not say one cotton-pickin' word, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Edward C. Lumley: Then, to top it off, he tried to stand up in the House a week later under S.O. 21 and did not even acknowledge the contribution of the Government of Canada in getting the Honda plant there.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


Edward C. Lumley: Also, without the IRDP program, the new $764 million American Motors automotive plant would not have been possible in Canada. It was that program that enabled the Government of Canada to offer financial assistance to obtain that plant.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Edward C. Lumley: Finally, Mr. Speaker, we will look very seriously at the possibility of a subagreement with the Province of Ontario on tourism.


COST OF ELECTRICITY IN PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. On May 25 I asked the Minister whether the Government would be open to the idea of an energy subsidy for Prince Edward Island given that the province's electrical costs are at least twice those of the rest of Canada. His reply was entirely negative on the grounds that Prince Edward Island had missed its opportunity to lower electrical costs by rejecting energy from the Lepreau nuclear plant in New Brunswick. Is the Minister aware of data released by the Minister of Energy in Prince Edward Island, Fred Driscoll, a few days ago demonstrating that energy from Lepreau would have been much more expensive for P.E.I. than other options? If not, will the Minister inform himself about Mr. Driscoll's data and take a fresh look at the issue in light of that data?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, 1 previously referred to Mr. Carl Beigie, and I would not want to be unfair to him, but I should also add that I understand Mr. Beigie has been asked to advise the Conservative Party on
June 14, 1984

policy. Therefore I think his statement has all the more authority when he says that the economy has never been in better shape in the last 15 years.
I might advise my friend that I did not take a totally negative attitude to his question the other day. On the contrary, I indicated the large contribution the federal Government had brought to Prince Edward Island in helping that province reduce its dependence on oil in particular, especially in the area of conservation of energy generally, through home insulation, et cetera. Programs were specifically tailored for situations like that of Prince Edward Island.
As far as the report the Hon. Member has referred to is concerned, I will read it with interest, but I can tell him that the studies the Department of Energy had made at that time, in consultation with the Governments of New Brunswick and P.E.I., seem to indicate that the cost of not using the Lepreau electricity was much higher than if it had been used.


ENERGY SUBSIDY
Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, the Minister will recognize that, while conservation is important, it is just the tip of the iceberg as far as Prince Edward Island's energy problem is concerned. Therefore, does he at least recognize that exorbitantly high electrical costs on the Island constitute the biggest obstacle to that province ever achieving any degree of economic self-sufficiency? If so, would he be prepared to recommend to the new Liberal Prime Minister after the weekend that he examine the idea of a P.E.I. energy subsidy with an open mind so that the Island can become more industrially competitive and ultimately less dependent on transfer payments both to individuals and to the Government?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the analysis of the Hon. Member. I can only remind him that the federal Government paid $18 million, I believe, for an electrical transmission cable to Prince Edward Island. That is a significant subsidy to help reduce the cost of electricity to the people of Prince Edward Island.


INDUSTRY
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services concerning another plant closing, Woods Incorporated, in my constituency. Some 140 production workers have been laid off, and the question is whether it is temporary or permanent. The Minister will know the company because it bid successfully on a number of contracts before, and has recently bid on a major contract. Can the Minister hold out any hope for those workers who have been laid off that there will be production jobs in September and that they will be getting back to work?
Oral Questions


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the Hon. Member for her question and for giving me advance notice of the question.
I discussed with the Hon. Member the offer made by the company in her riding. The information I was able to obtain was as follows: The contract will be awarded in the first half of July. At the present time, the Department is checking the quality of certain materials for these emergency bags which will be used by the Armed Forces. Today I am not in a position to say who will or will not get the contract, but I realize that the workers in the company mentioned by the Hon. Member are in a difficult situation. I hope, if the company's price and product is the best one being offered, that it will get the contract.


SLEEPING BAG CONTRACT
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same Minister, or perhaps for the Minister of National Defence. It is with regard to a similar contract. Timing seems to be very important in this situation. For this company to survive and these jobs to continue, there must be some production in the fall. Yet there have been a number of delays on another major contract of around $1 million for sleeping bags for the Armed Forces. Can we have an understanding as to when this contract will be out for bids? The company has been told week after week that it is immiment, yet there has not been any action. I trust both the Ministers are aware that the livelihood of a community, and of real people who are suffering, is at stake.


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to look into the representations of the Hon. Member. I am not familiar with the particular contract she is speaking of, nor the particular requirement. I will inquire and provide her with as much information as I possibly can.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. David Crombie (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The question concerns the very brave struggle of the hunger strikers in front of the Polish consulate in Toronto. I want to associate myself with the question raised earlier by the Member for Parkdale-High Park urging the Government to press the Polish authorities to grant exit visas to the families of those people who are now in their twenty-fourth day of hunger strike.
In order to put more pressure on the Polish authorities, would the Government contact the other signatories of the

June 14, 1984
Oral Questions
Helsinki Accord and request that they urge the Polish authorities to grant those exit visas, in order to add the strength of world opinion in opposing this clearly inhumane act by the Polish Government?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is raising cases which are quite well known to the Government and myself. Under instructions, officials of the Department have made representations to the Polish authorities toward the end of May and again this month with respect to these cases. Up to the present time the Polish authorities have declined to reverse the decisions which they have already made. We have indicated our readiness to receive the members of the strikers' families. All we can do is continue the efforts. The Hon. Member may remember that late last year we had similar incidents which we substantially solved. I am hoping we will have the same result here.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER SEEK SUPPORT OF HELSINKI ACCORD SIGNATORIES
David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, my question was in no way critical of the Government's effort in the matter. In fact, it has been exemplary. I was making a suggestion and wanted the Minister to respond to it. I suggest that the Government go further and contact the other signatories of the Helsinki Accord and ask them to put pressure, along with the Canadian Government, on the Polish authorities. That would allow further weight of world opinion so that we could put that kind of pressure on the Polish Government. Clearly the weight of the Canadian Government is not-


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is giving the Hon. Member an opportunity. I think he has made his point. There are several Members on his side who are anxiously seeking recognition. The Chair understood there was only to be one question by the Hon. Member.


David Edward Crombie: May I be allowed to put the question, Mr. Speaker? I simply wanted to ask the Minister to respond to the suggestion that we could gain something on behalf of these people by contacting the signatories of the Helsinki Accord and asking them to intervene on behalf of the strikers.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's suggestion is a serious one. We do associate ourselves with the other members of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe in family reunification cases. In our discussions we move together. The idea that a number of countries join in supporting cases respecting Canada is a novel idea. I am doubtful whether it would be effective. I certainly will give consideration to it.
It is true that of all the eastern European countries the Polish authorities have been among the most co-operative in responding to family reunification cases. I hope that the more open attitude which they have demonstrated will be reinforced
by action they may take in the cases which the Hon. Member mentions.


FINANCE
David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. It is with regard to his 9 per cent tax on tourism materials. The tourist industry in Canada employs about 11 per cent of Canadians. It could employ a lot more Canadians, including young Canadians, particularly in small business. The tax is constituting a growing irritant to Canada-U.S. relations. In view of the fact that the tourist industry association is so concerned about this tax, will the Minister agree to have it removed in the interest of creating more tourism jobs across Canada?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I have heard the Hon. Member make this representation on various occasions. The Hon. Member ought to mention, as well, the efforts being made by the Canadian Government to help the tourist industry. My colleague, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, spoke earlier about all the splendid activities being initiated by the Government to help this industry. I shall consider the Hon. Member's question as a suggestion, but I may remind him that this Government is doing more for the industry today than any other Government has done in the history of our country.


POSSIBLE PRINTING OF TOURIST PAMPHLETS IN UNITED STATES
David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister responsible for tourism. Brewster Transportation of Alberta has indicated to him that it will move the printing of its pamphlets for 1985 to the United States unless this tax is removed. That will cost more jobs. I remind the Minister that a lot of young Canadians get jobs with Brewster Transportation in that province. Can the Minister share any information about this tax beyond what his colleague has said?


Hon. David Smith (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: 
ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Gary Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. The Government of
June 14, 1984

Canada is supposed to be committed to the reduction of acid rain by 50 per cent by 1994. What is the Minister's plan of action?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of the Environment: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the Hon. Member would ask such a question. He knows very well, or should, that we have developed a plan of action over the months which would be too long to explain in a short answer.
In essence, we have brought together a political commitment on the part of provincial and federal Ministers of the Environment to cut emissions by half by 1994. We followed that up shortly afterwards with an international conference here in Ottawa which permitted us to obtain the support and a pledge by nine European countries, in addition to Canada, for a commitment to a minimum cut of 30 per cent by 1993. On June 6 provincial and federal Ministers of the Environment met as a working group to set into motion the various aspects related to the economy and technology which are needed to reach this objective.
Thanks to the efforts of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, we have also produced a paper for the modernization of non ferrous metals in Canada which would permit us in the years ahead, in the wake of modernization, to bring about a cleaning up of the pollution caused by this industry, and increase productivity in order to permit us to remain competitive on international markets.


Gary Michael Gurbin: What the Minister has just done is confirm that he has no plan of action.
Business of the House MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate has passed Bill C-39, an Act to amend the War Veterans' Allowance Act, the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act and certain other Acts in relation thereto, without amendment.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

['Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at the remarks made by my colleague. This is not the first request for unanimous request to append this letter to Hansard. The Prime Minister made that request on Monday. Therefore, he should not be surprised. I understand that language rights constitute a very sensitive issue for his Party. I am just asking for the same consent asked a week or so ago by the Prime Minister. My colleague should not lose his cool or get upset because I make that request without having talked to him privately and asking whether he read the letter a week ago. He knew of that request. He does not have to agree to it.\nI do not agree with what he said about the kinds of documents that are appended to Hansard. By unanimous consent we can append any letter or document. If he does not agree, all he has to do is say no. What we are dealing with is language rights, specifically language rights for the Frenchspeaking minority in Ontario. The Tory Party is free to say yes or no to appending a letter from the Prime Minister to a Premier. If they say no, they say no; but they do not have to\nJune 14, 1984', 'argue about being taken by surprise. The request was made a week ago by the Prime Minister. After four or five days I suppose they have been able to read the letter. All they have to do is say yes or no.\nMir. Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, just to show the Government House Leader, before he goes into the Liberal convention, that I am a person of some considerable compassion, I have listened to what he has had to say and I will give his request the most serious consideration.']
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Government House,
Ottawa.
June 14, 1984 Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Brian Dickson, Chief Justice of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today the 14th day of June, 1984, at 4.30 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain Bills.
I have the honour to be Sir,
Your obedient servant, Edmond Joly de Lotbiniere, Administrative Secretary to the Governor General.



Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister will know that the Government's words are empty and hollow unless he has a specific plan of action to reduce acid rain. In view of the jobs, the industry, and the environmental impact, will he undertake to put before the House a specific plan of action to reduce acid rain, by the end of June of this year?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of the Environment: Mr. Speaker, I cannot substitute for the incapacity of the Hon. Member or his colleagues on that side to interpret answers. He knows very well that we have set a plan in action and that we have already made progress since 1980 by cutting S02 emissions in this country by some 15 per cent. He also knows that we have announced a reduction in lead in gasoline by the end of 1986. He also knows that the Minister of Transport and I have made plans for consultation about NOx with industry this summer. He also knows that we have a plan of action in Canada already in place today, which our neighbours to the south do not have, for a reduction by 25 per cent by 1990. In addition, there are other commitments that have been made before the production of the report by Energy, Mines and Resources. If the Hon. Member considers that as no plan, I am sorry, I cannot help him.


PETITION
Mr. Speaker:: The petition presented by the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) on Wednesday, June 13, 1984, does not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Government House Leader if he could outline for us the business of the House starting on Monday of next week. As he knows, we will not be sitting tomorrow. While we have a tradition of asking about House business on Thursdays, in view of the fact that there will be a new leader of the Liberal Party after this week, I thought I might have asked the question on Monday because any new Prime Minister would probably reject out of hand all the legislative initiative taken by the Government. However, I will not do that. I will let the Government House Leader let us know what he has in mind

June 14, 1984
Business of the House
before he consults with the new Liberal leader. We can see what happens Monday morning.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, the business of the House for next week will be Bill C-9, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. Priority will be given to Bills that are at report stage. Therefore, the back-up legislation will be Bill C-40, the Old Age Security Act, whereby the Government of Canada wants to increase the GIS $50 a month by the end of the year. I think the new leader will want to support that kind of legislation and will be pleased to debate it in the House and see the Tory Opposition reluctance regarding social policies in this country.
The other back-up legislation will be Bill C-37, the mortgage protection plan. I also doubt that any Liberal leader would be inclined to withdraw such legislation that intends to protect home owners against high interest rates. The third back-up Bill will be the Western Grain Stabilization Act. Again, my hon. colleague should know that there is no Liberal leader who would not be glad to continue supporting the farmers in this country, especially the western farmers.
Therefore, the business for next week will be Bill C-9, followed by Bill C-40, Bill C-37 and Bill C-33, all good Liberal legislation designed to help old age people, the western farmers, and home owners with high interest rates.
We all know that this morning we agreed in the House to sit extended hours after next weekend. I just want to seize this opportunity to thank sincerely the House leaders of the two Opposition Parties for their co-operation. It is only the second time that we have had an opportunity to live with the new rules. The first year we were unable to get an agreement in advance on the extended hours. We had to move a motion, debate it and vote on it.
This year, thanks to the co-operation of my colleagues on the other side, it was possible for us to agree in advance. Therefore, we will be able to plan business in a reasonable way, sitting from 11 a.m. to 9 p.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays and sitting from 2 p.m. to 9 p.m. on Wednesdays without any interruption for the lunchtime hour. We will also be able to sit on Fridays from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m. without interruption. Therefore, we will be sitting over 28 additional hours during the last 10 sitting days before summer adjournment.
I thank my colleagues for their co-operation and I hope that together we will be able to show that we do not need the threat of sitting during the summer, that we can live with the parliamentary calendar and at the same time allow Parliament to be productive in those last 10 sitting days.
We will come back on September 10. Whatever Bills we are not able to deal with before the end of June, Parliament will still be well alive come the fall and I am sure that we will be able to deal with all other matters.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the statement of the business with respect to next week and through to September 10, although I do not believe him for a moment. We may
be back on September 10 or September 12, but it will be with a new Progressive Conservative Government.
Seriously, I take it that the Government House Leader is, in effect, suggesting that the senior citizens, the people who are looking for legislation with respect to mortgage protection and the western grain farmers will be held hostage by the security Bill. Until such time as that legislation is passed; these items will not be brought forward by the Government House Leader. He will want to have report stage of the security Bill out of the way before these other items are dealt with expeditiously by the House.
The Government House Leader will remember that it was only by virtue of the intense pressure put on by the Progressive Conservative Party in this House that the western grain farmer got any attention from this Government. The senior citizens had this Bill brought forward because of our urgings and the fact that we dragged the Liberals kicking and screaming through the legislative timetable.
Can the Government House Leader tell us whether or not he is going to await the passage of a very controversial Bill affecting the civil liberties of Canadians before dealing with the other items he has mentioned? It seems to me those items are matters of which he could get quick disposition. He has his priorities in reverse. He should have the Bills that will be of benefit to the people of Canada passed expeditiously. He should not have us arguing about a Bill which seriously and negatively affects the civil liberties of Canadians. He knows this Bill will be involved in a lot of serious and justified debate on the floor of the House of Commons.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows very well that Standing Order 22 requires that the order of business be decided by the Government. That is exactlty what we have done. During the last four and a half years we have been able to get through Parliament some 200 pieces of legislation, among which were major reforms: the patriation of the Constitution, the Charter of Rights, the Crow rate-


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


Yvon Pinard: -the National Energy Program-


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


Yvon Pinard: -and a lot of measures, 200 of them. Parliamentary reform is also one.
I would like to be very specific on something. I take the Hon. Member's remark very seriously. In the last ten sitting days we were able to get through Parliament in all stages some eight to ten pieces of legislation. It would have been possible and it is still possible to get through all stages the Bills to which my hon. friend refers. If he had wanted, the senior citizens, the western farmers and the home owners would now be able to see their legislation in place. That is not the case because the Hon. Member's Party has refused to agree to pass
June 14, 1984

those Bills through all stages more quickly than has been the case.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That is wrong.


Mr. Mazankowski:: You are contradicting yourself.


Yvon Pinard: I am not contradicting myself. I am saying that if we were able to agree to pass legislation through all stages at least eight to ten times during the last ten days, then it would have been possible for us to add to those eight to ten Bills the Old Age Security Act, the National Housing Act and the Western Grain Stabilization Act. All we needed was the consent of the Tory Party, but we did not get it.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: What took you so long to bring the Bill on in the first place? Where were you six months ago?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That is nonsense and gobbledegook.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is having a little difficulty relating all these remarks to current business before the House, with all due respect.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I see my good friend from Vegreville has just discovered that if the senior citizens, the western farmers, and the home owners have been taken hostage, they were not taken hostage by the Government but by his own Party. The Tory Party could have very easily agreed to the quick passage of those Bills.


An Hon. Member:: We could have passed them a year and a half ago.


Yvon Pinard: The Conservatives will have an opportunity before the end of June, Mr. Speaker, to give that kind of agreement.
As a matter of fact, I will give a very specific offer to the Hon. Member. I am willing to pass those three Bills this afternoon by unanimous consent if the Tories are willing to give unanimous consent to the passage of Bill C-9, which is now on the agenda. I am sure they will not.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: What a phoney.


Mr. Gustafson:: Do you want to hang a millstone around the farmers' necks?


Yvon Pinard: They want to score political points. They are not interested in seeing Parliament make progress. The Hon. Member for Vegreville should be ashamed.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: You should be ashamed.


Yvon Pinard: The Hon. Member's Party and the Hon. Member are the ones who are taking hostage the old age people and the western farmers. The Hon. Member will have another opportunity, I guarantee, after the convention to co-operate and to react more positively to the generous offers made by the Government to pass not only the four Bills I am
Business of the House
talking about, but a lot of other measures that are on the Order Paper that are most important to the people of this country. The minute the Tories stop filibustering and delaying, as they have done so many times during this Parliament, including ringing the bells for 14 days, which was shameful of them-


Miss MacDonald:: The people approved.


Yvon Pinard: -then we will be able to see how we can deal with all of those problems.
Once again, the business for next week, and it can be dealt with even faster-I will be prepared to outline other Bills assuming the Tories really care for the old people and the western grain farmers-will be Bill C-9, Bill C-40, Bill C-37 and Bill C-33. If we succeed in passing those Bills before the end of the day on Monday, I will be here personally to outline the other good measures which the Government will bring forward.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, with respect to House business, first I should say that we are quite prepared to accept the very generous offer of the President of the Privy Council that we continue debate on the security legislation in September. Prior to that time, I suggest that rather than attempting in effect to blackmail this House by holding the old age pensioners, the home owners and the western grain farmers hostage to this Government policies, we on this side of the House are prepared to deal expeditiously with all of that legislation but not at the price of the fundamental civil liberties of Canadians. We want to make that very clear. We are prepared to continue that debate in September as the Government House Leader suggested, Mr. Speaker.
With respect to Government business today, what action does the Government intend to take to ensure that, prior to the House rising on June 29, that legislation which fundamentally affects the health, the safety and indeed the lives of many hundreds of thousands of Canadian workers-I am referring to the proposed amendments to the Canada Labour Code-is dealt with? Or is the Government House Leader going to use his form of blackmail with respect to Canadian workers as well as farmers, old age pensioners and home owners?


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member looks upset. He appears to be upset about something, I do not know what. There is no need for him to lose his cool. He should realize that Bill C-34, the amendments to the Canada Labour Code to which he has referred, would be law today if he personally would have allowed some other legislation to be disposed of quickly in the House of Commons. He knows very well and the public knows very well-we have read it in the press-that because of his childish attitude and systematic obstruction on Bill C-9 at committee stage as well as since the Bill has been reported to the House, it has not been possible for Parliament to dispose of Bill C-34 quickly.
I want to assure this House and the workers of this country that, despite this dilatory attitude on the part of the Hon. Member, we nevertheless introduced that Bill, managed to

June 14, 1984
Bilingualism
negotiate its passage at second reading, sent it to committee, and it is one of our priorities to pass the Bill through third reading before the end of June. If the Hon. Member wants to show a little more maturity and allow Bill C-9 to get out of the way, this will allow us to deal with all of the Bills that are at report stage.
Once again, the Bills that will get priority in this case are the Bills that are at report stage. The Bill to which the Hon. Member refers is not yet at report stage but could be before the end of June. It will be given priority in due time. The sooner Bill C-9 is passed, the better our chances for Bill C-34 to be adopted in this House, as well as Bill C-40, Bill C-37 and Bill C-33.


Mr. Wise:: Mr. Speaker, I believe one week ago and perhaps on two or three previous occasions I posed a couple of questions to the Government House Leader regarding the status and progress of two agricultural Bills. This might not be the best way to view the discussions and the attitude presently prevailing in the House-


Mr. Speaker:: The last intervention of the Hon. Member turned out to be a 15-minute speech. The Chair hopes he does not have the same thing in mind.


John Wise: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, and I can recall your words of caution to me one week ago. I will certainly bear them in mind. I will come directly to the two Bills in question. One was the required amendment to the advance payments Bill. The Minister is well aware why I posed that question. He indicated to me that he was not certain whether the Bill would be passed next week or before the House adjourns for the summer recess. The second one was the required amendments to the National Farm Products Marketing Act to meet the request of the troubled tobacco industry in southwestern Ontario. To help the Minister out, he responded to me on that occasion by saying that the Bill will be introduced once the policy has been approved by Cabinet. Can the Minister give us any further information or tell us if there has been any advancement in the progress of the status of those two pieces of legislation?


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, this question is the same as the one asked last week by the Hon. Member at page 4448 of Hansard. My answer appears on the same page and at page 4449 of Hansard for June 7, 1984. I invite my colleague to read the answer. It is the same one I have to give today.


BILINGUALISM
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to seize this opportunity to seek the unanimous consent of this House, presuming that the Tory Party have had the time to read the letter on language rights signed by the
Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and sent to Premier Davis. I again seek the unanimous consent of the House to append this letter which was tabled in the House by the Prime Minister earlier this week to today's Hansard.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader never ceases to surprise me, and he has done it again today. The usual courtesy is that we have prior consultation. It does not involve standing up one day with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) attempting to slip in a letter as an appendix to Hansard without even having the courtesy of consulting prior to that with other Members of Parliament.
Second, we should look at occasions when we append items to Hansard with some care. There should be the fullest consultation. We know that the appending of items to Hansard has been restricted almost exclusively in the history and tradition of Parliament to items dealing with budgetary matters.
What I wanted to discuss had I had the opportunity of a tete-a-tete, mano a mono, eyeball-to-eyeball discussion with my colleague, the Government House Leader, is just what the parameters are with respect to requests on the part of the Prime Minister, the Government House Leader or any Member of Parliament, for unanimous consent to append documents, however important or trivial they happen to be. If the Government House Leader wants me to give my consent right now, I cannot give that consent. I would want to consult, as is the custom in my Party, with my colleagues about this. We are a team over here. We work together. We consult with each other. I always do the courtesy to my colleagues of discussing these matters to make sure that we understand what the rules are, unlike the Government House Leader who seems to have a penchant for autocratic action, given the leadership by his own Prime Minister pro tem.


Mr. Speaker:: There does not appear to be unanimous consent.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at the remarks made by my colleague. This is not the first request for unanimous request to append this letter to Hansard. The Prime Minister made that request on Monday. Therefore, he should not be surprised. I understand that language rights constitute a very sensitive issue for his Party. I am just asking for the same consent asked a week or so ago by the Prime Minister. My colleague should not lose his cool or get upset because I make that request without having talked to him privately and asking whether he read the letter a week ago. He knew of that request. He does not have to agree to it.
I do not agree with what he said about the kinds of documents that are appended to Hansard. By unanimous consent we can append any letter or document. If he does not agree, all he has to do is say no. What we are dealing with is language rights, specifically language rights for the Frenchspeaking minority in Ontario. The Tory Party is free to say yes or no to appending a letter from the Prime Minister to a Premier. If they say no, they say no; but they do not have to
June 14, 1984

argue about being taken by surprise. The request was made a week ago by the Prime Minister. After four or five days I suppose they have been able to read the letter. All they have to do is say yes or no.
Mir. Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, just to show the Government House Leader, before he goes into the Liberal convention, that I am a person of some considerable compassion, I have listened to what he has had to say and I will give his request the most serious consideration.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Winnipeg who are concerned that vacancies for the cadet leader course at the Vernon Army Cadet Camp have been halved recently, resulting in an unavailability of positions this summer at the Vernon Army Cadet Camp. They are concerned that at least 11 members of the Winnipeg, Manitoba-based army cadet corps may not be able to attend this course despite their earnest desire to do so. Therefore they call upon Parliament to instruct the Department of National Defence to increase enrolment in the cadet leader course in Vernon, B.C. this summer.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to present a petition from a number of citizens in British Columbia, mostly from the municipality of Surrey, who are very concerned that the law relating to known sex offenders loitering around areas frequented by children is defective. Therefore, they appeal to the House of Commons to ensure that that law is remedied so that children will receive proper protection. I submit this petition and urge the Government to take action on it.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present several petitions from different municipalities in British Columbia. The first one contains some 340 names. It is from parents of children living in Vancouver City and has to do with asking that Section 175 of the Criminal Code be amended. There was an error in the original section. They ask that this law be changed so that children will be safe against known sexual offenders.
I have a similar petition from North Vancouver and West Vancouver with about 30 names, asking for the same change in the Criminal Code inasmuch as the peace officers do not
Petitions
have power under the present Code to protect children against known sex offenders.
Similarly, there are some 50 or so names from Richmond, Delta and Langley municipalities in British Columbia. These are largely parents of school children. They state that our present federal law system is void and, because of an error at this time, our children receive no justice in any way. They say the law should be immediately rectified so that growing children can be safe against these scaring offenders. The children should be protected from known sex offenders.
Similarly, I have several petitions from Surrey and North Delta in British Columbia. They also ask that the Criminal Code section be changed.
I would like to say that I presented several hundred petitions to this effect formerly. I hope the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) is taking note and will do something about this situation. It is very important to parents.


Mr. Speaker:: I commend the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) for the way she has dealt with a number of petitions and summarized them. Her conduct is exemplary in that respect.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a large number of petitions with hundreds and hundreds of names of people from British Columbia, drawing to the attention of the Minister that Section 175 of the Criminal Code must be altered to permit more protection for young children from sexual offenders and child abusers. The names on the petition are by and large from parents of children in a variety of schools, indicating a concern for individuals who are known sex offenders lurking and loitering in areas around schools. They are concerned that the present law makes it very difficult for law enforcement officers to provide the appropriate protection for young people and ask that Section 175 be reviewed.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to follow the exemplary practice of the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) when presenting these petitions. I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of a number of my constituents from Burnaby, the North Burnaby area and the Burnaby Mountain area. This petition raises very serious concerns with respect to what the petitioners allege to be a weakness or deficiency in the present provisions of the Criminal Code with respect to known sex offenders that is found in Section 175(e) of the Criminal Code. They urge that what they view as this anomaly in the law be rectified in order that their children may be safe against the offenders to whom they refer. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
I have as well a petition signed by a large number of constituents from the South Burnaby area to the similar effect. I will not repeat the contents of the petition other than to indicate once again that these petitioners are some 20 constituents who are extremely concerned that, in their view, having

June 14, 1984
Introduction of Bills
carefully examined the provisions of the Criminal Code, it does provide inadequate protection to young people in the community.
I have a number of other petitions of a similar import with respect to the deficiencies as viewed by my constituents from different parts of Burnaby in this area of the Criminal Code. My constituents would urge that the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) view very seriously their concerns with a view to making the necessary changes in the Criminal Code. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Speaker:: Those are all the petitions of the Hon. Member?


Svend Johannes Robinson: Yes, Sir.


Mr. Speaker:: Again, the Chair would like to commend the Hon. Member for the manner in which he presented the petitions.



NATIONAL ANTHEM ACT


Howard Edward Crosby: for leave to introduce Bill C-247, an Act to amend the National Anthem Act.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, may I explain briefly that this amendment to the National Anthem Act makes a change that I consider necessary to conform to the spirit of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the endorsement of equality for men and women. Specifically, the change removes the words "thy sons" from O Canada so that the national anthem will now ask for "True patriot love in all of us command!"


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-248, an Act to amend the Public Service Employment Act and the Public Service Staff Relations Act (political rights).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I feel it necessary today to introduce a Bill which would give the same rights to federal public servants to participate in political activities as are enjoyed by most other Canadians. I do this now at a time when the Public Service Commission is ready to discipline federal employees who register as delegates at the Liberal Convention and after watching the witch-hunt which took place in Saskatchewan after the last election. This Bill would give federal public servants the right to attend and participate fully in the meetings and activities of a political Party or candidate and the right to work for or against a candidate, Party or policy on their own time. I hope our respective House Leaders will agree that this should be dealt with in Private Member's hour before the end of June and before the time of the next federal election.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be |answered today: Nos,. 155, 242, 428, 433, 666, 670, 671 and 845.


Mr. Crosby: 1.	Does the Department of National Defence have written rules or regulations governing the conduct or standards of behavior for employees of the Department and, if so, are they embodied in a code of conduct or other specific document and is the code or document available to the public?
2.	In the five years preceding April 1, 1982, were any employees of the Department disciplined by way of suspension, dismissal or otherwise for violations of any rules or regulations governing the conduct or standards of behaviour for departmental employees and, if so, in each case, what was the name of the employee and the date of the disciplinary action?


Stanley Hudecki: 1. A departmental Standard of Conduct, Civilian Personnel Administrative Order 7.05 to be issued in the spring of 1984 will provide clear instructions on what is expected of employees in terms of conduct and standards of behaviour. This document will be available to the public.
2.	The Code of Civilian Discipline, Civilian Personnel Administrative Order 7.06, also available to the public, indicates behaviour which is considered misconduct. This order states that a notice of disciplinary action placed on the personal file of an employee shall be destroyed after two years have elapsed since the disciplinary action was taken providing that no further disciplinary action has been recorded during this period. The following statistics are therefore provided:
June 14, 1984

Order Paper Questions
(a)	Suspensions-1980-81	25(b)	Discharges-1980-81	4(c)	Suspensions-1982-83	19(d)	Discharges-1982-83	13(e)	Suspensions-Apr. 1, 83 to June	1, 84	21(0 Discharges-Apr. 1, 83 to June	1,	84	10
The Human Rights Act prohibits the release of information pertaining to personal character without the written consent of the employee.


Mr. Elzinga: 1.	Did the (a) Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament (b) Edmonton Peace Council (c) Edmonton Learner Centre receive any grants or funds from CIDA and, if so, in each case, in what amount?
2.	Did the organizations receive grants or funds from any other government department?


John Leslie Evans: I am informed as follows:
1.	(a) No. (b) No. (c) The following contributions to the general program of the Edmonton Learner Centre have been made:
1974-75	$20,000
1975-76	$24,000
1976-77	$21,500
1977-78	$19,300
1978-79	$9,000
1979-80	$23,695
1980-81	$33,256
1981-82	$37,318
1982-83	$50,650
2.	Department of External Affairs, $1,200 for the March, 1982 conference of the Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament.


Mr. Howie: In the fiscal year 1983-84, did the Government make any expenditures with respect to energy derived from renewable resources and, if so (a) what total amount (b) what amount was spent on research and development performed (i) within the Government (ii) by outside agencies?
Environment Canada	591,000	4,836,000Agriculture Canada	-	632,653
National Research
Council	7,364,000	17,184,000


Mr. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River): 1.	Did the Department of the Solicitor General sign a contract with "The Pines" of Kenora, Ontario, for the provision of a halfway house for prisoners and, if so, on what date?
2.	Did the Department agree to (a) pay an amount per occupant of "The Pines" and, if so, what amount (b) guarantee a number of occupants and, if so, how many?
3.	Did the Department advance any moneys to "The Pines" over and above the amount referred to in part 2 and did it make any other cash advances?
4.	During the period October 8, 1982 to August 31, 1983, what amount was paid to "The Pines"?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far
as the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) is concerned:
1.	CSC renewed its contract with "The Pines" on April 1, 1983 for a period of one year.
2.	(a) CSC pays a per diem rate of $42.37 per federal offender placed in this Community Residential Centre (CRC).
(b)	CSC guarantees and pays for the use of a minimum of six beds per day.
3.	The Pines Camp Board of Directors incurred a debt of approximately $15,000 over the projected relocation costs of the Camp due to the necessity to construct a new road and to install a new septic system as per provincial standards. CSC advanced a payment of $12,000 in the form of a loan while the Ontario Ministry of Correctional Services, made a $3,000 loan contribution. This prepayment is being recovered by holding back 15 p. 100 of the monthly contract payments to the CRC until such time as the total amount is recovered. No other cash advance has been made.
4.	During the period of October 8, 1982 to August 31, 1983 "The Pines" provided services to CSC for a total amount of $64,798.14. However, 15 p. 100 of this amount was deducted towards the repayment of the $12,000 cash advance.


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 666-Mr. Knowles:
John Leslie Evans: I am informed as follows:
Department
(a) Energy, Mines and Resources	$ 7,595,000	(est.)Fisheries and Oceans	284,000	(est.)Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation	100,000	(est.)Environment Canada	5,427,000	(est.)Agriculture Canada	632,654	National Research Council	24,548,000	
(b) Energy, Mines and
Resources	(i)	$ 594,000 (est.) (ii) $ 6,960,000 (est.)Fisheries and Oceans	212,000 (est.)	72,000 (est.)
Canada Mortgage and
Housing Corporation	-	100,000 (est.)
1.	On February 14, 1984 how many (a) retired Armed Forces personnel (b) widows of Armed Forces personnel or of retired Armed Forces personnel were receiving monthly pension benefits including their basic pensions and any supplement or supplements added thereto, of amounts within each of the following brackets (i) less than $20 (ii) $20 to $29.99 (iii) $30 to $39.99 (iv) $40 to $49.99 (v) $50 to $59.99 (vi) $60 to $69.99 (vii) $70 to $79.99 (viii) $80 to $89.99 (ix) $90 to $99.99 (x) $100 to $149.99 (xi) $150 to $199.99 (xii) $200 to $249.99 (xiii) $250 to $299.99 (xiv) $300 to $399.99 (xv) $400 to $499.99 (xvi) $500 to $599.99 (xvii) $600 to $699.99 (xviii) $700 to $799.99 (xix) $800 to $899.99 (xx) $900 to $999.99 (xxi) $1,000 to $1,499 (xxii) $1,500 or more?
2.	What is the number of retired Armed Forces personnel and also the number of widows of Armed Forces personnel or of retired Armed Forces personnel presently residing in each province?
3.	In respect of how many orphans of Armed Forces personnel are pension benefits paid and what is the average amount thereof?

June 14, 1984
Order Paper Questions


Stanley Hudecki: 1. Retired Armed Forces Personnel as at February 14, 1984: 61,281
(a)	less than $20-	2(b)	20 to 29.99-	16(c)	30 to 39.99-	83(d)	40 to 49.99-	142(e)	50 to 59.99-	133(0 60 to 69.99-	112(g)	70 to 79.99-	128(h)	80 to 89.99-	158(i)	90 to 99.99-	180(j)	100 to 149.99-	976(k)	150 to 199.99-	2,390(l)	200 to 249.99-	3,266(m)	250 to 299.99-	2,981(n)	300 to 399.99-	5,797(o)	400 to 499.99-	6,069(p)	500 to 599.99-	6,236(q)	600 to 699.99-	6,287(r)	700 to 799.99-	5,635(s)	800 to 899.99-	4,413(t)	900 to 999.99-	3,185(u)	1,000 to 1,499.99- 8,549(v)	1,500 to over-	4,543Number of widows receiving monthly pensions as at February 14, 1984: 8,677 (a) less than $20-	0(b) 20 to 29.99-	5(c) 30 to 39.99-	11(d) 40 to 49.99-	13(e) 50 to 59.99-	13(f) 60 to 69.99-	17(g) 70 to 79.99-	21(h) 80 to 89.99-	20(i) 90 to 99.99-	18(j) 100 to 149.99-	315(k) 150 to 199.99-	735(1) 200 to 249.99-	909(m) 250 to 299.99-	1,055(n) 300 to 399.99-	2,109(o) 400 to 499.99-	1,454(p) 500 to 599.99-	788(q) 600 to 699.99-	466(r) 700 to 799.99-	309(s) 800 to 899.99-	198(t) 900 to 999.99-	88(u) 1,000 to 1,499.99-	107(v) 1,500 to over-	26
2. Retired Armed Forces Personnel and Widows residing in each province as at February 14, 1984:
Province	Personnel	WidowsNewfoundland	381	24Prince Edward Island	635	96Nova Scotia	6,801	802New Brunswick	2,763	313Quebec	4,926	845Ontario	21,659	3,562Manitoba	2,633	400Saskatchewan	1,104	140Alberta	6,480	714British Columbia	12,668	1,545Northwest Territories	148	16Outside Canada	1,083	220Total	61,281	8,6773.	Number of Orphans as at February 14, 1984-145Average monthly amount	126.01


Mr. Knowles: 1.	On March 31 of (a) 1981 (b) 1982 (c) 1983 what total amount was at the credit of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Account?
2.	In the fiscal year (a) 1980-81 (b) 1981-82 (c) 1982-83 what (i) average rate of interest did the Government pay for the use of the money in the account (ii) total amount of interest was paid into the account (iii) total amount was paid out of the account?


Stanley Hudecki: 1. Balance in the Canadian Forces Superannuation Account (CFSA) as at:
CFSA	Actuarial Liability Account	Total(a) March 31/81 2,523,331,978.89	6,804,085,933.01	9,327,417,911.90(b) March 31/82 2,630,606,376.80	7,712,947,031.15	10,343,553,407.95(c) March 31/83 2,780,632,293.29	8,565,673,547.97	11,346,305,841.262. Rates of Interest for (a) 1980-81	1.	Quarter ending 30-06-80- 2.	Quarter ending 30-09-80- 3.	Quarter ending 31-12-80- 4.	Quarter ending 31-03-81- (b) 1981-82	2.0507 per cent 2.0910 per cent 2.1033 per cent 2.1258 per cent	1.	Quarter ending 30-06-81- 2.	Quarter ending 30-09-81- 3.	Quarter ending 31-12-81- 4.	Quarter ending 31-03-82- (c) 1982-83	2.1895 per cent 2.2373 per cent 2.2912 per cent 2.3338 per cent	1.	Quarter ending 30-06-82- 2.	Quarter ending 30-09-82- 3.	Quarter ending 31-12-82- 4.	Quarter ending 31-03-83-	2.4172 per cent 2.462 per cent 2.5016 per cent 2.5155 per cent	Amount of Interest credited to CFSA during fiscal year ending:	CFSA	Actuarial Acct.	Total(a) March 31/81 131,624,814.29	348,181,725.07	479,806,539.36(b) March 31/82 162,749,782.66	455,232,249.14	617,982,031.80(c) March 31/83 188,012,415.43	566,405,833.82	754,418,249.25
Payments out of CFSA during Fiscal year ending:
June 14, 1984

(a)	March 31/81
(b)	March 31/82
(c)	March 31/83
280,843,097.67
306,886,710.98
327,096,214.31


Mr. Knowles: In each year from 1959 to 1983 with respect to the Canadian Armed Forces Superannuation Act, how many (a) personnel of the Armed Forces commenced drawing pensions (b) widows commenced drawing pensions (c) pensions under the Act formerly paid to (i) retired Armed Forces personnel (ii) widows were discontinued because of the death of the recipient?


Stanley Hudecki: (a) Personnel of the Armed Forces commenced drawing pensions:
1959	752
1960	1,048
1961	1,418
1962	1,343
1963	1,623
1964	2,454
1965	3,419
1966	3,407
1967	2,983
1968	2,787
1969	4,050
1970	4,075
1971	4,267
1972	4,405
1973	3,357
1974	3,478
1975	3,459
1976	3,003
1977	3,124
1978	3,388
1979	3,847
1980	4,033
1981	2,784
1982	2,173
1983	1,602
(b)	Widows commenced drawing pensions:
1959	98
1960	121
1961	166
1962	179
1963	207
1964	208
1965	283
1966	263
1967	303
1968	303
1969	371
1970	323
1971	375
1972	420
1973	441
1974	478
1975	470
1976	554
1977	527
1978	574
1979	499
1980	673
1981	446
1982	566
1983	454
Order Paper Questions
(c)	(i) Retired pensioners deceased in:
(* includes deceased, re-enrolled, transfer to PSSA/RCMP)
1959	91
1960	103
1961	114
1962	127
1963	142
1964	169
1965	190
1966	208
1967	243
1968	295
1969	353
1970	356
1971	331
1972	323
1973	379
1974	524
1975	496
1976	513
1977	507
1978	384
1979	673
1980	775
1981	1038
1982	902
1983	804
(ii) Widows of pensioners deceased in: (* includes deceased, remarried)
1959	9
1960	12
1961	17
1962	19
1963	26
1964	28
1965	34
1966	39
1967	45
1968	56
1969	50
1970	52
1971	24
1972	11
1973	12
1974	30
1975	39
1976	58
1977	28
1978	38
1979	91
1980	137
1981	98
1982	120
1983	101


Mr. Stewart: 1.	Did the Government establish a Task Force on Conflict of Interest and, if so, what total amount was spent on (a) publishing the report of the task force (b) research and support staff wages (c) wages for Hon. Michael Starr and Hon. Mitchell Sharp?
2.	How many research and support staff worked for the co-chairmen in the preparation of the report, and what are their names?


John Leslie Evans: In so far as the Prime Minister's and Privy Council Offices are concerned:
1. The Task Force on Conflict of Interest was established in July, 1983 and released its report in June, 1984. (a) $15,000.

June 14, 1984
Order Paper Questions
(forecast), (b) $96,728.36, (c) Hon. Michael Starr-fees $9,450., Hon. Mitchell Sharp-nil.
2. The research and support staff who worked in the preparation of the study may be found listed on pages 11 to 13 of the report.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 507 could be made an order for return, that return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 507 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
1982"
Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	Was a publication, entitled "National Drug Intelligence Estimates 1982" printed and distributed by or for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and, if so, at what total cost?
2.	Did Quorum Graphics provide any services with respect to this publication and, if so (a) what were they (b) at what cost?
3.	To what individuals, groups and organizations was the publication distributed?
Return tabled.


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


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Evans) could inform us of the reason for the delay in the responses to Questions Nos. 664 to 676 which are on the Order Paper. These are questions which have been put in the name of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and have been on the Order Paper since February of this year. They relate to pension funds. I think it would certainly be most appropriate that answers to those questions be tabled before the House rises because, as Hon. Members know, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre will not return to the House in his capacity as a Member. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to take that under advisement.
As well, I would ask about the current status of the response to Question No. 835, which stands in the name of the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) and deals with contributions by the Department of National Health and
Welfare under the Canada Assistance Plan to the Province of British Columbia for social assistance and various social services which, as we know, have been squandered on megaprojects and not utilized for the benefit of the people of British Columbia.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member can be assured that I will look into these matters and see if we cannot have expeditious answers to those questions. It is not that any Member is more equal than others, but we will look into this matter especially in the case of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



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. Speaker:: The Chair is prepared to make a decision on matters outstanding on a point of order. Before I rule on the preliminary statement I gave the House on June 12, I wish to thank Hon. Members who gave me the benefit of their thoughts. I also wish to make some observations on report stage of Bills.
Report stage of a public Bill in our procedure is a very important stage. It offers the whole House an opportunity to reconsider what has taken place in committee. I think I should underline that report stage is not a repetition of the committee stage nor is it a repetition of the second reading stage when a Bill is considered in principle. The House is not considering clauses in principle. The House is addressing specific amendments to the Bill which may or may not have been discussed at the committee stage.
I also wish to remind Hon. Members of the Speaker's role in relation to report stage, for nowhere in our Standing Orders is the Speaker's discretion so absolute. The Speaker has power to select motions in amendment; that means he can choose certain motions or choose not to put certain motions to the House. This power of selection has never been exercised by the Chair, probably because the number of amendments filed at report stage has been relatively small in number in the past. If amendments at report stage are to be as numerous as they
June 14, 1984

recently have been, the Speaker may indeed have to exercise his power of selection in the near future.
The second power given to the Speaker during report stage is that of grouping motions either for debate or for voting or both. Again, this power is absolute and the Speaker can combine motions as he may think fit. No occupant of the Chair can exercise this discretion without keeping in mind the importance of his decisions. That is why I have sought comments on the procedural acceptability of certain motions in amendment to Bill C-9. In listening to yesterday's and today's comments, what I have heard were interventions dealing with the substance of the amendments, the desirability of the amendments and a wish to discuss in principle certain clauses of Bills at report stage. All of the above are noble intentions but, unfortunately, they are not of a procedural nature.
I have also been offered alternative grouping schemes, and I have been convinced in listening to the argument that the scheme that I proposed should be modified.
In presenting his argument, the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) suggested that the initial grouping contained in the Chair's preliminary statement, if taken as a precedent, would undermine the right of Members to present motions to delete and have them debated.
There is no question about the procedural acceptability of these motions, and I might add that the debate has already begun. While Members have an undoubted and, within the limitations set out in our rules and practice, virtually unlimited right to propose motions to delete clauses at the report stage, the Speaker has the power to group motions for debate.
While Members' rights to offer such motions at report stage cannot be undermined, may I draw the attention of all Hon. Members to Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 787, which states, in part:
-Although amendments which are rejected in the Committee and amendments attempting to restore the original text of the Bill may be proposed, the Speaker's power of selection of motions in amendment is a check upon the excessive repetition of debates which have already taken place in Committee.
The Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) made several points on the grouping of the motions to delete, and his arguments have convinced me to group the motions to delete clauses with those motions which amend the same clauses. The remaining motions to delete have been grouped in three separate groups, according to parts of the Bill. To do so effectively, I have had to group all the motions standing on the Order Paper. The grouping of all motions for the report stage debate shall, therefore, be as follows:
First, the motions to delete clauses which do not also have substantive amendments proposed in relation to them will be grouped for debate as follows:
(a)	Motions Nos. 10, 16, 20, 25, 26, 28 and 35 will be debated together, and a vote on Motion No. 10 will also dispose of the remaining motions in this group.
Security Intelligence Service
(b)	Motions Nos. 64, 69, 70 to 73 inclusive, 80, 82, 87, 88, 90, 92, 98, 103 to 107 inclusive and 110 to 112 inclusive will be grouped for debate, and a vote on Motion No. 64 will dispose of the remaining motions in this group.
(c)	Motions Nos. 124 to 128 inclusive, 131 to 137 inclusive, 142 to 150 inclusive, 156 to 158 inclusive, 161 to 165 inclusive and 168 to 174 inclusive will be grouped for debate, and a vote on Motion No. 124 will dispose of the remaining motions in this group.
Second, Motions Nos. 2 and 5 to 9 inclusive should be debated together and voted on as follows:
(a)	An affirmative vote on Motion No. 2 will dispose of Motions Nos. 5 to 9 inclusive. A negative vote on Motion No. 2 will necessitate a vote on Motion No. 5.
(b)	In the event that a vote on Motion No. 5 is decided in the affirmative, this vote will dispose of Motions Nos. 6 to 9 inclusive. A negative vote on Motion No. 5 will require separate votes on Motions Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9.
Third, Motions Nos. 12, 13 and 14 should be debated together and voted on as follows:
(a)	An affirmative vote on Motion No. 12 will dispose of Motions Nos. 13 and 14. A negative vote on Motion No. 12 will necessitate a vote on Motion No. 13.
(b)	In the event that a vote on Motion No. 13 is decided in the affirmative, the vote will dispose of Motion No. 14. A negative vote on Motion No. 13 will require a separate vote on Motion No. 14.
Fourth. Motions Nos. 17, 19, 22, 23 and 24 should be debated together and voted on as follows:
(a)	An affirmative vote on Motion No. 17 obviates the need for a vote on Motion No. 19. A negative vote on Motion No. 17 requires the question to be put on Motion No. 19.
(b)	An affirmative vote on Motion No. 22 disposes of Motions Nos. 23 and 24. A negative vote on Motion No. 22 requires sparate votes on Motions Nos. 23 and 24.
Fifth, Motions Nos. 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38 and 39 will be grouped for debate and voted on as follows:
(a)	An Affirmative vote on Motion No. 30 will dispose of Motions Nos. 31 and 32. A negative vote on Motion No. 30 will require separate questions on Motions Nos. 31 and 32.
(b)	An affirmative vote on Motion No. 33 will obviate the need for a vote on Motion No. 34. A negative vote on Motion No. 33 will require a vote on Motion No. 34.
(c)	An affirmative vote on Motion No. 36 will dispose of Motion No. 37. A negative vote on Motion No. 36 will require a vote on Motion No. 37.
(d)	An affirmative vote on Motion No. 38 will dispose of Motion No. 39. A negative vote on Motion No. 38 will require a vote on Motion No. 39.
Sixth, Motions Nos. 40 to 43 inclusive, 45 to 48 inclusive, 50 and 51 will be grouped for debate and voted on as follows:

June 14, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
(a)	An affirmative vote on Motion No. 40 disposes of Motion No. 41. A negative vote on Motion No. 40 necessitates a vote on Motion No. 41.
(b)	An affirmative vote on Motion No. 42 disposes of Motion No. 43. A negative vote on Motion No. 42 requires a vote on Motion No. 43.
(c)	An affirmative vote on Motion No. 45 will also dispose of Motions Nos. 46 and 47. A negative vote on Motion No. 45 will require separate votes on Motions Nos. 46 and 47.
(d)	An affirmative vote on Motion No. 48 will dispose of Motions Nos. 50 and 51. A negative vote on Motion No. 48 requires separate votes on Motions Nos. 50 and 51.
Seventh, Motion Nos. 52, 54 to 63 inclusive and 66 to 68 inclusive shall be grouped for debate and voted on in the following manner:
(a)	An affirmative vote on Motion No. 52 will also dispose of Motion Nos. 54 to 59 inclusive. A negative vote on Motion No. 52 will necessitate votes on Motions Nos. 54 to 59 inclusive, as follows:
(i)	An affirmative vote on Motion No. 54 would obviate the need for a vote on Motions Nos. 55, 56 and 57. A negative vote on Motion No. 54 requires separate votes on Motions Nos. 55, 56 and 57.
(ii)	An affirmative vote on Motion No. 58 would preclude the putting of the question on Motion No. 59. A negative vote on Motion No. 58 would require a vote on Motion No. 59.
(b)	An affirmative vote on Motion No. 60 will dispose of Motions Nos. 61 to 63 inclusive. A negative vote on Motion No. 60 requires the question to be put on Motions Nos. 61, 62 and 63 as follows:
(i)	An affirmative vote on Motion No. 61 would obviate the putting of the question on Motion No. 62. A negative vote on Motion No. 61 requires a vote on Motion No. 62.
(ii)	Motion No. 63 would be voted on separately.
(c)	An affirmative vote on Motion No. 66 precludes the question being put on Motions Nos. 67 and 68. A negative vote on Motion No. 66 would require separate votes on Motions Nos. 67 and 68.
Eighth, Motions Nos. 75, 77, 78 and 79 should be grouped for debate. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 77 will dispose of Motions Nos. 78 and 79. A negative vote on Motion No. 77 will require the question to be put on Motion No. 78 and, a vote on Motion No. 78 disposes of Motion No. 79. Motion No. 75 will be voted on separately.
Ninth, Motions Nos. 85 and 86 are to be grouped for debate. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 85 disposes of Motion No. 85. A negative vote on Motion No. 85 requires a vote on Motion No. 86.
Tenth, Motions Nos. 95, 96 and 97 should be grouped for debate. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 95 will dispose of
Motions Nos. 96 and 97. A negative vote on Motion No. 95 will require separate votes on Motions Nos 96 and 97.
Eleventh, Motions Nos 99 to 102 inclusive will be grouped for debate and voted onas follows:
(a)	An affirmatie vote on Motion No. 99 will dispose of Motion No. 100. A negative vote on Motion No. 99 will require a vote Motion No. 100.
(b)	An affirmative vote on Motion No. 101 disposes of Motion No. 102. A negative vote on Motion No. 101 requires a vote on Motion No. 102.
Twelvth, Motions Nos. 108 and 109 should be grouped for debate. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 108 disposes of Motion No. 109. A negative vote on Motion No. 108 requires a vote on Motion No. 109.
12. (a) Motions Nos. 113 and 114 should be grouped for debate. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 113 disposes of Motion No. 114. A negative vote on Motion No. 113 requires a vote on Motion No. 114.
Thirteenth, Motions Nos. 116, 118 to 123 inclusive should be grouped for debate and voted on as follows:
(a)	An affirmative vote on Motion No. 116 will dispose of Motion No. 118. A negative vote on Motion No. 116 requires the question to be put on Motion No. 118.
(b)	An affirmative vote on Motion No. 119 will dispose of Motion No. 120. A negative vote on Motion No. 119 will require a vote on Motion No. 120.
(c)	An affirmative vote on Motion No. 121 will dispose of Motion No. 122. A negative vote on Motion No. 121 requires a vote on Motion No. 122.
(d)	Motion No. 123 will be voted on separately.
Fourteenth, Motions Nos 129 and 130 should be grouped for debate. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 129 will dispose of Motion No. 130. A negative vote on Motion No. 129 requires a vote on Motion No. 130.
Fifteenth, Motion Nos. 138 and 139 should be grouped for debate. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 138 will dispose of Motion No. 139. A negative vote on Motion No. 138 requires a vote on Motion No. 139.
Sixteenth, Motions Nos. 140 and 141 should be grouped for debate. An affirmative on Motion No. 140 will dispose of Motion No. 141. A negative vote on Motion No. 140 requires a vote on Motion 141.
Seventeenth, Motions Nos. 151 to 155 inclusive will be grouped for debate and voted on as follows:
(a) An affirmative vote on Motion No. 151 will dispose of Motions Nos. 152 to 155 inclusive. A negative vote on Motion No. 151 requires the question to be put on the remaining motions in this group, as follows:
(i)	An affirmative vote on Motion No. 152 disposes of Motion No. 153. A negative vote on Motion No. 152 requires a vote on Motion No. 153.
(ii)	Motions Nos. 154 and 155 are to be voted on separately.
June 14, 1984

Eighteenth, Motions Nos. 159 and 160 should be grouped for debate. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 159 will dispose of Motion No. 160. A negative vote on Motion No. 159 requires the question to be put on Motion No. 160.
Nineteenth, Motions Nos. 166 and 167 should be grouped for debate. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 166 disposes of Motion No. 167. A negative vote on Motion No. 166 requires the question to be put on Motion No. 167.
The Hon. Members for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) and Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) have suggested that the proposal to bring the Security Intelligence Service under the control of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is fully within the purpose of the Bill as read the second time, because the purpose of the Bill, as laid out in the title, is to establish the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.
In making this suggestion, they quoted Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 704(1), as follows:
A bill may have two titles, one long and one short. Both the long title and the short title may be amended, if amendments to the bill make it necessary.
(1) Long Title-the long title sets out in general terms the purposes of the bill. It should cover everything in the bill.
May I underline that the purpose of the Bill is laid out only in general terms in the title. It is clear from a reading of the Bill that it intends to establish a service distinct from the RCMP.
In my view, Motions Nos. 3, 11, 18, 21, 27, 29, 44, 49, 53, 65, 74, 81, 83, 91 and 115, which relate to this proposal, negate the purpose of the Bill, which is specifically prohibited by our practice, and I refer Hon. Members once again to Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 773(5) to that effect.
May I say, in passing, that a careful examination of the notice submitted by the Hon. Member for Vancouver South in relation to Motion No. 53 reveals a single motion, not three separate motions. While I might agree that some of the parts of the motion, had each been a motion standing on its own, would have been in order. I again refer the Hon. Members to Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 428(2), to which I referred in relation to Motion No. 49. It reads:
When an amendment is irregular in one particular, the whole of it is not admissible and must be ruled out of order. Journals, April 29, 1970, p. 732.
Therefore, Motions Nos. 3, 4, 11, 15, 18, 21, 27, 29, 44, 49, 53, 65, 74, 76, 81, 83, 84, 115, 117 and 175 are all ruled out of order.
At this point, the Chair has to make some remarks regarding the three remaining motions which, at first glance, give the Chair some procedural difficulty.
Motion No. 89 is attempting to remove the control of the Treasury Board over the operational expenditures of the review committee. This is clearly beyond the royal recommendation.
May I refer Hon. Members to Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 540, which states, in part:
The guiding principle in determining the effect of an amendment upon the financial initiative of the Crown is that the communication, to which the Royal Recommendation is attached, must be treated as laying down once for all (unless
Security Intelligence Service
withdrawn and replaced) not only the amount of the charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications.
Since this appears to relax one of the conditions of the royal recommendation, it would seem to infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown and would be out of order.
Motions No. 93 and 94 go beyond the scope of the Bill. Both these motions contemplate a broadening of the review committee's functions to include its reviewing of the relationships between the security service and other intelligence agencies in Canada. This is clearly a new idea which was not contained in the Bill as agreed to at second reading stage. It would seem that both these motions are out of order.
The Chair has undertaken to hear procedural argument on Motions Nos. 89, 93 and 94, but will do so at a later time.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I listened with care to the Speaker's ruling. I wonder if Your Honour could indicate specifically if you have dealt with the question of Motions Nos. 15, 76, 84, 117 and 175 with respect to the question of the parliamentary oversight committee? I did not see any explicit reference to that particular subject. It may be that it is couched within the terms of the ruling itself. Perhaps the Speaker might indicate where that is to be found?


Mr. Speaker:: I made very explicit reference to a parliamentary oversight committee in my preliminary ruling and did not see fit to repeat it. A motion has been accepted to refer to a parliamentary committee, but the basic principle of creating a special committee with special duties by this means is unacceptable.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, in rising, I am, of course, very cognizant of the respect which I, as a Member of this House, owe to you as the Speaker of our House. I hope you will keep that very much in mind in listening to what I have to say. Your ruling, of course, must be accepted in the sense that it is a final ruling. Your Honour will know that at least for two days I strove mightily to change your mind. I understand that you have your obligations and you have to make these rulings according to the precedents and rules as you interpret them, and I respect that.
As Your Honour knows, Hon. Members of the House and 1 have always done everything we could to make it very clear that we cannot conduct our affairs in this House without respecting your position and recognizing the fact that sometimes you have to make decisions which do not please all Hon. Members. However, I want to say this, and it is no reflection, Sir, on you. I am not questioning in any sense your integrity or devotion to your duty in making the ruling you did. People were asked to come before the committee and make suggestions about this Bill-


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has some concern. Is the Hon. Member debating the ruling of the Chair?


John Allen Fraser: No.

June 14, 1984
Security Intelligence Service


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is quite prepared to hear debate on the items which will be debated in this House. The Chair has listened to argument on a point of order at some length. The Chair has made a ruling. At this stage the Chair will recognize the Hon. Member on the motion and not recognize him on a point of order. Perhaps he can make a very brief intervention.


John Allen Fraser: It will be very brief. I have chosen my words carefully because I respect Your Honour's position, but the effect is that those who came to our committee to give us suggestions for improvement of the Bill are now left with the result that those suggestions in the way of proposed amendments are not now going to be considered by this House:


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member made this point very clearly this morning. The Chair listened to him carefully. The Chair has heard argument and made a decision, and the House will now proceed to the motion.
Is the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) rising to speak on the motion? The Hon. Member has already spoken on the motion. On what point is he seeking to be recognized?


Svend Johannes Robinson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, a very brief point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I trust the Hon. Member is not going to reflect on the decision of the Chair.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I certainly will not reflect on the decision of the Chair. I merely seek guidance with respect to the Chair's ruling. The Chair indicated that Your Honour would be ruling on the remaining 42 motions, that is Motions Nos. 37, 39, 41, etc. through to Motion No. 167 as soon as possible. May we have some indication?


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair certainly gave an indication, and the preliminary ruling did not cover it all, but with regard to groupings, the Hon. Member himself went through the whole Bill with the suggested groupings. The Chair found that, once it got into the ruling there was no other way but to carry through in a consistent way. I have looked at everything on groupings.
With regard to the other clauses of the Bill, I am inviting argument with relation to three specific clauses that give concern to the Chair and will hear argument relating to them early next week.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have just one final question, again not reflecting in any way upon the decision of the Chair. The document I have indicates that it was drafted at 11.15 this morning. That was before the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) had an opportunity to conclude his deliberations.


Mr. Speaker:: With all due respect to the Hon. Member, for purposes of convenience he was given drafts. The Hon. Member is well aware that there is such a thing as putting drafts together by stapling. I can assure the Hon. Member that there have been numerous last minute changes. If he is trying
to make the suggestion that the entire document was prepared prior to 11.15, that is simply not true.
The Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands.


James Douglas Manly: May I
speak to the motion, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member is perfectly in order. We are resuming debate on Motion No. 1 in the name of the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). The Chair recognized the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a word or two about the importance of this debate, and a word of appreciation to the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) for consistently forcing this matter to the front of Parliament's attention. Otherwise it could very easily have slid over.
There is a great deal of attention being paid to the events taking place in the Liberal Party this week in Ottawa. Perhaps some people might think that this is the most important thing happening in Ottawa today, but in fact the most important thing for the future of Canada today is not who is going to be the new leader of the Liberal Party, but what we are going to decide on this Bill, which affects the fundamental rights and freedoms of Canadians. There is a debate in the Liberal Party as to whether or not the new leader will represent the head of the Party, the brains or the heart, but if we want to know about the Liberal Party we need to read this Bill. We see here the guts of the Party in this Bill which really is a denial of fundamental rights and freedoms. It is rather sad that this evening there is going to be a testimonial dinner-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Will the Hon. Member please be relevant to the motion now before the House, not to extraneous matters?


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking to the motion. The motion is that the title should be deleted, and I believe that is very germane because this is what Shakespeare would call a "whoreson" act, an act that does not deserve a title or name. We feel it betrays the fundamental rights and freedoms of Canadians. I was about to say that it is a rather sad that when there is a testimonial dinner for the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) this evening-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. With all due respect, I have asked the Hon. Member to address his remarks to the motion now before the House, which is that Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 1. He should restrict his remarks to that matter.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate your concern that we should relate our debate to the deletion of Clause 1 which contains the title. I am trying to point out that this Bill is so dificient in meeting the needs of Canadian people that the title should be deleted. In fact, the entire Bill should be deleted. I simply want to make the point that it is a sad fact that this Bill is one of the final legacies of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on the very day-
June 14, 1984


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Again with all due respect, I hope the Hon. Member appreciates the point the Chair is attempting to make. If I may be permitted, I will make the point that at report stage we must be relevant to the motion, and this is very much in keeping with our practices and traditions, and I would be happy to quote the relevant citations if the Hon. Member so requests. Remarks must be strictly relevant to the motion at hand, that is, to the amendment that I have just cited. I do not in any way intend to restrict the Hon. Member's freedom of expression, but the rules are clear. His remarks must be restricted to the motion now before the House. I plead with him to abide by that practice.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I will indeed endeavour to follow the very strict rules which you in your wisdom are applying. The motion before us is that we should delete the short title. I am trying to make the point that because of the very negative effects of the Bill, because of its doubtful value to the Canadian people, it should indeed go forward to the Canadian people without any name whatsoever. It is an illegitimate Bill and it should be without a name.
Canadians are generally perceived as being a people who are very respectful of authority, just as Members of this House are respectful of the authority of the Speaker. I presume that a good deal of this respect for authority, certainly in English Canada, is the result of our United Empire Loyalist heritage. This respect for authority is not to be despised, it is not a negative trait, but neither is it to be abused. This Bill abuses our traditional respect for authority, and that is why I want to see the name deleted.
The authority of the state is perceived by most Canadians as being a guarantor of our rights and freedoms. Through this Act the authority of the state will be used to subvert and take away our rights and freedoms. We have had a long struggle in Canada and in our respective ancestries in Europe and other parts of the world for responsible Government. We have had to struggle to ensure that the state did not trample on the rights and freedoms of individuals. This Act, which should go forward without a name, would establish a security service which would undermine the guarantee of the rights and freedoms of individuals. Instead of seeing the state as the guarantor of our rights and freedoms, Canadians will see the state as the perverter and subverter of those rights and freedoms.
It is a sad day when we must debate this kind of an Act. That is why I support Motion No. 1 to delete the title. In the long run it is going to subvert the very respect for authority which many people have remarked upon as being a very Canadian characteristic. Many people appeared before the committee which was considering this Bill. The great majority of them have been very apprehensive about the effects this Act would have and the way in which it would destroy rights and freedoms. It is on that basis that I am supporting this motion and saying that the title should be deleted and that this Act should go forth into the world without any name at all, if the Act itself is passed.
Security Intelligence Service
I would like to share some of the concerns which were raised. Rev. Dr. Donald Anderson, the General Secretary of the Canadian Council of Churches, sent a telegram which reads as follows:
Bill C-9, An Act to establish the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, should not be passed by the present Parliament until: (a) it makes clear and rigorous provision for the accountability of the service; (6) defines national security and describes more precisely those activities which are illegal under the Act; (c) provides for the continuation of a free and vigorous participatory society in which work for justice on behalf of the poor, the marginalized and refugees may be carried on without fear of surveillance and prosecution.
That is from the Canadian Council of Churches speaking on behalf of a wide variety of Canadian Christians. That is one reason we feel that this Act should go forth into the world without any title, if indeed it is passed at all.
It is interesting that when the moderator of the United Church, Dr. Clarke MacDonald, had a message read into the record of the committee, the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lamb-ton (Mr. Cullen) objected to this and told him he should mind his own business. This reminds me of King Henry II asking who is going to get rid of this turbulent priest, referring to Thomas a Becket. The attitude of the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton is perhaps indicative of the whole approach of the Government toward this Bill, which is that it is wrong for people to speak out. Somehow a moderator of the United Church is not minding his business when he tries to warn the Canadian people that this Act is potentially dangerous, urges that there be public hearings, and suggests, that unless certain safeguards are put in it, it should be withdrawn. It is on that basis that we feel that this Act is harmful, that it should not have a title, and we urge that Clause 1 be dropped. We have heard similar representations from the Canadian Association of University Teachers and the Canadian Medical Association.
In conclusion, I urge that this first clause be dropped and that the Bill itself be dropped until proper safeguards have been built into it to ensure that the security service will be responsible to Parliament and not to some nameless committee appointed by the Party of patronage.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, indeed it is a sad day. We are in the month of June of the year 1984, the year made famous by the British author, George Orwell. In his book 1984 he portrayed a society in which individuals had lost all of their civil liberties. In that society a mind police operated which stamped out any individual thought, and government propaganda was the only information people could read. George Orwell coined the phrase "doublespeak". Doublespeak is what the government used in its propaganda. It means saying one thing while actually meaning something else. Indeed, as we debate Bill C-9 today, we see all these warnings by George Orwell come true.
We are debating a Bill which could allow wiretapping the phones of those Canadians raising money for-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Chair really regrets to interrupt the Hon. Member. At this time debate should not be so broad that Members can address remarks to the general principle of the Bill. Members must address their remarks to

June 14, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
the specific amendments before the House. I have deliberately listened with some patience and I find that the Hon. Member has yet to address specific remarks to the motion which seeks to amend Clause 1 by deleting it. I wish that he would come to that matter soon.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) is rising on a point of order.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I know the Chair will recognize that over the course of the debate thus far on Motion No. 1 the Chair has allowed considerable latitude in view of the fact that we are dealing with Motion No. 1 and Clause No. 1. If the Chair reviews Hansard, the Chair will indeed find that the debate has ranged over a very broad number of areas respecting the fundamental principles of the legislation. I recognize that Motion No. 1 does deal with the title. I say with respect that if we are guided by the wisdom of the previous occupants of the Chair and indeed the present-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The present occupant of the chair is the Chair. I have been participating in the debate. The Hon. Member for Burnaby of course feels that he is raising a valid point of order. However, the Chair takes a different view. The Hon. Member for Burnaby will recall that debate was initiated on Motion No. 1 so as to allow Hon. Members, the Chair and the Table officers to come to some understanding as to the grouping of the motions before the House. It was with some licence that debate was allowed to extend somewhat. The rules were not strictly applied in that very specific and particular context. However, that matter has now been settled. It is my duty as occupant of the Chair to ask Hon. Members to limit their remarks strictly to the motion at hand as is the standard practice in the House at report stage. I invite the Hon. Member to continue his remarks.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I was going to continue in my remarks to try to make a case for giving the Bill the title "1984" rather than its present title. The title "1984" is more representative of the contents of the Bill than the present title of the Bill.
It is darn shameful that a Government, which parades itself as the champion of the individual and of free thought in the Liberal tradition, should introduce a Bill which creates one of the most draconian secret service agencies in the western world. The Government, which introduced the Charter of Rights, at the same time introduces this piece of legislation which takes away the very freedoms and rights which the Government has given with the Charter of Rights. With this piece of legislation it yanks those freedoms and rights away from the Canadian people.
That is why we on this side, the churches, university teachers and provincial attorneys general right across the length and breadth of the country are outraged at this piece of legislation. We are outraged at the tactics of government Members in committee. We are outraged at how they are shoving down our
throats a piece of legislation which is as important as the Charter of Rights and the Constitution. In fact, the independent Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) made a very valid point the other day. He said that the two most important pieces of legislation were the Constitution and this Bill. Yet, at the end of this long session and the life of this Parliament, we see the Government introduce a Bill and insist on something on which there is no national consensus. Enlightened, concerned and educated people right across the country are opposed to this.
One must ask the pertinent question: why does the Government continue with this Bill? Why does it continue with legislation that could be used to remove legal and medical files of individuals who might be protesting the state of unemployment or the state of poverty in this country? For instance, those files could be used against farmers who are demonstrating against farm bankruptcies. They could be used against native organizations or any group of people who want to see some basic change in the social and economic structure of this country.
That is why we introduced Motion No. 1 that we are debating today. We are opposed to this Bill starting with its title. As I mentioned, there is a long list of people who are opposed to it, including even members of the Government. The former Solicitor General, the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) is outraged at this piece of legislation. Yet the Government continues to push ahead with it.
I think we are all aware that currently societies all over the world are experiencing very rapid technological, social and economic changes as well as psychological changes. We will see human displacement on a scale that we have not seen since the advent of the Industrial Revolution. This displacement will lead to periods of discontent. Yet, believing as we do in the democratic process of our society, we hold true to the belief of open debate and discussion so that a new equilibrium of power sharing will evolve.
This Bill will suppress legitimate opposition. People who are suffering within the present economic and political structure will be forced underground because they will have no sense of security that they will be able to raise legitimate debate in this country. The Bill will simply be an excuse to go underground. Violence begets violence. If the mentality exists that there are spies and terrorists under every bed, lo and behold you create the reality that you set up to protect yourself against. That is my prediction while debating this Bill. It is like a mirror image. The Governemnt is opening the way to the very reality that this Bill is supposed to be protecting us from.
Why is the Government so insistent on this legislation? The police forces in this country already hold power that very few police forces in the western world hold. I am told that there are some 800,000 files on Canadian citizens. The power that the police already have is quite awesome. Does the Government suspect that there are 800,000 spies and terrorists in the
June 14, 1984

country on whom we must keep files? Is that what it believes the Canadian people are all about?
Why does it want more power? Why does it want to legalize opening mail, taping telephones and obtaining medical records and legal records? Why does it want to infringe on the basic democratic rights of Canadian citizens? It would do this without having a parliamentary overview committee which would have the power to police the police.
The Bill is flawed in many ways. It is a danger to the democratic process and to our rights as Canadians. It does not have the types of checks and balances that one finds in the American system. It does not have a parliamentary overview to make certain that the secret police do not get out of hand and become involved in their own web of paranoia which can damage the social fabric.
The Government seems to be afraid of making the secret police accountable to Members of Parliament. It seems to fear its own shadows. As such, we cannot but go on to one course of action, that is, to attempt, with every conceivable tool that the Opposition has, to stop this legislation. As the third Party, we do not have too many tools, but whatever tools we have we will use to stop this piece of legislation. We know that if this piece of legislation is allowed to pass, it can ultimately endanger Canadian society more than any foreign enemy of this country. It is a greater danger to our way of life as we know and cherish it than any foreign agent can be. As such, we will stand opposed, opposed and opposed.


Yvon Pinard: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) is rising on a point of order.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Point of order.


Yvon Pinard: I am already recognized on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have already recognized the Hon. President of the Privy Council on a point of order.


M. Pinard:: Mr. Speaker, if my colleague has something important and serious to say, I may just allow him to speak first. I just wanted to know if the hon. gentleman who just finished his speech was speaking in the name of his Party when he promised to do whatever he could to delay and prevent this Bill from being passed in the House. This is a very serious threat of a pure filibuster that is unacceptable.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I thought the Hon. President of the Privy Council was rising on a bona fide point of order. However, he rose to put a question, rhetorical or otherwise. A question can only be allowed at this time by unanimous consent, because the time allotted to the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) had expired. Therefore, I will ask if there is unanimous consent to allow the President of the Privy Council to put his question. Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Security Intelligence Service


Yvon Pinard: Were you speaking for your Party or not?


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I understand that I do have unlimited time to answer the question by the Hon. Member. It is a very serious question that the-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I should make it very clear at this time that, contrary to what he may think, the Hon. Member does not have unlimited time to answer the question. The Chair will allow him reasonable time to answer the question. That is the Chair's discretion.


Simon Leendert de Jong: It is an important question that has been asked. We in this Party are very much opposed to the Bill as it stands. We do not state that there is no need for a security service. We believe that there is such a need. However, we believe that major changes to the Act must take place in order to create that balance which will, on the one hand, provide the safety and security of Canadians that can be guaranteed by an effective security system while, on the other hand, the freedoms and rights and liberties of Canadians are guaranteed and not endangered.
We feel that this piece of legislation is so important that the very fabric of Canadian society is threatened by what we have in front of us. Therefore, we will use all means at our disposal-and they are limited because the major opposition Party has many more tools than us-to change the legislation. We will do whatever we can, Mr. Speaker, to introduce legislation, to discuss the amendments, and to convince the Government to sit down and reach a consensus among all Parties in this House, among all segments in Canadian society including university teachers, the churches, the provincial attorneys general and the Canadian Civil Liberties Union. We must achieve that consensus so that we can have a piece of legislation that, on the one hand, will protect Canadian citizens and our way of life, and yet, on the other hand, make certain that our democratic freedoms and our individual rights are not threatened by some cloak-and-dagger concoction which this Government or its successors will have at their disposal. I hope this answers in full the question that was put to me.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Debate. Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Red Deer.


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, certainly this day can be referred to as Black Thursday.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Gordon Towers: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the "Ohs" come across from the other side. It is they who have little regard for the freedom of the Canadian people. Members on the other side disregard that completely. This is what we are talking about, Mr. 4688

June 14, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
Speaker, the freedom of Canadians. Look at what happened in the Department of National Revenue. Look at what happened in the Department of Justice.


An Hon. Member:: Tell us.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I plead with the Hon. Member, who is a very experienced parliamentarian, to address his remarks to the motion now before the House. His remarks cannot be of a wide ranging and broad nature. The Hon. Member must address himself to the specific amendment.


Thomas Gordon Towers: I understand that, Mr. Speaker, and I apologize for digressing, but I did have to take care of the "Ohs" from the other side. Apparently that is all they are able to say.
In dealing with this motion before us today, because of the Speaker's ruling we find it strikes at the very guts of the whole Bill. The Speaker mentioned-would you allow me?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am afraid the Chair cannot allow any comment or reflection on the Speaker's ruling. That is very much against the rules, practices and traditions of the House. I plead with the Hon. Member to restrict his remarks to the motion before the House.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, if we can delete the title, then we will be able to deal with the other aspects of this Bill when we get to those motions that are of fundamental importance to the Canadian people. I refer to Motion No. 11 which has been negated by the title. If the Government opposite would see fit to delete the title, then we could deal with Motion No. 11. I hear the Gentleman of the Black Rod at the door, Mr. Speaker.


An Hon. Member:: Someone is practising.


Simon Leendert de Jong: That is the knock on the door for the 12 Liberal Cabinet Ministers.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I invite the Hon. Member to pursue his remarks. The noise is not a knock on the door.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May we have order in the House. It is very distracting to the Hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) who is making a speech to be disrupted in this fashion. If we could have decorum in the House the Chair would appreciate it, as would the Hon. Member for Red Deer I am sure.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, the Government has not convinced Canadians that the close surveillance of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service will be adequately controlled. They are not satisfied that Parliament, the Minister or the Cabinet are going to have adequate control of this service. This is the frightening part of this legislation. That is why I say Motion No. 1 should be withheld or deleted until such time as the changes that can be made within the debate as it
goes clause by clause take place. Perhaps the Government of the new Leader of the Liberal Party will have a change of heart and thereby we will have that opportunity to make the changes that will be satisfactory to Canadians.
I am sure that the people you represent in this House of Commons, Mr. Speaker, are just as concerned as the people I represent. They have seen so many of their freedoms disappear, disappear through agencies over which there is no control. The best example I could give you is of the dark days of Quebec in 1970. Hindsight is always better than foresight, as the saying goes, but nevertheless we do have to set legislation in place to ensure proper protection for Canadians so that they will not experience those kinds of problems in the future.
All one has to do is to read the minutes of the committee hearings, statements in the press and, statements made by representatives of all three political Parties, even the Party opposite, which show concerns about the changes of establishing this agency without adequate control put in place. We have had a ruling today. Unless we can change the title, delete it or table it until such time as there has been adequate debate in the House of Commons to ensure that legislation is put in place to protect Canadians, we are going to suffer a great deal of apprehension about what can happen in the future.
It does not matter from which province you come, certain circumstances can happen anywhere, not necessarily in the province of Quebec. I have often said, and I continue to say, that anything that can happen any place in the world can happen in Canada. We read every day about what is happening in other countries. We read about agencies getting out of control and the rights of individuals suffering as a consequence. I have to warn you, Sir, and the Members opposite that I am not speaking lightly about this. I am very sincere. We read in the papers about people who object to certain things, in other countries and suffering the consequences by having their arms cut off. These atrocities take place elsewhere in the world today because some entity is given control.
Let me refer to the armed forces. I have always felt, and people will tell you the same thing, that as long as you can keep control of the management of the armed forces under three different heads you will always have that alternative, that alternative force, to ensure that total control does not take place. We have seen what has happened in the world when one man gets control of a society. This has happened within our memory and it is a situation happening in different places in the world today. At the present time, there are 35 areas of war in the world. Any of these things can happen in Canada.
I would urge you, Mr. Speaker, to accept this motion. I would urge you to encourage debate and to encourage Members opposite to take whatever action is necessary at least to agree to the tabling of this motion at this time. It is of fundamental importance to the well-being and protection of our Canadian people.

June 14, 1984



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow)-Canadian pacific Railway (a) Projected reduction of workforce, (b) Request that Minister convene meeting of interested parties.



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. A1 MacBain (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice): Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the motion to delete Clause 1 of Bill C-9, it appears obvious that the discussion to delete the clause is improper. The motion does not add anything to the debate that has taken place on Bill C-9. I want to speak against the idea of tabling the Bill or the clause-

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate Chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have the honour to inform the House that when the House did attend the Right Hon. the Deputy to Her Excellency the Governor General in the Senate chamber,
Parity Prices
the Right Hon. the Deputy to Her Excellency had been pleased to give in Her Majesty's name the Royal Assent to the following Bills:
Bill C-16, an Act to apply the customs and excise jurisdiction of Canada to the continental shelf of Canada and to amend certain Acts in relation thereto or in consequence thereof-Chapter No. 17
Bill C-46, an Act respecting certain provisions of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and the Northeastern Quebec Agreement relating principally to Cree and Naskapi local government and to the land regime governing Category IA and Category IA-N land-Chapter No. 18
Bill C-39, an Act to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act, the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act and certain other Acts in relation thereto- Chapter No. 19
Bill S-15 an Act to provide for the creation by amalgamation of The Wesleyan Church of Canada.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, it is not quite five o'clock yet, but I wonder whether or not we could deem it five o'clock and go on to Private Members' Hour. Could you ask the House for such unanimous consent?


Yvon Pinard: Agreed, Sir.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to call it five o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS

['Agreed.']
Mr. Speaker:: Shall all orders and items preceding No. 30 stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



Lorne Edmund Nystrom: that Bill C-232, an Act respecting parity prices for farm products, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate having been afforded the time of the House to move Bill C-232 and I thank the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) for seconding the motion.

June 14, 1984
Parity Prices
Bill C-232 is an Act respecting parity prices for farm products. Very simply, parity pricing means that a farmer should receive for the product he or she is selling, whether it be grain, cattle or hogs, a guaranteed price that is based on the cost of production and a decent profit or a decent living wage. That is really all Bill C-232 is asking for and it is really no more than many other people in our society have today.
Many contracts negotiated on behalf of unions contain cost of living clauses. Teachers receive annual increases. Members of Parliament now receive annual increases to our wages and salaries. Even senior citizens receive cost of living adjustments to the old age pension every three months. Bill C-232 only asks that farmers receive a return on their labour and on the investment they make in grain and livestock that reflects the cost of production and a decent living wage so that they may support themselves on the farm.
Bill C-232 is before the House because a group of five farmers came to see me last November after I had held a series of meetings in a number of towns in my constituency. I went around not only to Yorkton and Melville but to towns like Kamsack, Canora, Ituna, Foam Lake, Priestville and many other places. These five farmers came to see me one evening to tell me that they were having a lot of problems. That part of Saskatchewan is not an area in which many farmers are very wealthy. In fact, according to the recent census, the average farm income in my constituency is one of the lowest on the Prairies. Because of that, many people are going bankrupt. In fact, one of the farmers who came to see me that night was a farmer whose property was being foreclosed by the Bank of Montreal.
These farmers came to me with an idea. That idea was parity pricing. It had been talked about in the past by the old CCF, by the Farmers' Union, by John Diefenbaker and by many others on the Prairies back in the 1940s, 1950s and even into the 1960s. These farmers came to me with a written proposal and asked me as their Member of Parliament to present that proposal as a private Member's Bill in the House. I agreed to do that. The Bill saw first reading on April 5, and it is now before us for second reading.
The farmers on the Prairies now find themselves in a difficult situation. The world prices for many commodities are dropping. In many cases, the prices for grain and livestock certainly do not reflect the cost of production, let alone a decent living wage for the ordinary person of the land. On the other side of the ledger, the costs of production continue to rise. The price of land, interest rates, energy costs and things of that sort continue to escalate, forcing many small and average-sized farmers off their land. I see this happen in my riding every week. I see the farms disappearing and I see fewer and fewer farmers.
When I was in a small town called Duff, a farmer told me that when he was going to school about 20 or 30 years ago, there were four country schools plus one village school. The country schools have now disappeared and only the village school still remains. That shows how the depopulation of the rural areas in escalating. I believe a Bill like this one would
help to reverse that trend, because it would mean that a farmer would receive a decent return on his or her investment in a farm and on the labour that he or she puts into keeping that farm going. That is why I have decided to proceed with this Bill.
This Bill is in two parts. I will describe it very briefly because I know that other Members wish to say a word or two about it. Part I of the Bill deals with grain and provides that there shall be a parity price based on 90 per cent to 100 per cent of the cost of production and a decent living wage. It provides that the cost of production shall be established annually by the legislation that is proposed in this Bill. It also provides in a very democratic way that the Wheat Board Advisory Committee shall advise and shall recommend to the Government what that parity price should be. I think that that is very important because I would like to make sure that this Bill and all legislation in this country is as democratic as possible. As well, if the parity Bill is enacted, it would be an offence to sell grain anywhere in the country at less than the parity price. There is a provision in the Bill for a penalty if someone does try to sell grain at a price lower than the parity price; in other words, if someone tries to undercut his or her fellow farmers.
Part one of the Bill is rather simple. The Canadian Wheat Board and the export agency do exist. We do not have any problems with GATT. Part I is fairly clear-cut and is not complicated. In effect, it would replace the two-price wheat system which exists today and would guarantee to farmers that the grain that is sold domestically for human consumption would return a parity price based on the cost of production and a decent return as well as increase the chances of attaining prosperity and a decent income for the ordinary farmer.
The second part of this Bill is a little more complex and deals with pork and beef. What we are suggesting here-I say "we" because I have involved the farmers in drafting this Bill-is the establishment of a national beef marketing commission and a national pork marketing commission. The farmers may decide whether or not they wish to join those commissions. There would be five to nine members on these particular commissions who would oversee the selling of beef and pork in the country. Of course, the majority of those commissioners would be farmers. I think it is very important that farmers do have a majority say in what will happen.
After one particular commission has existed for five years, the Bill recommends that the commission be changed to a marketing board. However, that change would only take place if a majority of the producers in each commodity area vote through a national plebiscite or election for such a board. In other words, the Bill which is before the House today practises economic democracy. It is not the central Government, it is not bureaucrats, and it is not Parliament imposing something on beef or pork producers that they do not want. They will receive a parity price and a national agency. That will be required because of the GATT rules and the trading rules. The producers will receive it only if they want it. The farmers will make that particular decision. I would like to make it very
June 14, 1984

clear that it will not be imposed on anyone. If the farmers vote against it, fine, that is their decision. Those provisions are included in the Bill which is before the House today.
If the farmers, indeed, vote for a parity price for beef, pork, or grains, as is mentioned at the beginning of the Bill, then once again there will be an advisory board. That advisory board will be elected by the producers. It will not be appointed by the Government. That is similar to the way in which the Wheat Board advisory committee is elected across the Prairies. I think that outlines in a very brief way the kind of idea which we have in mind with respect to the parity price Bill, Bill C-232.
I would like to conclude by thanking literally dozens and dozens of farmers who have lobbied on this Bill. A committee of farmers came from the Prairies to visit Ottawa about three weeks ago, during the seeding season. Those farmers came here to speak with Members not only on the Government side, but as well with Members of the two opposition Parties. They spoke to most of the members of the Agriculture Committee, including the Chairman. They stressed to everyone they saw the importance of establishing parity pricing as a principle in this country. I found it interesting that in Regina, on Tuesday of this week, seven farm organizations met to talk about the parity Bill. Six of those seven farm organizations agreed publicly at a press conference that they would endorse the Bill in principle. Of course, they also indicated that there were some details in the Bill on which they could not agree. That is normal and that is natural. That is why it is important to ensure that a Bill such as this be referred to committee so that it can be studied in detail.
The interesting thing about those farm organizations is that they are very diverse. They include the National Farmers Union, the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, the Palliser Wheat Growers Association, the Canadian agricultural movement, a cattlemen's group which is called the Cow-Calf Association, as well as the Canola Council of Canada. Those six groups endorsed in principle, via a news conference in Regina, the idea of parity pricing. I grew up on a farm, and I know that it is very rare for all of these farm groups to get together to endorse anything in principle. I think it shows us in this House-and I think it is a non-partisan matter-that the farmers on the Prairies are rallying around an idea which is important. What they are saying to us in principle is that they want a committee to study this matter, they want public hearings and they want the House to act quickly. If we do not act quickly, more and more farmers will go bankrupt. Therefore, I make the appeal to my hon. friends in all three Parties that the subject matter of this Bill be sent to committee.
In the last few days I have been involved in conversations with various Members of the House in attempting to reach an agreement to pass a motion which would refer this subject matter to committee. I gather that this is the correct procedure and perhaps, later on in the proceedings this afternoon, a Member of this House could move a motion to that effect.
Parity Prices
I would like to thank the Members of this House for the co-operation which I have received from my colleagues, from members of the Liberal Party and from members of the Conservative Party. I hope that this matter will be referred to committee and I hope that it will be possible for the Standing Committee on Agriculture to hold public hearings as soon as this summer. I hope there will be some action to establish parity prices for farm products. As I have already indicated, I am not wed to every idea, every "i" that is dotted and "t" that is crossed in the Bill. We are putting it forward for discussion and we hope that the House will agree to have the Standing Committee on Agriculture consider it.
I would like to single out one farmer from the Yorkton area whose name is Jim Coueslan. He is the person who was selected by the six farm organizations in Regina on Tuesday to act as their spokesperson on parity pricing. He is a former farm broadcaster from Yorkton at radio station CJGX and is a farmer in the Saltcoats area of my riding. I wanted to thank him publicly. I dare not mention other names because, if I did, I would be missing too many. I think that what these farmers have done is something which is very exciting. They united and rallied around an idea, stirred up public support for that idea and popularized it. I am very proud, as a Member of Parliament from Yorkton-Melville, to play a small part in attempting to get this matter studied seriously by the Parliament of Canada for the first time. I hope it will have the co-operation of the House.


Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would like to indicate to the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) that he has the concurrence of this Party in seeing that this matter is referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Peter Elzinga: In saying that, I would like to share a few concerns which relate to the agricultural sector as a whole. I respect the sincerity of the Member who introduced the Bill. However, the NDP is involved in spouting platitudes while we are involved with specifics and are interested in turning around the economic hardships which those in the agricultural sector face. In looking at the legislation, it is obvious that individuals throughout the country are being misled as to what this specific legislation would do.
Last Saturday evening, I had the opportunity to speak with a farm survival group in my riding. They mentioned this legislation and they also indicated that it would establish parity for all agricultural products. Nothing could be further from the truth. This Bill simply establishes parity prices for wheat, oats and barley which is used for human consumption in Canada. That is a very small portion of the grain which is produced in Canada. Quite frankly, the Bill does not go far enough.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: It is a good step, though.

June 14, 1984
Parity Prices


Peter Elzinga: It is a good step, but it does not go far enough. Our Party proposes to go further. I would like to outline a number of steps which we will implement after the next general election.
As the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville did, I would like to commend those individuals who are involved with the farm survival groups. I had the opportunity to read Farm Gate Defense. It outlined in a very moving way the difficulties which those in the agricultural sector face. I recall, as the Hon. Member indicated, under the Government of the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker, the work which was done by the Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) in trying to establish parity pricing for agricultural products. It was not easy then, and it will not be easy now.
When we look at the income declines within the farming sector, we find that in 1983 the realized net income-a reflection of what the farmer has in his pocket-was down 4 per cent from 1982 levels and down 11 per cent from 1981 levels. If we look at total net farm income-realized net income plus or minus inventory changes-that was down 24 per cent from 1982 levels and down 39 per cent from 1981 levels. My Party has a broad outline on economic recovery for the agricultural sector. We will not simply oppose everything which comes forward, as does the New Democratic Party. One only has to look back to the Crow debate. At that time we indicated that changes were needed in the Crow legislation. It is heartbreaking to see the attitude of our Liberal friends opposite as it relates to the agricultural sector. They are the direct cause of the economic hardship that this sector has faced over the last number of years.
Rather than taking a great deal of time to criticize, I will indicate in a very forthright manner the position which the Conservative Party is taking. We will provide up to $100 million to assist producers with their existing high interest rate loans. We will establish an agri-bond to provide loans at reduced rates. Tax exemptions will be provided to encourage individuals to invest in this program. As well, we will establish a farm finance review board which will serve as a negotiator and a referee in helping producers to re-organize their debt repayments. We will immediately introduce legislation to double the maximum cash advance level for individual farmers from $15,000 to $30,000. In addition, we will reduce the input cost as it relates to the agricultural sector. We will reduce farm fuel costs. The current excise tax rebate on farm fuels is bureaucratic and inadequate. Fuel costs are a major component in the production of food. As our leader has said consistently in this House, we will eliminate the 9 per cent federal sales tax on farm fuel. That reduction will result in a saving in the vicinity of 20 cents on a gallon of diesel fuel. We have given a commitment as well to the farming sector to abolish the capital gains tax as it relates to agricultural land. That is a commitment which this Party will live up to. We have indicated we will develop a voluntary national income stabilization program for the red meat sector. We have three caucus members working very hard at the establishment of that program.
Just as important, even though it might not have any direct economic impact, we have indicated that in the event the Canadian people do place their faith in us-and I am confident they will-we will immediately allow dual labelling of agricultural chemicals and fertilizers, whereas the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) indicated to the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) just a few days ago in the House that he was not open to that type of suggestion.
Our Party is also aware that tariff protection is required for our beef sector. We are going to be more responsive with our stabilization programs by advocating an increase to 95 per cent of the pay-out. What farmers need, Mr. Speaker, is lower input costs and better prices for their commodities. We are committed to that. We are committed to the specific programs I have just outlined to the House of Commons. We have called for an increase in the initial price of grain.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate again that the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville indicated he came from an agricultural background, as do I. We know that agriculture is the hearbeat of this country. If we neglect the agricultural sector, every sector in this country is hurt. It is heartbreaking to see the low priority which this Liberal administration has given on a consistent basis to this very important sector, the prime sector in our Canadian way of life. I just want to offer the reassurance to Canadians that this is going to be a prime area for our Party once we are the government. We are committed to an economic resurgence in the agricultural sector and we are committed to giving it the high priority which it deserves and needs so that we can all prosper together.


Mr. Andre Bachand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-232 which is now before the House may contain certain elements that are worthy of consideration, but after a careful study of those proposals and considering the current situation in Canada's agricultural industry, there are many proposals we cannot support. We feel they would be very difficult to implement and would not be desirable for Canadian agriculture at this time.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may explain our reservations in this respect. The Canadian grain industry owes a major part of its success to its flexibility. It has kept pace with consumer demand by carefully watching variations in the selling prices for its products.
A system like the one proposed here might have a number of negative effects on the industry. By artificially maintaining prices between 90 and 110 per cent of production costs, we would not be encouraging producers to diversify production to meet demand.
The federal Government, more specifically the Canadian Wheat Board, has been successful in assisting producers while
June 14, 1984

at the same time interfering as little as possible with the laws of supply and demand on which producers depend to determine what kind of grains they should plant.
The Western Grain Stabilization Act guarantees producers the cash flow they need without modifying market prices. Similarly, the transport of all grains is subsidized. We feel we must maintain this flexibility which is essential to the development of Canada's grain industry.
Parity prices based on a cost-of-production formula do not offer the flexibility, sought by both producers and the Government. Nevertheless, we believe this new proposal would be worth discussing.
The red meat sector is another area that is very sensitive to exports, although particularly within the North American market. As in the grain industry, it is clear that without strictly controlling supplies, it would be very difficult to set prices to producers at "parity level".
During negotiations leading to the development of the Red Meat Stabilization Program, it became clear that many producers were not interested in such controls. Since supply management did not find favour with the producers, the federal Government has worked on other forms of assistance.
The most important assistance program is undoubtedly the Agricultural Stabilization Act, which guarantees producers 90 per cent of the average market price over the last five years, indexed to allow for increases in production costs. Since 197677, $224 million has been paid to beef and pork producers.
Therefore, we are understandably somewhat hesitant to adopt a Bill that, in its present form, might ruin the chances of success of an entire segment of our industry.
Nevertheless, the "parity level" concept does have some interesting aspects, and I am sure my hon. friends would not wish to reject a proposal of this kind without prior discussion.
That is why the Government is agreeable to referring the subject of the Bill to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, a good many Hon. Members in the House, particularly Hon. Members from the west, represent rural ridings. As such we have first hand knowledge of the tremendous hardships which are being faced by farmers right now. At the same time, we all recognize that we should not in any way build up false expectations, because farmers are one group you cannot fool. But there is an election coming up in the near future and it is in the interests of all the Parties to get this legislation into committee, because everything about it deserves to be studied deligently. However, I would not want ever to be in the position of telling the farmers that something was going to happen quickly when I know in fact, because of my experience and understanding of the operation of Parliament, that this will not become law in the near future.
Parity Prices
There are many aspects of this legislation which are troubling from an international and domestic prespective. The solution is to get the prices up. That can be done at an international level by an international wheat agreement. However, I believe Hon. Members of Parliament in all Parties have been trying to achieve that for a number of years and it has simply not been possible.
Another solution is to get the costs down. In terms of farmers, the most dramatic increase in their costs over the last four years have been in the fuel taxes. The farmers, of course, get a triple whammy because of the six separate individual taxes which the Liberal Government has imposed on energy, ranging all the way from just after it leaves the ground to six separate taxes over and above the federal corporation tax. It has imposed six federal taxes on energy alone. We can all handle this tax burden with respect to our cars, driving off to get groceries on Saturday and to church on Sunday. However, when it attacks farm fuels, it hits the farmers not only on the fuel for their trucks but on the fuel for their tractors which they use on every acre of those hundreds of millions of acres in western Canada which have to be gone over four or five times a year. They have to pay federal tax on every gallon of fuel they use. The tax is imposed to such a point that it captures also all the energy going into fertilizers and chemicals, so it amounts to a triple whammy dealt to farmers. If we could just move on the fuel taxes we could help farmers more productively instead of using a stop-gap measure. It is like putting a finger in the dike when, in fact, you should be looking at the whole dike and at the reason why the water is piling up on the other side.
The reason the water is piling up on the other side of the Canadian dam and starting to flow over is demonstrated by the figures in today's Globe and Mail concerning government borrowing. In 1983, the federal Government had to borrow $26 billion; the provinces and municipalities together borrowed $14 billion, and the amount left for private industry to borrow was some $12.7 billion. As recently as 1981, the federal Government borrowed $11.5 billion, so it has gone up two and a half times. The provinces borrowed about the same, $14.6 billion, but the amount borrowed by private industry was $46.5 billion. That went into creating jobs, which result in taxes flowing the federal Government. The amount of private investment this year amounts to $4.7 billion, therefore the jobs are not being created, which means less tax revenue, and increased unemployment insurance and welfare payments. So we are caught in the circle of more and more government spending, which results in deficits.
If the Progressive Conservative Party had been in power since 1979, we would not have had to face the fuel tax, we would not have such a large national debt, and capital gains taxes would likely have been eliminated. Those are the reasons why we need an election, just for a new approach. The reason we have had this Government since 1980 is that the NDP made a quite proper political calculation that if it brought the Joe Clark Government down it would get more seats. It was

June 14, 1984
Parity Prices
successful, but unfortunately it also brought the Liberals back to power. That increased our debt, and this is what is generally hurting the farmers on an over-all basis.
I commend the Hon. Member for his stop-gap measure, but we need to look at the whole lake on the other side of the dam rather than just at one crack in the dam.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, it seems there is general agreement that this is a terribly important matter and needs to be studied. I certainly agree with that. It should be referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and looked at in great detail. Hopefully, the committee will then report back to this House on the legislation which might be considered by Parliament. In that spirit of agreement, which I sense among the three Parties-

I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "that" and substituting the following: Bill C-232, an Act respecting parity prices for farm products, be not now read a second time but that the order be discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: It has been moved by Mr. Evans, seconded by Mr. Orlikow, that the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "that" and substituting the following:
Bill C-232, an Act respecting parity prices for farm products, be not now read a second time but that the order be discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion as amended?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Accordingly, the order is discharged, the Bill is withdrawn and the subject matter thereof is referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Order discharged and Bill withdrawn.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Is there unanimous consent to proceed to the adjournment debate at this time?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, two days ago I asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) if he was aware of the fact that the CPR had told unions representing its employees that in the next few years the workforce of that company would be reduced by some 4,000 people and, if so, would he at least convene a meeting with the company and the unions concerned to discuss the situation and what might be done to lessen the very serious effects of such massive lay-offs. This is just one of many questions having to do with the railways and their workers, particularly in Winnipeg, which the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) and I have asked the Minister of Transport.
The Minister's reply two days ago was very like the replies he always gives. That is to say, he is at the very least evasive. There was no commitment to arrange a joint meeting with the employer and the unions. He accused me and the NDP of being "prepared to say that no company at any time should be allowed to look at how it can improve the productivity of its workforce". Nothing could be further from the facts, Mr. Speaker. He ignores, and not by accident, the fact that a reduction of 4,000 employees by the company is a reduction of 10 per cent or more of its entire workforce. Employees with many years of service will get their walking papers.
That is not what we were told when we were debating the Crowsnest freight rate changes. The Minister said that in British Columbia we were talking about direct expenditures by the railways of $5.4 billion which will result in 87,000 person years of work. That will mean $3.1 billion of labour income. Well, Mr. Speaker, what he did not say was that that work would be of a temporary nature. The former Minister of Transport said, in introducing the Bill at a press conference in Winnipeg, that 250,000 jobs would be created.
We fought that Bill because we knew there would not be this tremendous increase in employment. We knew that the result would be major lay-offs rather than increased employment. We knew the farmers cost of shipping grain would increase by 300 per cent to 400 per cent. In a speech I made in June of 1983 I said that we are not opposed to modernizing the system. I said, "We want the railways to get on with the job of upgrading their system in order to move all our goods. We know that our shipments of grain, sulphur, coal and potash will increase greatly in ten years. However, we do not want this to be done at the expense of the farmers or the railway workers. However, Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what is
June 14, 1984

happening. It is the railway workers and the farmers who are going to pay the bill for the changes which were made."
I look around and see what the Government's priorities really are when it comes to the railways and who benefits, Mr. Speaker. Almost every day I see the former President of the CPR, who in recent years until he retired earned a salary of $500,000 a year or more. I see him almost every day because he got what the Government considered to be his just reward. He was appointed to the Senate. On the other hand we see what the Minister and the Government think is important for the employees of the CPR. Four thousand of them will be looking for other work. The Minister is not even ready to arrange for a joint meeting between himself, the company and the unions.
I urge the Minister to think about the people who are going to lose their jobs. I urge the Minister to take at least the first step and arrange for a meeting between himself, the company, and the unions to discuss what is likely to happen and what can be done to cushion the shock and to protect, at least in part, the workers of the CPR who are going to be laid off, many of whom have worked for that company for many years.


Mrs. Eva Cote (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question put by my
Adjournment Debate
hon. friend from the New Democratic Party, I can say that the CPR, like any other transport company, must remain competitive and offer quality service and competitive prices to Canadian customers. When transport companies modernize their equipment and improve their productivity, both the economy and the Canadian public stand to benefit.
However, the Minister is very concerned about the effects that introducing new technology and modernizing operations will have on hiring procedures and employment levels. It is a subject that is of particular interest to him, and that is why the Minister has already met with union representatives of CPR employees in Winnipeg and is planning to meet them again. He has indicated to this group that he intends to examine the responsibilities of the CPR under the Western Grain Transportation Act, with respect to their hiring programs and policies.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) also intends to meet with CPR management. I earnestly hope that my hon. friend will agree that both the Minister and the CPR are determined to maintain as many jobs as possible, considering these developments.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: It being 5:33 p.m., in accordance with the order adopted on Thursday, May 10, 1984, the House stands adjourned until Monday, June 18, 1984, at eleven o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5.33 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, June 18, 1984